Morgan Stanley sees 'iWatch' ringing up $17.5B from iPhone users in first year

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 79
    justp1ayin wrote: »
    Did you mean revenue or profit? Because if you meant revenue, then I will downgrade AAPL to underperform on weak sales of only 420,000 starships. An area ripe for growth

    Weak sales = you predicted Apple will sell 420,001 starships. They clearly missed this mark so the stock will suffer as a result.
  • Reply 22 of 79
    Fledgling: adj. New and untried or inexperienced:[I] a fledgling enterprise[/I].

    Seems to me that every new product that comes on the market would be "fledgling".
  • Reply 23 of 79

    This looks purely like a stock-pumping exercise to me. I'm guessing some big MS clients took a big hit with the recent dip in AAPL, and KH is simply doing her best to help them recover. After all, there is no actual news here, it's a completely hypothetical "IF Apple does X, then Y" ... in other words a positive but vacuous puff-piece. 

  • Reply 24 of 79
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,010member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

     

    Fix that for you....

     

    The total watch market size is not that big to day and continue to decline what makes anyone think it would grow that fast, Apple is not that good.

     

    She must be a good lay, not sure how else you keep you job with such a bad track record


    Look's like she'd be a good fit for Fox News. Don't know anything about her private life. :-)

     

  • Reply 25 of 79
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,807moderator
    clemynx wrote: »
    That concept truly nailed how Apple products look like. It looks so shiny, rounded and soft. The screen won't be that size, but that may be the best concept I've ever seen. The bracelet is exactly like what I imagined for the iwatch myself. Just a big ring. What's simpler than that?

    I've seen a few concepts that are very rigid around the wrist strap and wonder if the people making them bothered to look at their own wrists. They aren't circular for a start, they are elliptical and they come in many sizes so the strap has to be flexible, not least because it has to come on and off the wrist but also for comfort.

    At best, the top would be curved like the Galaxy Gear 2 mockup here:

    http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/samsung-galaxy-gear-2-preview/

    but that means a curved battery. Apple has a patent for such a thing:

    http://www.techradar.com/news/portable-devices/other-devices/apple-s-curved-battery-patent-hints-at-ergonomic-iwatch-1156684

    Apple will experiment with lots of product ideas but they'll only come out if they can make them worthwhile. They already worked on things like Google Glass years ago but as Google Glass has demonstrated, it just doesn't quite work well enough to bother taking it to market:

    http://bgr.com/2013/12/10/apple-virtual-reality-goggles-patent/
  • Reply 26 of 79
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,038member

    Wanna know why AAPL tanks after every quarterly results? THIS is why. Speculation about income from unannounced products, expectations that exceed Apple’s guidance. It’s all pure, unadulterated bullshit pulled right out of some analyst’s ass or twat. 

  • Reply 27 of 79
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

     

    Fix that for you....

     

    The total watch market size is not that big to day and continue to decline what makes anyone think it would grow that fast, Apple is not that good.

     

    She must be a good lay, not sure how else you keep you job with such a bad track record


     

    Does that mean that you think that Gene Munster is a good lay?

  • Reply 28 of 79
    I believe that she is suggesting that an "iWatch" that somehow extends the capabilities of an iPhone will be a very popular device as opposed to "only" a fitness and health accessory. For example, an "iWatch" that presents notifications and enables the user to act upon notifications without directly using their iPhone would essentially extend the battery life of an iPhone for many users.

    In my opinion, the two killer features possible with an iWatch are extending the battery life of the iPhone and offering additional security capabilities (either biometric heartbeat sensor or required pairing with the iWatch for the Apple payment solution ("iWallet") to function). I doubt either of these will occur, however, as this creates dependency on the pairing for the expected "iWallet" solution which seems unlikely.

    justp1ayin wrote: »
    Actually what I think she means is that with the iPhone and iPod, you needed a computer, but not an iproduct or a Mac, with this new device, it will be made solely for iUsers (iPhone, iPad, etc). Meaning it's not as open to everyone as the previous products

    "Our working assumption is that iWatch largely will be adopted as an accessory device and, therefore, sold into the existing customer base, like the iPad, rather than to new customers, like the iPod or iPhone," Huberty said in an an investors note released on Tuesday.

    She appears to be suggesting that Apple will sell the "iWatch" to existing customers rather than new customers.

    1. Lance Whitney; Apple iWatch could trigger sales as high as $17.5B -- analyst; cnet; February 4, 2014
  • Reply 29 of 79
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    I'm an iPhone owner and I have zero interest in a watch of any kind. Certainly not some expensive wearable electronic jewelry.

    One of the primary functions of my iPhone is to be a clock and all the other things a watch does. Beyond that, it's a portable computer with robust Internet access, a calendar & reminder book, and it's the best GPS I've used. It's even a somewhat usable telephone. What the hell else could I want in a small pocket item??

    I have no need for other gadgets. I was going to get an iPad for partial laptop replacement, but then iOS 7 happened. I have little faith in Apple's iOS future and I'm scared about Mac OS X's future once the GUI-ignorant Jony Ive gets at it, because it is my computing platform of choice (my only choice, at this point).

    I could NOT possibly care any LESS about any so-called hypothetical iWatch.
  • Reply 30 of 79
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    This is what fiction writers do. They take an idea and then create a story around it. You always start with some nugget of truth like the physics of your universe for science fiction or historical documentation for historical fiction. These projections are no different than any other fictitious storyline [U]except[/U] they stop after creating a meaningless outline that has no actual story. It's Financial Fiction, nothing more. We shouldn't treat Huberty or any of these other frauds looking for page hits as modern soothsayers. This is just Fin-Fi.
  • Reply 31 of 79
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member

    A downside and upside just occurred to me...

