Apple applies for 'iWatch' trademark in Mexico and Taiwan

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,073member


    Having an Apple earbud in your ear, it just about tolerable. Pulling an iPhone out of your pocket or iPod, especially in a nice container like a Piel Frama case, is a nice thing to do. It's nice to be in touch with the smooth metal and quality feel of an iPod touch... BUT...


     


    The thought of significant numbers of people wishing to wrap an Apple branded or anyone branded flexible wrist device on themselves like some sort of automaton, is quite frankly, laughable. It would look so frikken idiotic. Maybe tweenage girls would like it. 


     


    I wouldn't say this if it wasn't true, what better assurance than that can you have, I ask you?

  • Reply 22 of 44
    macmadmacmad Posts: 62member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post


    The thought of significant numbers of people wishing to wrap an Apple branded or anyone branded flexible wrist device on themselves like some sort of automaton, is quite frankly, laughable. It would look so frikken idiotic. Maybe tweenage girls would like it. 


     



     


    When the iPod first came out it was better than other mp3 players on the market, but there was a huge fashion in having an iPod, and showing it. People wanted to be seen with it. People like being seen with their iPads and iPhones. So I wouldn't rule out the idea that people won't want to be seen wearing something Apple branded.


     


    For the device itself, lots of people keep saying 'I don't wear a watch, why would I wear something like an iWatch?'


     


    I'm guessing that if Apple does indeed release a product like this, it will be an accessory to the iPhone. Something that makes using the phone easier (i.e. not having to dig it out of your pocket if that's where it happens to be). There are quite a few people with iPhones image - I imagine there would be quite a few people who would welcome something that makes it even more convenient to use. 

  • Reply 23 of 44
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,366member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post


     


    Yeah, I have no doubt that they will design one internally and to quite a lot of work on it, if only to work out the type of things that they may need to patent. This is a luxury afforded a company with limitless resources. 


     


    Nevertheless it is my opinion that tech that straps to your wrist, (unless it enables you to fly) is a non starter other than tiny niche markets for runners and the like. Especially with iPods and iPhones getting more clever and compact. You are always going to want a decent sized (read iPhone size) screen in your pocket and that object will do whatever a strap on wrist device will do. Thats how I see it.


     


    The iWatch will be like the portable DAT recorder if it were ever made. A strange amalgamation of digital and analog, neither fish nor fowl. I'm sure that others will beat Apple to it thinking that they have got one over Apple by getting it to market first but it's a red herring.




    Agreed! It will be an "elegant Garmin." It will be something Garmin should have done years ago....make their products thinner and more elegant. Oh, and yes it will be an interface to your iPhone as well. And yes, it will be a lot better than the rendition in this article.

  • Reply 24 of 44

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post


    Having an Apple earbud in your ear, it just about tolerable. Pulling an iPhone out of your pocket or iPod, especially in a nice container like a Piel Frama case, is a nice thing to do. It's nice to be in touch with the smooth metal and quality feel of an iPod touch... BUT...


     


    The thought of significant numbers of people wishing to wrap an Apple branded or anyone branded flexible wrist device on themselves like some sort of automaton, is quite frankly, laughable. It would look so frikken idiotic. Maybe tweenage girls would like it. 


     


    I wouldn't say this if it wasn't true, what better assurance than that can you have, I ask you?



    Completely agree. Watches are the only piece of jewelry men can actually wear in any social setting. Why would one opt for a tacky "smart watch" when one could wear a classy Omega, Rolex or whatever? 

  • Reply 25 of 44
    macmadmacmad Posts: 62member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post


    Completely agree. Watches are the only piece of jewelry men can actually wear in any social setting. Why would one opt for a tacky "smart watch" when one could wear a classy Omega, Rolex or whatever? 



     


    Well, I hoping the iWatch (or whatever it is eventually called) will not be the same price bracket as an Omega or Rolex  image

  • Reply 26 of 44
    poksipoksi Posts: 482member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fryke View Post


    You seriously think wearing a BT headset is in anyway less uncool than wearing a wristwatch? Or to answer your question of why forcing people to start old habits again…


     


    1.) The wrist is easily accessible. A quick glance can show you whether that vibrating phone in your pants really requires your current attention, without having to actually get your phone out.


     


    2.) The wrist is a good point for checking movement, so it's perfect for tracking your sleep and for waking you up with an unobtrusive vibration alarm.


     


    3.) The current "smart watches" have a couple of things in common, and with the iPhone, they're all missing good integration. Apple's all about good integration, and I'm looking forward to see what Apple can think of there.


