Apple projected to ship nearly 65M 'iWatch' units priced at $199 in first year

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 112
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by massconn72 View Post


    I love my Mac Pro, my iPad 2, my Mini, and last but not least, my iPhone 4S. But I will NEVER buy a damn Apple watch. My name isn't Dick Tracy. 


    I hope it fails miserably. 



    The fact that you don't want an Apple watch is understandable.  It's your money and your wrist.  But I don't understand why that translates into a desire for the product to fail miserably.  Does the mere existence of products you never want to own drive you into fits of rage or depression?

  • Reply 82 of 112
    imt1imt1 Posts: 87member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post





    Apple has even gone as far as to file for ownership of the "iWatch" name in a number of countries around the world, potentially signaling its plans to release such a product. 


     


    IMHO, iWatch is going to be associated with the TV Initiative not a physical watch since iTV is taken.

  • Reply 83 of 112
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    city wrote: »
    Apple needs to secure the rights to use "Dick Tracy" in their ads. 
    no chance they would do this- ever.
  • Reply 84 of 112
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,976member


    I still don't believe this's true. The demand of smart watches are low and why would Apple want to enter a market that there's no refresh products demanded later on? Who wants to upgrade his/her iWatch in the next refresh? Maybe Apple just make some iWatch for hobby only to see what will be the demand just like Apple TV instead of mass production. 


    My opinion, smart watch is DOA.

  • Reply 85 of 112


    People don't even wear watches now. What makes Apple think they will now that they make some sort of toy for your wrist? It will be a complete failure. And I will be sitting back saying "I told you so"

  • Reply 86 of 112
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    massconn72 wrote: »
    People don't even wear watches now. What makes Apple think they will now that they make some sort of toy for your wrist? It will be a complete failure. And I will be sitting back saying "I told you so"

    Uh huh.

    $46,650,000,000 is "no one".
    http://www.prweb.com/releases/watches/clocks/prweb8358884.htm

    Not to mention, of course, that a watch that's connected to an iPhone might make some of the people who stopped wearing watches start wearing them again.
  • Reply 87 of 112
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,694member
    massconn72 wrote: »
    People don't even wear watches now. What makes Apple think they will now that they make some sort of toy for your wrist? It will be a complete failure. And I will be sitting back saying "I told you so"

    And people didn't want tablets or smart phones either.

    I wear a watch but I don't think the iWatch is for me.
  • Reply 88 of 112
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    eldernorm wrote: »
    Apple's new teleporter will be wrist mounted and link with satellites over head. You will speak your destination and be transported there. The new data centers were never for iTunes, they were to store the kiloquads of data that are required to disassemble your atoms and re assemble them at the destination.

    In related news, Apple buys several third world nations and flys its "flying saucer" headquarters there, totally bypassing us tax and DOJ efforts. Wall Street responds by tripling the stock value to 3000 per share, then in a big mood change, kills the stock totally.

    Apple responds by buying Wall Street and replacing everyone with one new Mac Pro.

    Just saying.
    My, you sound like the arrogant yank that the whole world hates.
    Can you please leave this crap off this site.
  • Reply 89 of 112
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    There will be no watch. On this thread people make mention of this hypothetical thingy linking up with the phone.
    I don't get the point of this. Why have two devices?
    How will the human interact with it? Surely not by typing, it will have to be voice driven, this technology has only started, and needs developing.
    Me thinks this iWatch is something entirely different or a Trojan for samedung.
  • Reply 90 of 112
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    hfts wrote: »
    My, you sound like the arrogant yank that the whole world hates.
    Can you please leave this crap off this site.

    What are you talking about? He said nothing arrogant or even about America? Go watch Braveheart or The Patriot and chill out.
  • Reply 91 of 112

    Originally Posted by hfts View Post


    My, you sound like the arrogant yank that the whole world hates.


     


    Yeah, er, the "whole world" does not "hate" the United States, thanks.

  • Reply 92 of 112
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    65M at $200 per watch is $13B in revenue. If we assume a 20% profit margin (somewhat less than Apple's average), that equals $2.6B. At a P/E ratio of 15x (higher, given that this would be seen as a growth segment), that's an extra $39B in market cap, or $40 - $45 per share. Pretty big.

    I doubt that Apple will achieve anywhere close to 65M.

    Well, that assumes that the market is rational.

    Considering how big the "Apple can't innovate any more" noise has gotten, breaking into a new segment might shut those people up for a while and have a greater impact than the financials would indicate.

    Of course, I'm still skeptical.
  • Reply 93 of 112


    I have no idea if your speculation on sales is a good one or not.


