An LG flexible display? Seems like there is a race with Samsung to be the first to release such a device.
Apple doesn't race to release tech for the sake of being first. They go after markets where customers like a solid user experience. You can look at the smartphone and tablet markets to see how Apple dominated in record time with little advertising costs despite being years or decades late to the market. Not they've never advertised that their devices use Gorilla Glass but we know they do.
I suspect it will be the same for the Ive Strong bracelet*. Let Samsung race to market with an incomplete product whose only goal is to advertise a new tech.
* I really thought Ive Strong would have gained some traction.
I thought Apple had an exclusive license to use Liquidmetal? Or is that just within the phone market, or just for one particular alloy?
Otherwise, meh, he's hubristic, but who wouldn't be. Easy with hindsight to name all those who fell foul in the past, but there's still no iWatch for sale and until there is, he's talking some sense; display size does seem to be a problem for any advanced functionality. Maybe Apple will figure it out, but until they do it's just rumours in the wind.
His basic mistake of course is in the assumption that a wrist based device would "replace" an iPhone, when pretty much no one has suggested it could.
IMO all the swirling confusion about what this device may or may not be can be removed if you simply stop using the word "watch," and replace it with "bracelet." No one wants to do that of course because bracelet is a "girls word." There seems to be no other word for wrist-based device of sufficient manliness than "watch."
Here's the thing....With the new Gorilla Glass that contours, maybe the watch will be more like a Dick Tracy watch. Not a boxy watch like the new Pebble. But one that is longer that goes up the arm. If you took just the screen of the iPhone 4, the watch wouldn't look clunky. I'd love to have my iphone on my wrist instead of in my pocket. And I believe that the new Gorilla Glass could make that happen.
I thought Apple had an exclusive license to use Liquidmetal? Or is that just within the phone market, or just for one particular alloy? ...
When it was announced, it was said that Apple has a world-wide exclusive right on using LiquidMetal (the technology not a particular alloy) in "mobile devices." I guess the key is whether a watch counts as a watch or a "mobile device."
AAPL touting a watch as their next "innovative" product will be a flop. Watches are jewelry/non-essential.
What is essential is my iTV operating as my "all-things" communication & entertainment hub integrated with my vehicle interface, business terminal, etc.!!!
Who cares about a watch you can barely see? Swatch's CEO is correct on this one.
It will be interesting to watch AAPL from here. And all of their "several" interesting products come out...so far only product modification have shown up...nothing anyone, nor I "must"have at the moment. Certainly not a watch!
IMO all the swirling confusion about what this device may or may not be can be removed if you simply stop using the word "watch," and replace it with "bracelet." No one wants to do that of course because bracelet is a "girls word." There seems to be no other word for wrist-based device of sufficient manliness than "watch."
When it was announced, it was said that Apple has a world-wide exclusive right on using LiquidMetal (the technology not a particular alloy) in "mobile devices." I guess the key is whether a watch counts as a watch or a "mobile device."
I would think so unless there is specific wording that would exclude that from their meaning of mobile device.
IMO all the swirling confusion about what this device may or may not be can be removed if you simply stop using the word "watch," and replace it with "bracelet." No one wants to do that of course because bracelet is a "girls word." There seems to be no other word for wrist-based device of sufficient manliness than "watch."
IMO all the swirling confusion about what this device may or may not be can be removed if you simply stop using the word "watch," and replace it with "bracelet." No one wants to do that of course because bracelet is a "girls word."
There seems to be no other word for wrist-based device of sufficient manliness than "watch."
Wrist guard? Wrist band?
Ah, I know. How about something warrior-like: the "Amulet of Power!"
I think calling it a watch at all is limiting one's ability to understand how game-changing any wrist-worn apple device could be.
I don't pretend to know how great thing non-existent device will be, but even the anticipated iPad blew away everyone's expectations of capability, useability, and sales, just like the iPhone did.
Apple is not thinking watch. It's thinking "What can a device worn on your wrist do to change your life?" and how to implement those things in a package that is amazing to hold, wear, and use (and I wish I could do that myself).