     


    4.) While you, personally, obviously don't think a wristwatch is something nice to have on you, there are tons of people who actually like to have some information "handy". Putting a good, flexible screen there with infinite possibilities (apps) is a serious step forward.


     


    If you still want an earpiece, that's fine. But it's not a question of one OR the other for Apple. They can do both if they have really good ideas for both.



     


    I don't think this is about coolness, but I DO listen to the music when around and I DON'T wear a watch. Young people are also following more or less same habit patterns.


     


    Where should I put my headphones then: in iWatch or iPhone. YOu don't seriously think about iWatch as a independent smartphone, don't you?


     


    1. This is point where it is useful, I already wrote this on this forum, but it's not worth the price or hassle.


    2. Same as point above, feature, that needs only software update with earphones or headsets, same as above, more or less...


    3. What would you like to integrate from watch? Current time, perhaps? Already done.... Watch without apps that can really put a substantial value to users is just...well, watch. :)


    4. Apps are there to interact with user. Either via screen (which is too small on watch, obviously) or via Siri-like solutions. If you really want to use them, they need "base station" (phone) to communicate with, which will of course suck batteries dry in a no time at all if a watch is to be of reasonable size.


     


    I don't say there aren't people that feel such device could be useful and I would like to see a solution that would make me happy and convince me about its own logic. So far nothing like that came to my mind or was read. You reasons haven't convinced me at all. 

  • Reply 27 of 44
    poksipoksi Posts: 482member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post


    Completely agree. Watches are the only piece of jewelry men can actually wear in any social setting. Why would one opt for a tacky "smart watch" when one could wear a classy Omega, Rolex or whatever? 



     


    Longines is my poison. image

  • Reply 28 of 44
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    This name is not for a watch, it is for their new TV service....
  • Reply 29 of 44
    blackbookblackbook Posts: 1,361member
    I think there are more uses to a wrist computing device than you guys are realizing.

    For one it'd be a great MP3 player to work out with. It can have a Nike app to chart progress and maybe check your heart rate and health as well.

    It also can be a great personal assistant. It can have a quick glance calendar with all your events. Your reminders can sync with it so that you can check your reminders and check off what you've done. Quick look notiications so you can check your messages and email on the fly. If it includes Siri that adds to its value as a personal assistant.

    And if the design is beautifully minimalistic it will add style to whatever you're wearing. Apple advertises their shuffles and nanos as fashion accessories, so the fashion statement of an iWatch would be a valid selling point as well.

    There are probably a few more killer features Apple could add as well, but if the device is beautiful and adds a huge convenience factor for people at a relatively low price it could be a hit and not a hobby.

    By the way as far as charging I remember Apple made a motion charging patent a few months ago. A watch device would be the perfect candidate for such technology.
  • Reply 30 of 44
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    [quote name="Gazoobee" url="/t/158333/apple-applies-for-iwatch-trademark-in-mexico-and-taiwan#post_2356119"

    I'm not sure I totally agree with you but I worry about the same thing.  Unless this hypothetical product has all kinds of aspects that we don't yet know about, it seems certain that it's a niche product at best.  I know I have no use for any of it's purported functions and I'm sure large numbers of other people are in the same boat as well.  

    I'm most surprised at the "iWatch" name if it's true that they are going with it.  It suggests a hugely popular generic, category destroying item in the same way as 'iPhone" did, but while everyone needs a phone or portable computer of some kind and it's uses are many, I just can't see that any more than a few percent of the populace needs an "iWatch."  

    Most people don't wear wrist watches.  
    Most people don't give a crap about how many steps they walk or what their heart rate is.  

    I can see the value of moving Siri our of your pocket and onto your wrist, but again, most people just don't use Siri that much that it's necessary.  
    Most people also don't get enough notifications to make having them appear on your wrist worthwhile either.  

    The whole thing is worrisome to me.  Feels like it's too early or perhaps simply a mistake.  
    [/quote]

    You say most people several times but never name a source for your data. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting you are wrong on nearly every count. Particularly in Apple's key demographics. As an example, Nike Fuel Bands and Fitbits do sell pretty well. Neither company releases exact sales numbers, but the the fuelband has made Nike's equipment group profitable.
  • Reply 31 of 44
    blackbookblackbook Posts: 1,361member
    wovel wrote: »
    You say most people several times but never name a source for your data. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting you are wrong on nearly every count. Particularly in Apple's key demographics. As an example, Nike Fuel Bands and Fitbits do sell pretty well. Neither company releases exact sales numbers, but the the fuelband has made Nike's equipment group profitable.

