UBS survey finds 10% of consumers want a smartwatch, expects 24M Apple Watch sales in fiscal 2015

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 70
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post



    10%- that's a hard sell. It better work seamlessly- flawlessly. And not be dependent on the iPhone.

     

    not a problem for me. activity tracking, music and payments are my primary interests -- all of these operate independently of an iphone.  and no, GPS is not required to track running activity, only route tracking. do not care.

     

    we'll take two.

  • Reply 22 of 70
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     

     

     



    Yep. This is why I agree with the folks who say the 5.5" iPhone is the true new iPhone... Then the future becomes Watch > iPad > Mac, not iPhone > iPad > Mac.


    Make up your mind. Do people need a larger screen to interact with the iPhone? If so, then how will a MUCH SMALLER screen replace that? How will you browse the internet through a 1" screen? How will you watch a movie? Read a book? Your solution seems to imply people will carry around an iPad for these other uses. So people are going to carry around an even larger device that simply moves the cellular radio from the larger device to the smaller one? And how does that make any sense? The radio that requires the most power gets the smallest battery. I mean it doesn't even have GPS, something even the Seiko Astron does -- and it's SOLAR POWERED! And what about people who don't wear watches? Perhaps an ?Broach? An ?MoneyClip? Please god not ?Glass!? I'd be more apt to expect Apple to just implant the phone under the skin, with contacts for a visual interface, using the entire body as an antenna -- or just tap directly into the brain.

     

    The ?Watch is an accessory for people who wear watches which compliments the iPhone. It's not going to change the way we conduct business anytime soon. People who don't already, are not going to start wearing watches as long as they have to carry around their iPhone. And they aren't going to stop carrying around their iPhones as long as you need some screen real estate to do just about anything. When the ?Watch is flawlessly voice activated, can project a retina quality image onto any surface, and take 8MP photos with flash, then maybe it will have a shot at replacing the iPhone. In the meantime, I also don't see people carrying around iPad-sized phones, because they can buy a companion watch on which they can see notifications. I just don't see the logic behind this argument.

  • Reply 23 of 70
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    These analysts aren't engineers or scientists, but they seem to think everything magically follows Moore's Law.

    They may think that but they are wrong as Moore's Law has nothing to do with consumer device utility.

    As seen in every ?Watch thread, users here also believe that the next major product category also means it must replace current devices for the average user. There is no reality that a watch with a 1.2" display will all people to stop buying smartphones, tablets and traditional PCs. The only reason that occurred between the iPad and traditional PCs is because they were buying HW and an OS they didn't really need for the tasks they wanted to perform, and in the case of Windows, an OS that was excruciatingly slow, convoluted and insecure. Trying to play Angry Birds, Words with Friends, or MS Word or an Internet browser on a watch display is simply not going to cause larger devices to fall to the wayside.
  • Reply 24 of 70
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

     

    People who don't already, are not going to start wearing watches as long as they have to carry around their iPhone.


     

    how ignorant. i dont wear a watch. but am planning on getting AW. why? activity tracking during my day; and wireless music & payments while jogging -- without my heavy, valuable phone on me (GPS is not required for run tracking, only routing mapping....which offers little value to me since my routes dont change).

  • Reply 25 of 70
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    how ignorant. i dont wear a watch. but am planning on getting AW. why? activity tracking during my day; and wireless music & payments while jogging -- without my heavy, valuable phone on me (GPS is not required for run tracking, only routing mapping....which offers little value to me since my routes dont change).

    "People who don't already, are not going to start using smartphones as long as they own a laptop and cellphone." ~ circa 2007.

    Same basic shit, different fucking year.
  • Reply 26 of 70
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

     

     

     activity tracking, music and payments are my primary interests -- all of these operate independently of an iphone.  and no, GPS is not required to track running activity, only route tracking. do not care.


    Your needs sound like a good solution for Apple iPhone sports enthusiasts. Well as long as you don't take the ?Watch off while you're away from your iPhone, which might be how the ?Watch is authorized to use ?Pay (in which case you don't want to leave your iPhone too far behind). For anyone who doesn't already have an iPhone, I doubt it's going to motivate them to buy one. Except for ?Pay, you could buy almost any smart watch out there to do what you want. And that's where Apple's going to have trouble getting the presumed market for smart watches to jump onboard if they are not already Apple iPhone users. This is one of the reasons I say Apple should make the iPad compatible with ?Watch and ?Pay as well, and who knows maybe they will after the initial launch goes smoothly. I also expect the number of Apple iPhone uses to have a much greater adoption rate of the ?Watch than the general population, so these analysts are actually underestimating the demand in my opinion. I doubt Apple will get as high a percentage from the general population that has less expensive alternatives for needs as basic as yours, as well as many "cheap" iPhone users. That may change with ?Watch 2.0 after all merchants support contactless payments, and Apple updates the features, and developers find innovative ways to use the watch as a stand-alone product, or an indispensable app that works with the iPhone. 

