If true, and that's a big if, that's a very very overly optimistic number for this device imo. First gen devices that most don't really need to order components in iPhone numbers. I have a hard time believing Apple world do that.
Apple sold almost 15 million iPads the first nine months, and that was at $499 or higher.
Indeed.
That's why I thought it reasonable to expect 15 million sales in the first year to call it a success. 10 million to 15 million would be okay, but a bit disappointing. Less than 10 million would be a 'hobby', aka a failure. 20 million or more would be a triumph.
Pretty sure in ten years we'll be at the point where you can wear just a watch with Bluetooth headphones for phone calls. Phablets aren't going anywhere for those who want movies and games in their pocket. Or business types with screen needs.
I'll be happy to only wear a Siri/dictation/GPS/cell/biometric enabled device around town, on rides and runs, and surfing or camping. Work will wait for my ultra-slim retina MacBook Air.
Also, women will be firmware and software (pun intended) updatable, and the world will be just right.
That's why I thought it reasonable to expect 15 million sales in the first year to call it a success. 10 million to 15 million would be okay, but a bit disappointing. Less than 10 million would be a 'hobby', aka a failure. 20 million or more would be a triumph.
Will 30-40 million people buy what's likely to be an over-priced iWatch that'll soon be left in the dust by later, better, and less-expensive versions? Maybe. But if I worked at Apple, I wouldn't bet my career on that.
Pretty sure in ten years we'll be at the point where you can wear just a watch with Bluetooth headphones for phone calls. Phablets aren't going anywhere for those who want movies and games in their pocket. Or business types with screen needs.
I'll be happy to only wear a Siri/dictation/GPS/cell/biometric enabled device around town, on rides and runs, and surfing or camping. Work will wait for my ultra-slim retina MacBook Air.
Ultimately, I think this is where we'll end up. The smartphone will revert back to being for business people again. And I'm okay with that.
Jony's comment of “What was interesting is that it took centuries to find the wrist and then it didn’t go anywhere else,” Ive says. “I would argue the wrist is the right place for the technology.” is important, as I think it indicates Apple's intended direction for the future, and it's one where the iPhone becomes like the Mac, a profitable niche device. (or dies completely, like the iPod)
A cellular connected version of the Watch will probably arrive in a few years, it'll largely depend on battery life (this is probably why Apple now has teams working on in-house baseband chips).
Ben Thompson put it this way:
Alternative #3: Release a Watch that is fully functional but for cellular connectivity – This approach – the one that Apple chose – allows the hard work of UI iteration and app ecosystem development to begin in 2015. Moreover, that iteration and development will happen with the clear assumption that the Watch is a standalone device, not an accessory. Then, whenever the Watch truly is standalone, it will be a complete package: cellular connectivity, polished UI, and developed app ecosystem. It will be two years closer to Digital Hub 3.0 than Alternative #1 or #2.
The tradeoff is significant confusion in the short-term: the Watch that will be released next year is not a standalone device. It needs the iPhone for connectivity. To be clear, this is no small matter: the disconnect certainly tripped me up for a week, and if the feedback I’ve gotten is any indication, it continues to befuddle a lot of very smart people. How on earth are normal folks who don’t follow this sort of stuff for a living going to grok the idea of a standalone Watch that actually needs an iPhone?.
What I think Apple realized was that they could, in jujitsu-like fashion, use this reality to their advantage: it’s OK – not ideal, but OK – for the Watch to use the iPhone for connectivity because the iPhone is always present anyways. Apple is not asking anyone to change their behavior in order to get the full functionality of a Watch – it is entirely additive to your day-to-day experience. To put it another way, a standalone Watch that actually needs an iPhone is incongruent only from a technical perspective; from a real-life perspective it is a non-issue.
On the flip-side, in return for making technically-oriented thinkers uncomfortable, Apple gets to reap the UI and ecosystem benefits of launching today, so that when, in a few years, the cellular technology is ready, the Watch will be a fully developed product complete with a polished UI and developed app ecosystem that taken as a whole is far ahead of anything else on the market.
That's why I thought it reasonable to expect 15 million sales in the first year to call it a success. 10 million to 15 million would be okay, but a bit disappointing. Less than 10 million would be a 'hobby', aka a failure. 20 million or more would be a triumph.
You spouting more bullshit I see. But I'll bite anyway. How did you determine that less than 10 million would be a failure?
Apple sold almost 15 million iPads the first nine months, and that was at $499 or higher.
An iPad has significantly more functionality than does the watch. Almost every function on the watch is already present inn the iPhone which you need anyway with the watch. The iPad stands on its own and has functionality that cannot be duplicated elsewhere. Two totally different areas of use
Ultimately, I think this is where we'll end up. The smartphone will revert back to being for business people again. And I'm okay with that.