    Bingo.

    A key demographic people here are forgetting is the fitness demographic.

    Check out this kickstarter:

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/syre/meet-syre-the-worlds-first-bluetooth-ipod-nano-wat

    People want a Bluetooth wearable device to work out with while they are listening to music. That's something none of te iPods provide in a focused way.
  • Reply 32 of 44
    lerxtlerxt Posts: 186member
    I think iWatch may actually be an Apple TV. There is no way they will get ITV as it is a very large and well established TV station in the UK.
  • Reply 33 of 44
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post



    Right now I am rather reminded of that "iSlate.com" smokescreen Apple put up to fool Ballmer into presenting a completely unusable "HP Slate PC" hastily before Apple finally revealed the iPad, ignoring all that "slate" nonsense completely.



    Calling whatever wearable device "iWatch" would imply that its primary function is being a watch. I can't really believe that. It might wrap around the wrist, but it certainly won't be a watch first.


     


    Indeed. Its pretty obvious the primary function is not going to be a watch. Just like the square ipod nano, people were going :  hey this can be a watch too. imo, beside being an ipod and a watch, its going to be a device that can monitor body functions.


     


    It could also have other purposes. For example if its waterproof and has a facetime camera, its could be used underwater to take pics or be a easy to carry camera/ipod to the beach.


     


    Like other said, it could also be a TV. But if they do that and are planning the release a wrist device, not a good plan imo.

  • Reply 34 of 44
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lerxt View Post



    I think iWatch may actually be an Apple TV. There is no way they will get ITV as it is a very large and well established TV station in the UK.


     


    imo that not an issue. They will just have to call it something else in UK. OR make a deal with them.

  • Reply 35 of 44
    rabbit_coachrabbit_coach Posts: 1,114member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post



    tricky Apple... a clever name for a TV Monitor...


    Or a smart binocular...? But I guess something smart with SIRI integration.

  • Reply 36 of 44
    thecorethecore Posts: 56member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post


    Completely agree. Watches are the only piece of jewelry men can actually wear in any social setting. Why would one opt for a tacky "smart watch" when one could wear a classy Omega, Rolex or whatever? 



    Hmm.   seem to recall a similar sentiment attributed to the Swatch brand when launched in 1980's.   (Why would one opt for a (cheap) or ( tacky "smart watch) watch  when one could wear a classy Omega, Rolex or whatever?)    Lots of watches sold as I recall.


     


    Forward thinking suggests that this iwatch will be unlike anything  expected,  suggesting "tacky "smart watch" is planned from Apple would fly in the face of recent history....   what was a cell phone before iphone?      a tablet before ipad?  .......  

  • Reply 37 of 44
    massconn72massconn72 Posts: 162member


    I love all of my Apple products, but they can keep their damn watch. I want no part of it.

  • Reply 38 of 44
    Did anyone stop to think iWatch could be the name of apple's TV? And not a watch?
  • Reply 39 of 44

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by theCore View Post


    Hmm.   seem to recall a similar sentiment attributed to the Swatch brand when launched in 1980's.   (Why would one opt for a (cheap) or ( tacky "smart watch) watch  when one could wear a classy Omega, Rolex or whatever?)    Lots of watches sold as I recall.


     


    Forward thinking suggests that this iwatch will be unlike anything  expected,  suggesting "tacky "smart watch" is planned from Apple would fly in the face of recent history....   what was a cell phone before iphone?      a tablet before ipad?  .......  



     


    The Swatch Group owns many luxury brands (Omega, Longines, Glashütte Original...). Sure, they still sell a ton of cheap, disposable watches, but the real money is made with pieces that cost upwards of 2'000 bucks. Also, Rolex is still independent and doing very, very well. Not a single one of these prestigious brands is threatened by smart watches.

  • Reply 40 of 44
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,819member
    The Swatch Group owns many luxury brands (Omega, Longines, Glashütte Original...). Sure, they still sell a ton of cheap, disposable watches, but the real money is made with pieces that cost upwards of 2'000 bucks. Also, Rolex is still independent and doing very, very well. Not a single one of these prestigious brands is threatened by smart watches.

    True. The Rolex set would not replace their Rolex with a new iWatch, because they could afford both and then some. But the iWatch would end up on their wrists, not in their jewel-encrusted watch collection.
Sign In or Register to comment.