If Apple can add a non-invasive glucose sensor that will create a whole new market for diabetics. Other than that I can't see a long range future for it with the current feature set.
Why would you make the incorrect assumption that the features are set in store for eternity? That doesn't make sense.
Regardless, I've worn my AW from Day 1 and enjoy the value I get from it. I'd like to continue reaping that value, so I can definitely see a long range future for it, especially knowing that it will continue to evolve as all things do.
Agree! 100%! It has already come a very long way: from a luxury trinket to a geek's playtoy to a high end exercise tracker -- and that doesn't even touch on what most users seem to think it's most important feature is: All those little things that make it feel like an indispensable part of you.
It seems to me that Tim Cook's Apple has shown that it can still design quality products that change people's lives. And, I expect that they will continue to improve and expand the AW in ways that none of us can predict.
And, BTW, a glucose monitor would have benefit to far more than just diagnosed diabetics. Pre-Diabetes is also a disease as the high sugar levels screw up the vascular system and create inflammation that promote a number of serious diseases. In addition, controlling sugar levels is critical to long distance runners. It even has a name: When you run out of glucose to power the run its called "bonking" and like a car that runs out of gas, you just stop. Monitoring glucose levels during a run could institute the same kind of change to endurance running as heart rate monitoring did...
I am excited for Apple and its Apple Watch: It's already made huge strides and I look for more. A lot more.
So what is Apple's share of the Smart Watch Market PROFITS ??
PROFIT is the most important number, not marketshare.
Only to the shareholders...
So, how the frack is that different than market share in a bunch of barely related market segment.... talk about a non sequitur. Do you have a point?
Ability to mark up a product reflects either scarcity or desirability. This translates into a lot of profits if the market is large enough.
So, there is a link beyond share holders, an unprofitable product is a dead product and maybe even a dead company even if you sell a lot. not only that it impacts future support or development, which affects people's willingness to spend on the brand in the future: see Sony...
You can't mark up a shit product and that's why profits matter beyond shareholders; it is intimally linked to the market, the people who buy the product and the value they assign to the product in theirs lives beyond the BOM.
Apple is a valuable brand because it generates value for both the consumer, the company and the shareholders
This doesn't sound like "3rd place in wearables," this sounds like 3rd place in unit sales for fitness trackers. Apple Watch is so much more than a fitness tracker that it should be compared with wrist watches, too. If we could know what the revenue and profit was from this one product I wouldn't be surprised if we see Apple besting all other companies in the wrist-worn device market.
I have my Apple Watch for more than 3 years, the original one, bought on the first day it released. Still working perfectly, and despite wearing it almost 18 x 7 everyday, it shows no sign of aging.
Now my friend have those Xiaomi bands, and know how many she bought? Three in the past 3 months, just because it broke so often. The total cost of all the Xiaomi bands she bought can buy her a 2nd gen Apple Watch already.
Moral of the story? Cheap doesn't man "cheap" in the long run.
These have suggested features like glucose monitoring, LTE, and/or "smart" bands that could add functions without requiring a complete Watch upgrade.
LTE would give some slight functionality improvement.
But if I could press "agree" on some free wifi networks (and automatically agree next time too!) that'd do most of what I need. My cell company has free wifi for customers too - if my watch could pick up that it'd be great.
Basically an occasional connection to update messages and some other apps when I don't have my phone.
(Actually if my watch would use my wife's phone data via Bluetooth when my phone isn't around that'd be great.)
If it had a lojack on it, they could sell them at any price. If AW3 comes with some sort of rudimentary, standalone cell and gps service, expect parents to jump in at existing prices (or more.)
If Apple made a Bluetooth tracker that reports its location via ANY iPhone it comes near, the tracker wouldn't need cell or gps.
The Trackr does this but the nearby iPhones need the Trackr app installed which means it's a small subset.
So what is Apple's share of the Smart Watch Market PROFITS ??
PROFIT is the most important number, not marketshare.
Only to the shareholders...
So, how the frack is that different than market share in a bunch of barely related market segment.... talk about a non sequitur. Do you have a point?