     

    And PS, you're applying your anecdotal needs for a sports watch to the entire population without any consideration for need, nor the alternatives. I can give you the same statistics, I know dozens of people who are NOT interested in tracking their movements all day. And of those who do, they would rather spend less money than the the ?Watch is going to cost. But I'm not going to apply that to everyone. You don't want a WATCH. You want a fitness tracker with some extra features. That's not the same thing as someone who doesn't wear a watch and isn't contemplating wearing some kind of device to do something a watch does not do. So I stick by my comment, people who do not wear watches, are not likely to consider buying the ?Watch as long as they have to carry their iPhone to use it, especially if they don't already own an iPhone. If they were already considering wearing some kind of fitness device which doesn't require their iPhone to use it, then YES, they just might consider an ?Watch.

  • Reply 27 of 70
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    I don't see how it could be the successor to the iPhone in the same way the iPhone isn't the successor to the iMac. They are very, very different tools.

    And the iPhone isn't dependent on a Mac. That's not trolling- that's a FACT.
  • Reply 28 of 70
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    how ignorant. i dont wear a watch. but am planning on getting AW. why? activity tracking during my day; and wireless music & payments while jogging -- without my heavy, valuable phone on me (GPS is not required for run tracking, only routing mapping....which offers little value to me since my routes dont change).

    Exactly where do you shop while you jog? Curious.
    I know people hand out oranges and water during marathons but never heard of this activity.
  • Reply 29 of 70
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    rogifan wrote: »
    One thing we know for sure is ?Watch is not a hobby. If Apple's ?Watch section on their website is anything to go by I think the marketing for this is going to be impressive and massive.

    Most definitely a hobby just like ?TV. Don't expect upgrades every year at that price. Heck it's taking 9 months to get this one out the door. The marketing will be massive as only 10% really want one.
  • Reply 30 of 70
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     

    The AppleWatch hasn't been marketed as, nor referred to as a 'smartwatch' by Apple. They just call it a watch, which to me suggests their intentions: the target market is people with wrists.


     

     

    People with wrists and iPhones.

  • Reply 31 of 70
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post



    "The analyst said it's likely that the iPhone and Apple Watch will prove to be complementary products, much like the Mac and iPad. But he said it's also possible that the Apple Watch could eventually become the successor to the iPhone."



    I've been saying this since the hour Apple announced its Watch.

     

     

    The phone has been around for over a hundred years. It’s been mobile for thirty years or so. I don't see anything replacing it for at least ten years, and probably much longer.

  • Reply 32 of 70
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post



    I don't see how it could be the successor to the iPhone in the same way the iPhone isn't the successor to the iMac. They are very, very different tools.




    That's predicated on a few things happening (like the phone functions drawing less power, and/or breakthroughs in battery power density). These analysts aren't engineers or scientists, but they seem to think everything magically follows Moore's Law.



    Even then It's not a complete solution. People seems to want a large screen Internet device everywhere they go, because a mobile phone isn't just for voice calls any more. Apps dominate smartphone usage. Surface area isn't just for viewing content: it's also more area for user input, and a wrist-bound watch doesn't have a lot of screen area. So I'm not convinced that a smartphone will ever be replaced by a watch, even if you could make calls all day long from a watch.

     

     

    Indeed.

     

    Unless someone invents some incredibly simple way to have a private conversation in public without needing a headset or headphones/earbuds, the phone will be with us.

  • Reply 33 of 70
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post



    "The analyst said it's likely that the iPhone and Apple Watch will prove to be complementary products, much like the Mac and iPad. But he said it's also possible that the Apple Watch could eventually become the successor to the iPhone."



    I've been saying this since the hour Apple announced its Watch.




    One thing we know for sure is ?Watch is not a hobby. If Apple's ?Watch section on their website is anything to go by I think the marketing for this is going to be impressive and massive.

     

     

    Indeed.

     

    Which will make its failure all the greater.

  • Reply 34 of 70
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    pazuzu wrote: »
    And the iPhone isn't dependent on a Mac. That's not trolling- that's a FACT.

