I'm quite happy with direction and plan to be enjoying my Fitbit Force soon.
Indeed, I preordered two for my girlfriend and I. We recently started to train for a marathon and I've heard great things about the device.
As for wearables I'm sure I'd pick up an Apple or Google created smartwatch. For me it would just be nice to see certain notifications without having to dig out my phone during work.
It will be just as UGLY as the SamDUNG Galaxy Gear.
Face it Google and Samsung have ZERO taste.
Where have we seen this story before? Early players launch new computing products than Apple brings out their product that destroys the competition. Then competitors copy Apple. Here we go again. Hopefully this time the patents are even more air tight or the tech is more secure in the supply chain.
I think Apple is purposely telegraphing their entry into this space, and then when other companies commit, they THEN release their product. Watching the 180 degree turns that are explained by; "no, we just happened to choose this design amongst billions" may provide little satisfaction, but they may also do it so that the companies are forced to spend R&D and commit to products for at least one cycle.
It's the opposite strategy of being first-to-market but perhaps Apple has learned from "been there, done that" and will make tweaks to their final design which may be ready to deploy a few weeks after all the others.
Hopefully they don't have to FAB it at Samsung -- there's no way to defend yourself when your competition gets to build your product and use your component orders to scale their own procurement costs.
I hope that Apple isn't at ALL affected by the pressure to launch a watch in a timely manner, and sticks to its own timetable, releasing only when it is absolutely ready and perfected. If Apple releases a less than engaging product, they might turn consumers off the entire segment for the forseeable future. They need to nail it, and not give a **** about who launches what in the meantime.
I hope that Apple isn't at ALL affected by the pressure to launch a watch in a timely manner, and sticks to its own timetable, releasing only when it is absolutely ready and perfected. If Apple releases a less than engaging product, they might turn consumers off the entire segment for the forseeable future. They need to nail it, and not give a **** about who launches what in the meantime.
Apple isn't affected by others. Hence no Apple TV set that's been predicted for three years.
I'm not convinced it's even a viable market. Tablets exist as a true value because it cannabizes laptops and netbooks. Expensive tech watches? Don't see it. Not everyone wears a watch anyway. Has no at home application like tablets.
It can be viable, but its going to take more brains than Google and Samsung have to do it.
I think Apple is purposely telegraphing their entry into this space, and then when other companies commit, they THEN release their product. Watching the 180 degree turns that are explained by; "no, we just happened to choose this design amongst billions" may provide little satisfaction, but they may also do it so that the companies are forced to spend R&D and commit to products for at least one cycle.
It's the opposite strategy of being first-to-market but perhaps Apple has learned from "been there, done that" and will make tweaks to their final design which may be ready to deploy a few weeks after all the others.
Hopefully they don't have to FAB it at Samsung -- there's no way to defend yourself when your competition gets to build your product and use your component orders to scale their own procurement costs.
That why Apple has to spent some of those billions to get away from Samsung at all cost, you can't continue to have Samsung copy directly from you with inside info.
How many people had money to buy a smartphone before the iPhone?
How many people had money to buy an MP3 player before iPod?
Or tablet?
Apple creates markets. Home automation is not that expensive. They will start small - control your tv, stereo, ect. But will eventually branch out to AC, lighting, security, ect.
I am sorry you have no clue what you are talking about, I been doing my home automation for 20 yrs now and yes it easier today but still expensive to do. It is not as easy as selling someone a consumer electronics which you turn and begin using. With home automation it requires work and lots of work to install into someone home, and every home is not wired the same nor do they all use the same control systems for heating and such. Only people who have lots of money beyond can afford to automate their homes. I have done it a number of times and have part of my home done and it not trivial. Then in the fact you have 4 people in the house and they all want to control things.
There has been any number of company who attempt drive mass acceptance and they fail, and do not give me apple can do it better, it has nothing to do with. The best and easiest way to do it right is to build a home with automation built in verse trying to do it after the fact. There is no market here except those with lots of money and hobbyist like me.
