According to gwmac, THIS IS ABSOLUTE FACT. THIS IS PROOF. IRREFUTABLE. YOU ARE ALL WRONG. A SURVEY HAS BEEN TAKEN. THEREFORE THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE.
I've racked my brain trying to think of a reason I would spend $200 (or more) on a device like this, and for the life of me I can't. Unless there's an array of features the speculators are missing, I'm not in on the iWatch game.
I've racked my brain trying to think of a reason I would spend $200 (or more) on a device like this, and for the life of me I can't. Unless there's an array of features the speculators are missing, I'm not in on the iWatch game.
I know this is (would be) extreme marketing hubris, but what if it truly could save your life, or be the difference between getting medical help in time or not? Would that sway your opinion any? Just curious.
I know this is (would be) extreme marketing hubris, but what if it truly could save your life, or be the difference between getting medical help in time or not? Would that sway your opinion any? Just curious.
Well that would certainly give me more pause for thought. I assume you mean something like tracking my vital signs by the minute and if I have a heart attack it could alert an ambulance immediately? I still don't think even then it would sway my particular opinion, but I could definitely see something like that moving others.
These surveys are so idiotic. I bet you surveys for "Are you interested in a tablet" would have been extremely low before the iPad. You can't base anything from gauging interest for a product that people do not have the faintest clue of how to imagine.
These surveys are so idiotic. I bet you surveys for "Are you interested in a tablet" would have been extremely low before the iPad. You can't base anything from gauging interest for a product that people do not have the faintest clue of how to imagine.
I'd agree with you before the Pebble, and the Galaxy Gear, but people are now aware what a smart watch is, and have some opinion on it. Before the iPad most people didn't know tablets existed.
I'm looking forward to the iWatch and I think it's going to be a hit, but I have to question the methodology here. Surely a "household income of $130,000" is not representative of the average person.
It's not.
But the early adopters of a new consumer technology are rarely "average people." If I recall correctly, the early buyers of the iPad were mostly college-educated professionals in their 40s and 50s making well over $100K per year.
Look at the people who buy Tesla automobiles.
New technology needs to be appealing and useful to the people with lots of disposable income, the people who can afford to try it out. If the product develops a good reputation, it will develop more interest from those who wouldn't necessarily try out a new item because of budget constraints.
Remember, there's expensive stuff that fails. There are two decades of tablet PCs that failed miserably. There's cheap stuff that has brief popularity and then fails miserably (netbooks).
That said, I don't know what Piper Jaffray gets out of interviewing 100 people. The PJ track record is remarkably poor, so I would file this "ANALysis" into the circular file.
That said, I don't know what Piper Jaffray gets out of interviewing 100 people. The PJ track record is remarkably poor, so I would file this "ANALysis" into the circular file.
Apparently, they get money, as their pseudoscientific trash is repeated all over the interwebnets.
The survey had 100 respondents. That means the error is 10%. And a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 20 respondents. Which means that the reported 14% is not appreciably different than zero. Or 30%. Furthermore, there is heavy bias in the respondents, as fully 18% of them already owned a fitness band. This suggests to me that the survey was conducted in the lobby of a gym or something. Such buyers are already highly prejudiced in their purchase plans for smart-wearables. This survey is likely not representative of the true market.
I've racked my brain trying to think of a reason I would spend $200 (or more) on a device like this, and for the life of me I can't. Unless there's an array of features the speculators are missing, I'm not in on the iWatch game.
Payments is the only thing I can think of. Health? Fitness? Meh. As a lock for another Apple device, that would be handy, as SolipsismX has suggested.
I'm looking forward to the iWatch and I think it's going to be a hit, but I have to question the methodology here. Surely a "household income of $130,000" is not representative of the average person.
It's not.
But the early adopters of a new consumer technology are rarely "average people." If I recall correctly, the early buyers of the iPad were mostly college-educated professionals in their 40s and 50s making well over $100K per year.
Look at the people who buy Tesla automobiles.
New technology needs to be appealing and useful to the people with lots of disposable income, the people who can afford to try it out. If the product develops a good reputation, it will develop more interest from those who wouldn't necessarily try out a new item because of budget constraints.
Remember, there's expensive stuff that fails. There are two decades of tablet PCs that failed miserably. There's cheap stuff that has brief popularity and then fails miserably (netbooks).
That said, I don't know what Piper Jaffray gets out of interviewing 100 people. The PJ track record is remarkably poor, so I would file this "ANALysis" into the circular file.
That doesn't sound accurate to me at all. The first iPad was $500-hardly bank-breaking, and sold like crazy. Hardly confined to the high-earning.
The survey had 100 respondents. That means the error is 10%. And a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 20 respondents. Which means that the reported 14% is not appreciably different than zero. Or 30%. Furthermore, there is heavy bias in the respondents, as fully 18% of them already owned a fitness band. This suggests to me that the survey was conducted in the lobby of a gym or something. Such buyers are already highly prejudiced in their purchase plans for smart-wearables. This survey is likely not representative of the true market.
Among the 86 percent who said they wouldn't buy, Piper Jaffray polled them on pricing, and found that users would be far more interested at a price below $200. However, 41 percent of respondents said they would not be interested in an "iWatch" regardless of the price.
