I see a lot of blaming Samsung here, but really watches are a joke. In general if you see a watch on somebodies wrist you have a flag that says avoid me because I'm an asshole.
If these numbers are genuine and not just sales in Korea, this is a massive flop as these are sales just after launch. They must have produced a run of at least a million units.
It depends upon your perspective, frankly I can't see Apple coming up with anything that does better. Let's face it a iWatch might be handy in a nudist camp (assuming it doesn't need an iPhone) but an iPhone in my pocket is far more useful device wise than anything I can see them stuffing into a watch.
People keep assuming that the size and value of the watch market translates into a market for a digital watch. Luxury watches are propping up the watch industry and people buy those because they are items of jewellery. You don't buy an Omega watch with the intention of checking email on it.
And most of the rest of the watch market is going the way of the point and shoot camera. So much functionality gets integrated into a smart phone these days that one little device effectively eliminates a dozen devices.
A digital watch doesn't offer a sense of style and design, they are the exact opposite. Their design is intended to disappear to allow you to focus on the software. Nobody else can see your software so it doesn't serve its purpose as an item of jewellery. There are digital watch manufacturers that sell in larger volumes but they sell mostly cheap watches and each brand typically sells at most a few million per year.
One of the premium digital watches Casio G-Shock sold 65 million units in 30 years:
Given that it was 50 million in 2009, they are probably around 4 million units per year now. Analyst Katy Huberty thought that a smartwatch would sell 50 million units per year. This is perhaps a reality check.
You have to think about upgrade cycles too. People simply don't upgrade watches regularly like they would a phone because there's no new features to sell.
These are all good points. I look at it this way, what capability would an iWatch provide to me and how compromised would those features be relative to a smart phone.
No surprise. This was one of the most universally panned gadgets to come along in recent memory. Even with all of Samsung's astroturfing, spiffs, and marketing expenditures, the product itself simply could not stand on its merits.
And the failed Galaxy Gear opens a window into Samsung's ethos of cobbling as much stuff together as quickly as possible, without thinking through the basic details (i.e., what can the device do when not connected to anything? can it show actual messages rather just notifications? etc.). Being the first trumps being the best. Quantity takes priority over quality. Saying yes to everything takes precedence over saying no to anything. And it calls into question whether Samsung is capable of forging into a new market without an established leader that they can copy.
I wonder how much of that 50,000 figure includes the bundle deals that some carriers have been promoting. I read that one retailer in the UK is throwing the Galaxy Gear in as a freebie with the Note 3. And Verizon has been promoting its own Note 3/Gear bundle -- although in a classic telco scamtastic move, Verizon's bundle deal saves you exactly zero dollars.
as someone who just recently bought a Pebble Watch, I have to say, its the perfect addition to a phone.
Driving and a text comes in, simple glance at wrist and you know if its important or not. Sitting watching TV and email/text etc goes off, you realise that you left your phone on the table, once again, simple glance and you don't have to get off your butt. Reminders during the day pop onto your wrist. No having to fish the phone out or go back to where you left it. And when i want to know the time, I don't have to dig a big yoke with a 4inch screen out of my pocket, I can just glance at my wrist.
Highly recommended
anyone, who thinks they are pointless, it just means YOU don't get the point. Stay where you are.
That said, i am sure Samsungs version is completely useless and Apples one will kick ass
If these numbers are genuine and not just sales in Korea, this is a massive flop as these are sales just after launch. They must have produced a run of at least a million units.
People keep assuming that the size and value of the watch market translates into a market for a digital watch. Luxury watches are propping up the watch industry and people buy those because they are items of jewellery. You don't buy an Omega watch with the intention of checking email on it.
A digital watch doesn't offer a sense of style and design, they are the exact opposite. Their design is intended to disappear to allow you to focus on the software. Nobody else can see your software so it doesn't serve its purpose as an item of jewellery. There are digital watch manufacturers that sell in larger volumes but they sell mostly cheap watches and each brand typically sells at most a few million per year.
It remains to be seen how Apple would approach this. This is a unique challenge precisely because watches are not a growing or even new market. People who wear watches already have them, and basic digital watches nowadays can sell for well under $10.