Only a small population has the money to automate their homes, Ask AT&T, VZ and Comcast about this, they all offer products to do this for people who have the money. This is not the next great consumer product it is a niche market.
None of those three companies mentioned can program their way out of a paper bag, and they will never come up with solution that people will want to buy.
I've been saying this since the idea was floated that Apple was working on an "iWatch", but the naysayers told me I was crazy and it would be the next best thing since sliced bread. Funny though, they never could articulate why it might be life changing.
I rather prefer to believe it's Apple trolling the competition so they waste their R&D trying (and failing) to outsmart Apple.
To be honest, if Apple does come out with such a product, I'll be disappointed in the company. People may say I'm not a visionary, but neither is Mr. Cook.
I guess u occasionally have dinner with Tim .. Thats how u know him so well ha?
I am sorry you have no clue what you are talking about, I been doing my home automation for 20 yrs now and yes it easier today but still expensive to do. It is not as easy as selling someone a consumer electronics which you turn and begin using. With home automation it requires work and lots of work to install into someone home, and every home is not wired the same nor do they all use the same control systems for heating and such. Only people who have lots of money beyond can afford to automate their homes. I have done it a number of times and have part of my home done and it not trivial. Then in the fact you have 4 people in the house and they all want to control things.
There has been any number of company who attempt drive mass acceptance and they fail, and do not give me apple can do it better, it has nothing to do with. The best and easiest way to do it right is to build a home with automation built in verse trying to do it after the fact. There is no market here except those with lots of money and hobbyist like me.
There are a lot of products coming out that would seem to make home automation more accessible, particularly if Apple is able to provide a framework into which they can be incorporated: Canary (home security), Phillips Hue (lights), automated locks, Nest (thermostat and smoke alarm), and I'm sure there's more.
If there will ever be a wearable-technology market, it will never belong to Google or Microsoft. Wearables are fashion items, a company will have to come out with many unique colors and designs to satisfy the wide spectrum of adult and teen fashions. Not even Swatch nor Rolex can monopolize a watch market, and nor can Ray Ban or RL monopolize a glasses market. It would take<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> a feature so brilliant so simple, that you wouldn't mind buying into one brand to wear it. Apple is the only tech company, that I can think of, that has the fashion sense and boldness to pull it off, but it'll also be Apple's largest product-line.</span>
However there are small "things" that could be added (clipped on to) normal eyewear. The arm (known as the "temple") could carry a mini-cam for iSight (AI directions; not photo or video) as well as mini-mic; while the earpiece (curvature around the ear) could have the speaker.
Glasses are very fashionable and can be accessorized quite easily... just ask Angela Ahrendts.
"iWatch" the info coming to your phone and whisper in a delectable and deliciously throaty voice ala Sharon Stone directions, messages, emails, internet searches, etc... while you watch the road... toad!".....:smokey:
Technically I consider "looking at" anything like a watch or accessory going backwards in tech. I want to be able to truly communicate with my devices and have them communicate back to me. Super-Siri.
Wearable devices becoming the next consumer battleground? No chance. Google and Samsung are responding to rumor sites that Apple was preparing something or other, or to some guys who read too many comic books as a kid (and still does).
No, there is no market for wearables, generally.
PS: Apples iWatch -- it's their new TV.
There is not currently a market for wearables. I think there will be soon. There's so much smoke, there's got to be a fire.
-Tim Cook's expressed intense interest in wearables
-Apple has hired execs from Nike and fashion companies
-Apple has patents for wristband battery cells and other related tech
I have no idea when (apparently SOMETHING new is coming in 2014), but it seems inevitable. People also doubted that the iPhone and iPad existed ...
I've been saying this since the idea was floated that Apple was working on an "iWatch", but the naysayers told me I was crazy and it would be the next best thing since sliced bread. Funny though, they never could articulate why it might be life changing.
I rather prefer to believe it's Apple trolling the competition so they waste their R&D trying (and failing) to outsmart Apple.
To be honest, if Apple does come out with such a product, I'll be disappointed in the company. People may say I'm not a visionary, but neither is Mr. Cook.
