Wearable technology has nothing to do with textiles at this point. It's a piece of technology that just happens to be associated with an article of clothing. You can take a Nike sensor, put in a plastic bag and tie it to the top of your non-Nike running shoe and it basically functions identically as if you had put the device in the special Nike shoe.
Hell, I can pin my iPhone 5s to a twenty year old jacket. That doesn't make is a "smart jacket". It's just a jacket with a smartphone.
"…at this point."? Are we talking about what has occurred in the past and up to this point or where the future of wearable technologies will go? I don't think I can make my comment any more clear.
Could be! If Apple does have success it will likely be something significantly different that is Now on the market.
I agree, it will be very different. It will be considerably more intelligent than a fitness monitor, but not try to copy features from a smartphone that simply make no sense (which is what most of these "smartwatches" have tried to do.
This seems like it's hard than the iPhone because the size needs to be much smaller, the battery life much longer, the utility high to make it a great accessory for an iPhone user that also has its own independent feature set, and needs to be nice enough that it's not considered out of place on the wrists among affluent iPhone users but not to priced too high as to prevent less affluent iPhone customers from being able to purchase it. And that's before we tackle the common men and women's sizes with watches, as well as various styles.
The wearable electronics market will be huge but I'm not sure 2014 is the right time for it even though I hope it is.
...I agree, it will be very different. It will be considerably more intelligent than a fitness monitor, but not try to copy features from a smartphone that simply make no sense (which is what most of these "smart watches" have tried to do...
I wonder whether an iWatch will be more an 'intelligent' (whatever that is) super-transducer, a device to interrogate the body but hands off the processing to a nearby iPhone, you know, that 64 bit supercomputer. :-)
If so, the iWatch can be created as a dress watch (the Swiss connection, even an Angela Ahrendts connection?) in various designs but include the sensing and communications capability required only.
Nike isn't ceding the market to Apple because Apple has no wearable devices as of yet. Nike is ceding it to Android/Samsung/Motorola. Nike wouldn't stand a chance against Google's Destroyer OS or Samsung's Tizen. By the time Apple gets into the wearables market, they'll be lucky to grab 5% of that potentially lucrative market. Samsung already dominates the entire smartwatch market with Galaxy Gear and Motorola's 360 might get lucky and snatch the rest. Apple is well behind the eight ball to begin with and it's a given they'll never have much in terms of market share. Apple usually needs to get first mover advantage before Android eventually takes all market share away from the company. Apple starting in a market that Android already controls is practically suicide. Nike is smart to give up because they would have no chance of being profitable after the wearable's price war starts among the mega-rich tech companies. Any market Samsung wants, they just take it and make it look easy.
Horse shit, Apple will reinvent the genre, and the current crop of wearables will quickly release Apple clones. How much proof do you need? iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad. FFS
Feel bad for engineers. But if they made their wearable using kick starter money, they would have been probably already sold for a few billions to some Shmoogle/Assbook. Instead they ended up being laid off from a big fat ass company.
"Samsung already dominates the entire smartwatch market with Galaxy Gear"...what a complete joke. The Galaxy Gear is a pile of crap, and if you think they've got the *entire* potentially addressable smartwatch market, that's totally wrong.
Secondly
"and it's a given they'll never have much in terms of market share"...so if and when Apple do get into wearables and if they do have a great market share, we'll all happily remind you of this presumptuous statement, ok?
Thirdly
"Apple starting in a market that Android already controls is practically suicide"...
Just like it was practically suicide to get into the smartphone market, because that was already dominated by Nokia?
Nike isn't ceding the market to Apple because Apple has no wearable devices as of yet. Nike is ceding it to Android/Samsung/Motorola. Nike wouldn't stand a chance against Google's Destroyer OS or Samsung's Tizen. By the time Apple gets into the wearables market, they'll be lucky to grab 5% of that potentially lucrative market. Samsung already dominates the entire smartwatch market with Galaxy Gear and Motorola's 360 might get lucky and snatch the rest. Apple is well behind the eight ball to begin with and it's a given they'll never have much in terms of market share. Apple usually needs to get first mover advantage before Android eventually takes all market share away from the company. Apple starting in a market that Android already controls is practically suicide. Nike is smart to give up because they would have no chance of being profitable after the wearable's price war starts among the mega-rich tech companies. Any market Samsung wants, they just take it and make it look easy.
Odo has just made quite a case for selling that Apple stock he bought and lost so much money on, then kvetched about ad nauseum. Wait no longer ... take the money and invest in Samsung! (And don't let the door hit you on the way out.)
I love the idea of a wearable companion to my iPhone but I have no desire for "Fitness apps" - I really, really don't care about calories burned, steps taken or any undefined fitness goals.
