But the function of your Breitling was not and will not be surpassed by a new model every year or two. The Apple Watch will be. A Breitling bought 30 years ago is just as functional as one bought today. That will not be true of the Apple Watch or any other so called smart watch
Sure. That's why I wouldn't pay $4500 for an Apple Watch. $350 is fine though.
Not reall- just maybe not interested in it at this point in time. Not impressed with its functionality, battery life, and definitely not its looks- as it stands now. It's also doesnt to seem as groundbreaking as the first iPhone was- it lacks innovation as far as I'm concerned.
I think it is very different than prior products. The iPhone's innovation is obvious. The iPad gave us a device that was fully portable and had a big enough screen to do actual work, which the iPhone could not. The watch, I'm missing it. You still need the iPhone with you, so what does a coupe of square inches on your wrist do for you that the iPhone doesn't do better
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.
Aw, you changed your tune. Last week you said less than 100 million would be a "failure." You'll be able to declare victory no matter what happens now.
Dunno what you're talking about. People buy expensive watches as a status symbol. The functionality is no better than a $25 watch. Apple Watch will be bought for its functionality and that will change fairly quickly making the one you bought two or three years ago obsolete. It's the more capabilities that make it vulnerable to obsolescence. Case indeed closed
I would argue that some people buy expensive watches as status symbols, but plenty more (maybe most) people buy them because they find them attractive/beautiful/elegant. I was at a conference last week and noticed one guy's watch, and thought "wow, that's a cool looking watch, I wish I had that." I expect it's a multi-thousand dollar watch, but that wasn't why I wanted it. I guess I'm trying to say that plenty of people buy nice things because they are nice things and not because they want to show off wealth. (And no I won't be shelling out $5000 for an Apple Watch, but I would if I were a billionaire.)
I would argue that some people buy expensive watches as status symbols, but plenty more (maybe most) people buy them because they find them attractive/beautiful/elegant. I was at a conference last week and noticed one guy's watch, and thought "wow, that's a cool looking watch, I wish I had that." I expect it's a multi-thousand dollar watch, but that wasn't why I wanted it. I guess I'm trying to say that plenty of people buy nice things because they are nice things and not because they want to show off wealth. (And no I won't be shelling out $5000 for an Apple Watch, but I would if I were a billionaire.)
I agree with you. Here's the thing, the person who bought that extensive watch still wears it and shows it off/enjoys it 20 years later. Wearing a 20 year old Apple Watch would not be so impressive. Kind of like carrying around a first gen Motorola brick phone today.
Aw, you changed your tune. Last week you said less than 100 million would be a "failure." You'll be able to declare victory no matter what happens now.
I'd like to see that post. Could you give me a link to it?
(Har! Ben said 10 million and Malax even has it in one of his replies... proof that Ben didn't change the number)
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.
As I said in an earlier post Apple is reporting the watch in an "other" category along with ?TV and accessories. The fact they're not reporting it on its own out of the gate gives a good indication what their initial sales expectations are.
Indeed.
It shows that Cook has no balls, and has so little faith in the Apple Watch that he doesn't dare disclose sales figures because he knows they will be too low.
In contrast, Jobs put his neck on the line and predicted that Apple would sell at least 10 million iPhones in its first year. So it did, and more.
Cook's weaselly excuse is that he doesn't want to give competitors an advantage by disclosing sales figures. It didn't exactly hurt the iPhone or iPad, though, did it?
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.
Aw, you changed your tune. Last week you said less than 100 million would be a "failure." You'll be able to declare victory no matter what happens now.
You are probably misremembering, as my predictions now are the same as they have always been for the Apple Watch. I think you read 10 million as 100 million.
And not too long ago the watch went right back into the pocket, in the form of the smartphone.
The pocket won.
It's the *ahem* "tick-tock" of the time piece industry. (My apologies in advance for the terrible joke)
Right, but that's the point of ECats' perceptive observation. Pocket watches were in pockets because they were too big and clunky to go anywhere else. A clock in a pocket! How revolutionary! It was only when they got small enough to fit on the wrist that it became clear that the pocketwatch was just a transitional success. Let's see whether we're carrying slabs of glass and metal in our pockets 10 years from now.
I was thinking about that kind of thing the other day. I wonder if we will still use phone numbers in 20 years.
Judging by how much basic communication has evolved in the last 20 years anything is possible.
Not reall- just maybe not interested in it at this point in time. Not impressed with its functionality, battery life, and definitely not its looks- as it stands now. It's also doesnt to seem as groundbreaking as the first iPhone was- it lacks innovation as far as I'm concerned.
you probably said the same thing about iPad
Boiled down to brass tax the iPhone is the same as the ipad and AppleWatch.
