t's different in the sense that the iPhone was a completely new device category. In the meantime tech has evolved and powers all kinds of devices from tablets to watches making it easier for the competition to copy. Las example was touchID. so if they do this there better be a similar step change in tech involved.
Given the time Apple has been working on this, I'm expecting the iWatch to do to the smartwatch category exactly what the iPhone did to the smartphone category. In other words, essentially create a completely new device category by comparison.
Differences is, that wasn't launched right before the holiday season. Are they going to have a functioning device(es) for people at the event to try out? Or are they just going to show a computer render and say "coming in 2015"?
All the more reason to announce and keep the competition from selling a bunch of their watches over the holidays.
My guess is that Apple will demonstrate a (mostly) functional prototype but not let people put hands-on. Just like the iPhone reveal.
I guess they could be announcing it early to give developers lead time for apps and to prevent FCC leaks? I just hope if they do announce something there really is something to show and even demo; not vaporware.
It kind of makes me wonder though if this device really isn't ready for primetime. Otherwise wouldn't it have made more sense to announce it at WWDC (where the developers are) with availability for sale this holiday season?
Why not go with the simplest answer? It was not ready for DEMONSTRATION 3 months ago, but now it is. And (if the rumor is true) then it won't be ready for mass shipment by December. Why do people act like Apple makes arbitrary decisions based on the calendar when their entire development history (i.e release a product when its ready) show otherwise.
I think it'll have similar features as what the other smart watches claim now. But just like everything Apple does- it will be easier and do it better. We're 7 years into iPhones and the others still can't get it right. I'm not worried about them copying- it'll be more like "Ours already does all that"- but no one will buy the others.
It will have more features and get them ALL right.
Yes, but they would have to open the kimono on the features of a new, unannounced product -- thus destroying the surprise.
When you are talking about enhancements to existing products (screen size, TouchID, 64-bit, Metal, etc.) the SDK does [very] little to destroy the surprise of the announcement of these new versions.
Then announce the device at WWDC and say it will be available for sale before Christmas.
I suspect that Apple might have announced the product at WWDC if they were sure it could be ready.
However, there are better venue's than the WWDC for announcing New [to Apple] product categories.
But, let's assume that they planned to announce at WWDC.
Have you every worked on the release of a new (to you and your cohorts) product release?
It's a funny experience: fits of progress, followed by false steps, delays -- exceeding, then missing schedules ... rinse and repeat.
More than once, Steve went into a Product Announcement and had to drop something because it wasn't ready.
I remember a Press event where all Steve had to show were three things: the iPod Hi-Fi, a leather iPod case ... and I can't even remember what the third thing was ... Obviously the "featured" product wasn't ready.
So, it easily could have been that Apple planned to announce the iWatch at the 6/2/14 WWDC Keynote -- but it was dropped because it wasn't ready. Then conducted WWDC sessions (then unannounced) without any iWatch sessions. Then released an iOS build without any iWatch components.
As things go, with the chaotic cycle of a new product release -- all of a sudden, things fall into place -- and Boom, it's ready to show to the world.
That moment in time, when the iWatch was ready to show -- could have occurred just as Tim was thanking everyone for coming and walking off the stage (or any time since).
What's Apple to do? You have the WWDC in June, a planned iPhone event (which probably was planned to be an iPhone/iWatch event).
What would you do?
If we don't get a product for sale this year that tells me Apple is far off from having a product good enough to sell.
I don't think that logically follows -- because there isn't a product for sale on 12/31/14 doesn't mean there won't be one for sale 1/1/15 (holidays aside).
There are lot of logistics involved -- and Tim and his successor have proven to be best in class!
That's not fair - the poster clearly meant that the iPhone used hard-to-get-a-hold of parts because it was such a new category (not for Apple, but for the industry); Blackberry even called an emergency meeting where they thought that this thing can't be real IIRC. No way any company could catch up in 6 months to iPhone in 2007. (Still they only did it because it has to clear FCC, not because they had a jump on competition)
For an "iWatch" the competition could see the renders/demo product and in 6 months easily copy the design and turn out a production model with the ubiquitous availability of touch screens, mobile processors etc. It's a different landscape for sure.
