These articles make me sad. There is no scientific method involved. It's wishes and desires compiled by even more guesses which is no different than school children sitting around talking about what think would be cool, except this info Is sold as an authority which puts it in the categorry of shysters such as psychics and fortune tellers.
Please don't insult shysters, psychics, and fortune tellers....
The so called ‘Iwatch’ will go the same way as the ‘ITV’, i will NOT launch and all the speculation will be lost as with the ‘ITV’
When ‘folded’ displays/leds/oleds will be common in a few years, maybe then but now in 2014-15, no way!
In my view, the ‘added value’ of an ‘Iwatch’ is useless so long as the battery and the integration are not solved, there is NO way the ‘new digital’ watches have the same ‘life’ span as analog watches.
If the Iwatch has a battery lifespan as, say, 16 or 24 hours, will we everyday need to charge it? just as the iphone, ipad, Itouch...my god...just to tell the time and the bloodpressure / heartbeat ? what’s the use ? where is the extra value ? telephone calls ? are we going to ’talk’ to our ‘Iwatch’, come on...
iMessage / sms on the watch, WOW big revolution, music on the ‘Iwatch’, yeah right...and we will pay 150 - 300 $ for this...?
Dudes I love to see fog rolling in from the beach in the morning. It really improves the scenery, and then the fog vanishes and you can see clearly again. IT looks like we are in for at least three more months of "June gloom", not just in the morning, but all day and far into the night, until the iWatch is released in (rumored) September. Because fog is clouding the brain of any graphic artist who has ever done an "artists conception" of the "Apple iPhone".
Where did the analyst get this 335 million figure for active iPhones by end of 2014? Did he canvas all the telecoms of the world? As far as I'm concerned, this figure makes no sense - and here is why:
There are about half a billion iPhones out there. The iWatch, widely believed to be a companion device, will require low-energy Bluetooth to communicate with an iPhone. Therefore, only iPhones starting with the iPhone 4s should be counted. Apple has sold about 370 million such iPhones (iPhone 4s, 5, 5c, and 5s) thus far. As there is no way of knowing how many of these are "active", one must assume 100%. Since the iWatch will come out at the same time as the iPhone 6, we must add it to the figure too. Given that the iPhone 5s/5c sold 51 million in its first quarter of availability, it's not a stretch to assume that the iPhone 6 will sell at least 60 million units. So the total "market" for an iWatch is 430 million iPhones. 10% of that would be 43 million iWatches.
But wait - wouldn't the iWatch also be able to mate with an iPad and/or iPod Touch? If so, that would yield a few more million iWatches.
But my guess is that Apple will sell around 15 million - because that's all Apple is apparently ordering per month...I doubt the factories that will build the iWatch will be able to ramp up production three-fold within the first quarter.
The $250 for 'an accessory' won't cut it. If it's over $199 I'll be surprised, given that a new phone in the US costs that much.
Perhaps. But just as likely, the device will sell for $299 - as that is about the price the competition seemed to have zeroed in on. Sure, they haven't exactly been that successful, but on the other hand, the iWatch is expected to have a much better feature set and Apple does tend to charge a premium for their premium, well-integrated products. I wouldn't have a problem paying $250 for 'an accessory' - if it had most of features that are being bandied about (health, notifications, Siri). Just because the subsidized iPhone is $199 doesn't mean an accessory can't cost more. The real price of an iPhone - and which is what much of the world pays for an iPhone - is $650+....paying less than half that for a useful accessory isn't too much....for 10% of iPhone owners.
If Apple is heading into the wearable devices market I'm all for it. Whatever expands the brand as long as they continue to make quality products is fine with me. That being said however, I will not be a customer for it. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything I would personally use it for that isn't already satisfied by my iPhone or MBP.
Oh, and my needless and unfounded sales prediction is 19 million units sold in 2015. I feel like an analyst now!
No I'm simply saying that unlike the iPhone which is a necessity (communication) no one can state how an iWatch would warrant that description- to obsess on one's constant health monitoring? That's a necessity ? This if anything is a want product not a need product.
I'd buy an iWatch in a blink if it would turn my iPod Touch into an iPhone (via Continuity).
Think about it. Having all the antenna's around your wrist would turn all Apple devices into an iPhone. In this scenario the iWatch is a must have item.
