See, this is the way an evil 12-year-old thinks. "I didn't do nothing wrong. He went off on me. I must have touched a nerve or sumpin'."
Miserable mouse of a man. Just picture yourself saying what you said to Tim Cook's face. I would gladly hold you up by the collar. Your knees would turn to jelly.
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
No- I wanted the iPad and even correctly predicted it's name. You see the screen's the thing and that large display was the ticket. Why on earth would anyone want to look at a screen that size ever again? That size is what killed the iPod classic. Even my nano is only good as a clock and album art.
It is interesting to research watches in the context of railroads. Before the railroads there wasn't a huge need for individuals to keep accurate time. The pocket watch along with "Railroad time" was instrumental in allowing for the successful expansion of the railroads and thus the country. During that time a watch was as much a technological innovation as the iPhone.
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.
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.
There in lies the problem which has been an issue in all Apple rev one devices. The first instance is often a proof of concept with sometimes the second and third revs being similarly proving the point. This was certainly the case with iPhone as it really didn't come into its own until about iPhone 4.
That being said I have to wonder if the iWatch delay is due to waiting for Samsungs 14 nm process that is supposedly going live in early 2015. If so that would be an incredible first rev release.
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.
You really need to know the sales rates for other smart watches to make a statement like that. A 100K could be seen as success especially considering how watches in general sell these days. Watches simply aren't high volume tools in the way they where.
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.
Would anyone stupid enough to spend 5k on a watch care?
I really doubt that Apple has even thought about this. I'm expecting two thing to happen that Apple users might not be accustomed too. One is that there will be long waits between each iWatch revision. Two is that when a revision does come it will be a big overhaul.
That's the ideal scenario. Keep the expensive case, upgrade the Sx chip every few years.
Remember: the price of gold is about $1200 per ounce now. The Edition case will cost far more than the Sx chip.
(And it would be great if the Sx chip replacement could be done in Apple Stores while you wait.)
But who knows? Maybe there are technical issues preventing easy Sx chip replacement.
If so, maybe Apple could launch an upgrade plan for the Apple Watch.
You'd get a good price for the old one every few years, and you'd also get a new case.
(Which would complicate things if Apple allows you to have custom engravings.)
I'm not sure why people think Apple would have policies any different than any other watch maker. You buy a watch it is yours. You want a new one shell out the cash.
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.
You really need to know the sales rates for other smart watches to make a statement like that. A 100K could be seen as success especially considering how watches in general sell these days. Watches simply aren't high volume tools in the way they where.
I too was skeptical about the quantity of watches (smart or otherwise) sold worldwide annually. Spoiler it was 1.2 billion in 2013.
Surveys are not really reliable, they get such varying results. The following survey for overall interest after the launch suggested 10% of people would buy one:
They conclude that to be disappointing but the numbers for people buying the iPhone 6 there aren't that much higher. iPhone 6 buyers were 68% of existing iPhone users, which wouldn't be 68% of the total. If even 1 in 7 iPhone 6 buyers got the watch, that's still 20-25m units. There's a poll here with about 10,000 votes that is pretty much 50/50 love/hate the watch:
There's a poll here with over 9,000 votes asking if a watch would be better square or round and the numbers reflect the buying trend in traditional watches with over 80% in favor of round:
The watches are very platform specific but it shows a potential 24% of the overall smartwatch market (even though that market isn't large just now).
Survey respondents are simply answering a survey question, they aren't in a store, holding a watch and making a buying decision. It's easy to say you would or wouldn't buy a watch or do or don't like a design but it's entirely different when you have to hand over $350 or more to own one.
When Apple made the first iPhone, they had a market of 1 billion phones (mostly cheap phones) and they aimed for 1% (10m units). They sell over 150m units per year.
