Apple announced the watch too soon. Should have waited.
Now the watch is turning into over promise where people will perceive as under deliver.
We have heard too much and much of it speculation.
I am still struggling to see why people would pay $349 and up for a device that is only a limited extension of a phone screen. And it need to be constantly charged although about as much as a phone. Why do people want or need this? Just asking.
At least android shipped a watch.
You'll have to be more specific than hand waving. Exactly what part of the big reveal in September was too much speculation? Just asking.
Yeah, pretty much the same thing was said about MP3 players as well. When Apple introduced the iPod, EVERYONE was like, WTF!?. Apple has lost their mind. Guess what happened? Not only did Apple go on to sell millions and millions of them, it helped prop the entire MP3 player industry with it. Oh and help move the music industry into the 21st century. <--- This is what Apple can do to a specific market.
Should we move on to the tablet market next? You know, the market that Microsoft started in 2001 and dragged on for another 10 years before Apple came along with their own "useless" tablet that no one saw a use for. What happened there? Right... Apple went on to sell hundreds of millions and it also just happened to prop the entire tablet market with it. <--- This is what Apple can do to a specific market.
Now... what about this wearables market YOU see no need for... Right.
Apple is full of talented, smart people. I'm sure they did their homework. Even if they do the same with this watch that they did with the original iPod - sell it to the faithful - that user base today isn't just 25 million Mac users... it's a half a billion iPhone 5 (and later) users and growing. I think when the Apple Watch is released, we're going to see another surge of iPhone 6 sales.
I'm not the only one who doesn't see a need for wearables. The public clearly does not either. On the other hand, the public clearly DID see a need for portable music players long before Apple got into the market. You can't even begin to compare the iPod to the Apple Watch. Sony sold millions upon millions of Walkman models long before MP3s existed. The public clearly had a desire to carry their music with them. Yes, Apple definitely stepped into the MP3 player market at the right time with the right product.
The Apple Watch is totally different. Despite years of effort on the part of many companies to convince the public to embrace wearables, the market is still tiny. People simply don't see the utility or need. It's not about MY lack of interest in the wearables market. It's about the FACT that the public has not embraced the entire category. Do you think the Apple Watch is going to single handedly change that? I don't.
I am in complete agreement with you, however, about the size of Apple's iPhone installed base working in its favor. They will sell a few million watches no problem, probably in the first weekend. But what will sales be a year later? Once the fans get theirs, will Apple be able to convince a steady stream of (subsidized...which is a key point) iPhone buyers to plunk down another $350+ for the watch? I don't think so.
I don't think the watch is going to be a total failure. Personally, I have no interest in buying one, but I can definitely appreciate the appeal. I think they are smart to create an iPhone accessory. I think it's too expensive for the casual buyer. At $199, I think a lot of iPhone owners might get one just for the novelty, coolness, and occasional time-saving it offers. But at $350+, I don't think it's a casual purchase. But if they can sell a few million every quarter, it'll pad the bottom line nicely.
Personally I think the watch is more about Cook and Ive declaring their independence from Steve, stepping out of his shadow. They've made it very clear that the watch was developed after Steve. Given all the talk about how Steve "cracked" TV before he died, any TV-related product Apple releases will still have his fingerprints all over it. The Apple Watch is Apple's "look, we CAN innovate WITHOUT Steve" product. I hope it works for them. I've been a customer for 32 years and I'd love to see my portfolio gain even more value. Either way, success or not, I hope that after the dust from this wearables theater settles, they'll get serious about the living room and gaming. That's where the money is.
As usual, many of the commenters here clearly didn't read the article, but instead jumped right in with an opinion. It clearly stated in the article that while Android Wear watches were only ~700K estimated shipped, that is a fraction of the 4.6 million "smart wearable bands" shipped in 2014. So this is one estimate of the market size, ~5M units of smart wearable bands that will be the primary ?Watch market. Yes, Apple will compete as well with "general watches", but it will be difficult to categorize which of those sub-markets it is primarily competing in.