This is exactly why Apple says they don't rely on market research before they launch a major product because people have no idea what the product will be like. Buyers make a value judgement when they have all of the details. Before they have those details, they are imagining what the product will be and that is biased in some way.
If you look at the recent video of the Moto 360, it looks like a really nicely designed watch and worth more than $200:
The software looks a bit unresponsive but design-wise, that's close to what I'd have expected from Apple. It still remains to be seen how useful the functionality provided by the watch will be and the market size for it but people spend over $200 on watches that simply tell the time so I think the Moto 360 will do well enough.
If you look at the Samsung Galaxy Gear 2, it looks like something from the 60s:
That watch is not a fashionable item, it's a tacky digital watch. When you ask a consumer what they'd be willing to pay for a digital watch, they most likely wouldn't imagine something as refined as the Moto 360.
Comments
According to gwmac, THIS IS ABSOLUTE FACT. THIS IS PROOF. IRREFUTABLE. YOU ARE ALL WRONG. A SURVEY HAS BEEN TAKEN. THEREFORE THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE.
We've been watching you and it's time for a ban.
I know this is (would be) extreme marketing hubris, but what if it truly could save your life, or be the difference between getting medical help in time or not? Would that sway your opinion any? Just curious.
I know this is (would be) extreme marketing hubris, but what if it truly could save your life, or be the difference between getting medical help in time or not? Would that sway your opinion any? Just curious.
Well that would certainly give me more pause for thought. I assume you mean something like tracking my vital signs by the minute and if I have a heart attack it could alert an ambulance immediately? I still don't think even then it would sway my particular opinion, but I could definitely see something like that moving others.
I'd agree with you before the Pebble, and the Galaxy Gear, but people are now aware what a smart watch is, and have some opinion on it. Before the iPad most people didn't know tablets existed.
I'm looking forward to the iWatch and I think it's going to be a hit, but I have to question the methodology here. Surely a "household income of $130,000" is not representative of the average person.
It's not.
But the early adopters of a new consumer technology are rarely "average people." If I recall correctly, the early buyers of the iPad were mostly college-educated professionals in their 40s and 50s making well over $100K per year.
Look at the people who buy Tesla automobiles.
New technology needs to be appealing and useful to the people with lots of disposable income, the people who can afford to try it out. If the product develops a good reputation, it will develop more interest from those who wouldn't necessarily try out a new item because of budget constraints.
Remember, there's expensive stuff that fails. There are two decades of tablet PCs that failed miserably. There's cheap stuff that has brief popularity and then fails miserably (netbooks).
That said, I don't know what Piper Jaffray gets out of interviewing 100 people. The PJ track record is remarkably poor, so I would file this "ANALysis" into the circular file.
That said, I don't know what Piper Jaffray gets out of interviewing 100 people. The PJ track record is remarkably poor, so I would file this "ANALysis" into the circular file.
Apparently, they get money, as their pseudoscientific trash is repeated all over the interwebnets.
The survey had 100 respondents. That means the error is 10%. And a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 20 respondents. Which means that the reported 14% is not appreciably different than zero. Or 30%. Furthermore, there is heavy bias in the respondents, as fully 18% of them already owned a fitness band. This suggests to me that the survey was conducted in the lobby of a gym or something. Such buyers are already highly prejudiced in their purchase plans for smart-wearables. This survey is likely not representative of the true market.
Payments is the only thing I can think of. Health? Fitness? Meh. As a lock for another Apple device, that would be handy, as SolipsismX has suggested.
That doesn't sound accurate to me at all. The first iPad was $500-hardly bank-breaking, and sold like crazy. Hardly confined to the high-earning.
Quite-the 18% Fitbit ownership was the giveaway.
This is exactly why Apple says they don't rely on market research before they launch a major product because people have no idea what the product will be like. Buyers make a value judgement when they have all of the details. Before they have those details, they are imagining what the product will be and that is biased in some way.
If you look at the recent video of the Moto 360, it looks like a really nicely designed watch and worth more than $200:
http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/25/moto-360-smartwatch-makes-an-appearance-at-google-i-o/
The software looks a bit unresponsive but design-wise, that's close to what I'd have expected from Apple. It still remains to be seen how useful the functionality provided by the watch will be and the market size for it but people spend over $200 on watches that simply tell the time so I think the Moto 360 will do well enough.
If you look at the Samsung Galaxy Gear 2, it looks like something from the 60s:
http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/16/gear-2-review/
http://raredigitalwatches.com
http://www.vintagelcd.com
That watch is not a fashionable item, it's a tacky digital watch. When you ask a consumer what they'd be willing to pay for a digital watch, they most likely wouldn't imagine something as refined as the Moto 360.
The watch is a joke!
1% of people would pay $350 for a product when they have no appreciable knowledge of what it is, what it would look like or what it would do?
Nutters, I wouldn't buy or express interest in a phantom product at any price.
We've been watching you and it's time for a ban.
Ouch.
(translated)
14% of image conscious egotists with money to burn said they would get a tingle from wearing a device on their wrist that had an Apple logo on it.
(translated)
14% of image conscious egotists with money to burn said they would get a tingle from wearing a device on their wrist that had an Apple logo on it.
Oh bullshit.