I actually can't see success for iWatch if it doesn't replace the cell phone in your pocket. There is little point to the device otherwise.
I have a very hard time convincing myself that people will spend more money on a wrist band device which syncs to their iPhone. I am sure there is a market but I just don't see it as significant. I am looking forward to seeing self important geeks parading around with a bluetooth ear piece, a wrist band, and a set of Glass 'glasses' to interact with the iPhone in their pocket.
I keep asking people to convince me but no one has succeeded yet. Again, Apple is all about simplifying 'the experience'... how will me wearing a wristband in addition to carrying my iPhone help?
i haven't heard about Swatch in years. Those guys are still around?
Actually, the Swatch Group is the largest watch company in the world - by a considerable margin. Even though the company is named after a cheap plastic quartz watch brand, most of their business is in high-end mechanical watches. Even their mid-priced brands like Tissot are increasingly moving to mechanical watches.
Even if the iWatch comes out and sets the world on fire the Swatch Group is not going to be affected that much. The biggest impact of the iWatch is going to be on the mid-priced quartz watch brands like Seiko, Citizen, Fossil etc.
I actually can't see success for iWatch if it doesn't replace the cell phone in your pocket. There is little point to the device otherwise.
I would agree that it might well work as a standalone phone (or wearalone phone), and also be able to act as an accessory to the thing in your pocket, if you can afford to carry both.
Whatever they do, though, I "see success," because these guys now really know what they're doing with hardware.
Actually, the Swatch Group is the largest watch company in the world - by a considerable margin. Even though the company is named after a cheap plastic quartz watch brand, most of their business is in high-end mechanical watches. Even their mid-priced brands like Tissot are increasingly moving to mechanical watches.
Even if the iWatch comes out and sets the world on fire the Swatch Group is not going to be affected that much. The biggest impact of the iWatch is going to be on the mid-priced quartz watch brands like Seiko, Citizen, Fossil etc.
- HCE
Thanks for the good info but I disagree about the potential longterm affects of a wrist computer on the whole of the watch market. Convenience is a powerful opponent. If Swatch thinks they can keep doing what they've always done without adopting to culture and technological changes they could find themselves in the same position as many others whose names I've never heard of.
I agree with some folks here. what is key is to not call it a watch. iBand, iWrist, what have you, but not iWatch. People with luxury watches would never give them up for an iWatch. Apple needs to go after the Nike Band, Jawbone, Fitbit market and kill it with a band that does all and better, plus more. Something that can be worn next to a luxury watch.
Comments
Apple doesn't race to release tech for the sake of being first. They go after markets where customers like a solid user experience. You can look at the smartphone and tablet markets to see how Apple dominated in record time with little advertising costs despite being years or decades late to the market. Not they've never advertised that their devices use Gorilla Glass but we know they do.
I suspect it will be the same for the Ive Strong bracelet*. Let Samsung race to market with an incomplete product whose only goal is to advertise a new tech.
* I really thought Ive Strong would have gained some traction.
I thought Apple had an exclusive license to use Liquidmetal? Or is that just within the phone market, or just for one particular alloy?
Otherwise, meh, he's hubristic, but who wouldn't be. Easy with hindsight to name all those who fell foul in the past, but there's still no iWatch for sale and until there is, he's talking some sense; display size does seem to be a problem for any advanced functionality. Maybe Apple will figure it out, but until they do it's just rumours in the wind.
His basic mistake of course is in the assumption that a wrist based device would "replace" an iPhone, when pretty much no one has suggested it could.
IMO all the swirling confusion about what this device may or may not be can be removed if you simply stop using the word "watch," and replace it with "bracelet." No one wants to do that of course because bracelet is a "girls word." There seems to be no other word for wrist-based device of sufficient manliness than "watch."
*Clueless CEO SIREN*
Here's the thing....With the new Gorilla Glass that contours, maybe the watch will be more like a Dick Tracy watch. Not a boxy watch like the new Pebble. But one that is longer that goes up the arm. If you took just the screen of the iPhone 4, the watch wouldn't look clunky. I'd love to have my iphone on my wrist instead of in my pocket. And I believe that the new Gorilla Glass could make that happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
I thought Apple had an exclusive license to use Liquidmetal? Or is that just within the phone market, or just for one particular alloy? ...