It very well might be a similar situation that Microsoft faced when they launched the Zune, which entered a saturated market whose growth trend had already leveled out. Even though the media player market was shrinking, Apple still managed to disrupt its competitors (including Microsoft's nascent Zune) when they introduced the iPod touch.
For an iWatch to succeed, it very well might need to create the same kind of radical jump forward in functionality, relative to other digital watches, that Apple created with the iPod touch, which represented a huge advance compared to everybody else's media players.
Quote:
One of the premium digital watches Casio G-Shock sold 65 million units in 30 years:
Given that it was 50 million in 2009, they are probably around 4 million units per year now. Analyst Katy Huberty thought that a smartwatch would sell 50 million units per year. This is perhaps a reality check.
You have to think about upgrade cycles too. People simply don't upgrade watches regularly like they would a phone because there's no new features to sell.
Sobering numbers in that context. But, the other part of it is that digital watches or clocks in general are commodified, in the sense that they are anywhere and everywhere -- huge unit numbers with very limited value. If you got digital time pieces thrown in as McDonald's Happy Meal toys, then obviously the timekeeping function itself creates little, if any, value.
So, Apple's challenge is really finding thecombination of functions (to go along with platform extension, connectivity, and design) that tens of millions of people will pay good money to have. Not an impossible task, but obviously as Samsung demonstrated with the Galaxy Gear, throwing together a bunch of half-baked features won't cut it in a market that lacks the pent up demand that the smartphone market had.
This is by far not anywhere near insider knowledge, but just a guess. What is Apple were to make the iWatch that is tied to your iPhone (4S+). The only reason for the tethering is two fold: 1) give you an opportunity to read alerts as they come in, 2) allow you to access Siri without bringing the phone to you.
Before you discount that second one, think of it like this: You want to know some Siri enabled piece of data, like a sports score. Now you could pull out your phone, but for something simple like this, maybe it would be much quicker to just tap your watch, and ask, "What is the sports score of the Arizona Cardinals?" Siri, through the connection of your phone, tells you exactly what it is. This way there is no need for "Apps" on the watch or additional features. Just a timer portion, and a bluetooth connection to talk to your phone. Also, this way even if you do not pair it up to an iPhone, or your iPhone is away from you, it can still act like the watch you need it to.
The reason why this way is because it wouldn't take any horsepower on the phone, and it should be easy and cheap to produce. I am thinking $49 - $99 (on the upper end) using either the standard button batteries that are out there, or one that can connect via the Lightning adapter for quick charging.
But that's essentially what the Galaxy Gear is, and Samsung couldn't pull it off at a lower price point or smaller size. The Gear relies on a Note 3 or Galaxy Tab 10.1. Supposedly it will also support the Galaxy S4 and S3 at some point.
I think to sell well, it's a matter less about features, and more about looks. People might buy a $100 "iWatch" that is essentially nothing more than a Nike Flexband that tells time provided that it looks sharp. They might buy a $500 version that is a Siri/notification device, again provided that it looks like a $500 device (e.g. a Movado or ESQ). But first and foremost, it needs to be stylish, and be available in versions that look good on a skinny woman as well as a larger man.
If Apple does release an 'iWatch', I hope it is a standalone device. I would prefer that it be able to operate without any connection to (another?) iOS device. But whatever. It will be interesting to see Apple's take on a wrist-mounted device.
If these numbers are genuine and not just sales in Korea, this is a massive flop as these are sales just after launch. They must have produced a run of at least a million units.
A bigger flop than the 5C? The 5C couldn't outsell the flagship, state of the art 5S!!! /s
I see a lot of blaming Samsung here, but really watches are a joke.
Lonely worthy comment in a pile of garbage. Today I found my Citizen Ecco-drive in another pile of garbage. Coincidence? Beautiful titanium watch.... no signs of life. It's been a while since I wore them. Cell phone killed watch for millions, including myself and you can call it super smart watch: there is no demand. I don't think Apple will have enough fanatics to justify design, development and manufacturing. Maybe Apple just spread a rumor to lure silly Koreans into a marketing trap.