Apple may see wearables as they see the Apple TV-an important, though not crucial, part of the ecosystem. I might be wrong, but I think cumulative sales of Apple TV are at ~13 million. If Apple sells at least as many "iWatches" as Apple TVs at twice the cost or more ($200-$250) they might be happy. An Apple smartwatch might take off, but Tim would be happy with an accessory that increases ecosystem stickiness and adds value to high revenue grossing products (i.e., iTunes, Mac, iPad, and iPhone).
Comments
I'm quite happy with direction and plan to be enjoying my Fitbit Force soon.
Indeed, I preordered two for my girlfriend and I. We recently started to train for a marathon and I've heard great things about the device.
As for wearables I'm sure I'd pick up an Apple or Google created smartwatch. For me it would just be nice to see certain notifications without having to dig out my phone during work.
It will be just as UGLY as the SamDUNG Galaxy Gear.
Face it Google and Samsung have ZERO taste.
Where have we seen this story before? Early players launch new computing products than Apple brings out their product that destroys the competition. Then competitors copy Apple. Here we go again. Hopefully this time the patents are even more air tight or the tech is more secure in the supply chain.
I think Apple is purposely telegraphing their entry into this space, and then when other companies commit, they THEN release their product. Watching the 180 degree turns that are explained by; "no, we just happened to choose this design amongst billions" may provide little satisfaction, but they may also do it so that the companies are forced to spend R&D and commit to products for at least one cycle.
It's the opposite strategy of being first-to-market but perhaps Apple has learned from "been there, done that" and will make tweaks to their final design which may be ready to deploy a few weeks after all the others.
Hopefully they don't have to FAB it at Samsung -- there's no way to defend yourself when your competition gets to build your product and use your component orders to scale their own procurement costs.
I hope that Apple isn't at ALL affected by the pressure to launch a watch in a timely manner, and sticks to its own timetable, releasing only when it is absolutely ready and perfected. If Apple releases a less than engaging product, they might turn consumers off the entire segment for the forseeable future. They need to nail it, and not give a **** about who launches what in the meantime.
Over 30% of Samsung Smartwatches are being returned.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2303366/almost-a-third-of-samsung-galaxy-gear-smartwatches-are-being-returned
Apple isn't affected by others. Hence no Apple TV set that's been predicted for three years.
So now Google wants to spy on our timing!
Sigh, Google will eventually be controlling all we do.
But just wait for thoses smart watch showdowns/beatdowns!
It's about to get crazy!
I'm not convinced it's even a viable market. Tablets exist as a true value because it cannabizes laptops and netbooks. Expensive tech watches? Don't see it. Not everyone wears a watch anyway. Has no at home application like tablets.
It can be viable, but its going to take more brains than Google and Samsung have to do it.
I think Apple is purposely telegraphing their entry into this space, and then when other companies commit, they THEN release their product. Watching the 180 degree turns that are explained by; "no, we just happened to choose this design amongst billions" may provide little satisfaction, but they may also do it so that the companies are forced to spend R&D and commit to products for at least one cycle.
It's the opposite strategy of being first-to-market but perhaps Apple has learned from "been there, done that" and will make tweaks to their final design which may be ready to deploy a few weeks after all the others.
Hopefully they don't have to FAB it at Samsung -- there's no way to defend yourself when your competition gets to build your product and use your component orders to scale their own procurement costs.
That why Apple has to spent some of those billions to get away from Samsung at all cost, you can't continue to have Samsung copy directly from you with inside info.
How many people had money to buy a smartphone before the iPhone?
How many people had money to buy an MP3 player before iPod?
Or tablet?
Apple creates markets. Home automation is not that expensive. They will start small - control your tv, stereo, ect. But will eventually branch out to AC, lighting, security, ect.
I am sorry you have no clue what you are talking about, I been doing my home automation for 20 yrs now and yes it easier today but still expensive to do. It is not as easy as selling someone a consumer electronics which you turn and begin using. With home automation it requires work and lots of work to install into someone home, and every home is not wired the same nor do they all use the same control systems for heating and such. Only people who have lots of money beyond can afford to automate their homes. I have done it a number of times and have part of my home done and it not trivial. Then in the fact you have 4 people in the house and they all want to control things.