I think the only reason Apple would announce it early is because it has to go though FCC, because they promised stuff this year (sort of and I really doubt this would be a reason), or because it has to go through some other regulatory body (like a Health arm of the government or however it works down there). Or MAYBE to show it to developers, but it seems like WWDC would have been the time for that, if it wasn't in production yet anyway.
In my opinion, the most difficult thing to reproduce in the iPhone was the user interface, not what you listed here. It took years for Android to catch up.
Same thing will happen here. Apple is going to drop a bomb on the industry (again).
This is a rumor site. Deal with the rumors or read something else.
The rumors are fine because, duh... it's a rumor site. That's why I read it. There is nothing journalistically wrong with writing about rumors as long as you are reporting the facts as a journalist and not editorializing. It you do editorialize, then announce that is what you are doing. If you write about rumors... then yes, declare your intention, which this site does.
But I don't see how "breaking" can be attributed to "just another analyst" trying to shift the market. It's not breaking because it's not "breaking" news. This has all been said before. I'd like to know from the editors WHY this particular story is more important or more urgent than any other rumor. I'd posit that it's because they are being paid to do so. If so, that's a strike against their journalistic integrity. Again, it's good to be paid as the fourth estate, but not good to be paid to prioritize the news.
"Breaking" should be reserved for actual news that is in the process or happening. You know, like "Apple Headquarters on Fire" or "Tim Cook in Serious Motorcycle Accident" or "Apple Surprises the World with Electric Car Announcement". I can read rumors and rehashed analyst drivel for hours on end, but it's not BREAKING.
Except, one of the big advantages to an iWatch is that the iPhone stays in your pocket or purse. If all a 3rd-party app can do is notify you through the iWatch to take out your iPhone ... why bother?
Rather, have a cloud or iPhone app that interacts with the iWatch, e.g.:
Here's a graph of your [whatever] activity * for today (tap to show graph against yesterday, week, month, etc.)
* Activity can be anything from a walk, workout, bike route, stock/portfolio performance, budget (can I afford to buy those ...).
I assume that you will be able to buy those ... with the iWatch (via the iPhone or cloud).
When it comes to other, headless, wearables it's a little difficult to predict what notifications, if any, the wearable can receive ... But, if an Apple-branded app can send those notifications, why shouldn't a 3rd-party app be able to do so too?
With apologies to Tony Orlando: Buzz three times on the shoulder if you'll meet me -- twice on the hip means you ain't gonna' show ...
Again, I don't think we are in disagreement here. I just think that for release they do not require dev support. Bit they can have exactly what you laid out read plus the usual two or three invited debs to showcase their apps. That's will be sufficient for starters. Then it can roll out and give the debs the chance to develop and fully exploit the new features.
My grandson's birthday is 9/5. He wants a new watch. He is trying to decide on popular watches costing between $80 and $150 (the family would all contribute).
I suggested that he might want to wait for the 9/9 announcement as Apple is rumored to be announcing a watch.
After thinking about it for a while, he said: "No, if I got the new iWatch -- it'd only get ripped off at school."
He has an iPhone 5 and about 80% of his friends/classmates have iPhones ...
I guess being first with the latest iDevice has its risks ...
Go ahead and get your grandson a watch for his birthday. Then get him the iWatch on Xmas, because he wants it like all his other friends do.
My grandson's birthday is 9/5. He wants a new watch. He is trying to decide on popular watches costing between $80 and $150 (the family would all contribute).
I suggested that he might want to wait for the 9/9 announcement as Apple is rumored to be announcing a watch.
After thinking about it for a while, he said: "No, if I got the new iWatch -- it'd only get ripped off at school."
