Apple's Input Devices group is looking for a multi-talented engineer to prototype and develop new system platform. The candidate will be spearheading initiatives to bring concepts to life with demos and prototypes. This includes designing the HW platform (collaborating with sensors and analog designer in the team), developing FW and providing host driver for SW developers to interact. Candidate will further collaborate with UI SW developers to eventually bring the end-end HW-SW demo to life.
Key Qualifications
Candidate is required to have deep understanding of various micro-controllers and FPGA architecture and to be able to pick the best platform for the job.
Strong prototyping experience in HW/FW is required. This includes schematic capture, board layout, board bring up, FW bring up and testing.
Description
Experience in different sensor fusion, filtering, smoothing and calibration algorithm is strongly desired.
Education
Masters or higher degree in Electrical Engineering or similar discipline with focus on analog/mixed circuit designs.
I predict this market to be like the tablet market. You have the bulk of the pre-iPad market being Archos and other very portable but limited tablet-like devices. These are the fitness bands. They are cheaper than their "smart" counterparts and are designed for limited tasks. For Archos is was entertainment and fitness bands it was, well, fitness. The other end were these smart-er devices. With tablets it was shoehorning a full desktop OS into a laptop with a touchscreen (see any number of WinTablets and ModBook) but with "smart" watches it's trying to replicate features of a smartphone.
When Apple releases a wearable they won't call it a smartwatch or brand it smart-anything. I think it will be an accessory device for your iPhone. I think it will somewhere between a fitness band and smartwatch in capability and excel in the capabilities it does have… like the iPad.
Note that only this year we finally started seeing smartwatches that appear to follow that trend. This, too, is like the tablet market right before Apple announced the iPad when Android-based tablets riddled CES. More the right track for a mobile device but still not optimized well for the HW and interface.
You could be absolutely right. Or, it could be like netbooks: Apple simply doesn't go there.
Sapphire is not normally capitalized being a gem name like diamond. It does have good UV transmission down to the UVB band, unlike borosilicate glass or most plastics which do not. Pure silica glass is better but Apple did not build a new silica plant. A health watch has some interest to me, but I know devices like Fitbit work better on the belt then the wrist as far as counting steps and that sort of thing. Heart monitoring, UV exposure that sort of thing would be better on the wrist. In that market it would have to be cheap and have good battery life, a little more than $100 would be OK, it would have to do a lot more to justify many hundreds.
You could be absolutely right. Or, it could be like netbooks: Apple simply doesn't go there.
That would be like sticking the Galaxy Gear watch into a device the size of a medium button and telling people it does everything a smartwatch does because it uses a "real" OS.
All one can do is laugh at a rumor like this. The only way Apple would be building 65M of a wearable device is if it was being included with an iPhone. I highly doubt that is happening.
No no.... they'd need way more than 65M iWatches to give one away with every iPhone. I'm thinking it's more of a promotion. Buy 3 iPhones, get an iWatch for free type of deal.
It's okay, you don't have to be that guy. Just use this definition: a hard usually transparent material that is used for making windows and other products.
See, nothing in that definition of glass about amorphous nature, not being crystalline, not being made from silicates, or any other sapphire disqualifying aspects. Don't be that guy! :-)
There is however a considerable difference between building a line suitable for that production number and actually producing that many ahead of time. Given the right type of automation they could have a production line capable of spitting out 65 million a quarter. Depending upon what this iWatch actually is and the methods used to manufacture it, fabrication may require a fair amount of automation just to make it possible.
Or if it's a multi-piece device. Thinking watch band, with integrated battery and perhaps kinetic-energy charging, in multiple sizes and colors/designs. Then the iWatch body, with the smarts and display. So out of a total 65 million components, maybe 15 million are the iWatch body and the other 50 million are the bands? Just a thought.
Oh, and hey, what if the band contained use-specific sensors. You're diabetic? Buy the diabetes monitoring band. Like to run or spend time outdoors, get the fitness band with UV monitoring. Just want the watch as a means of getting text/phone/email alerts and other things that all of the iWatches will do? Get the band that doesn't include sensors.
65M to most people represents 65,000. 65MM represents 65,000,000.
CPM - cost per thousand M - thousand M$ - thousands of dollars MCF - thousand cubic feet MM - million MM$ - millions of dollars MMCF - million cubic feet etc.
Apple's Input Devices group is looking for a multi-talented engineer to prototype and develop new system platform. The candidate will be spearheading initiatives to bring concepts to life with demos and prototypes. This includes designing the HW platform (collaborating with sensors and analog designer in the team), developing FW and providing host driver for SW developers to interact. Candidate will further collaborate with UI SW developers to eventually bring the end-end HW-SW demo to life.
Key Qualifications
Candidate is required to have deep understanding of various micro-controllers and FPGA architecture and to be able to pick the best platform for the job.