Lonely worthy comment in a pile of garbage. Today I found my Citizen Ecco-drive in another pile of garbage. Coincidence? Beautiful titanium watch.... no signs of life. It's been a while since I wore them. Cell phone killed watch for millions, including myself and you can call it super smart watch: there is no demand. I don't think Apple will have enough fanatics to justify design, development and manufacturing. Maybe Apple just spread a rumor to lure silly Koreans into a marketing trap.
Yes, the basic watch for the sake of simply telling time (as well as the date) was killed with the advent of the cell phone but there are several other things to consider.
First and foremost, the $1.6 billion* dollar wrist watch market that caters to precision time pieces mostly as status symbols, but there are also niche markets where traditional style watches are quite useful and necessary.
Second, there is a growing market for fitness watches. These tend to tell time, but even if they didn't they are still worn the wrist. In many ways show how Apple et al. might evolve this category, not unlike how looking back on the iPod many had hoped Apple would create a cell phone and much of what they learned with the iPod prepared them for the iPhone, the OS not withstanding.
Now I have been interested in wearable computers for a long time but not until the Fitbit Force was announced less than 2 months ago that I found the utility and design were good enough for the price for me to make the investment. I've been quite happy with it since I received it 11 days ago but still too early to tell its longtime usage possibilities. It should be noted that I hadn't worn nor desired to wear anything on my wrist since I first got a a cellphone.
Finally, now lets imagine that Apple is working on wearable computers. I don't think it's hard to imagine at all. Now lets consider how great the wrist is for wearing devices on our person. That also shouldn't be hard to imagine. Now lets consider how Apple could make this be a great addition to your iPhone, iPad, or Mac? I would love for an iWatch to have all the sensors of a Fitbit Force (and more) but with a styling and utility that is much more intelligent. ideally I want something that would unlock my Mac when I approach it or lock my iPhone as soon as it's out of range. The former would just be a great convenience and the latter would be a security feature if you get your unlocked device swiped out of your hand.
I'm not sure the tech is here to make it work but it will be here soon and I think Apple would be foolish to pass up this huge opportunity. I think wearable computers will be huge.
* Read that somewhere. Please feel free to prove me wrong.
Remember this is war and as in any war, miss direction and miss information is just as an important tool to winning as knowing the facts.
Here's an idea: Apple can take that $50B they were going to distribute to shareholders and instead use it to build 500 million iWatches, and then give them away for free. They will instantly have 99.9% of the market share, and thus be the "winner". I'm sure the stockholders will believe that to be a proper use of the cash hoarde. And since market share is all that matters, it also means Apple's stock will go up 5-fold, and Sammy will be d00med.
Clearly it is not "continuing to heat up". Global daily sales of 850 units over a two month debut in the general consumer marketplace can't be described as anything except a dismal failure in a virtually nonexistent market. Apple must be laughing themselves silly, their misdirection having worked so flawlessly.
I agree. I really don't see this as being a big market, especially seeing as you need a phone as well to pair it with. I don't think a watch is the right device, but I'm not really sure what else could be done.
Lonely worthy comment in a pile of garbage. Today I found my Citizen Ecco-drive in another pile of garbage. Coincidence? Beautiful titanium watch.... no signs of life. It's been a while since I wore them. Cell phone killed watch for millions, including myself and you can call it super smart watch: there is no demand. I don't think Apple will have enough fanatics to justify design, development and manufacturing. Maybe Apple just spread a rumor to lure silly Koreans into a marketing trap.
I don't doubt that Apple's working on some sort of watch project. Whether they will actually launch the fabled unicorn iWatch remains to be seen. The difference is that Apple will release it if and when the product is actually ready. It might be next year, it might be five years from now, it might be never. Keep in mind that Apple had worked on touchscreen tablets over a decade prior to the iPad launch, but kept waiting until the technology, market conditions, and the product development were ready. But, in the meantime, much of that tablet R&D laid the foundation for the iPhone.