When it was announced, it was said that Apple has a world-wide exclusive right on using LiquidMetal (the technology not a particular alloy) in "mobile devices." I guess the key is whether a watch counts as a watch or a "mobile device."
What is essential is my iTV operating as my "all-things" communication & entertainment hub integrated with my vehicle interface, business terminal, etc.!!!
Who cares about a watch you can barely see? Swatch's CEO is correct on this one.
It will be interesting to watch AAPL from here. And all of their "several" interesting products come out...so far only product modification have shown up...nothing anyone, nor I "must"have at the moment. Certainly not a watch!
What about band, loop, cord, or wrap?
I would think so unless there is specific wording that would exclude that from their meaning of mobile device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
IMO all the swirling confusion about what this device may or may not be can be removed if you simply stop using the word "watch," and replace it with "bracelet." No one wants to do that of course because bracelet is a "girls word." There seems to be no other word for wrist-based device of sufficient manliness than "watch."
Manelet? Brolet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
IMO all the swirling confusion about what this device may or may not be can be removed if you simply stop using the word "watch," and replace it with "bracelet." No one wants to do that of course because bracelet is a "girls word."
There seems to be no other word for wrist-based device of sufficient manliness than "watch."
Wrist guard? Wrist band?
Ah, I know. How about something warrior-like: the "Amulet of Power!"
I think calling it a watch at all is limiting one's ability to understand how game-changing any wrist-worn apple device could be.
I don't pretend to know how great thing non-existent device will be, but even the anticipated iPad blew away everyone's expectations of capability, useability, and sales, just like the iPhone did.
Apple is not thinking watch. It's thinking "What can a device worn on your wrist do to change your life?" and how to implement those things in a package that is amazing to hold, wear, and use (and I wish I could do that myself).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I actually can't see success for iWatch if it doesn't replace the cell phone in your pocket. There is little point to the device otherwise.
I have a very hard time convincing myself that people will spend more money on a wrist band device which syncs to their iPhone. I am sure there is a market but I just don't see it as significant. I am looking forward to seeing self important geeks parading around with a bluetooth ear piece, a wrist band, and a set of Glass 'glasses' to interact with the iPhone in their pocket.
I keep asking people to convince me but no one has succeeded yet. Again, Apple is all about simplifying 'the experience'... how will me wearing a wristband in addition to carrying my iPhone help?
Motorola's Sanjay Jha in 2007: "But is Apple ready for us?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
i haven't heard about Swatch in years. Those guys are still around?
Actually, the Swatch Group is the largest watch company in the world - by a considerable margin. Even though the company is named after a cheap plastic quartz watch brand, most of their business is in high-end mechanical watches. Even their mid-priced brands like Tissot are increasingly moving to mechanical watches.
Even if the iWatch comes out and sets the world on fire the Swatch Group is not going to be affected that much. The biggest impact of the iWatch is going to be on the mid-priced quartz watch brands like Seiko, Citizen, Fossil etc.
- HCE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Motorola's Sanjay Jha in 2007: "But is Apple ready for us?"
That was Ed Zander. Sanjay Jha became CEO of Motorola in 2008.
- HCE
I would agree that it might well work as a standalone phone (or wearalone phone), and also be able to act as an accessory to the thing in your pocket, if you can afford to carry both.
Whatever they do, though, I "see success," because these guys now really know what they're doing with hardware.
Thanks for the good info but I disagree about the potential longterm affects of a wrist computer on the whole of the watch market. Convenience is a powerful opponent. If Swatch thinks they can keep doing what they've always done without adopting to culture and technological changes they could find themselves in the same position as many others whose names I've never heard of.
I agree with some folks here. what is key is to not call it a watch. iBand, iWrist, what have you, but not iWatch. People with luxury watches would never give them up for an iWatch. Apple needs to go after the Nike Band, Jawbone, Fitbit market and kill it with a band that does all and better, plus more. Something that can be worn next to a luxury watch.