I think the estimates by analysts of 26M and greater in calendar 2015 are very aggressive. I think if the Apple Watch does 10M units in calendar 2015 (or double the entire market of 2014), especially when released for under 3 quarters, it would be a very successful introduction. If they are doing 50M sold in calendar 2017 with a release 3 ?Watch (10x the market of 2014), I think that will be extremely successful for an entirely new computing & device platform. If it really catches on, clearly lots of room for upside, but those are my definitions of success from a units perspective.
I can wait to quote the comments on this thread in 6 months.
So many AppleWatch haters.
Hopefully they'll just ban themselves.
I saw a lot of iPad hate in the forums when it was announced in 2010 (those threads are still there). Most of those trolls are no longer posting in the forums.
720k sold, for the entire year of 2014, and that's ALL of them combined! How laughable. How pathetic. How embarrassing. What an epic fail.
I bet that more than 720K buttplugs were sold in 2014 than all Android watches. That tells you how desirable an Android watch is. Besides a few fanatics, even the average consumer knows garbage when they see it.
I bet that more than 720K buttplugs were sold in 2014 than all Android watches.
You just pulled that estimate out of your... never mind.
Android Wear smartwatches start below $100 too so this doesn't look good as far as demand for this overall class of devices goes. The Canalys site says the Moto 360 was the clear leader:
They say it was supply constrained. Between the Moto X phone and the 360, they are doing pretty well for design but buyers aren't noticing it. Lenovo owns Motorola now so maybe they can turn it around and get people moved away from Samsung.
Apple has the benefit of the single brand. Android's weakness is diluting one brand across a whole range of poor quality manufacturers so nobody can trust it. When Samsung doesn't deliver, they don't know where to turn.
It's still ages until the Apple Watch launch. I thought it would be soon but it's due in Spring, which starts March 20th and could be as late as June.
I had a patient yesterday who had an Android watch. It's the first one I've ever seen in the wild. I asked her about it. She liked it. She says she used it to check her messages and that it had substantially reduced the number of times she fished her watch out of the purse. I didn't give her a hard time about it. But I commented on it in the first place because it was so big and clunky looking. The Apple Watch won't be that clunky, I think... but I think it's gonna look too big until I get used to it. I won't be first in line for one, but I'll be watching with interest.
I hope she doesn't mind wearing a watch which spies on her every move.
If she's into being social online, I'm sure she won't mind.
Originally Posted by JBDragonApple expects to sell 5 million a quarter. I don't see it. Most everyone I know has iPhones and not one plans to buy a Apple Watch.
For the who wears watches? OLD PEOPLE!!!
OK, so first, Apple has NEVER stated any such thing as to how many they expect to sell. Only the stupid ANALysts are spouting numbers that have no basis in reality, and they're simply pulling numbers out of their arse. Apple has internal numbers, but that will NEVER be released to the public.
Second. I guess you're a young person of nowadays with little respect for us "old fogeys". I wear a watch every day, but don't consider myself old. Saying that, will I buy an Apple Watch gen 1? No. I waited for the 3gs iPhone, so will wait a few generations before taking the plunge, but I definitely will at some point.
Oh, and as to who may buy an Apple Watch? Consider that literally millions of people own an iPhone 5 and 5s that will then be able to use Apple Pay if they buy the watch. That alone might spur a few million in sales, and is something that I have not seen discussed before. Yes, some people will pay the price JUST for that feature. I love my iPhone 6 plus, and use Apple Pay wherever I can. It is quick and easy to use, so I can see people doing this prior to upgrading their phone.
I guess my other question is, how can you possibly be bashing something that hasn't been released, and not all of the features have been finalized and released as well??? I don't get it. Wait for it to be released, buy one, then you can bash to your heart's content. Otherwise, STFU. Oh, and maybe an english course might come in handy as well.
From Mainframe to Desktop to Laptop to Phone to Watch. It is so obvious that each revolution in personal computing is making the computer smaller and closer to the body.
100% agree. Which might explain why I'm losing my interest in technology. I like my humanity. You might want to replace your eyeballs with implants or have some implanted device monitor your body chemistry and release drugs and supplements into your bloodstream in order to optimize the machine. You might want to BECOME a machine. But I don't. Kurzweil is right. Our future culture won't be biological, but it will be human. Will it be normal to just remove a baby's eyes at birth in the future and replace them with implants? Will we design our children's DNA? Maybe women won't even get pregnant any more and we'll just make babies in weird cryopod looking things? Given how many kids are autistic today, it might only be a few generations before we don't make babies the old fashioned way. Maybe the Apple Watch can help with all of that?