With the watch, they similarly have a market of over 1 billion mostly cheap watches and their aim could similarly be 1%. Given that it's tied to the iPhone, that caps its appeal but if 10% of compatible iPhone buyers gets one, that's actually 10% of 300m people as the compatibility spans multiple years of iPhone models. 30m units would be a pretty successful product considering smartwatches as a whole only sold 2 million units in 2013 and 7-15m projected this year and 25-60m in 2015.
It's mentioned often that people don't wear watches any more but over 1 billion people are buying them so they must be. The challenge is getting people to pay more for them in large volumes. With the phone, that was easy as there was a clear demand for high functionality on the go. I think it will be harder to do with the watch because of the downsides that include charging every day, having functionality tied to the phone making it mostly redundant and the fact they don't allow you to glance at your watch inconspicuously to tell what the time is, you have to make it very noticeable that you're checking what time it is. The sales will ultimately determine its success.
Interesting stuff. Thanks Marvin.
I was skeptical to your claim that over a billion watches are sold annually worldwide, so I did a minimal amount of searching and found this:
If accurate, a couple of interesting things from the above link.
[SIZE=14px]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">1) you are correct, 1.2 billion watches sold worldwide in 2013.</span>
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">2) china and hong kong account for well over 80% of global production</span>
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">3) swiss watch ASP is $739, chinese watch ASP $3 (maybe the swiss will indeed want to pay attention to apple)</span>
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">4) swiss own 54% of market value (this is apples target market, its their bread and butter to own the profits)</span>
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">5) only 2% of watches sold are made from precious metals </span>
[/SIZE]
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.
I can't argue with what you have said above.
It's also doesnt to seem as groundbreaking as the first iPhone was- it lacks innovation as far as I'm concerned.
However here I have a different opinion. First I see all sorts of innovation in this Watch. Honestly I don't know how you can dismiss the positives so quiickly. As for the things you rightly point out as problematic, the functionality & battery leife especially, those can improve with time. Unfortunately I don't see a huge improvement coming in 2015 after the first release. I could see the watch going 2-3 years before an overhaul. Everything about this product will have Apple rethinking past marketing directions.
I too was skeptical about the quantity of watches (smart or otherwise) sold worldwide annually. Spoiler it was 1.2 billion in 2013.
That is pretty much the point, it's inky 1.2 billion. There are literally thousands of watch models on the market making up that 1.2 billion. Most of those sales are of fairly cheap watches. Considering this I would see ten million in first year sales as an excellent result.
I really doubt that Apple has even thought about this. I'm expecting two thing to happen that Apple users might not be accustomed too. One is that there will be long waits between each iWatch revision. Two is that when a revision does come it will be a big overhaul.
I'm not sure why people think Apple would have policies any different than any other watch maker. You buy a watch it is yours. You want a new one shell out the cash.
Yes, but high-end Rolex / Cartier / Omega et al watches last for decades. In part because traditional mechanical watch technology hasn't changed much in the last century, so there's no technology-driven obsolescence. And in part because the point of owning a traditional mechanical prestige-watch isn't the technology anyway.
But the Apple Watch is actually a computer on your wrist. It *is* a computer technology-intensive product. And computer technology, especially in mobile, is moving forward very rapidly now. So what things can be improved? Battery life, size and weight, sensing devices (e.g. improved health monitoring sensors), 4G cellular voice + data network connectivity, eventual stand-alone independence from iPhone, etc. And all of that requires silicon upgrades.
So yeah, I agree that Apple probably won't update the Apple Watch lines, hardware-wise, very often. There will be no need to bump the processor speed or increase the screen resolution every year. So, my best-case scenario probably won't happen. Most likely no upgradeable Sx SoC modules, even though the case (especially in the Edition line) is by far the most expensive component.
Second-best-case scenario: when there is a new Apple Watch hardware design, it would be great if Apple offered good trade-in value for your old Apple Watch. Especially for the Edition model. Gold is $1200/ounce now, so the case has lots of raw material value.