Jony's comment of “What was interesting is that it took centuries to find the wrist and then it didn’t go anywhere else,” Ive says. “I would argue the wrist is the right place for the technology.” is important, as I think it indicates Apple's intended direction for the future, and it's one where the iPhone becomes like the Mac, a profitable niche device. (or dies completely, like the iPod)
A cellular connected version of the Watch will probably arrive in a few years, it'll largely depend on battery life (this is probably why Apple now has teams working on in-house baseband chips).
Ben Thompson put it this way:
Alternative #3: Release a Watch that is fully functional but for cellular connectivity – This approach – the one that Apple chose – allows the hard work of UI iteration and app ecosystem development to begin in 2015. Moreover, that iteration and development will happen with the clear assumption that the Watch is a standalone device, not an accessory. Then, whenever the Watch truly is standalone, it will be a complete package: cellular connectivity, polished UI, and developed app ecosystem. It will be two years closer to Digital Hub 3.0 than Alternative #1 or #2.
The tradeoff is significant confusion in the short-term: the Watch that will be released next year is not a standalone device. It needs the iPhone for connectivity. To be clear, this is no small matter: the disconnect certainly tripped me up for a week, and if the feedback I’ve gotten is any indication, it continues to befuddle a lot of very smart people. How on earth are normal folks who don’t follow this sort of stuff for a living going to grok the idea of a standalone Watch that actually needs an iPhone?.
What I think Apple realized was that they could, in jujitsu-like fashion, use this reality to their advantage: it’s OK – not ideal, but OK – for the Watch to use the iPhone for connectivity because the iPhone is always present anyways. Apple is not asking anyone to change their behavior in order to get the full functionality of a Watch – it is entirely additive to your day-to-day experience. To put it another way, a standalone Watch that actually needs an iPhone is incongruent only from a technical perspective; from a real-life perspective it is a non-issue.
On the flip-side, in return for making technically-oriented thinkers uncomfortable, Apple gets to reap the UI and ecosystem benefits of launching today, so that when, in a few years, the cellular technology is ready, the Watch will be a fully developed product complete with a polished UI and developed app ecosystem that taken as a whole is far ahead of anything else on the market.
Couldn't agree more. If Tesla and Qualcomm already had their breakthroughs with battery and radio miniaturization, it would be standalone next year. I see so much engineering naïvety on forums like these. It's not magic, regardless of the adjective choices during keynotes. Apple is bound by technology realities. The good news is they're pushing boundaries. Sometimes too fast, as with GTAT.
I think a key Apple Watch hurdle is Bluetooth. Latency and rate for proper music, and battery life for calls on wireless headphones. The just released Beats phones are full size and last 12 hours. Need at least that on an in-ear model.
Based on it being a first gen device that brings little to the table that the iPhone, wick you have to have with the watch anyway, doesn't already do. Unless the chips are upgradable this will be obsolete within two years. What major functionality did it bring that would make one want to spend $350 and way up to buy one?
Based on Apple's past numbers for new products (iPhone, iPad) and the hype they're giving the watch, it's hard to see less than 10 million being anything but a failure.
Based on it being a first gen device that brings little to the table that the iPhone, wick you have to have with the watch anyway, doesn't already do. Unless the chips are upgradable this will be obsolete within two years. What major functionality did it bring that would make one want to spend $350 and way up to buy one?
How is it going to be obsolete in 2 years? I know people who still use an iPad 2 and iPhone 4S. I highly doubt the watch will stop functioning in 2 years,
How is it going to be obsolete in 2 years? I know people who still use an iPad 2 and iPhone 4S. I highly doubt the watch will stop functioning in 2 years,
No but it won't run the latest apps or the newest OS. For many that's a big deal especially on a device that may cost up to five grand.
Based on Apple's past numbers for new products (iPhone, iPad) and the hype they're giving the watch, it's hard to see less than 10 million being anything but a failure.
Tim Cook said Apple would be reporting the watch in an "other" category along with ?TV and accessories. I doubt Apple would be doing that If they expected iPhone like sales out of the gate.
Comments
Apple sold almost 15 million iPads the first nine months, and that was at $499 or higher.
... and...
Tim Cook did say ?Watch was "profound". Ability to swap chips would be profound.
Indeed.
That's why I thought it reasonable to expect 15 million sales in the first year to call it a success. 10 million to 15 million would be okay, but a bit disappointing. Less than 10 million would be a 'hobby', aka a failure. 20 million or more would be a triumph.
I'll be happy to only wear a Siri/dictation/GPS/cell/biometric enabled device around town, on rides and runs, and surfing or camping. Work will wait for my ultra-slim retina MacBook Air.
Also, women will be firmware and software (pun intended) updatable, and the world will be just right.
Indeed.
That's why I thought it reasonable to expect 15 million sales in the first year to call it a success. 10 million to 15 million would be okay, but a bit disappointing. Less than 10 million would be a 'hobby', aka a failure. 20 million or more would be a triumph.