There has been any number of company who attempt drive mass acceptance and they fail, and do not give me apple can do it better, it has nothing to do with. The best and easiest way to do it right is to build a home with automation built in verse trying to do it after the fact. There is no market here except those with lots of money and hobbyist like me.
Only a small population has the money to automate their homes, Ask AT&T, VZ and Comcast about this, they all offer products to do this for people who have the money. This is not the next great consumer product it is a niche market.
None of those three companies mentioned can program their way out of a paper bag, and they will never come up with solution that people will want to buy.
I guess u occasionally have dinner with Tim .. Thats how u know him so well ha?
I am sorry you have no clue what you are talking about, I been doing my home automation for 20 yrs now and yes it easier today but still expensive to do. It is not as easy as selling someone a consumer electronics which you turn and begin using. With home automation it requires work and lots of work to install into someone home, and every home is not wired the same nor do they all use the same control systems for heating and such. Only people who have lots of money beyond can afford to automate their homes. I have done it a number of times and have part of my home done and it not trivial. Then in the fact you have 4 people in the house and they all want to control things.
There has been any number of company who attempt drive mass acceptance and they fail, and do not give me apple can do it better, it has nothing to do with. The best and easiest way to do it right is to build a home with automation built in verse trying to do it after the fact. There is no market here except those with lots of money and hobbyist like me.
There are a lot of products coming out that would seem to make home automation more accessible, particularly if Apple is able to provide a framework into which they can be incorporated: Canary (home security), Phillips Hue (lights), automated locks, Nest (thermostat and smoke alarm), and I'm sure there's more.
However there are small "things" that could be added (clipped on to) normal eyewear. The arm (known as the "temple") could carry a mini-cam for iSight (AI directions; not photo or video) as well as mini-mic; while the earpiece (curvature around the ear) could have the speaker.
Glasses are very fashionable and can be accessorized quite easily... just ask Angela Ahrendts.
"iWatch" the info coming to your phone and whisper in a delectable and deliciously throaty voice ala Sharon Stone directions, messages, emails, internet searches, etc... while you watch the road... toad!".....:smokey:
HAL2000 is already [URL=http://www.automatedliving.com/products_hal2000.shtml]here[/URL].... just look at that shite!
I'm ready for HAL(LE) 9000 for a loooong time!!!
There is not currently a market for wearables. I think there will be soon. There's so much smoke, there's got to be a fire.
-Tim Cook's expressed intense interest in wearables
-Apple has hired execs from Nike and fashion companies
-Apple has patents for wristband battery cells and other related tech
I have no idea when (apparently SOMETHING new is coming in 2014), but it seems inevitable. People also doubted that the iPhone and iPad existed ...
I guess u occasionally have dinner with Tim .. Thats how u know him so well ha?
Wait what? You need to have dinner with someone to tell if they are a visionary or not? No, it's called past performance.
I've been saying this since the idea was floated that Apple was working on an "iWatch", but the naysayers told me I was crazy and it would be the next best thing since sliced bread. Funny though, they never could articulate why it might be life changing.
I rather prefer to believe it's Apple trolling the competition so they waste their R&D trying (and failing) to outsmart Apple.
To be honest, if Apple does come out with such a product, I'll be disappointed in the company. People may say I'm not a visionary, but neither is Mr. Cook.
Apple may see wearables as they see the Apple TV-an important, though not crucial, part of the ecosystem. I might be wrong, but I think cumulative sales of Apple TV are at ~13 million. If Apple sells at least as many "iWatches" as Apple TVs at twice the cost or more ($200-$250) they might be happy. An Apple smartwatch might take off, but Tim would be happy with an accessory that increases ecosystem stickiness and adds value to high revenue grossing products (i.e., iTunes, Mac, iPad, and iPhone).
launched like google glass, or launched like the nexus 7? cuz these are very different things.
Doesn't matter. Google can't market and ship their own hardware at scale.
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3016268/google-the-redesign