     


    But I'm certain I will be wearing one...when I jog, which is as frequently as I can.


     


    I currently carry my iPhone 5 -- or wear it in a arm band, or tuck it in my waistband -- none of which is ideal. The BT is acting twitchy at best, and I'm wondering if I haven't managed to allow some sweat to find a way inside.


     


    A waterproof watch, tho, that would display messages, play music and keep track of my run stats at $199 ...there isn't a doubt in the world that I would buy one...and then more in the future after that.

     

  • Reply 94 of 112
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,435member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Uh huh.

    $46,650,000,000 is "no one".
    http://www.prweb.com/releases/watches/clocks/prweb8358884.htm

    Not to mention, of course, that a watch that's connected to an iPhone might make some of the people who stopped wearing watches start wearing them again.

    First, that article says growth will be in luxury watches. A $50,000 Rolex is not a $199 iWatch.

    Second, anecdotally, just looking around I see more women wearing watches than men. The watches I do see are cheap, kitsch watches, or high end jewelry.

    I don't see the same clientele who buys cheap, or luxury watches, buying the modern equivalent of an LED watch priced at $200 or more. And not to unfairly stereotype, but I don't see women largely investing in cutting edge technology, when their interest in watches appears to be fashion oriented, which in large part appears to apply to watches I see on men as well.

    That said, I might consider one if it connected my iPhone. I don't wear watches anymore, and I'm not interested in regularly wearing them ever again. However, I might wear it at the gym, and I would definitely wear it surfing. Probably wear it biking and other sporting events. But is Apple going to design it for this purpose? Or for the office? The office is the last place it's needed where the Blackberry has been an accepted and ubiquitous item on conference room tables for over a decade. Will people wear it shopping? Driving? Will it connect to my phone wherever I leave it?

    It just seems they would have to offer multiple configurations for an accessory that is not likely to have as much demand as any of Apple's other products. It sounds like a money loser, with little gain, and at just doesn't sound like Apple.

    Don't get me wrong, because I could see using one at some point in my life. But it is hardly a priority, much less a necessity. Does Apple really want a product that won't sell as well to a mass audience as the iPod, iPhone, and iPad? Will Apple call this too, a "hobby"? It seems clear to me that the media will dub this a failure if it fails to generate as much interest as any of Apple's flagship products, so how does it benefit Apple?
  • Reply 95 of 112
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,618member
    I have no idea if your speculation on sales is a good one or not.

    But I'm certain I will be wearing one...when I jog, which is as frequently as I can.

    I currently carry my iPhone 5 -- or wear it in a arm band, or tuck it in my waistband -- none of which is ideal. The BT is acting twitchy at best, and I'm wondering if I haven't managed to allow some sweat to find a way inside.

    A waterproof watch, tho, that would display messages, play music and keep track of my run stats at $199 ...there isn't a doubt in the world that I would buy one...and then more in the future after that. 

    I would guess that any "smartwatch" that's going to display incoming messages, streaming music or other "connected content" will still use a smartphone to make the connection so you'd still be tucking it in a waistband or whatever.

    But I'd like to be surprised. Maybe miniaturization has come that far.
  • Reply 96 of 112
    tkell31tkell31 Posts: 216member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post



    This rumor seems fake. But if it is real, maybe Apple should realize that people don't wear nor want watches anymore. Maybe they should start with 100,000 iWatches and see how it goes.


    People have surgery to avoid wearing glasses, but Google seems to think they will pay a lot of money to wear google glasses.  Are you really as stupid as your comment made it seem or are you just trying to be obtuse?  Either way, hope it works out for you.

  • Reply 97 of 112
    remereme Posts: 74member


    I can only say, with a pair of BlueJay-X BT ear buds with their unbelievably excellent range and clarity, coupled with a Pebble (and hopefully replaced bay an even better iWatch) showed me how nice this setup can be on the go.  The phone remains stowed, the watch controls content and displays controls, album art, Podcast info, iHeart Radio info as needed.


     


    Add fitness info, and actual time that stays current while traversing time zones, it's building a compelling case to want one.  Maybe it's not for everyone but many will see value.

  • Reply 98 of 112
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    1 billion people were already buying phones and the functionality of the iPhone was significantly better because it finally brought usable browsing to mobile and powerful apps. A smart watch is competing more with the smartphone than the dumbwatch while being less powerful.



