Do you want to go on record with a more specific prediction? Does bomb mean that by the end of 2016 Apple with drop the watch line? Does it mean they will sell fewer than 100,000? A million?
Selling fewer than 10 million in the first year. However, Cook has already said he's not going to report numbers. First sign of defeat.
Sorry, but as an Android user, I do not pay for apps, and would only pay up to $49.99 for a watch.
So, you admit to stealing and being here, for god knows what reason? Good for you... I guess....
Wonder why Sony is going under despite decent phones and Samsung will be approaching zero profit in Q1 2015 on phones, well people like you are the reason. The only one whose profit went up a little last years was LG and they're making 1/100 of Apple's profit last quarter....
If you think that you'll continue getting nice device when everyone's taking a financial bath, you are mistaken.
Your $50 watch will look and perform like a POS, nice if your touring bathrooms, but nothing you'd want on your wrist.
If robust upgradability is actually offered it will probably be on the Edition line only and it (the upgrade) will probably cost about as much as the sport or even steel versions. Without a promise of upgradability in perpetuum, my guess is the Edition line would be dead in the water. Very few people will buy a 5 grand thingy that is guaranteed to be a very shiny paperweight in five years.
While the SOC will be upgradable for awhile, I'd doubt you will be promised and upgradability of some other functions like sensors which need tight integration with the body, unless you can replace the entire underbody in those high end watches. Some communication functions may need a body redesign too if they come to the watch, say WIFI/GPS/CELL.
So, when you buy it, I'd expect some upgradability, but not forever upgradability. Past a certain point it becomes impossible for Apple to predict how tech will evolve to fit inside the watch and they wouldn't want to support an out of date physical interface for 20 years.
A 6 year garanteed upgradibility of hardware and 10 year software would make sense for those watches. At the end of that cycle, you'd have something much better than you started from and could probably sell it for 70-75% of the initial cost if you kept it up to date. Considering how much more useful than a normal watch those things are, the slight decrease in value could be considered the cost of ownership.
The reason most watches are round is because it's the natural shape for a clock. It also intrinsically looks better on a wrist than a square. Our eyes are made up of curves, not straight lines and right angles.
Sort of, but is that a good reason?. Watches are round because the first clocks were round. Clocks were round because medieval technology dictated this. The steam age, when pocketable and later wearable timekeeping became mainstream, was not able to improve on this.
Just because the only information display steam era tech could manage for the wrist was medieval design clocks does not mean we should constrain ourselves today to the shape that was good enough then. If round were good for displaying things more information displays would be round. ( Some tried and failed, just look at the Moto 270. )
The function of watches today is mostly too show off how much money you are able to spend on useless romanticized anachronism.
Now that it is feasible to show more information on our wrist than the time in a medieval format, we should move on.
I don't think they expect this to match iPhone unit sales. Of course if the margin is 50% on the $ 5k watch it's worth 15+ iPhone sales
If people are going to say it's a failure if they only sell 9,999,999 for a high end accessory to the iPhone then it's no wonder they want to obfuscate the unit sales.
If people are going to say it's a failure if they only sell 9,999,999 for a high end accessory to the iPhone then it's no wonder they want to obfuscate the unit sales.
I doubt if the top end will send anything near that, but it would be a big success to even sell 100K $5k accessories.
They could go large on the lower end devices. I believe this will be a big seller for them in a few years. Personally I'll let the first adopters work out the bugs. Sure I will get one someday.
Interesting definition of a "bomb": "less than $5 billion in sales in the first year." Yeah, no.
To put that in context, $5B in annual revenue is just about the cutoff for making the Fortune 500 list.
No kidding. If Apple can sell 10M units of Apple Watch in the first year of offering, for a new product category that might sell a few million units in total this year, that would be an outstanding success. And they will do so at price points well above the competition. Now that might not meet the expectations of media, bloggers, analysts and forum posters, who would call such a launch a failure - but those that are looking for it to be a failure will find a reason anyways.
I believe ?Watch will ultimately be a successful product, but it will take a few years to get there. This is Apple building the platform for the next level of wearable/intimate computing. It will take time to go from early adopters to massive use, but Apple has so far shown they are thinking far in advance of the competition in this emerging market.
No kidding. If Apple can sell 10M units of Apple Watch in the first year of offering, for a new product category that might sell a few million units in total this year, that would be an outstanding success. And they will do so at price points well above the competition. Now that might not meet the expectations of media, bloggers, analysts and forum posters, who would call such a launch a failure - but those that are looking for it to be a failure will find a reason anyways.