Just a computing device in a different form factor:
Mainframe
Server
PC
Laptop
Smartphone
Tablet
Watch
If you are expecting a time machine you will always be disappointed
The iPad is highly functional: email, social media, e-commerce, gaming, movies, photos, wifi, productivity like iWork, Office. The Apple Watch is designed for lightweight interactivity. The iPod didn't do very much at one point either but you can see the sales just now. The Apple Watch is basically a wrist-iPod. I think 30-40m would be excessive for the first year but it might not have a yearly upgrade cycle so the chip supplier contract could be over 2 years. 10m year one and 20m year two. They don't need to improve performance, they need to cut the power draw so every year, I think they'll keep performance the same but improve battery life.
People buy those horrible looking plastic watches:
That one line sold 19m units in 10 years. Most of the units sell for under $100 but that market could easily consider the Apple Watch. I don't know how competitive it will be in the jewellery side of the watch market. Gold looks nice but it's still a bit bulky ATM:
You can see here at 1:14 when the girl tries on the watch:
[VIDEO]
It's loose so bad for the sensors and drawing on the screen. You can see how bulky the watch is on the guy helping her out.
That's not the high volume side anyway. If they manage to get GPS in before it ships, the sports model will definitely be more appealing than other sports watches given that it's also an iPod.
And I suppose it's a good thing that no one has ever been dumb enough to purchase technology that soon became obsolete.
Are you sure about that? Look how many people bought the iPad 1 and Apple quickly killed that off making it obsolete, both in hardware and software. Even the iPhone 3GS could run iOS 6 and the iPhone 4 could run iOS 7, but not the original iPad. Apple crippled it at iOS 5.1.1, when it was capable of running iOS 7 with the A4 CPU.
I would expect many to wait for a version 2 of the Apple Watch, especially since the first generation has lower than expected battery life requiring daily recharges. They would also wait for the price to drop as technology improves. I am sure many will buy the first version, but be disappointed when a better version arrives the following year.
Yes it was. Every year from 2001 to 2010, there was a new model iPod. Then in 2012 was the final generation of the iPod. The original, the dock connector model, the click-wheel models, the photo models, the video models, various sizes, and then multiple spin-off models: mini, shuffle, nano, touch. I don't think they are considering the Apple Watch as a hobby like AppleTV, so you can expect new models every year, just like the iPhone and iPad.
We have no idea how upgrades will work. ?Watch is unlike anything Apple has done before. I'm highly skeptical that Apple will put a $5K price tag on the Edition watch and expect you to buy a new one every 2 years.
They do that now with their products. Return customers is how they make a lot of their money, as well as other companies doing the same thing. Customer retention is important to companies. Browse eBay and look how many relatively new Apple products are for sale by people who bought the latest release each year. Apple makes tons of cash from people buying new iPhones every two years. You can expect the same with the Apple Watch.
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.
You have absolutely no Inkling what you are talking about.
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.
You have absolutely no Inkling what you are talking about.
That's it, it's total isolation, exile, rubbing you out of the respectable precincts of this forum. Not only sleaze, but craven sleaze is what you traffic in.
That's it, it's total isolation, exile, rubbing you out of the respectable precincts of this forum. Not only sleaze, but craven sleaze is what you traffic in.
Comments
But the function of your Breitling was not and will not be surpassed by a new model every year or two. The Apple Watch will be. A Breitling bought 30 years ago is just as functional as one bought today. That will not be true of the Apple Watch or any other so called smart watch
Sure. That's why I wouldn't pay $4500 for an Apple Watch. $350 is fine though.
I think it is very different than prior products. The iPhone's innovation is obvious. The iPad gave us a device that was fully portable and had a big enough screen to do actual work, which the iPhone could not. The watch, I'm missing it. You still need the iPhone with you, so what does a coupe of square inches on your wrist do for you that the iPhone doesn't do better
Well... It's not ONLY magic.
LOL
Doesn't shock me though. Pretty much what I hear when walking down the boulevard.
;-)
On the other hand, only Apple can truly deliver a Time Machine.
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.
Aw, you changed your tune. Last week you said less than 100 million would be a "failure." You'll be able to declare victory no matter what happens now.
Dunno what you're talking about. People buy expensive watches as a status symbol. The functionality is no better than a $25 watch. Apple Watch will be bought for its functionality and that will change fairly quickly making the one you bought two or three years ago obsolete. It's the more capabilities that make it vulnerable to obsolescence. Case indeed closed
I would argue that some people buy expensive watches as status symbols, but plenty more (maybe most) people buy them because they find them attractive/beautiful/elegant. I was at a conference last week and noticed one guy's watch, and thought "wow, that's a cool looking watch, I wish I had that." I expect it's a multi-thousand dollar watch, but that wasn't why I wanted it. I guess I'm trying to say that plenty of people buy nice things because they are nice things and not because they want to show off wealth. (And no I won't be shelling out $5000 for an Apple Watch, but I would if I were a billionaire.)
