Samsung is basically throwing them in ceral boxes at this point, and carriers are shoving them down your throat with Samsung phone purchases, for dirt cheap. Every carrier ad I hear on the radio pushes the damn bundles. It's sad, but I assume Samsung have gotten a few sales that way.
You'll do anything when you've over produced any nobody is buying them.
I am skeptical. While there is no question that the threshold question for AAPL is profitability, they will also not make a crap product that damages their brand. They've done it before with mobileme (Steve's famous rant at the group that rolled it out is a fun read) and maps (the poor guy that rolled that out unprepared is now essentially persona non-grata at 1 Infinite Loop).
That said, at $300 it better be a wow product. No idea what it can or will do, but if it is just a watch, or some half baked sport monitor, forget it.
What’s most disturbing is that individuals and managed funds actually make investment decisions based upon the nonsense that these bozos publish.
May or may not be the best approach...buy if I were a major Apple investor, I'd take the wait and see approach and never listen to these so called experts who are typically wrong.
I can see Apple getting more and more secret. There was only a couple leaks before WWDC and some where things Apple didn't seem to care about such as the Yosemite banner going up uncovered. How many people knew about Swift? I don't recall anyone...anyone at all talking about this and this was a project 2yrs in the making before it was released at WWDC (from what I read). If they could do this with almost everything they develop and produce, the better for Apple in more than one way. Its going to be hard, especially when things are made in China.
If Apple can truly double-down on secrecy like Tim said, its going to be harder and harder for these experts to predict anything other than false assumptions. I expect to see more and more of this BS reporting down the road.
Fewer people are wearing watches due to using their phones for the time. Watches are barely more than a fashion statement at this point. I don't know why anyone would buy a "smart" watch that has to be charged every day or two and is very limited in what it can do. It can't compete with a phone. After all the geeks buy one (The same people who used to sport calculator watches) and then athletes, who's left? I just don't see the average Joe buying one of these. And don't trust Samsung's 800,000 sales number... They lie, cheat and steal whenever they can. I see the whole smart-watch market as a black hole that will never make enough to cover the R&D plus marketing to even get to the break even point!
You're thinking about it all wrong, misled by the term 'watch'. Apple have no interest in a watch that simply tells the time (phones replaced that function already, even though not as conveniently). It seems the concept will be health related if the rumours are true, packed with sensors. Phones can't emulate that functionality easily, and just like the iPad it may well turn out to be one of those things people thought they didn't need and couldn't see a purpose for until they tried it and realised it's a remarkably useful tool. :-)
21M in first year. $300. yep you heard it here first.... 6B in revenues in year one. With Apple's profit margin... that's 2B in net profits. (30%)
If I were spinning a story, that's probably the net numbers you have to sell (2B in profits... because anything less is just noise against 2015 projected earnings) to make a buzz.
Personally, I don't see the $300 given the 'job' a wearable is to do. $149 to me is about the max I see as pricing point. So cut profits in half (or more).
The 21 million then makes more sense, but I see that as a year 2 run rate, once the 'chasm crossers' prove out the benefits.
The goal of a wearable is to (like apple's implementation of iOS/OSX integration) is iP* lock in. you 'wear' something that talks only to an iOS or OSX system. It's amazing in what it can do, but it locks you into the product that makes it do 'that thing you need'
You have an iPhone... you buy a wearable thing from Apple. Now the stickiness gets all the tougher. If Apple retains 80% of iPhone users now... with an iWatch, or iRing, and a couple killer apps.... you get 90% lockin, at 300 Million iPhones in circulation, that's 15 Million phones a year that you sell that before were lost to 'other options.).
I see this as a 'break even business' ala iTMS... driving sales of Apps, and iCloud, and all other things Apple.
The good thing about it is it looks just like a classy wristwatch and not some squared off geekwatch. This should have a $249 price point. I could see that selling better than Samsung's junk watch but it depends on how well it functions and what the market size is at that price point.
I'm not getting why anyone thinks this gadget will be successful. $300 for something that is gone in 60 seconds when a car door slams into your wrist? Or you lose your balance and...down...went...Frasier? An iPad, sure. People take care of those things...iPhone, too. But the 'risk of breakage' with an iWatch trumps anything else Apple sells. And that risk is all yours...try going to the Genius Bar with any even remotely plausible story and see what happens.