I believe ?Watch will ultimately be a successful product, but it will take a few years to get there. This is Apple building the platform for the next level of wearable/intimate computing. It will take time to go from early adopters to massive use, but Apple has so far shown they are thinking far in advance of the competition in this emerging market.
I think [@]Benjamin Frost[/@] is just hedging his bet that that ?Watch will be a failure. If, months later, he defines a flop as anything under 10 million units in the first year then he can say that he was correct. I think a million units will be a lot of this product category and don't see how a half-billion in revenue is anything short of a success for this product category.
Those are all different SKUs based on appearance. This is atypical for Apple.
All the examples cited (iPad or apple watch) are different model/sku based on the same metrics: appearance or size. Just changing the color choice results in a different model/sku.
For example the gold and space gray versions of the exact same iPad have different sku and model numbers.
Quote:
Were you one of those people that said it would be single one-size-and-style-fits-all, like with other smartwatches?
Nope. But Apple is acting no differently in this case than they do with all the other products. The core products themselves are very very focused and options very regimented.
Sure, you can get a different color and material but regardless of how much you pay they are the same watch.
I'm happy the rumor for the black stainless is only $500. I think that's the prettiest option.
All the examples cited (iPad or apple watch) are different model/sku based on the same metrics: appearance or size. Just changing the color choice results in a different model/sku.
For example the gold and space gray versions of the exact same iPad have different sku and model numbers.
How can you possibly say it's the same as all their other products when you understand how SKUs work.
How many SKUs were there for the iPod launch? 1 (1 style × 1 capacity)
How many SKUs were there for the iPhone launch? 2 (1 style × 2 capacities)
How many SKUs were there for the iPad launch? 3 (1 style × capacities) or 6 (1 style × 3 capacities × 2 radio types)<sup>1</sup>
How many SKUs were there for ?Watch? 34<sup>2</sup> (1 capacity × 1 radio type × 3 models × 2 sizes × 2 hues × n styles (3x link braclets, 4x modern buckles, 3x leather loops, 5x sports bands<sup>3</sup>, 6x ?Watch Edition bands))
Nothing else even comes close. Even companies that use the throw-it-at-a-wall-to-see-what-sticks method or use varying components for different markets depending on availability and interest (see Samsung Galaxy line) have a lot less SKUs than that out of the gate.
Note that the first three are based on the capacity differences and cellular limitations, not on simply having a different styling on some fashion aspect of the device. Bottom line: ?Watch is a unique product focus for Apple.
Sure, you can get a different color and material but regardless of how much you pay they are the same watch.
I'm happy the rumor for the black stainless is only $500. I think that's the prettiest option.
I agree that's it's the best looking but if I do buy 1st gen ?Watch it would likely be the black-banded ?Watch Sport. It's lighter and cheaper than the others, and I'd feel more comfortable beating it up even though the display isn't sapphire. But like I've said previously, I'm leaning more heavily toward the Fitbit Charge HR as I like the fitness tracking and week long battery which charges within the timeframe of a shower, even if I only remember to charge it a couple times a week.
<sup>1</sup> This depends on whether you count the launch, which was only WiFI, or if you count the announcement, which was WiFi and WiFi+Cellular.
<sup>2</sup> There might be more I missed but that's the minimum I feel confident with stating as fact.
<sup>3</sup> These 5 ?Watch Sport bands account for 10 total SKUs (2 sizes × 5 styles), and the different hue doesn't count here as the Space Marvin Grey aluminium is only paired with black band.
Of course it will bomb. Only an idiot would spend USD 5,000 on a watch that will have no battery life after a couple of years, not to mention software obsolescence...all this in a device you're supposed to wear every day.
Oh sure; one can always melt the gold and sell it to a dedicated goldsmith.
Of course it will bomb. Only an idiot would spend USD 5,000 on a watch that will have no battery life after a couple of years, not to mention software obsolescence...all this in a device you're supposed to wear every day.
Oh sure; one can always melt the gold and sell it to a dedicated goldsmith.
Your comment about battrry life is patently false. It should have 80% of the original battery after about 3 years (1000 full charge cycles).
By your comment also ignores the ability to change the battery. Do you think Apple will make that impossible?
By your comment also ignores the ability to change the battery. Do you think Apple will make that impossible?
This is one of the key points, yes. When Apple provides more detail early next year, I am hoping that we have some answers to these queries. There's certainly a lot Apple can do to make the Apple Watch a more workable product over the longer term, and I'm very sure that they are considering these issues.