Ability to mark up a product reflects either scarcity or desirability. This translates into a lot of profits if the market is large enough.
So, there is a link beyond share holders, an unprofitable product is a dead product and maybe even a dead company even if you sell a lot. not only that it impacts future support or development, which affects people's willingness to spend on the brand in the future: see Sony...
You can't mark up a shit product and that's why profits matter beyond shareholders; it is intimally linked to the market, the people who buy the product and the value they assign to the product in theirs lives beyond the BOM.
Apple is a valuable brand because it generates value for both the consumer, the company and the shareholders
Steve Jobs made that same point about pricing the original Macintosh... ... Oh wait! He didn't. He argued against it.
Apple shipped an estimated 2.8 million Watches in the June quarter, representing 13 percent marketshare, Strategy Analytics said. The exact figure is unknown, as Apple didn't break out Watch numbers in its quarterly results except to say sales were up 50 percent, and that it has the top-selling smartwatch in the world. A year ago Apple is thought to have shipped about 1.8 million units, putting it at 9 percent share.
You have to pour a lot of salt into the "estimated" Watch unit sales numbers from any company or person. No one outside of Apple knows. The only way a 3rd party would know is to have a mole or leaker or source at Apple's Watch assembler, and in particular, how many they've shipped out.
As as an example of how bad the numbers are, just compute some ASP*Unit sales number. Apple's Other category was reported to be 3 billion. The category include iPod, Watch, AirPods, accessories.
2.8 million Watch units at an ASP of $350 is 0.98 billion dollars. Reasonable ASP? I think its a little lower as I see a whole lot of 38 mm Watches on wrists. And the majority likely buys Series 1 Watches.
The uncertainty is in what is assumed to be the revenue fraction of the Watch in the other category. What if it is 40% of the Other category. At 1.2 billion and $350, that's 3.4 million units. That's a rather huge difference in units.
So, these unit sales numbers for the Watch is no more accurate than +/–50%, which implies the ranking are basically crap, assuming fitness bands could be compared to watches.
So what is Apple's share of the Smart Watch Market PROFITS ??
PROFIT is the most important number, not marketshare.
Only to the shareholders...
So, how the frack is that different than market share in a bunch of barely related market segment.... talk about a non sequitur. Do you have a point?
Ability to mark up a product reflects either scarcity or desirability. This translates into a lot of profits if the market is large enough.
So, there is a link beyond share holders, an unprofitable product is a dead product and maybe even a dead company even if you sell a lot. not only that it impacts future support or development, which affects people's willingness to spend on the brand in the future: see Sony...
You can't mark up a shit product and that's why profits matter beyond shareholders; it is intimally linked to the market, the people who buy the product and the value they assign to the product in theirs lives beyond the BOM.
Apple is a valuable brand because it generates value for both the consumer, the company and the shareholders
Steve Jobs made that same point about pricing the original Macintosh... ... Oh wait! He didn't. He argued against it.
WTF point are you even making, you make less and less sense every time you speak.
Crapping out Jobs name (and "spirit" (sic)) without even referring to any of my many points in my text is not an answer; it's the epitome of laziness.
So go talk to yourself, or imaginary Jobs cause he's surely a better conversation than you.
These have suggested features like glucose monitoring, LTE, and/or "smart" bands that could add functions without requiring a complete Watch upgrade.
LTE would give some slight functionality improvement.
But if I could press "agree" on some free wifi networks (and automatically agree next time too!) that'd do most of what I need. My cell company has free wifi for customers too - if my watch could pick up that it'd be great.
Basically an occasional connection to update messages and some other apps when I don't have my phone.
(Actually if my watch would use my wife's phone data via Bluetooth when my phone isn't around that'd be great.)
Can't the watch already log into WIFI networks your phone logged in before. So, go somewhere with your phone, log in and next time your set. There are some networks like the McD ones though that require relog every time (or every X time), so that wouldn't work there; you'd need the watch.
So what is Apple's share of the Smart Watch Market PROFITS ??
PROFIT is the most important number, not marketshare.
Only to the shareholders...
So, how the frack is that different than market share in a bunch of barely related market segment.... talk about a non sequitur. Do you have a point?