But the Apple Watch is actually a computer on your wrist. It *is* a computer technology-intensive product. And computer technology, especially in mobile, is moving forward very rapidly now. So what things can be improved? Battery life, size and weight, sensing devices (e.g. improved health monitoring sensors), 4G cellular voice + data network connectivity, eventual stand-alone independence from iPhone, etc. And all of that requires silicon upgrades.
So yeah, I agree that Apple probably won't update the Apple Watch lines, hardware-wise, very often. There will be no need to bump the processor speed or increase the screen resolution every year. So, my best-case scenario probably won't happen. Most likely no upgradeable Sx SoC modules, even though the case (especially in the Edition line) is by far the most expensive component.
The first paragraph of that is the reason I think it'll be updated sooner rather than later.
...4G cellular voice + data network connectivity...
If that happens, I think it's so far down that road that we may be off 4G and onto 5G in the iPhone by the time that is feasible in a watch-sized device of reasonable weight and battery life.
If that happens, I think it's so far down that road that we may be off 4G and onto 5G in the iPhone by the time that is feasible in a watch-sized device of reasonable weight and battery life.
I know you're responding to him, but just to clarify I was referring specifically to standalone capability, not any specific wireless standard. I think that will be the big upgrade feature as soon as it's feasible with reasonable battery life.
I know you're responding to him, but just to clarify I was referring specifically to standalone capability, not any specific wireless standard. I think that will be the big upgrade feature as soon as it's feasible with reasonable battery life.
Sure, but note my usage of 5G is merely to illustrate how far in the future it would be before this would occur, if it were to occur, which I'm not so sure about. I don't think Apple is looking at a plan where ?Watch is being replaced by the iPhone. I see wearables being wireless peripherals to our portable (i.e.: hand-held) electronics.
A couple things to consider, if the baseband HW was small enough and power efficient today is licensing costs and antenna design. Those might be limited factors right now, which may be why Apple hasn't released a Mac notebook with cellular capabilities. Space certainly doesn't seem like an issue.
Based on the above observations, some sources suggest that a new generation of 5G standards may be introduced approximately in the early 2020s.[4][5] However, still no international 5G development projects have officially been launched, and there is still a large extent of debate on what 5G is exactly about.
Yes, but high-end Rolex / Cartier / Omega et al watches last for decades. In part because traditional mechanical watch technology hasn't changed much in the last century, so there's no technology-driven obsolescence. And in part because the point of owning a traditional mechanical prestige-watch isn't the technology anyway.
But the Apple Watch is actually a computer on your wrist. It *is* a computer technology-intensive product. And computer technology, especially in mobile, is moving forward very rapidly now. So what things can be improved? Battery life, size and weight, sensing devices (e.g. improved health monitoring sensors), 4G cellular voice + data network connectivity, eventual stand-alone independence from iPhone, etc. And all of that requires silicon upgrades.
The thing I see here is that if the watch launches with 14 nm tech it will take a couple of years until a new process exists to give the hardware meaningful improvements.
So yeah, I agree that Apple probably won't update the Apple Watch lines, hardware-wise, very often. There will be no need to bump the processor speed or increase the screen resolution every year. So, my best-case scenario probably won't happen. Most likely no upgradeable Sx SoC modules, even though the case (especially in the Edition line) is by far the most expensive component.
I actually see the big potential for an update to be new battery technology. By far it is what limits the watch can do.
Second-best-case scenario: when there is a new Apple Watch hardware design, it would be great if Apple offered good trade-in value for your old Apple Watch. Especially for the Edition model. Gold is $1200/ounce now, so the case has lots of raw material value.
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.
I think the conservative nature of those numbers makes them very accurate.
Because if you take just half of that 10M number (aka 5M) and multiply by $349 that $1.75B in revenue.
Calling $1.75B in annual revenue with Apple's expected gross margins a "failure" is idiocy. That's nearly double that of the aTV which is not really a hobby anymore at $1B in annual revenue (2013).