This is one of the key points, yes. When Apple provides more detail early next year, I am hoping that we have some answers to these queries. There's certainly a lot Apple can do to make the Apple Watch a more workable product over the longer term, and I'm very sure that they are considering these issues.
I'm certainly hoping for the S-Series CoC to be replaceable by an authorized ?Watch jeweler — and think I made a good case for that possibility — but I won't. be surprised if that isn't a possibility. However my jaw will drop if the battery can't ever be changed.
Comments
Selling fewer than 10 million in the first year. However, Cook has already said he's not going to report numbers. First sign of defeat.
Sorry, but as an Android user, I do not pay for apps, and would only pay up to $49.99 for a watch.
So, you admit to stealing and being here, for god knows what reason? Good for you... I guess....
Wonder why Sony is going under despite decent phones and Samsung will be approaching zero profit in Q1 2015 on phones, well people like you are the reason. The only one whose profit went up a little last years was LG and they're making 1/100 of Apple's profit last quarter....
If you think that you'll continue getting nice device when everyone's taking a financial bath, you are mistaken.
Your $50 watch will look and perform like a POS, nice if your touring bathrooms, but nothing you'd want on your wrist.
If robust upgradability is actually offered it will probably be on the Edition line only and it (the upgrade) will probably cost about as much as the sport or even steel versions. Without a promise of upgradability in perpetuum, my guess is the Edition line would be dead in the water. Very few people will buy a 5 grand thingy that is guaranteed to be a very shiny paperweight in five years.
While the SOC will be upgradable for awhile, I'd doubt you will be promised and upgradability of some other functions like sensors which need tight integration with the body, unless you can replace the entire underbody in those high end watches. Some communication functions may need a body redesign too if they come to the watch, say WIFI/GPS/CELL.
So, when you buy it, I'd expect some upgradability, but not forever upgradability. Past a certain point it becomes impossible for Apple to predict how tech will evolve to fit inside the watch and they wouldn't want to support an out of date physical interface for 20 years.
A 6 year garanteed upgradibility of hardware and 10 year software would make sense for those watches. At the end of that cycle, you'd have something much better than you started from and could probably sell it for 70-75% of the initial cost if you kept it up to date. Considering how much more useful than a normal watch those things are, the slight decrease in value could be considered the cost of ownership.
Not so.
The reason most watches are round is because it's the natural shape for a clock. It also intrinsically looks better on a wrist than a square. Our eyes are made up of curves, not straight lines and right angles.
Sort of, but is that a good reason?. Watches are round because the first clocks were round. Clocks were round because medieval technology dictated this. The steam age, when pocketable and later wearable timekeeping became mainstream, was not able to improve on this.
Just because the only information display steam era tech could manage for the wrist was medieval design clocks does not mean we should constrain ourselves today to the shape that was good enough then. If round were good for displaying things more information displays would be round. ( Some tried and failed, just look at the Moto 270. )
The function of watches today is mostly too show off how much money you are able to spend on useless romanticized anachronism.
Now that it is feasible to show more information on our wrist than the time in a medieval format, we should move on.
I agree with you.It is more a man's watch than a woman's.To me it is a eyesore and a waste of money.
I agree with you.It is more a man's watch than a woman's.To me it is a eyesore and a waste of money.
Demonstrating that you are so rich that you can afford to waste money on eyesores is the entire point of today's expensive watches.
Yes that was an interesting move.
I don't think they expect this to match iPhone unit sales. Of course if the margin is 50% on the $ 5k watch it's worth 15+ iPhone sales
If people are going to say it's a failure if they only sell 9,999,999 for a high end accessory to the iPhone then it's no wonder they want to obfuscate the unit sales.
Selling fewer than 10 million in the first year. However, Cook has already said he's not going to report numbers. First sign of defeat.
Interesting definition of a "bomb": "less than $5 billion in sales in the first year." Yeah, no.
To put that in context, $5B in annual revenue is just about the cutoff for making the Fortune 500 list.
If people are going to say it's a failure if they only sell 9,999,999 for a high end accessory to the iPhone then it's no wonder they want to obfuscate the unit sales.
I doubt if the top end will send anything near that, but it would be a big success to even sell 100K $5k accessories.
They could go large on the lower end devices. I believe this will be a big seller for them in a few years. Personally I'll let the first adopters work out the bugs. Sure I will get one someday.