On a more controversial note: Having the antenna's around your wrist would greatly reduce the amount of potential hazardous radiation as your wrist is on the outer end of your body.
Dude, you should work for them. At least your analysis was based in some facts and common sense. I second your post. Do you have a wish list of what should be in the watch?
As society in general has bought into the sugar industry enormously since the 1960s, witnessed by epidemic numbers of people who struggle every day with weight control, a device that accurately senses blood glucose levels, combined with education, could do very well. Even devoid of greater functionality, although such would go along, the iWatch could be a hit. The question is whether or not a miniature spectrometer could be built into a chassis. Probably not but the payoff would be huge. As for me, I'd like a conventional design with physical hands and hour marks, limited visual output, inductive charging and wireless connectivity in a completely sealed device.
Dudes I love to see fog rolling in from the beach in the morning... IT looks like we are in for at least three more months of "June gloom", not just in the morning, but all day and far into the night...
A San Diego aficionado. La Jolla under the 'June Gloom' or even a 'May Grey' are no less wonderful places. :-)
First Apple's installed iphone base likely isn't 335million if that's what's sold since 2007. Half of those phones probably aren't being used. Second, many are in other countries where the I watch may not even sell for mist of the year.
So it's really more of an IF-THEN article. It's supposed to get you to think about how it could affect apple's revenue and stock prices, etc. using some semi-arbitrary number to start with, leads you to calculations such as those above.
I'll likely get one, but if I'm spending $100 extra for a 5.5" iPhone 6 [I]extreme[/I]! then I may not buy the first version of the iWatch at all because money.
Projections and predictions. How useful are they? Not worth the paper or digital ink they are written on. Worthless.
I won't predict how many they may or may not sell. I will say I am skeptical though that this product will amount to what the iphone or ipad success was. I think this will be more in the family of Apple TV success. If it was its own company it would be great. But as part of Apple which is so huge with a 600B market cap and huge revenues it won't move the needle even if it sees what would be considered large success for any "normal" sized company. Needle movers for a 600B market cap company come rarely.
Keep in mind if you combine Apple TV (a good success), all Macintosh desktops and laptops, all accessories plus all ipods they don't even move the needle for Apple in terms of revenue. Apple is all about iPhone now (over 70%). About 20% from ipad but that shrunk last quarter so iphone has to make up more slack from that falling off. The rest is all the other stuff combined.
Should iWatch fail to become a needle mover people will slam Cook and the usual Apple innovation is over rhetoric will come. People will wonder what is after the last big upgrade for the large screen iphone 6. Without another 3rd killer product category the market may get spooked.
Apple will go on printing billions. Having huge revenues and profits. However they need to in order to sustain even a 400B market cap (a 33% haircut from today's stock price). At that level they remain the largest or one of the top 3 largest market caps in the world still. Not bad. But I can't see much upside from here.
The watch itself has a limited market. A small fraction of the world is into fitness so if it is fitness centric that limits the market. It will NOT be subsidized either like iphone so that limits the buy in. Wearables are largely fashion driven and how many types will they have so people can individualize? Again it may in its own right do ok if it was a stand alone company but add it to the Apple juggernaut and it won't be noticed.
It's like the wife of a billionaire getting a job for 75k a year. Here, put this with the rest honey.
I think there should be two versions. Both will sell in large volume I think
1. Consumer version. Pebble watch like but with apples spin on it. Limit sensors. Sells for $149-$179 This is the version for the mainstream. It'll be an accessory item with a low price point and low margins for apple. This should be adopted in mass due to the price point.
2. Health version. This will be FDA approved. It'll have all the health sensors rumored. It will check sugar, watch heart rate...and come in a high price point. $249-$399. I'm thinking if the device is FDA approved and classified as durable medical equipment the "subsidy" will come in from the insurance companies. This will be a high margin device for apple.
So the folks that need an Apple Pebble will spend $149. Those that need serious health tracking will get a deductible DME device via ins company. Win win for apple and consumer
Probably the best you will be able to check with a watch is heart rate. Sugar and blood pressure too hard to do or do accurate for sure. Also insurance companies don't want to pay for anything. For them to cover this the glucose monitoring needs an implanted device. There aren't enough people willing to do this to move the needle for Apple in terms of their overall revenue. Apple TV while it does quite well it just isn't a needle mover. It could double or disappear tomorrow and nobody would really notice much in the financials. Everything is swamped by iPhone, period.