I agree with you. Here's the thing, the person who bought that extensive watch still wears it and shows it off/enjoys it 20 years later. Wearing a 20 year old Apple Watch would not be so impressive. Kind of like carrying around a first gen Motorola brick phone today.
Aw, you changed your tune. Last week you said less than 100 million would be a "failure." You'll be able to declare victory no matter what happens now.
I'd like to see that post. Could you give me a link to it?
(Har! Ben said 10 million and Malax even has it in one of his replies... proof that Ben didn't change the number)
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.
As I said in an earlier post Apple is reporting the watch in an "other" category along with ?TV and accessories. The fact they're not reporting it on its own out of the gate gives a good indication what their initial sales expectations are.
Indeed.
It shows that Cook has no balls, and has so little faith in the Apple Watch that he doesn't dare disclose sales figures because he knows they will be too low.
In contrast, Jobs put his neck on the line and predicted that Apple would sell at least 10 million iPhones in its first year. So it did, and more.
Cook's weaselly excuse is that he doesn't want to give competitors an advantage by disclosing sales figures. It didn't exactly hurt the iPhone or iPad, though, did it?
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.
Aw, you changed your tune. Last week you said less than 100 million would be a "failure." You'll be able to declare victory no matter what happens now.
You are probably misremembering, as my predictions now are the same as they have always been for the Apple Watch. I think you read 10 million as 100 million.
I was thinking about that kind of thing the other day. I wonder if we will still use phone numbers in 20 years.
Judging by how much basic communication has evolved in the last 20 years anything is possible.
The iPad is highly functional: email, social media, e-commerce, gaming, movies, photos, wifi, productivity like iWork, Office. The Apple Watch is designed for lightweight interactivity. The iPod didn't do very much at one point either but you can see the sales just now. The Apple Watch is basically a wrist-iPod. I think 30-40m would be excessive for the first year but it might not have a yearly upgrade cycle so the chip supplier contract could be over 2 years. 10m year one and 20m year two. They don't need to improve performance, they need to cut the power draw so every year, I think they'll keep performance the same but improve battery life.
People buy those horrible looking plastic watches:
http://www.fromjapan.co.jp/blog/en/g-shock/one-piece-x-g-shock-the-perfect-collaboration.html
That one line sold 19m units in 10 years. Most of the units sell for under $100 but that market could easily consider the Apple Watch. I don't know how competitive it will be in the jewellery side of the watch market. Gold looks nice but it's still a bit bulky ATM:
You can see here at 1:14 when the girl tries on the watch:
[VIDEO]
It's loose so bad for the sensors and drawing on the screen. You can see how bulky the watch is on the guy helping her out.
That's not the high volume side anyway. If they manage to get GPS in before it ships, the sports model will definitely be more appealing than other sports watches given that it's also an iPod.
And I suppose it's a good thing that no one has ever been dumb enough to purchase technology that soon became obsolete.
Are you sure about that? Look how many people bought the iPad 1 and Apple quickly killed that off making it obsolete, both in hardware and software. Even the iPhone 3GS could run iOS 6 and the iPhone 4 could run iOS 7, but not the original iPad. Apple crippled it at iOS 5.1.1, when it was capable of running iOS 7 with the A4 CPU.
I would expect many to wait for a version 2 of the Apple Watch, especially since the first generation has lower than expected battery life requiring daily recharges. They would also wait for the price to drop as technology improves. I am sure many will buy the first version, but be disappointed when a better version arrives the following year.
The iPod wasn't upgraded every year.
Yes it was. Every year from 2001 to 2010, there was a new model iPod. Then in 2012 was the final generation of the iPod. The original, the dock connector model, the click-wheel models, the photo models, the video models, various sizes, and then multiple spin-off models: mini, shuffle, nano, touch. I don't think they are considering the Apple Watch as a hobby like AppleTV, so you can expect new models every year, just like the iPhone and iPad.
We have no idea how upgrades will work. ?Watch is unlike anything Apple has done before. I'm highly skeptical that Apple will put a $5K price tag on the Edition watch and expect you to buy a new one every 2 years.
They do that now with their products. Return customers is how they make a lot of their money, as well as other companies doing the same thing. Customer retention is important to companies. Browse eBay and look how many relatively new Apple products are for sale by people who bought the latest release each year. Apple makes tons of cash from people buying new iPhones every two years. You can expect the same with the Apple Watch.
Your ire is plain to see.
That's it, it's total isolation, exile, rubbing you out of the respectable precincts of this forum. Not only sleaze, but craven sleaze is what you traffic in.
Touched a nerve, have I?