10M unit would be a roaring success at $3.4B annual revenue and approximately $1B gross margin. That's more than the iPod generates.
I don't expect to see 10M unit sales in the 1st year.
Because if you take just half of that 10M number (aka 5M) and multiply by $349 that $1.75B in revenue.
Calling $1.75B in annual revenue with Apple's expected gross margins a "failure" is idiocy. That's nearly double that of the aTV which is not really a hobby anymore at $1B in annual revenue (2013).
10M unit would be a roaring success at $3.4B annual revenue and approximately $1B gross margin. That's more than the iPod generates.
I don't expect to see 10M unit sales in the 1st year.
I understand that fully... but are those the numbers that Apple wants to see in order for revenue and profit to grow at 10-15% per year.
That is why I think Apple would perceive it as a failure if less than 10 million were sold and, for sure, I'd want to see 15 million sold in the next year.
10 million is a good number that really helps the bottom line. 15 million takes Apple into the future and 20 million is crazy ass great.
Comments
See, this is the way an evil 12-year-old thinks. "I didn't do nothing wrong. He went off on me. I must have touched a nerve or sumpin'."
Miserable mouse of a man. Just picture yourself saying what you said to Tim Cook's face. I would gladly hold you up by the collar. Your knees would turn to jelly.
No- I wanted the iPad and even correctly predicted it's name. You see the screen's the thing and that large display was the ticket. Why on earth would anyone want to look at a screen that size ever again? That size is what killed the iPod classic. Even my nano is only good as a clock and album art.
:smokey:
There in lies the problem which has been an issue in all Apple rev one devices. The first instance is often a proof of concept with sometimes the second and third revs being similarly proving the point. This was certainly the case with iPhone as it really didn't come into its own until about iPhone 4.
That being said I have to wonder if the iWatch delay is due to waiting for Samsungs 14 nm process that is supposedly going live in early 2015. If so that would be an incredible first rev release.
You really need to know the sales rates for other smart watches to make a statement like that. A 100K could be seen as success especially considering how watches in general sell these days. Watches simply aren't high volume tools in the way they where.
Would anyone stupid enough to spend 5k on a watch care?
I'm not sure why people think Apple would have policies any different than any other watch maker. You buy a watch it is yours. You want a new one shell out the cash.
I too was skeptical about the quantity of watches (smart or otherwise) sold worldwide annually. Spoiler it was 1.2 billion in 2013.
Read below from another thread:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/182700/teens-tepid-on-apple-watch-as-iphone-and-ipad-steal-android-marketshare/90#post_2614748
However here I have a different opinion. First I see all sorts of innovation in this Watch. Honestly I don't know how you can dismiss the positives so quiickly. As for the things you rightly point out as problematic, the functionality & battery leife especially, those can improve with time. Unfortunately I don't see a huge improvement coming in 2015 after the first release. I could see the watch going 2-3 years before an overhaul. Everything about this product will have Apple rethinking past marketing directions.
I really doubt that Apple has even thought about this. I'm expecting two thing to happen that Apple users might not be accustomed too. One is that there will be long waits between each iWatch revision. Two is that when a revision does come it will be a big overhaul.
I'm not sure why people think Apple would have policies any different than any other watch maker. You buy a watch it is yours. You want a new one shell out the cash.
Yes, but high-end Rolex / Cartier / Omega et al watches last for decades. In part because traditional mechanical watch technology hasn't changed much in the last century, so there's no technology-driven obsolescence. And in part because the point of owning a traditional mechanical prestige-watch isn't the technology anyway.
But the Apple Watch is actually a computer on your wrist. It *is* a computer technology-intensive product. And computer technology, especially in mobile, is moving forward very rapidly now. So what things can be improved? Battery life, size and weight, sensing devices (e.g. improved health monitoring sensors), 4G cellular voice + data network connectivity, eventual stand-alone independence from iPhone, etc. And all of that requires silicon upgrades.