    You can see various scenarios like checking email. The guy taps through a presentation on the watch and the graphics overlay says "sending email". It has voice to text so you'd have to use that for the whole thing as there's no keyboard. It has wifi to send email directly. Then he checks the weather info (makes sure to do it while near his wifi because it sure can't have cellular and wifi). It has GPS which is nice but it would need maps stored on the device for navigation. Then he uses the watch to tell the smartphone tied to his arm to take pervy pictures of the female runner. He gets his diet info and sits down to read news on the 1.5" 240x240 display. He goes to the business meeting where they all have Mac laptops and sends data through a nearby projector. Lastly he starts some sort of messaging with the people he's sitting next to (maybe the digital equivalent of writing numbers on napkins?).



    http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/17/geak-watch-android-china/



    Voice to text, wifi, bluetooth, NFC, GPS, FM radio, headphone jack, biometric sensors, 1GHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 4GB storage, 500mAh battery, 1.55" 240x240 display, $330.



    It's basically a smartphone with a strap that can't make calls, has no cellular connectivity for data outside of wifi, relies on voice input for text (which requires network access), has too small a screen size and resolution for reading text. The battery is about 1/3 the size of a smartphone, maybe less so it'll have to find a way to draw around 0.5W maximum to make it through the day.



    Some of the use cases are nice and it would be good for sports, especially navigation as you could for example see a map on your wrist while cycling or running. I think the uses cases where it has a lot of appeal have a very limited audience. By contrast, smartphone features are compelling for almost everyone with a dumbphone.



    It may be worth making one - the Apple TV only sells 2 million units per quarter at $99 so 2 million watches per quarter at $199 would be better financially than the Apple TV. But would people buy a $199 watch that had no network connectivity when you were out and about unless you also had your smartphone in which case surely you'd use the smartphone most of the time. I don't think people are going to start dictating their tweets while walking down the street (I hope not anyway).



    Having variable straps would allow people to personalise the devices and I'd say it's important to let people do that.


     


    I don't think Apple will imagine it like a shrunken down and terrible attempt at a smartphone that straps to your wrist. I think it will be more like an accessory that does things your iPhone cannot do at all or cannot do without the assistance of this accessory. Especially for the fitness crowd, $200 is cheap.


     


    We also have a world where there are an increasing array of photographers and videographers all using Apple products.


     


    So imagine it isn't a crappy attempt at an iPhone. Imagine instead it measures your activity, your steps, your wake and sleeping cycles like a fitness bracelet but also your heart rate when running, tracks the run with GPS and shares it with your running app via iCloud which also updates the data for review on your iPhone or iPad.


     


    Now also imagine you can put your iPhone or iPad some place to shoot video and you can trigger the start and stop of the video with the iWatch. The watch can also record your audio commentary for the video and again, via iCloud sync it as a second audio track for the video.


     


    I'm not saying all these will happen or even that they are the best ideas out there but they are certainly ways it can be used without having to be a smartphone.


     


    I'd love to imagine myself or my kids making a YouTube video with my iPhone taking video, my iPad mini taking video and me able to activate and stop both of them at the same time with my iWatch. That would be awesome.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolarEnergy View Post


    I have no idea if your speculation on sales is a good one or not.


     


    But I'm certain I will be wearing one...when I jog, which is as frequently as I can.


     


    I currently carry my iPhone 5 -- or wear it in a arm band, or tuck it in my waistband -- none of which is ideal. The BT is acting twitchy at best, and I'm wondering if I haven't managed to allow some sweat to find a way inside.


     


    A waterproof watch, tho, that would display messages, play music and keep track of my run stats at $199 ...there isn't a doubt in the world that I would buy one...and then more in the future after that.

     



     


    Anyone into fitness is begging for a water proof nano type watch that would allow them to track what they can with their phone or at least have it transfer back to their phone, but not risk their phone all while saving weight. Apple could hit a homerun here.

  • Reply 99 of 112
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Uh huh.



    $46,650,000,000 is "no one".

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/watches/clocks/prweb8358884.htm



    Not to mention, of course, that a watch that's connected to an iPhone might make some of the people who stopped wearing watches start wearing them again.




    That would be a completely different direction. Have you considered what what drove the iphone? It consolidated functionality. It provided a source of music, a camera, email, and preceding phone functionality. It's often easier to sell something that replaces several devices than it is to sell an accessory. That is why I find the presumption of volume to be silly without any real reference to the anticipated functionality.

  • Reply 100 of 112
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I would guess that any "smartwatch" that's going to display incoming messages, streaming music or other "connected content" will still use a smartphone to make the connection so you'd still be tucking it in a waistband or whatever.



    But I'd like to be surprised. Maybe miniaturization has come that far.


    I would prefer an accessory that exploits the phone's radios rather than face paying a carrier for another contract.

Sign In or Register to comment.