    Which further illustrates the point that ?Watch will not be replacing smartphones, tablets and traditional PCs.
  • Reply 35 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     

     

     



    Yep. This is why I agree with the folks who say the 5.5" iPhone is the true new iPhone... Then the future becomes Watch > iPad > Mac, not iPhone > iPad > Mac.


    Make up your mind. Do people need a larger screen to interact with the iPhone? If so, then how will a MUCH SMALLER screen replace that? How will you browse the internet through a 1" screen? How will you watch a movie? Read a book? Your solution seems to imply people will carry around an iPad for these other uses. So people are going to carry around an even larger device that simply moves the cellular radio from the larger device to the smaller one? And how does that make any sense? The radio that requires the most power gets the smallest battery. I mean it doesn't even have GPS, something even the Seiko Astron does -- and it's SOLAR POWERED! And what about people who don't wear watches? Perhaps an ?Broach? An ?MoneyClip? Please god not ?Glass!? I'd be more apt to expect Apple to just implant the phone under the skin, with contacts for a visual interface, using the entire body as an antenna -- or just tap directly into the brain.

     

    The ?Watch is an accessory for people who wear watches which compliments the iPhone. It's not going to change the way we conduct business anytime soon. People who don't already, are not going to start wearing watches as long as they have to carry around their iPhone. And they aren't going to stop carrying around their iPhones as long as you need some screen real estate to do just about anything. When the ?Watch is flawlessly voice activated, can project a retina quality image onto any surface, and take 8MP photos with flash, then maybe it will have a shot at replacing the iPhone. In the meantime, I also don't see people carrying around iPad-sized phones, because they can buy a companion watch on which they can see notifications. I just don't see the logic behind this argument.


     

     

    Quite.

     

    I think Apple's whole approach to their devices has become flawed.

     

    For those of us who have iPads, the iPhone has itself become an accessory. The 4" iPhone is just the right size for one-handed use on the go, which is the mobile phone's primary advantage. At any point that I can sit down, the iPad becomes the go-to device, as it does for Tim Cook, who uses his iPad 80% of the time.

     

    So the idea that Apple wants my iPhone to become less useful for one-handed use seems baffling, until you add the Apple Watch.

     

    It seems clear to me what Apple's strategy is now. They have decided to hoover up the less well-off people who can't afford both an iPhone and an iPad, by introducing outsize phones. That's why the iPhone 6 Plus is more popular in Asia; there are more people there who can't afford an iPad. So in the short term, Apple are likely to do well. However, in the long term, as people become wealthier, they are more likely to want the iPad. Once they have one, a large iPhone becomes redundant. 

     

    The Apple Watch seems to tie in with the idea of the big iPhone, especially in Asia, as many more people wear watches there, albeit very cheap ones. 

     

    But it seems strange that Apple are moving away from the optimal solution, and catering to the netbook audience. They have traditionally given us what is best, not what we ask for. They need to be careful about this direction, as it is liable to bite them back in the long term.

  • Reply 36 of 70
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

     

     

    not a problem for me. activity tracking, music and payments are my primary interests -- all of these operate independently of an iphone.  and no, GPS is not required to track running activity, only route tracking. do not care.

     

    we'll take two.


    They do not operate independently of an iPhone.  An iPhone is REQUIRED to make the watch function.  You can't do much with it without the iPhone.  The Watch SDK has confirmed this.  The iPhone's SoC executes the majority of the code and the watch is just a UI.

     

    http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/11/apple-releases-watchkit-developer-tools-alongside-first-ios-8-2-beta/

  • Reply 37 of 70
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Which further illustrates the point that ?Watch will not be replacing smartphones, tablets and traditional PCs.



    .....and cuts a chunk out of your sales pie right out the gate because it is totally tethered to the iPhone.
  • Reply 38 of 70
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

     

    People who don't already, are not going to start wearing watches as long as they have to carry around their iPhone.


     

    how ignorant. i dont wear a watch. but am planning on getting AW. why? activity tracking during my day; and wireless music & payments while jogging -- without my heavy, valuable phone on me (GPS is not required for run tracking, only routing mapping....which offers little value to me since my routes dont change).


     

     

    It’s not a question of tracking routes; It’s a question of accuracy, which you will only achieve with GPS, which is why GPS is crucial for fitness.

  • Reply 39 of 70
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    pazuzu wrote: »
    because it is totally tethered to the iPhone.

    Nope.
    which is why GPS is crucial for fitness.

    Nope.
  • Reply 40 of 70
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Nope.
    Nope.

    Yup.
    Unless you ignorantly use it exclusively to just tell time.
Sign In or Register to comment.