Google Glass is bombing big time as most would admit. I think we will see the same limited success and uptake with iWatch. It simply is not a smartphone that has such a large total addressable market and well heeled sellers paying huge subsidies (Telecoms).
Also as screens get larger we all realize you need real estate to get things done. The iWatch tiny screen functionality will have big limits strictly due to the tiny screen size. Heck even the iPhone 5 seems small now and everyone is clamoring for the largest iphone 6. ipads took off because of screen size. Taking a screen down to 1.5" is just going to reduce what functions can be accomplished and also kill almost any ad driven type of model on the device.
The sage has spoken! Find my post in one year and we'll see how spot on I was or how wrong.
You are on a RUMOR website.... If you don't like it, go over to Macworld.
The banner title for the main AI page says "News and rumors since 1997". So this is not claimed to be an exclusively rumor website. Nor exclusively news.
Please do not banish us back to the Macworld from whence we fled after the site re-design made it tough on the eyes, the autoplay ads made it tough on the ears, and the elimination of discussion forums made it tough on the brain. Macworld management has been doing everything it can to dumb-down the site and chase away insightful veteran Mac Users. Many of their valuable staff have been lost, and it is a wonder they even kept on the useful contributions of Mr. Snell, Mr. Breen, Mr. Frakes and Ms. Caldwell. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Macalope exit the site, perhaps moving here, since his target audience has been largely chased away.
As society in general has bought into the sugar industry enormously since the 1960s, witnessed by epidemic numbers of people who struggle every day with weight control, a device that accurately senses blood glucose levels, combined with education, could do very well. Even devoid of greater functionality, although such would go along, the iWatch could be a hit. The question is whether or not a miniature spectrometer could be built into a chassis. Probably not but the payoff would be huge. As for me, I'd like a conventional design with physical hands and hour marks, limited visual output, inductive charging and wireless connectivity in a completely sealed device.
No device will keep a person with weak self-control from overeating or from eating unhealthily. If the data were recorded and reported to their insurance company and it had a direct impact on what they paid for insurance there might be some benefit, but bad habits are very difficult to break and now under Obamacare there is a perception that one cannot lose healthcare coverage no matter what unhealthy habits one indulges.
If people are apathetic enough about their health enough to eat unhealthily, then I doubt appealing to their wallet or their insurance coverage will have much impact.
No device will keep a person with weak self-control from overeating or from eating unhealthily. If the data were recorded and reported to their insurance company and it had a direct impact on what they paid for insurance there might be some benefit, but bad habits are very difficult to break and now under Obamacare there is a perception that one cannot lose healthcare coverage no matter what unhealthy habits one indulges.
Thanks for your reply. What you have argued is important to what might be possible. Knowledge empowers but often we deliberately avoid knowing. It's amazing to what degree we'll go to ignore developing issues. My brother did, apparently knew for years he might have problems in his large bowel (of which I was unaware) and died of bowel cancer last year. However, education and information push to greater knowledge and the opportunity to make informed decisions. I'm going with 'tell me what is going on with my body and help me know how to deal with it'. Consider this though... should Apple get there with this, I'd buy the device and possibly the service but I would not, unequivocally, if it was Giggle or facepalm who do it. I want a company I trust to make this a reality.
The analyst is way off base. As someone wh has been an Apple follower for almost three decades, i'd predict it will be built like a crazy exotic piece of swiss jewelry with an MRSP north of $500 & margins > 40%. It will revolutionize what we think a watch will do & take over the wrist world. Think the cell phone pre-iphone fools.
As someone who's followed the entire tech industry for more than three decades and knows what's technologically possible, I predict that it will be a stylish wristband (metal) with a sapphire-covered OLED display that shows a few built-in apps and is capable of displaying notifications from its companion iPhone. It'll also let you make and accept phone calls via the built-in speaker and microphone. Using same, it'll also let you give voice commands and hear Siri's responses. It'll also sport a few sensors (health and position-relative-to-body) that it'll feed to the iPhone and, by extension, any iPhone-based app that cares about the data. The watch will be water proof and, therefore, wirelessly charged.