But, there is a danger in conflating your use case into a conclusion that "there is no demand" for a smartwatch. All that the Samsung Galaxy Gear proves is that there's virtually no demand for an overpriced wearable device that has limited functionality on its own, and has numerous functions that were clearly rushed to production before they were ready. And keep in mind that before the iPad came along, the tablet computer had largely failed in the market.
Even though you don't wear a watch, millions of others do. At the low end, watches are commodified -- far more so than even smartphones. Yet, there's also a sizable high end market that is largely analog and fashion-driven. At the same time, watches for the most part remain limited in what they can do well. The issue for Apple is whether there is an addressable niche that nobody has adequately covered to date.
With the iPad, they were able to leverage their iOS ecosystem and ramp up a previously failed market segment. Maybe this is a case where technology alone will not be the final determinant, where the design plays a bigger role than with Apple's other products. Or Apple's still looking for the right combination of use cases -- things that a watch does not currently do, but can do very well. Either way, Apple's history indicates that they will not come out with something unless they know that it can perform a tightly selected set of functions exceptionally well.
Comments
I aaas thinking that if Apple began selling a smart watch tomorrow, they would outsell scamscum in the first hour. seriously - they would
These are all good points. I look at it this way, what capability would an iWatch provide to me and how compromised would those features be relative to a smart phone.
No surprise. This was one of the most universally panned gadgets to come along in recent memory. Even with all of Samsung's astroturfing, spiffs, and marketing expenditures, the product itself simply could not stand on its merits.
And the failed Galaxy Gear opens a window into Samsung's ethos of cobbling as much stuff together as quickly as possible, without thinking through the basic details (i.e., what can the device do when not connected to anything? can it show actual messages rather just notifications? etc.). Being the first trumps being the best. Quantity takes priority over quality. Saying yes to everything takes precedence over saying no to anything. And it calls into question whether Samsung is capable of forging into a new market without an established leader that they can copy.
I wonder how much of that 50,000 figure includes the bundle deals that some carriers have been promoting. I read that one retailer in the UK is throwing the Galaxy Gear in as a freebie with the Note 3. And Verizon has been promoting its own Note 3/Gear bundle -- although in a classic telco scamtastic move, Verizon's bundle deal saves you exactly zero dollars.
Driving and a text comes in, simple glance at wrist and you know if its important or not.
Sitting watching TV and email/text etc goes off, you realise that you left your phone on the table, once again, simple glance and you don't have to get off your butt.
Reminders during the day pop onto your wrist. No having to fish the phone out or go back to where you left it.
And when i want to know the time, I don't have to dig a big yoke with a 4inch screen out of my pocket, I can just glance at my wrist.
Highly recommended
anyone, who thinks they are pointless, it just means YOU don't get the point. Stay where you are.
That said, i am sure Samsungs version is completely useless and Apples one will kick ass
If these numbers are genuine and not just sales in Korea, this is a massive flop as these are sales just after launch. They must have produced a run of at least a million units.
People keep assuming that the size and value of the watch market translates into a market for a digital watch. Luxury watches are propping up the watch industry and people buy those because they are items of jewellery. You don't buy an Omega watch with the intention of checking email on it.
A digital watch doesn't offer a sense of style and design, they are the exact opposite. Their design is intended to disappear to allow you to focus on the software. Nobody else can see your software so it doesn't serve its purpose as an item of jewellery. There are digital watch manufacturers that sell in larger volumes but they sell mostly cheap watches and each brand typically sells at most a few million per year.
It remains to be seen how Apple would approach this. This is a unique challenge precisely because watches are not a growing or even new market. People who wear watches already have them, and basic digital watches nowadays can sell for well under $10.
It very well might be a similar situation that Microsoft faced when they launched the Zune, which entered a saturated market whose growth trend had already leveled out. Even though the media player market was shrinking, Apple still managed to disrupt its competitors (including Microsoft's nascent Zune) when they introduced the iPod touch.
For an iWatch to succeed, it very well might need to create the same kind of radical jump forward in functionality, relative to other digital watches, that Apple created with the iPod touch, which represented a huge advance compared to everybody else's media players.
http://www.freshnessmag.com/2013/08/09/casio-g-shock-30th-anniversary-shock-the-world-2013-nyc-event-recap/
Given that it was 50 million in 2009, they are probably around 4 million units per year now. Analyst Katy Huberty thought that a smartwatch would sell 50 million units per year. This is perhaps a reality check.