Strong prototyping experience in HW/FW is required. This includes schematic capture, board layout, board bring up, FW bring up and testing.
Description
Experience in different sensor fusion, filtering, smoothing and calibration algorithm is strongly desired.
Education
Masters or higher degree in Electrical Engineering or similar discipline with focus on analog/mixed circuit designs.
Indeed a nice catch though this publication is a little late to be related to this generation of the iWatch isn't it (given the rumored release date is right)? But maybe for next generations.
My feelings too. I don't mind fitness being one element of a smartwatch, but if that is its main thrust, I don't think I would bite. There's no great secret to good health: eating in moderation and going for walks. No, an iWatch needs something else, like mobile payments.
Thanks. When I see this screenshot it just seems to extreme for me. If someone is sick then sure, but a normal person shouldn't obsess to this level.
To shed some light on potential for iWatch sales, let's look to the context of the world in which the iPod and iPad were launched.
IPod - first year sales of 300,000
The iPod was a product brought out by a company that made computers, had no specific advantage over existing consumer electronics vendors, had no support from iTunes (which didn't yet exist), and had no marketing budget to speak of, at least not compared to what Apple could throw behind a new product intro today. Plus, the world was not exactly expecting Apple to jump in and revolutionize a product category it traditionally did not play within. The iPod represented a product that was familiar to consumers - a portable music player - but also a product that was already well served by existing consumer electronics vendors. So it should be no surprise that iPod sales began somewhat slowly.
IPad - first year sales of 15 million
The iPad represented, to much of the PC/Mac consumer base, an extension of the touch-based UI delivered by the iPhone and other touch phones. For some, but not the majority, it was by 2010 a familiar and, I might conjecture, cool way of interacting with a computer. The iPad faced one significant hurdle in the market; consumers initially didn't understand precisely where this new product would fit in their daily computing habits. So initially the market was skeptical and cautious, but once appropriate use cases were developed and communicated, the iPad was off to the races.
And this case offers a lesson for the iWatch. The iWatch, or any smart watch, needs its niche, an application or use case where it clearly dominates and feels intuitive. I believe Apple has focused on health and fitness for just this reason. It's an area where other offerings have already found some success (FuelBand and others) and an area where Apple's war chest and cash flow allows it to go far beyond what's already out there. And its an area where large markets await (diabetics, athletes and fitness enthusiasts). And like the iPad but not the iPod, the iWatch will be introduced into a world with large numbers of eager Apple devotees, with some 600 million+ iTunes accounts and, by the time the iWatch is released, over 600 million iPhones and 300 million iPads sold. That huge customer base could certainly support a very significant first year unit sales volume.
So, 65 million? I'm not ready to get behind that number, but 15 or 20 million doesn't seem out of bounds to me. I know I'll be getting one, regardless of what it does, as long as it's not a monstrosity like the Galaxy Gear. I trust that Apple has sorted out the market, the use cases, the look and feel, and the UI.
And this case offers a lesson for the iWatch. The iWatch, or any smart watch, needs its niche, an application or use case where it clearly dominates and feels intuitive. I believe Apple has focused on health and fitness for just this reason. It's an area where other offerings have already found some success (FuelBand and others) and an area where Apple's war chest and cash flow allows it to go far beyond what's already out there.
The use cases are really any time that both hands are occupied, and a computer could be helpful. Apple is focussing on exercising, but clever developers will make a list of all human activities where both hands are occupied and try to think of apps that could be useful in that situation and be ready to hit the iWatch App Store on launch day.
Comments
Good find!
You could be absolutely right. Or, it could be like netbooks: Apple simply doesn't go there.
Sapphire is not normally capitalized being a gem name like diamond. It does have good UV transmission down to the UVB band, unlike borosilicate glass or most plastics which do not. Pure silica glass is better but Apple did not build a new silica plant. A health watch has some interest to me, but I know devices like Fitbit work better on the belt then the wrist as far as counting steps and that sort of thing. Heart monitoring, UV exposure that sort of thing would be better on the wrist. In that market it would have to be cheap and have good battery life, a little more than $100 would be OK, it would have to do a lot more to justify many hundreds.
That would be like sticking the Galaxy Gear watch into a device the size of a medium button and telling people it does everything a smartwatch does because it uses a "real" OS.
All one can do is laugh at a rumor like this. The only way Apple would be building 65M of a wearable device is if it was being included with an iPhone. I highly doubt that is happening.
No no.... they'd need way more than 65M iWatches to give one away with every iPhone. I'm thinking it's more of a promotion. Buy 3 iPhones, get an iWatch for free type of deal.
Not to be that guy but Sapphire is not glass.
It's okay, you don't have to be that guy. Just use this definition: a hard usually transparent material that is used for making windows and other products.
