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
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.
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. :-)
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?
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.
Does that mean that you think that Gene Munster is a good lay?
macbook pro wrote: »
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
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!'
I'd buy one if I could press a button and it made my iPhone ring.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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".