You have to think about upgrade cycles too. People simply don't upgrade watches regularly like they would a phone because there's no new features to sell.
Sobering numbers in that context. But, the other part of it is that digital watches or clocks in general are commodified, in the sense that they are anywhere and everywhere -- huge unit numbers with very limited value. If you got digital time pieces thrown in as McDonald's Happy Meal toys, then obviously the timekeeping function itself creates little, if any, value.
So, Apple's challenge is really finding thecombination of functions (to go along with platform extension, connectivity, and design) that tens of millions of people will pay good money to have. Not an impossible task, but obviously as Samsung demonstrated with the Galaxy Gear, throwing together a bunch of half-baked features won't cut it in a market that lacks the pent up demand that the smartphone market had.
This is by far not anywhere near insider knowledge, but just a guess. What is Apple were to make the iWatch that is tied to your iPhone (4S+). The only reason for the tethering is two fold: 1) give you an opportunity to read alerts as they come in, 2) allow you to access Siri without bringing the phone to you.
Before you discount that second one, think of it like this: You want to know some Siri enabled piece of data, like a sports score. Now you could pull out your phone, but for something simple like this, maybe it would be much quicker to just tap your watch, and ask, "What is the sports score of the Arizona Cardinals?" Siri, through the connection of your phone, tells you exactly what it is. This way there is no need for "Apps" on the watch or additional features. Just a timer portion, and a bluetooth connection to talk to your phone. Also, this way even if you do not pair it up to an iPhone, or your iPhone is away from you, it can still act like the watch you need it to.
The reason why this way is because it wouldn't take any horsepower on the phone, and it should be easy and cheap to produce. I am thinking $49 - $99 (on the upper end) using either the standard button batteries that are out there, or one that can connect via the Lightning adapter for quick charging.
But that's essentially what the Galaxy Gear is, and Samsung couldn't pull it off at a lower price point or smaller size. The Gear relies on a Note 3 or Galaxy Tab 10.1. Supposedly it will also support the Galaxy S4 and S3 at some point.
I think to sell well, it's a matter less about features, and more about looks. People might buy a $100 "iWatch" that is essentially nothing more than a Nike Flexband that tells time provided that it looks sharp. They might buy a $500 version that is a Siri/notification device, again provided that it looks like a $500 device (e.g. a Movado or ESQ). But first and foremost, it needs to be stylish, and be available in versions that look good on a skinny woman as well as a larger man.
Congrats samsung for managing to sell 50,000 of those rubbish stupid ugly things to people!
I would prefer that it be able to operate without any connection to (another?) iOS device.
But whatever. It will be interesting to see Apple's take on a wrist-mounted device.
A bigger flop than the 5C? The 5C couldn't outsell the flagship, state of the art 5S!!! /s
= 5,000,000 salesFixed.
I mindlessly buy everything new, LOL, read the reviews on the G. Gear and decided to skip, and it wasn't a hard decision.
Please. Last time I checked, Android was winning. Samsung alone supposedly outsells the iPhone.
I see a lot of blaming Samsung here, but really watches are a joke.
Lonely worthy comment in a pile of garbage. Today I found my Citizen Ecco-drive in another pile of garbage. Coincidence? Beautiful titanium watch.... no signs of life. It's been a while since I wore them. Cell phone killed watch for millions, including myself and you can call it super smart watch: there is no demand. I don't think Apple will have enough fanatics to justify design, development and manufacturing. Maybe Apple just spread a rumor to lure silly Koreans into a marketing trap.
Yes, the basic watch for the sake of simply telling time (as well as the date) was killed with the advent of the cell phone but there are several other things to consider.
First and foremost, the $1.6 billion* dollar wrist watch market that caters to precision time pieces mostly as status symbols, but there are also niche markets where traditional style watches are quite useful and necessary.