He has an iPhone 5 and about 80% of his friends/classmates have iPhones ...
I guess being first with the latest iDevice has its risks ...
Go ahead and get your grandson a watch for his birthday. Then get him the iWatch on Xmas, because he wants it like all his other friends do.
I agree, so long as you're not talking about this Christmas. With no leaked parts and Apple's typical demo months before the release of a new product category I think a early 2015 launch would be most likely.
In my opinion, the most difficult thing to reproduce in the iPhone was the user interface, not what you listed here. It took years for Android to catch up.
Same thing will happen here. Apple is going to drop a bomb on the industry (again).
Fair enough.
the arguments for lead times for developers are pretty convincing in this thread as well. Still, seems weird to announce it before Christmas and ship after, but what the hell do I know about anything.
So Apple's getting in the game of vaporwear? It seems odd that they would announce something in the fall but not have it available to ship for the holidays. If it's not ready why announce it now? Unless Apple is that worried about it leaking? Or are they getting in the business of showing off prototypes so Cook can say to Wall Street "see we are innovating"? I'd love to call this rumor bunk, but the source is usually very accurate.
Apple annoced something like this ahead for developers apps, as well keep market pointed away from competitors waiting on a release.
The rumors are fine because, duh... it's a rumor site. That's why I read it. There is nothing journalistically wrong with writing about rumors as long as you are reporting the facts as a journalist and not editorializing. It you do editorialize, then announce that is what you are doing. If you write about rumors... then yes, declare your intention, which this site does.
But I don't see how "breaking" can be attributed to "just another analyst" trying to shift the market. It's not breaking because it's not "breaking" news. This has all been said before. I'd like to know from the editors WHY this particular story is more important or more urgent than any other rumor. I'd posit that it's because they are being paid to do so. If so, that's a strike against their journalistic integrity. Again, it's good to be paid as the fourth estate, but not good to be paid to prioritize the news.
"Breaking" should be reserved for actual news that is in the process or happening. You know, like "Apple Headquarters on Fire" or "Tim Cook in Serious Motorcycle Accident" or "Apple Surprises the World with Electric Car Announcement". I can read rumors and rehashed analyst drivel for hours on end, but it's not BREAKING.
OK, I can understand and respect your preference for not wanting a rumor to be referred to as "breaking". However, I, for one, don't have a problem with using the word "breaking" as an adjective for a rumor that is fresh. Reserving certain adjectives for use only with specific nouns reduces the flexibility of the English language. But then, to each his own.
But when people like me have complained about most if not all hardware being announced in the fall the response is that it makes total sense because the holiday season is when people buy things. I'm not arguing that Apple should announce everything in the fall, far from it. It just seems odd to announce something in the fall and not have it available for Christmas. This seems like the kind if device that would be a great Christmas gift.
If the rumor is true, the reason is as simple as it gets: while Apple would love to have the new device available for the holidays, it simply isn't ready to meet the production schedule. Why obfuscate the simple? (<--- he said with irony)
Comments
t's different in the sense that the iPhone was a completely new device category. In the meantime tech has evolved and powers all kinds of devices from tablets to watches making it easier for the competition to copy. Las example was touchID. so if they do this there better be a similar step change in tech involved.
Given the time Apple has been working on this, I'm expecting the iWatch to do to the smartwatch category exactly what the iPhone did to the smartphone category. In other words, essentially create a completely new device category by comparison.
Differences is, that wasn't launched right before the holiday season. Are they going to have a functioning device(es) for people at the event to try out? Or are they just going to show a computer render and say "coming in 2015"?
All the more reason to announce and keep the competition from selling a bunch of their watches over the holidays.
My guess is that Apple will demonstrate a (mostly) functional prototype but not let people put hands-on. Just like the iPhone reveal.
Wasn't it Re/code insisting just several days ago that both the iPhone and a wearable WOULD be revealed on the 9th?
REVEALED not SHIPPED. That is still consistent with today's story.