I want to know who's calling me, the ability to dismiss that call if I don't want to take it, the time, what Texts are coming in, and notifications that I set up on my phone. I want it light, clear to read, easy to charge, and to look nice.
I want an addition to my mobile. Not a replacement, and not some prettified overpriced pedometer.
How is this considered a troll? Read the what he asked what he wanted. Now, take a second to take your Apple hat off and understand that the Gear Fit does in fact do exactly everything he asked for. I didn’t say the software was the best. Although the device itself is pretty darn good and does all that. Did I say the Fit was what he should get? No. There is a difference.
I was very early adopter with the Nike+ and the brand-new iPhone. I tried the precursor to the fuel band. It was awful as was a lighted armband I bought for running at night.
The nike + GPS App is pretty good though. It is one of my most used apps.
Seems to Nike senior management knows is going to get blown out of the water by Apple's new Iwatch
Who knows, they may be a bunch of drones... Don't assume they know anything unique.
Maybe. But I'm just sick of always hearing how Apple doesn't need to do anything. Honestly I think Apple is understaffed and if Nike has some good engineers/designers on this team Apple should go after them.
I hope Apple hires some of these guys. Don't let competitors snatch them up.
They're hardware engineers. Apple, at this point, has likely already locked down the hardware design of the iWatch, which is likely a more advanced device than the FuelBand. So Apple would see this particular pool of talent as mildly interesting at best.
Haha. I'm assuming you are either joking or simply trolling with this ridiculous statement. Galaxy Gear definitely has the market for truly ugly and badly designed watches covered. Pretty sure Apple will be looking to enter a different market - people with taste who wants something that works well.
As for needing the first mover advantage, name one thing Apple has ever had that or needed it. MP3 players? No. Phones? No. Tablets? No. I think you are confused. They are often the first to move with a product that is about good design, considered functionality and quality build. If that is what you mean, if they enter the wearable market, they will again have first mover advantage. Samsung can then simply copy it a year later...
You have to forgive Constable Odo; like so many others, his memory is affected by the fact that, after Apple enters a market, the world soon forgets everything that came before.
Could be! If Apple does have success it will likely be something significantly different that is Now on the market.
That's not what we'll hear from the Apple haters. "The only difference is it has an apple on it". I can hear it now...
It reminds me of when I was a kid and wanted a furby. Furbys were sold out or too expensive and my parents got me a Wuv Luv and told me it was the "same thing". If it was, why were Wuv Luvs $20 when furbys were being after marketed for $100+?
Oh android people. Enjoy your Wuv Luvs. They're basically the same as a furby.
I was very early adopter with the Nike+ and the brand-new iPhone. I tried the precursor to the fuel band. It was awful as was a lighted armband I bought for running at night.
The nike + GPS App is pretty good though. It is one of my most used apps.
Seems to Nike senior management knows is going to get blown out of the water by Apple's new Iwatch
Tim Cook is on the Nike board.
Nike's ultimate goal with the FuelBand and Nike+ fitness software is to place Nike and its apparel lines squarely center of mind with athletes and fitness enthusiasts (Nike Apparel's target market).
One of Apple's goals with the iWatch and other wearables (earbuds, for example) is to enter the market for biometrics with a focus on health and fitness.
No doubt Apple and Nike management sees that both companies can achieve their goals more efficiently through a close partnership that pairs Apple's world class hardware and software platform with Nike's strong affiliation with health and fitness and trusted brand name in those spaces. Any overlap in that relationship, such as Nike building their own hardware, is wasted effort, fundamentally inefficient, and unfocused. Play to your strengths is likely the meme driving the relationship between these two companies. And that means Apple and Nike are forging a long-term partnership where Nike's brand is front and center in Apple's wearable offerings.
I wonder whether an iWatch will be more an 'intelligent' (whatever that is) super-transducer, a device to interrogate the body but hands off the processing to a nearby iPhone, you know, that 64 bit supercomputer. :-)
If so, the iWatch can be created as a dress watch (the Swiss connection, even an Angela Ahrendts connection?) in various designs but include the sensing and communications capability required only.
This is what I also imagine an Apple device could be. It could simply look like a very nice traditional watch for example but would have all sorts of sensors sending information to your iPhone. It really doesn't need to be another smartphone on your wrist since chances are you have one on you. It needs to be a partner to your smartphone with many types of sensors that require direct contact with your skin.
Comments
"…at this point."? Are we talking about what has occurred in the past and up to this point or where the future of wearable technologies will go? I don't think I can make my comment any more clear.
