I think the thing that's even more amazing... the Watch requires an iPhone to run it so for every watch there's an iPhone user too. Knowing how many iPhone users there are world wide once Watch becomes more accessible (understood it's purpose) the sales will go even higher.
You've just described a limiting factor, the requirement of owning an iPhone. That's not amazing.
Congratulations Daniel, that is both an insightful and well written article! Every year or two Apple Insider should publish a book of its best pieces, favourite pieces by others and the best comments and predictions. Including this one: By 2025 Watch will be able to act as a standalone phone and internet browser, replacing the iPhone and the iPod for those who want to go totally wearable. The screen and earpiece will be available in multiple options - direct to the watch, built into some cool sunglasses, head's up display on the windscreen, handover to iPad, etc.
"Fitbit devices that sell at an ASP of $88" - As I've posted on other threads before to the skeptics here, this is the only number that matters. Apple was right to obfuscate the profit and success of Watch so other companies are dissuaded or do not know how to scale. Brilliant (though I wish it wasn't such an intelligent, effective strategy so the stock wouldn't have had to take such a hit)
The Like/Dislike buttons have become a joke on AI. It stifles intelligent discussion, imho. It's far easier to just hit a button instead of actually engage, based some overall gut feel. I'll admit that I am occasionally guilty of it too. (Incidentally, AI, you may want to think about whether and how its presence has dramatically lowered posts on -- and I assume, visits to -- your site).
To the person who 'disliked' my post #24: do you have an actual, logical reason why, or is it another one of those bullshit dislikes that one increasingly sees on this site? Do you have anything halfway intelligent you'd like to post in response, so that you can advance the discussion on the premise of the Watch as an iPod?
To the person who 'disliked' my post #24: do you have an actual, logical reason why, or is it another one of those bullshit dislikes that one increasingly sees on this site? Do you have anything halfway intelligent you'd like to post in response, so that you can advance the discussion on the premise of the Watch as an iPod?
I'm not the one that disliked your post, but I did not interpret the article the same way as you did. I don't believe the intent was that the Watch is a literal replacement for the iPod as the primary go-to music player, but instead it has become a replacement of percentage of revenue in Apple's other category. More to the point I suppose, as iPod becomes less and less relevant (and profitable), Watch picks up the torch.
To the person who 'disliked' my post #24: do you have an actual, logical reason why, or is it another one of those bullshit dislikes that one increasingly sees on this site? Do you have anything halfway intelligent you'd like to post in response, so that you can advance the discussion on the premise of the Watch as an iPod?
I'm not the one that disliked your post, but I did not interpret the article the same way as you did. I don't believe the intent was that the Watch is a literal replacement for the iPod as the primary go-to music player, but instead it has become a replacement of percentage of revenue in Apple's other category. More to the point I suppose, as iPod becomes less and less relevant (and profitable), Watch picks up the torch.
Oh, I don't know. Here's DED's quote: "Rather than incrementally developing iPod nano into a watch in public view, Apple reverted to selling an embellished version of its original iPod nano form factor and took its watch development behind closed doors. It developed a series of technologies required to release a new iPod-like wearable as a real watch, one that a broad spectrum of users would want to wear, rather than just a subset of early technology adopters."
As you well know, music was only one piece of the iPod (it has a lot of the other features that the Watch has), albeit the most important one, arguably. So I interpret the thrust of the article very differently. In that context, the clunkiness of the ability to sync music (given the amount of time it takes to do) is a negative for the Watch. This has been my experience during the past year. The fact that it has become a source of "replacement revenue in Apple's other category" (as you put it) is a consequence of the transition the iPod to a wearable device.
(Incidentally, the excerpt is from a section with the sub-heading. "Metamorphosis of the Wearable iPod").
I'm not the one that disliked your post, but I did not interpret the article the same way as you did. I don't believe the intent was that the Watch is a literal replacement for the iPod as the primary go-to music player, but instead it has become a replacement of percentage of revenue in Apple's other category. More to the point I suppose, as iPod becomes less and less relevant (and profitable), Watch picks up the torch.
Oh, I don't know. Here's DED's quote: "Rather than incrementally developing iPod nano into a watch in public view, Apple reverted to selling an embellished version of its original iPod nano form factor and took its watch development behind closed doors. It developed a series of technologies required to release a new iPod-like wearable as a real watch, one that a broad spectrum of users would want to wear, rather than just a subset of early technology adopters."