$300 might seem like a modest amount for some people, but that $300 is most often going to the health care that someone said was going to be 'more affordable'...but isn't. And what kinds of content could POSSIBLY look good on a surface that necessarily will be tiny?
I'm not getting why anyone thinks this gadget will be successful. $300 for something that is gone in 60 seconds when a car door slams into your wrist? Or you lose your balance and...down...went...Frasier? An iPad, sure. People take care of those things...iPhone, too. But the 'risk of breakage' with an iWatch trumps anything else Apple sells. And that risk is all yours...try going to the Genius Bar with any even remotely plausible story and see what happens.
$300 might seem like a modest amount for some people, but that $300 is most often going to the health care that someone said was going to be 'more affordable'...but isn't. And what kinds of content could POSSIBLY look good on a surface that necessarily will be tiny?
1) Have you destroyed a lot of watches on car doors? I can't say I've ever damaged a watch like that and would think that because of the size and being attached to the wrist (i.e.: no easily droppable) that it's inherently less likely to be damaged. Watches are a multi-billion dollar business.
2) I'm not sure I quite get your health related comments. $300 for a multi-function health monitoring device is cheap in the medical world. We've seen lots of things in the health field become cheaper because of common technology.
3) What kind of content are you expecting? I'm expecting nothing but basic things not much more complex than what fits on a typical watch face. The power of the health monitoring will come from interacting with the iPhone, not from a misconception it can be used to play Angry Birds. I wouldn't even consider this a "smartwatch" but rather an accessory device to an iPhone.
I guarantee the "iwatch" IF it ever happens will be about as successful as the 3D televisions everyone was supposed to buy a couple of years ago. Apple will sell some, but it won't be a huge success and will be labeled a failure. Just wait and see. Just about everyone I know who has an iphone will not buy a iwatch.
Fewer people are wearing watches due to using their phones for the time.
On multiple occasions I have had people that own smart phones see the watch on my wrist and ask me the time instead of going through the trouble of dragging their phone out of their pocket or purse to check the time.
And yet.. no leaked hardware to even hint at what it would look like..
Good point. However, if this thing actually does exist, it is possible that it could be made in the US, in which case the hardware is as secretive as the new Mac Pro. At the very least only the components that could possibly identify it even remotely as a wearable device could be made in the US and assembled as well, along with some other non-descript Asian components that would not attract much attention.
Comments
Samsung is basically throwing them in ceral boxes at this point, and carriers are shoving them down your throat with Samsung phone purchases, for dirt cheap. Every carrier ad I hear on the radio pushes the damn bundles. It's sad, but I assume Samsung have gotten a few sales that way.
You'll do anything when you've over produced any nobody is buying them.
I am skeptical. While there is no question that the threshold question for AAPL is profitability, they will also not make a crap product that damages their brand. They've done it before with mobileme (Steve's famous rant at the group that rolled it out is a fun read) and maps (the poor guy that rolled that out unprepared is now essentially persona non-grata at 1 Infinite Loop).
That said, at $300 it better be a wow product. No idea what it can or will do, but if it is just a watch, or some half baked sport monitor, forget it.
Likely. How does the SEC not act on this?
What’s most disturbing is that individuals and managed funds actually make investment decisions based upon the nonsense that these bozos publish.
May or may not be the best approach...buy if I were a major Apple investor, I'd take the wait and see approach and never listen to these so called experts who are typically wrong.
I can see Apple getting more and more secret. There was only a couple leaks before WWDC and some where things Apple didn't seem to care about such as the Yosemite banner going up uncovered. How many people knew about Swift? I don't recall anyone...anyone at all talking about this and this was a project 2yrs in the making before it was released at WWDC (from what I read). If they could do this with almost everything they develop and produce, the better for Apple in more than one way. Its going to be hard, especially when things are made in China.
If Apple can truly double-down on secrecy like Tim said, its going to be harder and harder for these experts to predict anything other than false assumptions. I expect to see more and more of this BS reporting down the road.