All Apple has officially announced is an event and a new product catogory, please check your facts people
I guess they could be announcing it early to give developers lead time for apps and to prevent FCC leaks? I just hope if they do announce something there really is something to show and even demo; not vaporware.
It kind of makes me wonder though if this device really isn't ready for primetime. Otherwise wouldn't it have made more sense to announce it at WWDC (where the developers are) with availability for sale this holiday season?
Why not go with the simplest answer? It was not ready for DEMONSTRATION 3 months ago, but now it is. And (if the rumor is true) then it won't be ready for mass shipment by December. Why do people act like Apple makes arbitrary decisions based on the calendar when their entire development history (i.e release a product when its ready) show otherwise.
I think it'll have similar features as what the other smart watches claim now. But just like everything Apple does- it will be easier and do it better. We're 7 years into iPhones and the others still can't get it right. I'm not worried about them copying- it'll be more like "Ours already does all that"- but no one will buy the others.
It will have more features and get them ALL right.
Why are the delusions of a madman (aka, analysts) considered breaking? You know what's breaking? Appleinsider's journalistic integrity.
This is a rumor site. Deal with the rumors or read something else.
I suspect that Apple might have announced the product at WWDC if they were sure it could be ready.
However, there are better venue's than the WWDC for announcing New [to Apple] product categories.
But, let's assume that they planned to announce at WWDC.
Have you every worked on the release of a new (to you and your cohorts) product release?
It's a funny experience: fits of progress, followed by false steps, delays -- exceeding, then missing schedules ... rinse and repeat.
More than once, Steve went into a Product Announcement and had to drop something because it wasn't ready.
I remember a Press event where all Steve had to show were three things: the iPod Hi-Fi, a leather iPod case ... and I can't even remember what the third thing was ... Obviously the "featured" product wasn't ready.
So, it easily could have been that Apple planned to announce the iWatch at the 6/2/14 WWDC Keynote -- but it was dropped because it wasn't ready. Then conducted WWDC sessions (then unannounced) without any iWatch sessions. Then released an iOS build without any iWatch components.
As things go, with the chaotic cycle of a new product release -- all of a sudden, things fall into place -- and Boom, it's ready to show to the world.
That moment in time, when the iWatch was ready to show -- could have occurred just as Tim was thanking everyone for coming and walking off the stage (or any time since).
What's Apple to do? You have the WWDC in June, a planned iPhone event (which probably was planned to be an iPhone/iWatch event).
What would you do?
I don't think that logically follows -- because there isn't a product for sale on 12/31/14 doesn't mean there won't be one for sale 1/1/15 (holidays aside).
There are lot of logistics involved -- and Tim and his successor have proven to be best in class!
That's not fair - the poster clearly meant that the iPhone used hard-to-get-a-hold of parts because it was such a new category (not for Apple, but for the industry); Blackberry even called an emergency meeting where they thought that this thing can't be real IIRC. No way any company could catch up in 6 months to iPhone in 2007. (Still they only did it because it has to clear FCC, not because they had a jump on competition)
For an "iWatch" the competition could see the renders/demo product and in 6 months easily copy the design and turn out a production model with the ubiquitous availability of touch screens, mobile processors etc. It's a different landscape for sure.
I think the only reason Apple would announce it early is because it has to go though FCC, because they promised stuff this year (sort of and I really doubt this would be a reason), or because it has to go through some other regulatory body (like a Health arm of the government or however it works down there). Or MAYBE to show it to developers, but it seems like WWDC would have been the time for that, if it wasn't in production yet anyway.
In my opinion, the most difficult thing to reproduce in the iPhone was the user interface, not what you listed here. It took years for Android to catch up.
Same thing will happen here. Apple is going to drop a bomb on the industry (again).
This is a rumor site. Deal with the rumors or read something else.