    Upside: less interpersonal distractions. Instead of having a phone out on the dining table, screaming 'look at me!' all the time, and with virtually infinite ability to drill down (and away from real life), a wearable just gives you the 'headlines'. If its important, then yeah, pull out the phone and deal with it. But less likely to draw you in to your wrist.

     

    Downside: Is there a greater universal signal that I'm really bored with you than looking at my wrist? I even use that sign when I don't have anything on my wrist to look at! I think it should be added to International Sign Language to mean 'Hurry the F** up already!'

  • Reply 32 of 79
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member

    I'd buy one if I could press a button and it made my iPhone ring. 

  • Reply 33 of 79
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    I've had my doubts, but the FDA aspect brings up the potential to plug into the recent "quantified life" trend and that has distinct possibilities. Then again the boomers are getting old so there's utility in better self-health monitoring across the board.

     

    The FDA visit itself? Possibly to work out where the regulatory boundaries are so Apple can AVOID stepping over into medical device-land.

  • Reply 34 of 79
    vtwovtwo Posts: 14member
    Interesting to note that the same analyst predicted 5-6 M iPads would be sold in 2010 (first year of release) when it was released (ipad ended up selling 15 M in 2010). If she could be off by a factor of 3 on an announced product, what is her range on an announced product? I predict the the iWatch will sell between 1 to 1 trillion units when it is released.
  • Reply 35 of 79
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    Katy Huberty. What a maroon.

    You say some pretty dumb stuff, too. Are you a moron? I'd say she is less of a moron because she gets paid for saying these things.

  • Reply 36 of 79
    irelandireland Posts: 17,785member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

     

    You say some pretty dumb stuff, too. Are you a moron? I'd say she is less of a moron because she gets paid for saying these things.


     

    Case closed, I suppose. Or is it that you've kind of put your foot in it? Spam has been on these forums for years and has consistently said sensible things, while often injecting perspective into threads. Why he's calling her a moron in this case is obvious: she's predicting a $17.5B year-one for a product no one outside of Apple knows for sure exists, no one knows what it will cost if released, or if it'll ever see the light of day if in fact it is legit. Such a crazy and specific prediction for an unannounced Apple product such as this is stupid at best, and a reckless market manipulation-tactic at worst.

     

    Thusly, then, it would be stupid to make such a prediction. Which would making her stupid. And 'a stupid sermon' is a moron according to Oxford. People get paid for saying stupid things all the time. It's a terrible argument to make.

  • Reply 37 of 79
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

     

     

    I don't understand this.  The iPod was not a "fledgeling" if that means a stand-alone product.  It was introduced as an accessory to the Mac.  Without a Mac, the product was a boat anchor.  The iPhone too was not introduced as a stand-alone.  It too needed a computer to sync.  

     

    And introducing the watch as an accessory to the iPhone would "open the market" more than if it were a "fledgeling"?  

     

    Sorry.  I don't understand what she is saying. 


    Fledgling does not mean stand alone. It means new, as a in a new product category (unaffiliated with the iPhone). 

  • Reply 38 of 79
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

     

     

    Case closed, I suppose. Or is it that you've kind of put your foot in it?


    Nice try. But you missed (not that you'd either realize or admit it).

  • Reply 39 of 79
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,227member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    I've seen a few concepts that are very rigid around the wrist strap and wonder if the people making them bothered to look at their own wrists. They aren't circular for a start, they are elliptical and they come in many sizes so the strap has to be flexible, not least because it has to come on and off the wrist but also for comfort.



    At best, the top would be curved like the Galaxy Gear 2 mockup here:



    http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/samsung-galaxy-gear-2-preview/



    but that means a curved battery. Apple has a patent for such a thing:



    http://www.techradar.com/news/portable-devices/other-devices/apple-s-curved-battery-patent-hints-at-ergonomic-iwatch-1156684



    Apple will experiment with lots of product ideas but they'll only come out if they can make them worthwhile. They already worked on things like Google Glass years ago but as Google Glass has demonstrated, it just doesn't quite work well enough to bother taking it to market:



    http://bgr.com/2013/12/10/apple-virtual-reality-goggles-patent/

     

    I still think the concept show is doable, but it wont be a perfect circle like shown indeed. Beside the design, I am hoping Apple makes "killer apps" or usage for those watch, something medical for example, or features that links to an iphones and allow to use the watch instead of briging out the phone.

  • Reply 40 of 79
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post



    I'm an iPhone owner and I have zero interest in a watch of any kind. Certainly not some expensive wearable electronic jewelry.



    One of the primary functions of my iPhone is to be a clock and all the other things a watch does. Beyond that, it's a portable computer with robust Internet access, a calendar & reminder book, and it's the best GPS I've used. It's even a somewhat usable telephone. What the hell else could I want in a small pocket item??



    I have no need for other gadgets. I was going to get an iPad for partial laptop replacement, but then iOS 7 happened. I have little faith in Apple's iOS future and I'm scared about Mac OS X's future once the GUI-ignorant Jony Ive gets at it, because it is my computing platform of choice (my only choice, at this point).



    I could NOT possibly care any LESS about any so-called hypothetical iWatch.

     

    Before blurting out things take a moment to ask yourself, "Is my opinion the only opinion?"

    ...but I have a funny feeling that your answer is always, "yes".

Sign In or Register to comment.