I can't imagine Apple selling a watch that will have to be charged every day or even every other day (like the Samsung Gear). So either Apple figured out how to build very thin and flexible batteries that can be incorporated into the wrist band and/or it has made the device very energy-frugal. Ergo, I don't think the iWatch will have its own cellular capability. Heck, it might not even have its own wifi (although that's far fetched since one of the built-in capabilities would surely be to act as a remote control for an iTV and/or home automation devices). Third-party apps can consume a lot of energy too (I'm looking at you Facebook!), so I doubt that Apple will even allow third-party apps on the iWatch. But given that iPhone-based apps will be able to easily interact with the iWatch, that's not much of a downer, in my opinion.
I think Apple will sell the iWatch for around $300, not north of $500. But even at $300, it'll be able to achieve a >40% margin.
Comments
Not me. I have no desire to wear a watch. Or glasses. Ever.
These articles make me sad. There is no scientific method involved. It's wishes and desires compiled by even more guesses which is no different than school children sitting around talking about what think would be cool, except this info Is sold as an authority which puts it in the categorry of shysters such as psychics and fortune tellers.
Please don't insult shysters, psychics, and fortune tellers....
The so called ‘Iwatch’ will go the same way as the ‘ITV’, i will NOT launch and all the speculation will be lost as with the ‘ITV’
When ‘folded’ displays/leds/oleds will be common in a few years, maybe then but now in 2014-15, no way!
In my view, the ‘added value’ of an ‘Iwatch’ is useless so long as the battery and the integration are not solved, there is NO way the ‘new digital’ watches have the same ‘life’ span as analog watches.
If the Iwatch has a battery lifespan as, say, 16 or 24 hours, will we everyday need to charge it? just as the iphone, ipad, Itouch...my god...just to tell the time and the bloodpressure / heartbeat ? what’s the use ? where is the extra value ? telephone calls ? are we going to ’talk’ to our ‘Iwatch’, come on...
iMessage / sms on the watch, WOW big revolution, music on the ‘Iwatch’, yeah right...and we will pay 150 - 300 $ for this...?
I have serious doubs about this, but hey.
Just my personal opinion. :-)
Have a very nice WE !
Neither did the polio vaccine. And yet the species evolved anyway.
There are about half a billion iPhones out there. The iWatch, widely believed to be a companion device, will require low-energy Bluetooth to communicate with an iPhone. Therefore, only iPhones starting with the iPhone 4s should be counted. Apple has sold about 370 million such iPhones (iPhone 4s, 5, 5c, and 5s) thus far. As there is no way of knowing how many of these are "active", one must assume 100%. Since the iWatch will come out at the same time as the iPhone 6, we must add it to the figure too. Given that the iPhone 5s/5c sold 51 million in its first quarter of availability, it's not a stretch to assume that the iPhone 6 will sell at least 60 million units. So the total "market" for an iWatch is 430 million iPhones. 10% of that would be 43 million iWatches.
But wait - wouldn't the iWatch also be able to mate with an iPad and/or iPod Touch? If so, that would yield a few more million iWatches.
But my guess is that Apple will sell around 15 million - because that's all Apple is apparently ordering per month...I doubt the factories that will build the iWatch will be able to ramp up production three-fold within the first quarter.
The $250 for 'an accessory' won't cut it. If it's over $199 I'll be surprised, given that a new phone in the US costs that much.
Perhaps. But just as likely, the device will sell for $299 - as that is about the price the competition seemed to have zeroed in on. Sure, they haven't exactly been that successful, but on the other hand, the iWatch is expected to have a much better feature set and Apple does tend to charge a premium for their premium, well-integrated products. I wouldn't have a problem paying $250 for 'an accessory' - if it had most of features that are being bandied about (health, notifications, Siri). Just because the subsidized iPhone is $199 doesn't mean an accessory can't cost more. The real price of an iPhone - and which is what much of the world pays for an iPhone - is $650+....paying less than half that for a useful accessory isn't too much....for 10% of iPhone owners.
If Apple is heading into the wearable devices market I'm all for it. Whatever expands the brand as long as they continue to make quality products is fine with me. That being said however, I will not be a customer for it. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything I would personally use it for that isn't already satisfied by my iPhone or MBP.
Oh, and my needless and unfounded sales prediction is 19 million units sold in 2015. I feel like an analyst now!
No I'm simply saying that unlike the iPhone which is a necessity (communication) no one can state how an iWatch would warrant that description- to obsess on one's constant health monitoring? That's a necessity ? This if anything is a want product not a need product.
I'd buy an iWatch in a blink if it would turn my iPod Touch into an iPhone (via Continuity).