I can agree with those numbers.
Pretty sure in ten years we'll be at the point where you can wear just a watch with Bluetooth headphones for phone calls. Phablets aren't going anywhere for those who want movies and games in their pocket. Or business types with screen needs.
I'll be happy to only wear a Siri/dictation/GPS/cell/biometric enabled device around town, on rides and runs, and surfing or camping. Work will wait for my ultra-slim retina MacBook Air.
Ultimately, I think this is where we'll end up. The smartphone will revert back to being for business people again. And I'm okay with that.
Jony's comment of “What was interesting is that it took centuries to find the wrist and then it didn’t go anywhere else,” Ive says. “I would argue the wrist is the right place for the technology.” is important, as I think it indicates Apple's intended direction for the future, and it's one where the iPhone becomes like the Mac, a profitable niche device. (or dies completely, like the iPod)
A cellular connected version of the Watch will probably arrive in a few years, it'll largely depend on battery life (this is probably why Apple now has teams working on in-house baseband chips).
Ben Thompson put it this way:
Alternative #3: Release a Watch that is fully functional but for cellular connectivity – This approach – the one that Apple chose – allows the hard work of UI iteration and app ecosystem development to begin in 2015. Moreover, that iteration and development will happen with the clear assumption that the Watch is a standalone device, not an accessory. Then, whenever the Watch truly is standalone, it will be a complete package: cellular connectivity, polished UI, and developed app ecosystem. It will be two years closer to Digital Hub 3.0 than Alternative #1 or #2.
The tradeoff is significant confusion in the short-term: the Watch that will be released next year is not a standalone device. It needs the iPhone for connectivity. To be clear, this is no small matter: the disconnect certainly tripped me up for a week, and if the feedback I’ve gotten is any indication, it continues to befuddle a lot of very smart people. How on earth are normal folks who don’t follow this sort of stuff for a living going to grok the idea of a standalone Watch that actually needs an iPhone?.
What I think Apple realized was that they could, in jujitsu-like fashion, use this reality to their advantage: it’s OK – not ideal, but OK – for the Watch to use the iPhone for connectivity because the iPhone is always present anyways. Apple is not asking anyone to change their behavior in order to get the full functionality of a Watch – it is entirely additive to your day-to-day experience. To put it another way, a standalone Watch that actually needs an iPhone is incongruent only from a technical perspective; from a real-life perspective it is a non-issue.
On the flip-side, in return for making technically-oriented thinkers uncomfortable, Apple gets to reap the UI and ecosystem benefits of launching today, so that when, in a few years, the cellular technology is ready, the Watch will be a fully developed product complete with a polished UI and developed app ecosystem that taken as a whole is far ahead of anything else on the market.
http://stratechery.com/2014/now-apple-watch/
You spouting more bullshit I see. But I'll bite anyway. How did you determine that less than 10 million would be a failure?
How did you determine that less than 10 million would be a failure?
Because marketshare.
You spouting more bullshit I see. But I'll bite anyway. How did you determine that less than 10 million would be a failure?
Why are those numbers bullshit?
I think the conservative nature of those numbers makes them very accurate.
An iPad has significantly more functionality than does the watch. Almost every function on the watch is already present inn the iPhone which you need anyway with the watch. The iPad stands on its own and has functionality that cannot be duplicated elsewhere. Two totally different areas of use
Couldn't agree more. If Tesla and Qualcomm already had their breakthroughs with battery and radio miniaturization, it would be standalone next year. I see so much engineering naïvety on forums like these. It's not magic, regardless of the adjective choices during keynotes. Apple is bound by technology realities. The good news is they're pushing boundaries. Sometimes too fast, as with GTAT.
I think a key Apple Watch hurdle is Bluetooth. Latency and rate for proper music, and battery life for calls on wireless headphones. The just released Beats phones are full size and last 12 hours. Need at least that on an in-ear model.
Based on it being a first gen device that brings little to the table that the iPhone, wick you have to have with the watch anyway, doesn't already do. Unless the chips are upgradable this will be obsolete within two years. What major functionality did it bring that would make one want to spend $350 and way up to buy one?
What's bullshit is calling anhthing less than 10 million a failure.
How is it going to be obsolete in 2 years? I know people who still use an iPad 2 and iPhone 4S. I highly doubt the watch will stop functioning in 2 years,
No but it won't run the latest apps or the newest OS. For many that's a big deal especially on a device that may cost up to five grand.
Tim Cook said Apple would be reporting the watch in an "other" category along with ?TV and accessories. I doubt Apple would be doing that If they expected iPhone like sales out of the gate.
What's bullshit is calling anhthing less than 10 million a failure.
I think that even Apple would call 2.5 million a quarter a failure as well.
... and anything less than that could easily be called a failure by Apple's current standards.