I agree, it will be very different. It will be considerably more intelligent than a fitness monitor, but not try to copy features from a smartphone that simply make no sense (which is what most of these "smartwatches" have tried to do.
This seems like it's hard than the iPhone because the size needs to be much smaller, the battery life much longer, the utility high to make it a great accessory for an iPhone user that also has its own independent feature set, and needs to be nice enough that it's not considered out of place on the wrists among affluent iPhone users but not to priced too high as to prevent less affluent iPhone customers from being able to purchase it. And that's before we tackle the common men and women's sizes with watches, as well as various styles.
The wearable electronics market will be huge but I'm not sure 2014 is the right time for it even though I hope it is.
...I agree, it will be very different. It will be considerably more intelligent than a fitness monitor, but not try to copy features from a smartphone that simply make no sense (which is what most of these "smart watches" have tried to do...
I wonder whether an iWatch will be more an 'intelligent' (whatever that is) super-transducer, a device to interrogate the body but hands off the processing to a nearby iPhone, you know, that 64 bit supercomputer. :-)
If so, the iWatch can be created as a dress watch (the Swiss connection, even an Angela Ahrendts connection?) in various designs but include the sensing and communications capability required only.
TROLL
Who knows, they may be a bunch of drones... Don't assume they know anything unique.
"Samsung already dominates the entire smartwatch market with Galaxy Gear"...what a complete joke. The Galaxy Gear is a pile of crap, and if you think they've got the *entire* potentially addressable smartwatch market, that's totally wrong.
Secondly
"and it's a given they'll never have much in terms of market share"...so if and when Apple do get into wearables and if they do have a great market share, we'll all happily remind you of this presumptuous statement, ok?
Thirdly
"Apple starting in a market that Android already controls is practically suicide"...
Just like it was practically suicide to get into the smartphone market, because that was already dominated by Nokia?
Ye of little faith.
How is this considered a troll? Read the what he asked what he wanted. Now, take a second to take your Apple hat off and understand that the Gear Fit does in fact do exactly everything he asked for. I didn’t say the software was the best. Although the device itself is pretty darn good and does all that. Did I say the Fit was what he should get? No. There is a difference.
The nike + GPS App is pretty good though. It is one of my most used apps.
Seems to Nike senior management knows is going to get blown out of the water by Apple's new Iwatch
They're hardware engineers. Apple, at this point, has likely already locked down the hardware design of the iWatch, which is likely a more advanced device than the FuelBand. So Apple would see this particular pool of talent as mildly interesting at best.
You have to forgive Constable Odo; like so many others, his memory is affected by the fact that, after Apple enters a market, the world soon forgets everything that came before.
By the time Apple gets into the wearables market, they'll be lucky to grab 5% of that potentially lucrative market.
Same thing for cell phones...
AIDS (AppleInsider Delayed Scrolling)
That's not what we'll hear from the Apple haters. "The only difference is it has an apple on it". I can hear it now...
It reminds me of when I was a kid and wanted a furby. Furbys were sold out or too expensive and my parents got me a Wuv Luv and told me it was the "same thing". If it was, why were Wuv Luvs $20 when furbys were being after marketed for $100+?
Oh android people. Enjoy your Wuv Luvs. They're basically the same as a furby.
Tim Cook is on the Nike board.
Nike's ultimate goal with the FuelBand and Nike+ fitness software is to place Nike and its apparel lines squarely center of mind with athletes and fitness enthusiasts (Nike Apparel's target market).
One of Apple's goals with the iWatch and other wearables (earbuds, for example) is to enter the market for biometrics with a focus on health and fitness.
No doubt Apple and Nike management sees that both companies can achieve their goals more efficiently through a close partnership that pairs Apple's world class hardware and software platform with Nike's strong affiliation with health and fitness and trusted brand name in those spaces. Any overlap in that relationship, such as Nike building their own hardware, is wasted effort, fundamentally inefficient, and unfocused. Play to your strengths is likely the meme driving the relationship between these two companies. And that means Apple and Nike are forging a long-term partnership where Nike's brand is front and center in Apple's wearable offerings.
I wonder whether an iWatch will be more an 'intelligent' (whatever that is) super-transducer, a device to interrogate the body but hands off the processing to a nearby iPhone, you know, that 64 bit supercomputer. :-)
If so, the iWatch can be created as a dress watch (the Swiss connection, even an Angela Ahrendts connection?) in various designs but include the sensing and communications capability required only.
This is what I also imagine an Apple device could be. It could simply look like a very nice traditional watch for example but would have all sorts of sensors sending information to your iPhone. It really doesn't need to be another smartphone on your wrist since chances are you have one on you. It needs to be a partner to your smartphone with many types of sensors that require direct contact with your skin.