Think about it. Having all the antenna's around your wrist would turn all Apple devices into an iPhone. In this scenario the iWatch is a must have item.
On a more controversial note: Having the antenna's around your wrist would greatly reduce the amount of potential hazardous radiation as your wrist is on the outer end of your body.
Dude, you should work for them. At least your analysis was based in some facts and common sense. I second your post. Do you have a wish list of what should be in the watch?
As society in general has bought into the sugar industry enormously since the 1960s, witnessed by epidemic numbers of people who struggle every day with weight control, a device that accurately senses blood glucose levels, combined with education, could do very well. Even devoid of greater functionality, although such would go along, the iWatch could be a hit. The question is whether or not a miniature spectrometer could be built into a chassis. Probably not but the payoff would be huge. As for me, I'd like a conventional design with physical hands and hour marks, limited visual output, inductive charging and wireless connectivity in a completely sealed device.
Dudes I love to see fog rolling in from the beach in the morning... IT looks like we are in for at least three more months of "June gloom", not just in the morning, but all day and far into the night...
A San Diego aficionado. La Jolla under the 'June Gloom' or even a 'May Grey' are no less wonderful places. :-)
First Apple's installed iphone base likely isn't 335million if that's what's sold since 2007. Half of those phones probably aren't being used.
Second, many are in other countries where the I watch may not even sell for mist of the year.
So it's really more of an IF-THEN article. It's supposed to get you to think about how it could affect apple's revenue and stock prices, etc. using some semi-arbitrary number to start with, leads you to calculations such as those above.
I'll likely get one, but if I'm spending $100 extra for a 5.5" iPhone 6 [I]extreme[/I]! then I may not buy the first version of the iWatch at all because money.
Projections and predictions. How useful are they? Not worth the paper or digital ink they are written on. Worthless.
I won't predict how many they may or may not sell. I will say I am skeptical though that this product will amount to what the iphone or ipad success was. I think this will be more in the family of Apple TV success. If it was its own company it would be great. But as part of Apple which is so huge with a 600B market cap and huge revenues it won't move the needle even if it sees what would be considered large success for any "normal" sized company. Needle movers for a 600B market cap company come rarely.
Keep in mind if you combine Apple TV (a good success), all Macintosh desktops and laptops, all accessories plus all ipods they don't even move the needle for Apple in terms of revenue. Apple is all about iPhone now (over 70%). About 20% from ipad but that shrunk last quarter so iphone has to make up more slack from that falling off. The rest is all the other stuff combined.
Should iWatch fail to become a needle mover people will slam Cook and the usual Apple innovation is over rhetoric will come. People will wonder what is after the last big upgrade for the large screen iphone 6. Without another 3rd killer product category the market may get spooked.
Apple will go on printing billions. Having huge revenues and profits. However they need to in order to sustain even a 400B market cap (a 33% haircut from today's stock price). At that level they remain the largest or one of the top 3 largest market caps in the world still. Not bad. But I can't see much upside from here.
The watch itself has a limited market. A small fraction of the world is into fitness so if it is fitness centric that limits the market. It will NOT be subsidized either like iphone so that limits the buy in. Wearables are largely fashion driven and how many types will they have so people can individualize? Again it may in its own right do ok if it was a stand alone company but add it to the Apple juggernaut and it won't be noticed.
It's like the wife of a billionaire getting a job for 75k a year. Here, put this with the rest honey.
I think there should be two versions. Both will sell in large volume I think
1. Consumer version. Pebble watch like but with apples spin on it. Limit sensors. Sells for $149-$179 This is the version for the mainstream. It'll be an accessory item with a low price point and low margins for apple. This should be adopted in mass due to the price point.
2. Health version. This will be FDA approved. It'll have all the health sensors rumored. It will check sugar, watch heart rate...and come in a high price point. $249-$399. I'm thinking if the device is FDA approved and classified as durable medical equipment the "subsidy" will come in from the insurance companies. This will be a high margin device for apple.
So the folks that need an Apple Pebble will spend $149. Those that need serious health tracking will get a deductible DME device via ins company. Win win for apple and consumer
Probably the best you will be able to check with a watch is heart rate. Sugar and blood pressure too hard to do or do accurate for sure. Also insurance companies don't want to pay for anything. For them to cover this the glucose monitoring needs an implanted device. There aren't enough people willing to do this to move the needle for Apple in terms of their overall revenue. Apple TV while it does quite well it just isn't a needle mover. It could double or disappear tomorrow and nobody would really notice much in the financials. Everything is swamped by iPhone, period.