As you well know, music was only one piece of the iPod (it has a lot of the other features that the Watch has), albeit the most important one, arguably. So I interpret the thrust of the article very differently. In that context, the clunkiness of the ability to sync music (given the amount of time it takes to do) is a negative for the Watch. This has been my experience during the past year. The fact that it has become a source of "replacement revenue in Apple's other category" (as you put it) is a consequence of the transition the iPod to a wearable device.
(Incidentally, the excerpt is from a section with the sub-heading. "Metamorphosis of the Wearable iPod").
The transfer speed is linked to limitations right now of its wireless communication abilities coupled, small thermal envellope that limits the CPU's power even when its on the chariging stand.
Putting something like a downclocked A10 in there coupled with a the highest speed 5GHZ communication around would solve all issues, even those you haven't thought about. That's probably not going to happen until the Apple Watch 3 in late 2017 or early 2018.
The next Apple Watch though should get a way downclocked A9 and 5GHZ, which should cut transfer time A LOT (probably by a factor 3 or 4).
Don't think they'll do a wired connection unless watches go over 8G in storage space (which is possible I guess in the Apple Watch 3 or 4).
PS: As for disliking an article, I only use it on inflammatory declarations (racist, sexist, support Trump...), or pure trollish behavior (even there I use it sparingly, not if I disagree with someone even if I think they're out to lunch.
I'm not the one that disliked your post, but I did not interpret the article the same way as you did. I don't believe the intent was that the Watch is a literal replacement for the iPod as the primary go-to music player, but instead it has become a replacement of percentage of revenue in Apple's other category. More to the point I suppose, as iPod becomes less and less relevant (and profitable), Watch picks up the torch.
Oh, I don't know. Here's DED's quote: "Rather than incrementally developing iPod nano into a watch in public view, Apple reverted to selling an embellished version of its original iPod nano form factor and took its watch development behind closed doors. It developed a series of technologies required to release a new iPod-like wearable as a real watch, one that a broad spectrum of users would want to wear, rather than just a subset of early technology adopters."
As you well know, music was only one piece of the iPod (it has a lot of the other features that the Watch has), albeit the most important one, arguably. So I interpret the thrust of the article very differently. In that context, the clunkiness of the ability to sync music (given the amount of time it takes to do) is a negative for the Watch. This has been my experience during the past year. The fact that it has become a source of "replacement revenue in Apple's other category" (as you put it) is a consequence of the transition the iPod to a wearable device.
(Incidentally, the excerpt is from a section with the sub-heading. "Metamorphosis of the Wearable iPod").
The article isn't claiming that Apple Watch is trying to be an iPod, because the market for standalone music devices is limited and Apple already has a series of iPods available (and sales of those are shrinking).
What it's noting is that as the primary feature of iPods (Music) moved to the swiss army knife of iPhone, the core concept of iPod as a more portable pod leashed to a Mac evolved into a more ultraportable, wearable device connected to your iPhone.
The core value of Apple Watch isn't trying to play music like an iPod (which it can do, but as you note is not superior in most ways compared to a simple iPod). It's bringing the iOS platform to a wearable device that people will actually want to wear. The primary feature set appears to cater to professionals who rely more on seeing the time, their notifications, calendar, rapid replies to contacts, and the ability to launch custom corporate apps that streamline business. If you want a music player you can get an iPod for half as much.
The best thing about the watch is the quick band connection/easy changing.
after I had my 15 min training, I pasted on it - that just shows something is wrong here. Never needed a training session for the iPhone - iOS was just the most natural software. bring back Forestall to get software and services going.
they need to make Siri ten times better to make it the primary method of interacting With the watch. It's still not ready for prime time. Maybe in 3 years.
Hopefully the next version of the watch comes with an LTE modem. Making and receiving calls with the watch is a big deal to me. It would allow me to ditch the phone and go to an iPad Pro as my large screen mobile device.
Perhaps Apple and Intel are working together to make this one happen. One can always hope.
Building the S2 CPU on TSMC's state of the art process would also be helpful in increasing performance and battery life.
I am patient. I can wait until Apple includes the functionality that I am looking for.