Ability to mark up a product reflects either scarcity or desirability. This translates into a lot of profits if the market is large enough.
So, there is a link beyond share holders, an unprofitable product is a dead product and maybe even a dead company even if you sell a lot. not only that it impacts future support or development, which affects people's willingness to spend on the brand in the future: see Sony...
You can't mark up a shit product and that's why profits matter beyond shareholders; it is intimally linked to the market, the people who buy the product and the value they assign to the product in theirs lives beyond the BOM.
Apple is a valuable brand because it generates value for both the consumer, the company and the shareholders
Steve Jobs made that same point about pricing the original Macintosh... ... Oh wait! He didn't. He argued against it.
I’m not following your point and thought @foggyhill was spot on. Can you post a quote?
These have suggested features like glucose monitoring, LTE, and/or "smart" bands that could add functions without requiring a complete Watch upgrade.
But if I could press "agree" on some free wifi networks (and automatically agree next time too!) that'd do most of what I need. My cell company has free wifi for customers too - if my watch could pick up that it'd be great.
When the original iPhone came out when you connected to AT&T's hotspot it would also connect and agree to the legal disclaimer on the WiFi splash screen. I'm assuming it did this by MAC address blocks, but I never tested it.
It was then when I cam up a concept for bypass the disclaimer splash screen on public WiFi. If you had agreed to it on that network previously -and- the legal disclaimer data hadn't changed then it would automatically authenticate you. Any other condition would bring up the legal agreement to read and the Accept button.
But how does it know if you've been there before since the last legal change? I don't think it's a good idea to have the router waste resources checking a local database for a particular machine MAC address so I came up a system that would generate a random hash code that would sent to the device after the user's initial agreement. That is then stored with the WiFi router's data and transmitted the next time it connects. This means the router doesn't have to waste resources checking every MAC address and can instantly verify the code, nor will this affect storage on any portable device since we're just talking about a few bytes of data.
Because you're potentially bypassing the legal document I also considered how this may be placed, named, and using a file format(s) that would be standardized. This would allow you to go into, say, an iPhone to select Settings » WiFi » (i) [Information] » Regulatory to read the legal agreement for that WiFi network.
This isn't a huge issue, but it seems like it would be nice convince to have. I don't know why I never submitted it as an I-D.
.... Comparing the AppleWatch with an average selling price of $300 to $10 junk is ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? People only wear one watch or exercise tracker. If the $10 junk fulfills their need, why would they pay 30 times more for an AW?
That's not to trash the AW. It is a masterpiece of design and execution. But rather to point out that user needs vary.
A similar situation exists in the laptop market: Why would somebody buy a $2,000 MBP if a $200 Chromebook fits their needs?
The fitbit is not the same market: its only for joggers and walkers. The Apple watch is for everyone and allows the wearer to install apps. I use mine for counting down 3 mins starts for yacht racing as well as a speedometer. The fitbit does not do things like that. The apple watch is a general purpose device. Your analogy with the laptop is plain wrong. There is no equivalent Chromebook which corresponds to the fitbit/Apple Watch comparison. You might as well say that a similar situation exists with a bicycle vs a car . No one except a Olympic racer is going to cycle 300 miles, the main use for the car is for the rest of us. The fitbit is specialized and cannot in any way be said to be in same competitive market as the Apple watch. The fitbit is simply not a smartwatch. The original article calling both "wearables" is a joke. For that matter, I could say the jeans market is outselling the fitbit therefore the fitbit is doomed. Its a silly compassion . Comparing a fitbit to an Apple watch is stupid and makes no sense and is a completely irrelevant, and tell us nothing
So what is Apple's share of the Smart Watch Market PROFITS ??
PROFIT is the most important number, not marketshare.
Only to the shareholders...