See, nothing in that definition of glass about amorphous nature, not being crystalline, not being made from silicates, or any other sapphire disqualifying aspects. Don't be that guy! :-)
There is however a considerable difference between building a line suitable for that production number and actually producing that many ahead of time. Given the right type of automation they could have a production line capable of spitting out 65 million a quarter. Depending upon what this iWatch actually is and the methods used to manufacture it, fabrication may require a fair amount of automation just to make it possible.
Or if it's a multi-piece device. Thinking watch band, with integrated battery and perhaps kinetic-energy charging, in multiple sizes and colors/designs. Then the iWatch body, with the smarts and display. So out of a total 65 million components, maybe 15 million are the iWatch body and the other 50 million are the bands? Just a thought.
Oh, and hey, what if the band contained use-specific sensors. You're diabetic? Buy the diabetes monitoring band. Like to run or spend time outdoors, get the fitness band with UV monitoring. Just want the watch as a means of getting text/phone/email alerts and other things that all of the iWatches will do? Get the band that doesn't include sensors.
Not to be that guy but Sapphire is not glass.
Nor is Google's ridiculous head mounted display.
CPM - cost per thousand
M - thousand
M$ - thousands of dollars
MCF - thousand cubic feet
MM - million
MM$ - millions of dollars
MMCF - million cubic feet
etc.
Indeed a nice catch though this publication is a little late to be related to this generation of the iWatch isn't it (given the rumored release date is right)? But maybe for next generations.
My feelings too. I don't mind fitness being one element of a smartwatch, but if that is its main thrust, I don't think I would bite. There's no great secret to good health: eating in moderation and going for walks. No, an iWatch needs something else, like mobile payments.
Thanks. When I see this screenshot it just seems to extreme for me. If someone is sick then sure, but a normal person shouldn't obsess to this level.
Eh, I’ll take caring too much over caring too little, particularly with the way things are going.
Eh, I’ll take caring too much over caring too little, particularly with the way things are going.
But caring too much and caring too little are not opposites, they're both the kind of obsession that can lead to eating disorders or over-exercising.
I’d far prefer to see more people dying of not having enough fat in their heart walls than too much. It’s one step at a time. Literally.
Oh, I forgot your fight. Well, yes, I bet you would have found an iWatch invaluable then. And millions would today.
IPod - first year sales of 300,000
The iPod was a product brought out by a company that made computers, had no specific advantage over existing consumer electronics vendors, had no support from iTunes (which didn't yet exist), and had no marketing budget to speak of, at least not compared to what Apple could throw behind a new product intro today. Plus, the world was not exactly expecting Apple to jump in and revolutionize a product category it traditionally did not play within. The iPod represented a product that was familiar to consumers - a portable music player - but also a product that was already well served by existing consumer electronics vendors. So it should be no surprise that iPod sales began somewhat slowly.
IPad - first year sales of 15 million
The iPad represented, to much of the PC/Mac consumer base, an extension of the touch-based UI delivered by the iPhone and other touch phones. For some, but not the majority, it was by 2010 a familiar and, I might conjecture, cool way of interacting with a computer. The iPad faced one significant hurdle in the market; consumers initially didn't understand precisely where this new product would fit in their daily computing habits. So initially the market was skeptical and cautious, but once appropriate use cases were developed and communicated, the iPad was off to the races.
And this case offers a lesson for the iWatch. The iWatch, or any smart watch, needs its niche, an application or use case where it clearly dominates and feels intuitive. I believe Apple has focused on health and fitness for just this reason. It's an area where other offerings have already found some success (FuelBand and others) and an area where Apple's war chest and cash flow allows it to go far beyond what's already out there. And its an area where large markets await (diabetics, athletes and fitness enthusiasts). And like the iPad but not the iPod, the iWatch will be introduced into a world with large numbers of eager Apple devotees, with some 600 million+ iTunes accounts and, by the time the iWatch is released, over 600 million iPhones and 300 million iPads sold. That huge customer base could certainly support a very significant first year unit sales volume.
So, 65 million? I'm not ready to get behind that number, but 15 or 20 million doesn't seem out of bounds to me. I know I'll be getting one, regardless of what it does, as long as it's not a monstrosity like the Galaxy Gear. I trust that Apple has sorted out the market, the use cases, the look and feel, and the UI.
And this case offers a lesson for the iWatch. The iWatch, or any smart watch, needs its niche, an application or use case where it clearly dominates and feels intuitive. I believe Apple has focused on health and fitness for just this reason. It's an area where other offerings have already found some success (FuelBand and others) and an area where Apple's war chest and cash flow allows it to go far beyond what's already out there.
The use cases are really any time that both hands are occupied, and a computer could be helpful. Apple is focussing on exercising, but clever developers will make a list of all human activities where both hands are occupied and try to think of apps that could be useful in that situation and be ready to hit the iWatch App Store on launch day.