You're thinking about it all wrong, misled by the term 'watch'. Apple have no interest in a watch that simply tells the time (phones replaced that function already, even though not as conveniently). It seems the concept will be health related if the rumours are true, packed with sensors. Phones can't emulate that functionality easily, and just like the iPad it may well turn out to be one of those things people thought they didn't need and couldn't see a purpose for until they tried it and realised it's a remarkably useful tool. :-)
21M in first year. $300. yep you heard it here first.... 6B in revenues in year one. With Apple's profit margin... that's 2B in net profits. (30%)
If I were spinning a story, that's probably the net numbers you have to sell (2B in profits... because anything less is just noise against 2015 projected earnings) to make a buzz.
Personally, I don't see the $300 given the 'job' a wearable is to do. $149 to me is about the max I see as pricing point. So cut profits in half (or more).
The 21 million then makes more sense, but I see that as a year 2 run rate, once the 'chasm crossers' prove out the benefits.
The goal of a wearable is to (like apple's implementation of iOS/OSX integration) is iP* lock in. you 'wear' something that talks only to an iOS or OSX system. It's amazing in what it can do, but it locks you into the product that makes it do 'that thing you need'
You have an iPhone... you buy a wearable thing from Apple. Now the stickiness gets all the tougher. If Apple retains 80% of iPhone users now... with an iWatch, or iRing, and a couple killer apps.... you get 90% lockin, at 300 Million iPhones in circulation, that's 15 Million phones a year that you sell that before were lost to 'other options.).
I see this as a 'break even business' ala iTMS... driving sales of Apps, and iCloud, and all other things Apple.
So, will I Buy or Sell on UBS's analysis. No.
You can have the 1st two...
Let's not forget that the Samsung watch is a crap product that only exists so that they can claim Apple copied them when/if they release the iWatch.
I highly doubt Apple would bother with it if they didn't think they could blow Samsung out of the water.
http://techgeek.com.au/2014/06/07/nda-verges-joshua-topolsky-wears-moto-360-tonight-show/
The good thing about it is it looks just like a classy wristwatch and not some squared off geekwatch. This should have a $249 price point. I could see that selling better than Samsung's junk watch but it depends on how well it functions and what the market size is at that price point.
Steven Milunovich certainly has an active imagination.
Even though I am a fan of most Apple products, I will never own one of these pieces of crap.
I'm not getting why anyone thinks this gadget will be successful. $300 for something that is gone in 60 seconds when a car door slams into your wrist? Or you lose your balance and...down...went...Frasier? An iPad, sure. People take care of those things...iPhone, too. But the 'risk of breakage' with an iWatch trumps anything else Apple sells. And that risk is all yours...try going to the Genius Bar with any even remotely plausible story and see what happens.
$300 might seem like a modest amount for some people, but that $300 is most often going to the health care that someone said was going to be 'more affordable'...but isn't. And what kinds of content could POSSIBLY look good on a surface that necessarily will be tiny?
1) Have you destroyed a lot of watches on car doors? I can't say I've ever damaged a watch like that and would think that because of the size and being attached to the wrist (i.e.: no easily droppable) that it's inherently less likely to be damaged. Watches are a multi-billion dollar business.
2) I'm not sure I quite get your health related comments. $300 for a multi-function health monitoring device is cheap in the medical world. We've seen lots of things in the health field become cheaper because of common technology.
3) What kind of content are you expecting? I'm expecting nothing but basic things not much more complex than what fits on a typical watch face. The power of the health monitoring will come from interacting with the iPhone, not from a misconception it can be used to play Angry Birds. I wouldn't even consider this a "smartwatch" but rather an accessory device to an iPhone.
Whether they think that or not, I don't think it's their motivation. I believe making a dent in the universe is more of a reason.
Fewer people are wearing watches due to using their phones for the time.
On multiple occasions I have had people that own smart phones see the watch on my wrist and ask me the time instead of going through the trouble of dragging their phone out of their pocket or purse to check the time.
And yet.. no leaked hardware to even hint at what it would look like..
Good point. However, if this thing actually does exist, it is possible that it could be made in the US, in which case the hardware is as secretive as the new Mac Pro. At the very least only the components that could possibly identify it even remotely as a wearable device could be made in the US and assembled as well, along with some other non-descript Asian components that would not attract much attention.
…it is possible that it could be made in the US, in which case the hardware is as secretive as the new Mac Pro.
Are you kidding? Anything made in the US is getting its picture taken immediately.