Wrong: not ONLY to share holder
Directly yes via dividends and stock price appreciation but even if one is not a shareholder of AAPL , it is ALSO in the best interest of the public to buy products that make profits that helps keep the the company in business and innovating and making better products in future. IF you are in business you must know that one of the prerequisites of doing business is suppliers who are going to be around in 10 years. IF one's suppliers go out of business or they make mediocre products thats may be axed it doesn't make for long term good! You don't buy a product from a company that my well have to axe it, cases in Point Chrome books, Zunes, Google glass, Windows ME, Samsung Note 7. History is littered with products that don't work and end up costing the buyer a lot of money because they fail , are full of bugs, explode, catch on fire , get recalled and sundry other reason.
.... Comparing the AppleWatch with an average selling price of $300 to $10 junk is ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? People only wear one watch or exercise tracker. If the $10 junk fulfills their need, why would they pay 30 times more for an AW?
That's not to trash the AW. It is a masterpiece of design and execution. But rather to point out that user needs vary.
A similar situation exists in the laptop market: Why would somebody buy a $2,000 MBP if a $200 Chromebook fits their needs?
The fitbit is not the same market: its only for joggers and walkers. The Apple watch is for everyone and allows the wearer to install apps. I use mine for counting down 3 mins starts for yacht racing as well as a speedometer. The fitbit does not do things like that. The apple watch is a general purpose device. Your analogy with the laptop is plain wrong. There is no equivalent Chromebook which corresponds to the fitbit/Apple Watch comparison. You might as well say that a similar situation exists with a bicycle vs a car . No one except a Olympic racer is going to cycle 300 miles, the main use for the car is for the rest of us. The fitbit is specialized and cannot in any way be said to be in same competitive market as the Apple watch. The fitbit is simply not a smartwatch. The original article calling both "wearables" is a joke. For that matter, I could say the jeans market is outselling the fitbit therefore the fitbit is doomed. Its a silly compassion . Comparing a fitbit to an Apple watch is stupid and makes no sense and is a completely irrelevant, and tell us nothing
"Your analogy with the laptop is plain wrong." ... Only if you ignore my original point and the actual analogy that I stated. Specifically, I NEVER stated that a FitBit was the equivalent of an AW, nor did I state that a $200 Chromebook was the equivalent of a $2,000 MBP. They aren't.
BUT, the FitBit and the AW are wearables and the Chromebook and MacBook are both laptops. My statement was: If the cheaper of two fits and fulfills the user's needs and requirements, why would they pay 10 times more for the more expensive of the two?
Your case that both the AW and the MBP do more and probably do it better is true. But it doesn't change the validity of the point that I made.
Comments
It has already come a very long way: from a luxury trinket to a geek's playtoy to a high end exercise tracker -- and that doesn't even touch on what most users seem to think it's most important feature is: All those little things that make it feel like an indispensable part of you.
It seems to me that Tim Cook's Apple has shown that it can still design quality products that change people's lives. And, I expect that they will continue to improve and expand the AW in ways that none of us can predict.
And, BTW, a glucose monitor would have benefit to far more than just diagnosed diabetics. Pre-Diabetes is also a disease as the high sugar levels screw up the vascular system and create inflammation that promote a number of serious diseases. In addition, controlling sugar levels is critical to long distance runners. It even has a name: When you run out of glucose to power the run its called "bonking" and like a car that runs out of gas, you just stop. Monitoring glucose levels during a run could institute the same kind of change to endurance running as heart rate monitoring did...
I am excited for Apple and its Apple Watch: It's already made huge strides and I look for more. A lot more.
Ability to mark up a product reflects either scarcity or desirability. This translates into a lot of profits if the market is large enough.
So, there is a link beyond share holders, an unprofitable product is a dead product and maybe even a dead company even if you sell a lot. not only that it impacts future support or development, which affects people's willingness to spend on the brand in the future: see Sony...
You can't mark up a shit product and that's why profits matter beyond shareholders; it is intimally linked to the market, the people who buy the product and the value they assign to the product in theirs lives beyond the BOM.
Apple is a valuable brand because it generates value for both the consumer, the company and the shareholders
Now my friend have those Xiaomi bands, and know how many she bought? Three in the past 3 months, just because it broke so often. The total cost of all the Xiaomi bands she bought can buy her a 2nd gen Apple Watch already.
Moral of the story? Cheap doesn't man "cheap" in the long run.