So yeah, I agree that Apple probably won't update the Apple Watch lines, hardware-wise, very often. There will be no need to bump the processor speed or increase the screen resolution every year. So, my best-case scenario probably won't happen. Most likely no upgradeable Sx SoC modules, even though the case (especially in the Edition line) is by far the most expensive component.
Second-best-case scenario: when there is a new Apple Watch hardware design, it would be great if Apple offered good trade-in value for your old Apple Watch. Especially for the Edition model. Gold is $1200/ounce now, so the case has lots of raw material value.
But the Apple Watch is actually a computer on your wrist. It *is* a computer technology-intensive product. And computer technology, especially in mobile, is moving forward very rapidly now. So what things can be improved? Battery life, size and weight, sensing devices (e.g. improved health monitoring sensors), 4G cellular voice + data network connectivity, eventual stand-alone independence from iPhone, etc. And all of that requires silicon upgrades.
So yeah, I agree that Apple probably won't update the Apple Watch lines, hardware-wise, very often. There will be no need to bump the processor speed or increase the screen resolution every year. So, my best-case scenario probably won't happen. Most likely no upgradeable Sx SoC modules, even though the case (especially in the Edition line) is by far the most expensive component.
The first paragraph of that is the reason I think it'll be updated sooner rather than later.
If that happens, I think it's so far down that road that we may be off 4G and onto 5G in the iPhone by the time that is feasible in a watch-sized device of reasonable weight and battery life.
If that happens, I think it's so far down that road that we may be off 4G and onto 5G in the iPhone by the time that is feasible in a watch-sized device of reasonable weight and battery life.
I know you're responding to him, but just to clarify I was referring specifically to standalone capability, not any specific wireless standard. I think that will be the big upgrade feature as soon as it's feasible with reasonable battery life.
Sure, but note my usage of 5G is merely to illustrate how far in the future it would be before this would occur, if it were to occur, which I'm not so sure about. I don't think Apple is looking at a plan where ?Watch is being replaced by the iPhone. I see wearables being wireless peripherals to our portable (i.e.: hand-held) electronics.
A couple things to consider, if the baseband HW was small enough and power efficient today is licensing costs and antenna design. Those might be limited factors right now, which may be why Apple hasn't released a Mac notebook with cellular capabilities. Space certainly doesn't seem like an issue.
PS: Open forum so no need to preface your reply. The more conversation the better, I say.
I don't see this happening.
I suspect that we will see more models before we see dramatically new internals. A watch with a round display comes to mind.
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.
Guess what, that's why you don't work at Apple.
Why are those numbers bullshit?
I think the conservative nature of those numbers makes them very accurate.
Because if you take just half of that 10M number (aka 5M) and multiply by $349 that $1.75B in revenue.
Calling $1.75B in annual revenue with Apple's expected gross margins a "failure" is idiocy. That's nearly double that of the aTV which is not really a hobby anymore at $1B in annual revenue (2013).
10M unit would be a roaring success at $3.4B annual revenue and approximately $1B gross margin. That's more than the iPod generates.
I don't expect to see 10M unit sales in the 1st year.
Because if you take just half of that 10M number (aka 5M) and multiply by $349 that $1.75B in revenue.
Calling $1.75B in annual revenue with Apple's expected gross margins a "failure" is idiocy. That's nearly double that of the aTV which is not really a hobby anymore at $1B in annual revenue (2013).
10M unit would be a roaring success at $3.4B annual revenue and approximately $1B gross margin. That's more than the iPod generates.
I don't expect to see 10M unit sales in the 1st year.
I understand that fully... but are those the numbers that Apple wants to see in order for revenue and profit to grow at 10-15% per year.
That is why I think Apple would perceive it as a failure if less than 10 million were sold and, for sure, I'd want to see 15 million sold in the next year.
10 million is a good number that really helps the bottom line. 15 million takes Apple into the future and 20 million is crazy ass great.