I have no problem with vision. What I have a problem with is the watch interface. It is inherently limited. From mainframe to desktop to laptop to phone, the screen has always been big enough to display enough information to be useful. A watch cannot do the same thing. Furthermore, unlike a mainframe, desktop, laptop, or phone, the watch isn't a stand-alone device. It requires another device to be useful. And it's expensive enough to not be a casual purchase. And the wearables market is very small.
Either way, success or not, I hope that after the dust from this wearables theater settles, they'll get serious about the living room and gaming. That's where the money is.
I will say that you put in a good amount of detail as to why you are skeptical on the wearables market, rather than the trollish one-liners of pazuzu, BF, the lawyer, etc. I agree that it is not a large or "beyond niche" market so far. Whether Apple can make the category desirable with a much better product & its brand power is certainly the big question in consumer electronics in 2015. I think Apple has a good history here, which is why I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. Nothing is guaranteed though.
On your last comment regarding the living room and gaming, I would be interested to understand why you believe that the living room (TV & gaming) is a much bigger market (in terms of impact to the bottom line). In looking at video games, let's try Nintendo. Per their annual report for 2013 (latest I could find in quick search), their annual revenue was $6.7B USD world wide, on which they had an operating loss of $387M USD, and a net income of $75M. So that is a big top line number, but a horrible bottom line by Apple standards. Apple probably makes more on the bottom line from its current ?TV and content business (as their SGA is spread across multiple lines) than Nintendo does.
With TV's again there is a lot of big top-line revenue, but with razor thin margins which mean very little profit. Look at Sony, which has bled red ink on is CE business for years. The issue is that with big devices, the margins tend to be lower in anything of mass market - the value add of functionality, ecosystem, brand, etc - is not as effective at getting a higher % price, based on the cost of goods. That LCD display on a 55"TV is much larger component of cost & % of cost on the TV, than the 4.7" screen is on an iPhone6. Some research points to margins on TV's of around 3-5% on average.
I do believe that Apple can increase its value in the living room area, perhaps with a more functional AppleTV which is also part of a home hub, and launches with a new/revamped over-the-top media service. An Apple "full TV" with a higher price but integrating in a very desirable service would be a nice offering, but expect that would be more niche than the current ?TV, in terms of units selling. Some upsides possible in gaming with the lighter/casual games market (especially if they could buy or license Nintendo for the game titles), but the bulk of console market is with Sony and MSFT for this next console generation.
Compare that to potential in wearables, even it if it doesn't become a massive market. Margins on Apple Watch are likely to be one of highest ever on Apple product, as cost of goods is lower as it is smaller, but still selling at a reasonable price starting at $350 USD. Selling 20M units in a year (say year 2) would provide more margin than the largest TV manufacturers would get (with estimated 50% margin on Apple Watch vs. 3-5% for TVs).
Maybe wearables won't pan out, but in terms of where to invest your R&D into new markets that can move the needle, I would say Apple is placing the correct bets.
Personally I think the watch is more about Cook and Ive declaring their independence from Steve, stepping out of his shadow. They've made it very clear that the watch was developed after Steve. Given all the talk about how Steve "cracked" TV before he died, any TV-related product Apple releases will still have his fingerprints all over it. The Apple Watch is Apple's "look, we CAN innovate WITHOUT Steve" product.
I wasn't aware you had to "declare independence" from a man who no longer walks the earth. It would be like declaring your independence from the Duke of Prussia.
I wasn't aware you had to "declare independence" from a man who no longer walks the earth. It would be like declaring your independence from the Duke of Prussia.
Just like how anti-Apple lunatics and Fandroid trolls compare Apple iOS to every single Android manufacturer on earth combined, the delusional and intellectually challenged trolls will probably compare the Apple Watch to every watch, made by every single watch maker on the planet combined!