Google Glass is bombing big time as most would admit. I think we will see the same limited success and uptake with iWatch. It simply is not a smartphone that has such a large total addressable market and well heeled sellers paying huge subsidies (Telecoms).
Also as screens get larger we all realize you need real estate to get things done. The iWatch tiny screen functionality will have big limits strictly due to the tiny screen size. Heck even the iPhone 5 seems small now and everyone is clamoring for the largest iphone 6. ipads took off because of screen size. Taking a screen down to 1.5" is just going to reduce what functions can be accomplished and also kill almost any ad driven type of model on the device.
The sage has spoken! Find my post in one year and we'll see how spot on I was or how wrong.
You are on a RUMOR website.... If you don't like it, go over to Macworld.
The banner title for the main AI page says "News and rumors since 1997". So this is not claimed to be an exclusively rumor website. Nor exclusively news.
Please do not banish us back to the Macworld from whence we fled after the site re-design made it tough on the eyes, the autoplay ads made it tough on the ears, and the elimination of discussion forums made it tough on the brain. Macworld management has been doing everything it can to dumb-down the site and chase away insightful veteran Mac Users. Many of their valuable staff have been lost, and it is a wonder they even kept on the useful contributions of Mr. Snell, Mr. Breen, Mr. Frakes and Ms. Caldwell. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Macalope exit the site, perhaps moving here, since his target audience has been largely chased away.
No device will keep a person with weak self-control from overeating or from eating unhealthily. If the data were recorded and reported to their insurance company and it had a direct impact on what they paid for insurance there might be some benefit, but bad habits are very difficult to break and now under Obamacare there is a perception that one cannot lose healthcare coverage no matter what unhealthy habits one indulges.
If people are apathetic enough about their health enough to eat unhealthily, then I doubt appealing to their wallet or their insurance coverage will have much impact.
No device will keep a person with weak self-control from overeating or from eating unhealthily. If the data were recorded and reported to their insurance company and it had a direct impact on what they paid for insurance there might be some benefit, but bad habits are very difficult to break and now under Obamacare there is a perception that one cannot lose healthcare coverage no matter what unhealthy habits one indulges.
Thanks for your reply. What you have argued is important to what might be possible. Knowledge empowers but often we deliberately avoid knowing. It's amazing to what degree we'll go to ignore developing issues. My brother did, apparently knew for years he might have problems in his large bowel (of which I was unaware) and died of bowel cancer last year. However, education and information push to greater knowledge and the opportunity to make informed decisions. I'm going with 'tell me what is going on with my body and help me know how to deal with it'. Consider this though... should Apple get there with this, I'd buy the device and possibly the service but I would not, unequivocally, if it was Giggle or facepalm who do it. I want a company I trust to make this a reality.
All the best.
As someone who's followed the entire tech industry for more than three decades and knows what's technologically possible, I predict that it will be a stylish wristband (metal) with a sapphire-covered OLED display that shows a few built-in apps and is capable of displaying notifications from its companion iPhone. It'll also let you make and accept phone calls via the built-in speaker and microphone. Using same, it'll also let you give voice commands and hear Siri's responses. It'll also sport a few sensors (health and position-relative-to-body) that it'll feed to the iPhone and, by extension, any iPhone-based app that cares about the data. The watch will be water proof and, therefore, wirelessly charged.
I can't imagine Apple selling a watch that will have to be charged every day or even every other day (like the Samsung Gear). So either Apple figured out how to build very thin and flexible batteries that can be incorporated into the wrist band and/or it has made the device very energy-frugal. Ergo, I don't think the iWatch will have its own cellular capability. Heck, it might not even have its own wifi (although that's far fetched since one of the built-in capabilities would surely be to act as a remote control for an iTV and/or home automation devices). Third-party apps can consume a lot of energy too (I'm looking at you Facebook!), so I doubt that Apple will even allow third-party apps on the iWatch. But given that iPhone-based apps will be able to easily interact with the iWatch, that's not much of a downer, in my opinion.
I think Apple will sell the iWatch for around $300, not north of $500. But even at $300, it'll be able to achieve a >40% margin.
YMMV :-)