Second, there is a growing market for fitness watches. These tend to tell time, but even if they didn't they are still worn the wrist. In many ways show how Apple et al. might evolve this category, not unlike how looking back on the iPod many had hoped Apple would create a cell phone and much of what they learned with the iPod prepared them for the iPhone, the OS not withstanding.
Now I have been interested in wearable computers for a long time but not until the Fitbit Force was announced less than 2 months ago that I found the utility and design were good enough for the price for me to make the investment. I've been quite happy with it since I received it 11 days ago but still too early to tell its longtime usage possibilities. It should be noted that I hadn't worn nor desired to wear anything on my wrist since I first got a a cellphone.
Finally, now lets imagine that Apple is working on wearable computers. I don't think it's hard to imagine at all. Now lets consider how great the wrist is for wearing devices on our person. That also shouldn't be hard to imagine. Now lets consider how Apple could make this be a great addition to your iPhone, iPad, or Mac? I would love for an iWatch to have all the sensors of a Fitbit Force (and more) but with a styling and utility that is much more intelligent. ideally I want something that would unlock my Mac when I approach it or lock my iPhone as soon as it's out of range. The former would just be a great convenience and the latter would be a security feature if you get your unlocked device swiped out of your hand.
I'm not sure the tech is here to make it work but it will be here soon and I think Apple would be foolish to pass up this huge opportunity. I think wearable computers will be huge.
* Read that somewhere. Please feel free to prove me wrong.
Maybe if Samsung experts had included Apple's 'Pinch-to-Zoom', perhaps a lot more people would have bought?
/
/
Remember this is war and as in any war, miss direction and miss information is just as an important tool to winning as knowing the facts.
Here's an idea: Apple can take that $50B they were going to distribute to shareholders and instead use it to build 500 million iWatches, and then give them away for free. They will instantly have 99.9% of the market share, and thus be the "winner". I'm sure the stockholders will believe that to be a proper use of the cash hoarde. And since market share is all that matters, it also means Apple's stock will go up 5-fold, and Sammy will be d00med.
/s.
I agree. I really don't see this as being a big market, especially seeing as you need a phone as well to pair it with. I don't think a watch is the right device, but I'm not really sure what else could be done.
Lonely worthy comment in a pile of garbage. Today I found my Citizen Ecco-drive in another pile of garbage. Coincidence? Beautiful titanium watch.... no signs of life. It's been a while since I wore them. Cell phone killed watch for millions, including myself and you can call it super smart watch: there is no demand. I don't think Apple will have enough fanatics to justify design, development and manufacturing. Maybe Apple just spread a rumor to lure silly Koreans into a marketing trap.
I don't doubt that Apple's working on some sort of watch project. Whether they will actually launch the fabled unicorn iWatch remains to be seen. The difference is that Apple will release it if and when the product is actually ready. It might be next year, it might be five years from now, it might be never. Keep in mind that Apple had worked on touchscreen tablets over a decade prior to the iPad launch, but kept waiting until the technology, market conditions, and the product development were ready. But, in the meantime, much of that tablet R&D laid the foundation for the iPhone.
But, there is a danger in conflating your use case into a conclusion that "there is no demand" for a smartwatch. All that the Samsung Galaxy Gear proves is that there's virtually no demand for an overpriced wearable device that has limited functionality on its own, and has numerous functions that were clearly rushed to production before they were ready. And keep in mind that before the iPad came along, the tablet computer had largely failed in the market.
Even though you don't wear a watch, millions of others do. At the low end, watches are commodified -- far more so than even smartphones. Yet, there's also a sizable high end market that is largely analog and fashion-driven. At the same time, watches for the most part remain limited in what they can do well. The issue for Apple is whether there is an addressable niche that nobody has adequately covered to date.
With the iPad, they were able to leverage their iOS ecosystem and ramp up a previously failed market segment. Maybe this is a case where technology alone will not be the final determinant, where the design plays a bigger role than with Apple's other products. Or Apple's still looking for the right combination of use cases -- things that a watch does not currently do, but can do very well. Either way, Apple's history indicates that they will not come out with something unless they know that it can perform a tightly selected set of functions exceptionally well.