Hopefully the next version of the watch comes with an LTE modem. Making and receiving calls with the watch is a big deal to me. It would allow me to ditch the phone and go to an iPad Pro as my large screen mobile device.
Perhaps Apple and Intel are working together to make this one happen. One can always hope.
Building the S2 CPU on TSMC's state of the art process would also be helpful in increasing performance and battery life.
I am patient. I can wait until Apple includes the functionality that I am looking for.
How will it "enable you to ditch your phone" if the god damn battery doesn't make it till the end of the day. Many people's phone doesn't even get to the end of the day and the battery is way bigger.
There is no chance the base watch comes with LTE; if one comes out, it would be a more expensive bigger watch.
The best thing about the watch is the quick band connection/easy changing.
after I had my 15 min training, I pasted on it - that just shows something is wrong here. Never needed a training session for the iPhone - iOS was just the most natural software. bring back Forestall to get software and services going.
they need to make Siri ten times better to make it the primary method of interacting With the watch. It's still not ready for prime time. Maybe in 3 years.
Siri having to go over the network would work if the net was always lightning fast (it isn't). Not sure how they can put a lot of local processing for Siri without impacting the battery a lot.
IF this figure of 7B is correct for iWatch revenue/sales is=to AWS, if it had been any other company other than apple ,the financial press would be all over that pumping up the company to 50 times earnings and hailing it as the next coming of the messiah! for sure!
Comments
To the person who 'disliked' my post #24: do you have an actual, logical reason why, or is it another one of those bullshit dislikes that one increasingly sees on this site? Do you have anything halfway intelligent you'd like to post in response, so that you can advance the discussion on the premise of the Watch as an iPod?
As you well know, music was only one piece of the iPod (it has a lot of the other features that the Watch has), albeit the most important one, arguably. So I interpret the thrust of the article very differently. In that context, the clunkiness of the ability to sync music (given the amount of time it takes to do) is a negative for the Watch. This has been my experience during the past year. The fact that it has become a source of "replacement revenue in Apple's other category" (as you put it) is a consequence of the transition the iPod to a wearable device.
(Incidentally, the excerpt is from a section with the sub-heading. "Metamorphosis of the Wearable iPod").
Putting something like a downclocked A10 in there coupled with a the highest speed 5GHZ communication around would solve all issues, even those you haven't thought about. That's probably not going to happen until the Apple Watch 3 in late 2017 or early 2018.
The next Apple Watch though should get a way downclocked A9 and 5GHZ, which should cut transfer time A LOT (probably by a factor 3 or 4).
Don't think they'll do a wired connection unless watches go over 8G in storage space (which is possible I guess in the Apple Watch 3 or 4).
PS: As for disliking an article, I only use it on inflammatory declarations (racist, sexist, support Trump...), or pure trollish behavior (even there I use it sparingly, not if I disagree with someone even if I think they're out to lunch.
What it's noting is that as the primary feature of iPods (Music) moved to the swiss army knife of iPhone, the core concept of iPod as a more portable pod leashed to a Mac evolved into a more ultraportable, wearable device connected to your iPhone.
The core value of Apple Watch isn't trying to play music like an iPod (which it can do, but as you note is not superior in most ways compared to a simple iPod). It's bringing the iOS platform to a wearable device that people will actually want to wear. The primary feature set appears to cater to professionals who rely more on seeing the time, their notifications, calendar, rapid replies to contacts, and the ability to launch custom corporate apps that streamline business. If you want a music player you can get an iPod for half as much.
after I had my 15 min training, I pasted on it - that just shows something is wrong here.
Never needed a training session for the iPhone - iOS was just the most natural software.
bring back Forestall to get software and services going.
they need to make Siri ten times better to make it the primary method of interacting
With the watch. It's still not ready for prime time. Maybe in 3 years.
Perhaps Apple and Intel are working together to make this one happen. One can always hope.
Building the S2 CPU on TSMC's state of the art process would also be helpful in increasing performance and battery life.
I am patient. I can wait until Apple includes the functionality that I am looking for.
There is no chance the base watch comes with LTE; if one comes out, it would be a more expensive bigger watch.
Siri having to go over the network would work if the net was always lightning fast (it isn't).
Not sure how they can put a lot of local processing for Siri without impacting the battery a lot.