But if I could press "agree" on some free wifi networks (and automatically agree next time too!) that'd do most of what I need. My cell company has free wifi for customers too - if my watch could pick up that it'd be great.
Basically an occasional connection to update messages and some other apps when I don't have my phone.
(Actually if my watch would use my wife's phone data via Bluetooth when my phone isn't around that'd be great.)
The Trackr does this but the nearby iPhones need the Trackr app installed which means it's a small subset.
... Oh wait! He didn't. He argued against it.
You have to pour a lot of salt into the "estimated" Watch unit sales numbers from any company or person. No one outside of Apple knows. The only way a 3rd party would know is to have a mole or leaker or source at Apple's Watch assembler, and in particular, how many they've shipped out.
As as an example of how bad the numbers are, just compute some ASP*Unit sales number. Apple's Other category was reported to be 3 billion. The category include iPod, Watch, AirPods, accessories.
2.8 million Watch units at an ASP of $350 is 0.98 billion dollars. Reasonable ASP? I think its a little lower as I see a whole lot of 38 mm Watches on wrists. And the majority likely buys Series 1 Watches.
The uncertainty is in what is assumed to be the revenue fraction of the Watch in the other category. What if it is 40% of the Other category. At 1.2 billion and $350, that's 3.4 million units. That's a rather huge difference in units.
So, these unit sales numbers for the Watch is no more accurate than +/–50%, which implies the ranking are basically crap, assuming fitness bands could be compared to watches.
Crapping out Jobs name (and "spirit" (sic)) without even referring to any of my many points in my text is not an answer; it's the epitome of laziness.
So go talk to yourself, or imaginary Jobs cause he's surely a better conversation than you.
So, go somewhere with your phone, log in and next time your set.
There are some networks like the McD ones though that require relog every time (or every X time), so that wouldn't work there; you'd need the watch.
It was then when I cam up a concept for bypass the disclaimer splash screen on public WiFi. If you had agreed to it on that network previously -and- the legal disclaimer data hadn't changed then it would automatically authenticate you. Any other condition would bring up the legal agreement to read and the Accept button.
But how does it know if you've been there before since the last legal change? I don't think it's a good idea to have the router waste resources checking a local database for a particular machine MAC address so I came up a system that would generate a random hash code that would sent to the device after the user's initial agreement. That is then stored with the WiFi router's data and transmitted the next time it connects. This means the router doesn't have to waste resources checking every MAC address and can instantly verify the code, nor will this affect storage on any portable device since we're just talking about a few bytes of data.
Because you're potentially bypassing the legal document I also considered how this may be placed, named, and using a file format(s) that would be standardized. This would allow you to go into, say, an iPhone to select Settings » WiFi » (i) [Information] » Regulatory to read the legal agreement for that WiFi network.
This isn't a huge issue, but it seems like it would be nice convince to have. I don't know why I never submitted it as an I-D.
Directly yes via dividends and stock price appreciation but even if one is not a shareholder of AAPL , it is ALSO in the best interest of the public to buy products that make profits that helps keep the the company in business and innovating and making better products in future. IF you are in business you must know that one of the prerequisites of doing business is suppliers who are going to be around in 10 years. IF one's suppliers go out of business or they make mediocre products thats may be axed it doesn't make for long term good! You don't buy a product from a company that my well have to axe it, cases in Point Chrome books, Zunes, Google glass, Windows ME, Samsung Note 7. History is littered with products that don't work and end up costing the buyer a lot of money because they fail , are full of bugs, explode, catch on fire , get recalled and sundry other reason.
... Only if you ignore my original point and the actual analogy that I stated. Specifically, I NEVER stated that a FitBit was the equivalent of an AW, nor did I state that a $200 Chromebook was the equivalent of a $2,000 MBP. They aren't.
BUT, the FitBit and the AW are wearables and the Chromebook and MacBook are both laptops.
My statement was: If the cheaper of two fits and fulfills the user's needs and requirements, why would they pay 10 times more for the more expensive of the two?
Your case that both the AW and the MBP do more and probably do it better is true. But it doesn't change the validity of the point that I made.