Interesting definition of a "bomb": "less than $5 billion in sales in the first year." Yeah, no.
To put that in context, $5B in annual revenue is just about the cutoff for making the Fortune 500 list.
No kidding. If Apple can sell 10M units of Apple Watch in the first year of offering, for a new product category that might sell a few million units in total this year, that would be an outstanding success. And they will do so at price points well above the competition. Now that might not meet the expectations of media, bloggers, analysts and forum posters, who would call such a launch a failure - but those that are looking for it to be a failure will find a reason anyways.
I believe ?Watch will ultimately be a successful product, but it will take a few years to get there. This is Apple building the platform for the next level of wearable/intimate computing. It will take time to go from early adopters to massive use, but Apple has so far shown they are thinking far in advance of the competition in this emerging market.
I think [@]Benjamin Frost[/@] is just hedging his bet that that ?Watch will be a failure. If, months later, he defines a flop as anything under 10 million units in the first year then he can say that he was correct. I think a million units will be a lot of this product category and don't see how a half-billion in revenue is anything short of a success for this product category.
Those are all different SKUs based on appearance. This is atypical for Apple.
All the examples cited (iPad or apple watch) are different model/sku based on the same metrics: appearance or size. Just changing the color choice results in a different model/sku.
For example the gold and space gray versions of the exact same iPad have different sku and model numbers.
Nope. But Apple is acting no differently in this case than they do with all the other products. The core products themselves are very very focused and options very regimented.
Sure, you can get a different color and material but regardless of how much you pay they are the same watch.
I'm happy the rumor for the black stainless is only $500. I think that's the prettiest option.
Selling fewer than 10 million in the first year. However, Cook has already said he's not going to report numbers. First sign of defeat.
Interesting definition of a "bomb": "less than $5 billion in sales in the first year." Yeah, no.
To put that in context, $5B in annual revenue is just about the cutoff for making the Fortune 500 list.
Seeing as the only price point Cook has given is $350, that would be less than $3.5 billion in revenue.
Apple sets a high standard.
Will the Speedmaster call Life Alert when you've fallen and can't get up?
Will it call the police when you get mugged for wearing an easily recognizable $5000 watch?
How can you possibly say it's the same as all their other products when you understand how SKUs work.
Nothing else even comes close. Even companies that use the throw-it-at-a-wall-to-see-what-sticks method or use varying components for different markets depending on availability and interest (see Samsung Galaxy line) have a lot less SKUs than that out of the gate.
Note that the first three are based on the capacity differences and cellular limitations, not on simply having a different styling on some fashion aspect of the device. Bottom line: ?Watch is a unique product focus for Apple.
I agree that's it's the best looking but if I do buy 1st gen ?Watch it would likely be the black-banded ?Watch Sport. It's lighter and cheaper than the others, and I'd feel more comfortable beating it up even though the display isn't sapphire. But like I've said previously, I'm leaning more heavily toward the Fitbit Charge HR as I like the fitness tracking and week long battery which charges within the timeframe of a shower, even if I only remember to charge it a couple times a week.
<sup>1</sup> This depends on whether you count the launch, which was only WiFI, or if you count the announcement, which was WiFi and WiFi+Cellular.
<sup>2</sup> There might be more I missed but that's the minimum I feel confident with stating as fact.
<sup>3</sup> These 5 ?Watch Sport bands account for 10 total SKUs (2 sizes × 5 styles), and the different hue doesn't count here as the Space Marvin Grey aluminium is only paired with black band.
Of course it will bomb. Only an idiot would spend USD 5,000 on a watch that will have no battery life after a couple of years, not to mention software obsolescence...all this in a device you're supposed to wear every day.
Oh sure; one can always melt the gold and sell it to a dedicated goldsmith.
Your comment about battrry life is patently false. It should have 80% of the original battery after about 3 years (1000 full charge cycles).
By your comment also ignores the ability to change the battery. Do you think Apple will make that impossible?
By your comment also ignores the ability to change the battery. Do you think Apple will make that impossible?
This is one of the key points, yes. When Apple provides more detail early next year, I am hoping that we have some answers to these queries. There's certainly a lot Apple can do to make the Apple Watch a more workable product over the longer term, and I'm very sure that they are considering these issues.
I'm certainly hoping for the S-Series CoC to be replaceable by an authorized ?Watch jeweler — and think I made a good case for that possibility — but I won't. be surprised if that isn't a possibility. However my jaw will drop if the battery can't ever be changed.