The rumors are fine because, duh... it's a rumor site. That's why I read it. There is nothing journalistically wrong with writing about rumors as long as you are reporting the facts as a journalist and not editorializing. It you do editorialize, then announce that is what you are doing. If you write about rumors... then yes, declare your intention, which this site does.
But I don't see how "breaking" can be attributed to "just another analyst" trying to shift the market. It's not breaking because it's not "breaking" news. This has all been said before. I'd like to know from the editors WHY this particular story is more important or more urgent than any other rumor. I'd posit that it's because they are being paid to do so. If so, that's a strike against their journalistic integrity. Again, it's good to be paid as the fourth estate, but not good to be paid to prioritize the news.
"Breaking" should be reserved for actual news that is in the process or happening. You know, like "Apple Headquarters on Fire" or "Tim Cook in Serious Motorcycle Accident" or "Apple Surprises the World with Electric Car Announcement". I can read rumors and rehashed analyst drivel for hours on end, but it's not BREAKING.
My bad ... We're in agreement!
Interesting ...
My grandson's birthday is 9/5. He wants a new watch. He is trying to decide on popular watches costing between $80 and $150 (the family would all contribute).
I suggested that he might want to wait for the 9/9 announcement as Apple is rumored to be announcing a watch.
After thinking about it for a while, he said: "No, if I got the new iWatch -- it'd only get ripped off at school."
He has an iPhone 5 and about 80% of his friends/classmates have iPhones ...
I guess being first with the latest iDevice has its risks ...
Go ahead and get your grandson a watch for his birthday. Then get him the iWatch on Xmas, because he wants it like all his other friends do.
Problem solved.
'been reading your series of posts ...
This is not your first rodeo!
That's a pretty likely outcome!
I agree, so long as you're not talking about this Christmas. With no leaked parts and Apple's typical demo months before the release of a new product category I think a early 2015 launch would be most likely.
In my opinion, the most difficult thing to reproduce in the iPhone was the user interface, not what you listed here. It took years for Android to catch up.
Same thing will happen here. Apple is going to drop a bomb on the industry (again).
Fair enough.
the arguments for lead times for developers are pretty convincing in this thread as well. Still, seems weird to announce it before Christmas and ship after, but what the hell do I know about anything.
The rumors are fine because, duh... it's a rumor site. That's why I read it. There is nothing journalistically wrong with writing about rumors as long as you are reporting the facts as a journalist and not editorializing. It you do editorialize, then announce that is what you are doing. If you write about rumors... then yes, declare your intention, which this site does.
But I don't see how "breaking" can be attributed to "just another analyst" trying to shift the market. It's not breaking because it's not "breaking" news. This has all been said before. I'd like to know from the editors WHY this particular story is more important or more urgent than any other rumor. I'd posit that it's because they are being paid to do so. If so, that's a strike against their journalistic integrity. Again, it's good to be paid as the fourth estate, but not good to be paid to prioritize the news.
"Breaking" should be reserved for actual news that is in the process or happening. You know, like "Apple Headquarters on Fire" or "Tim Cook in Serious Motorcycle Accident" or "Apple Surprises the World with Electric Car Announcement". I can read rumors and rehashed analyst drivel for hours on end, but it's not BREAKING.
OK, I can understand and respect your preference for not wanting a rumor to be referred to as "breaking". However, I, for one, don't have a problem with using the word "breaking" as an adjective for a rumor that is fresh. Reserving certain adjectives for use only with specific nouns reduces the flexibility of the English language. But then, to each his own.
But when people like me have complained about most if not all hardware being announced in the fall the response is that it makes total sense because the holiday season is when people buy things. I'm not arguing that Apple should announce everything in the fall, far from it. It just seems odd to announce something in the fall and not have it available for Christmas. This seems like the kind if device that would be a great Christmas gift.
If the rumor is true, the reason is as simple as it gets: while Apple would love to have the new device available for the holidays, it simply isn't ready to meet the production schedule. Why obfuscate the simple? (<--- he said with irony)