The main problem with the "Android" camp is that Google has really lost control of the ecosystem. I mean it's a totally awful platform to develop for to begin with, but between the fragmentation and the third-party firmware that doesn't come with/support Google's Apps, it's really in a spot where it's going to implode. We already see both Samsung and LG switching to OS's they bought, and using it in other products instead of Android.
The perceived advantage of using Linux is that it lets you roll something out rather quickly, even if it's all cruft tacked on. Maybe I will care when a Linux "Steam Box" can run all the same software that is available with other distributions. This is the single worst failing point of Linux as a whole. The entire "not-invented-here" and a subset of them that won't run any software that isn't blessed by the GNU/FSF. Linux has become the "insane communist left" of the operating system political spectrum by such people. FreeBSD is the liberal-centerist (OpenBSD is to the left), Apple to the right of it, and Microsoft further right until we get to proprietary closed black-box operating systems used in Vehicles, Airplanes and satellites.
As far as Apple Watch is concerned, people were switching from wearing 10-100$ watches to 900$ Cell phones and not turning back. People who still wear watches were seen as unstylish. So there will of course be some friction in getting people to start wearing watches again. Clocks are one of the easiest things to find without needing one personally. From where I stand there are no less than 10 devices that tell time.
The "writing is on the wall" for an Apple product, because some poorly designed non-Apple products sold like shit?
So I guess the "writing was on the wall" for the iPod? (mp3 players were never huge sellers before then)
So I guess the "writing was on the wall" for the iPhone? (touchscreen phones were a joke before then) So I guess the "writing was on the wall" for the iPad? (tablets sold like this before then) So I guess the "writing was on the wall" for the Macbook Air? (Ultrabooks sold like shit) So I guess the "writing was on the wall" for Touch ID? (biometric on phones were unreliable and gimmicks) So I guess the "writing was on the wall" for Apple Pay? (Phone based NFC payments had shit adoption)
I can go on and on.
It's amazing how people like you never get banned, if only for your consistently, grotesquely twisted and incomprehensible logic. Let me guess, if Android smartwatches had amazing sales, you would be saying that Apple "is too late to the party" and has "missed it's chance", or some other predictable horse-shit. Every single one of the above categories was "doomed to fail" by people like you. Sad that you feel zero shame for having learned nothing from Apple in the last 20 years, and that you are proud to publicize such extreme ignorance and petty thinking, on a daily basis.
The Apple Watch will probably outsell the combined, lifetime sales of every single other Android Smartwatch that has ever existed in the first day or two. Of course, instead of manning up and eating your words, you will move on to your next attack, as you have always done. I would gladly make a lifetime-ban bet with you on this, but I know you would never have the balls to accept it. All trolling, no real conviction. Incredibly, you've been wrong about everything you have ever posted about, and that will never change. That's quite the record.
Except all of those products you mentioned were selling and profitable or didn't exist EXCEPT wearable smart watches.
Enough said. Go back to your drawing board.
I will say that you put in a good amount of detail as to why you are skeptical on the wearables market, rather than the trollish one-liners of pazuzu, BF, the lawyer, etc. I agree that it is not a large or "beyond niche" market so far. Whether Apple can make the category desirable with a much better product & its brand power is certainly the big question in consumer electronics in 2015. I think Apple has a good history here, which is why I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. Nothing is guaranteed though.
On your last comment regarding the living room and gaming, I would be interested to understand why you believe that the living room (TV & gaming) is a much bigger market (in terms of impact to the bottom line). In looking at video games, let's try Nintendo. Per their annual report for 2013 (latest I could find in quick search), their annual revenue was $6.7B USD world wide, on which they had an operating loss of $387M USD, and a net income of $75M. So that is a big top line number, but a horrible bottom line by Apple standards. Apple probably makes more on the bottom line from its current ?TV and content business (as their SGA is spread across multiple lines) than Nintendo does.
With TV's again there is a lot of big top-line revenue, but with razor thin margins which mean very little profit. Look at Sony, which has bled red ink on is CE business for years. The issue is that with big devices, the margins tend to be lower in anything of mass market - the value add of functionality, ecosystem, brand, etc - is not as effective at getting a higher % price, based on the cost of goods. That LCD display on a 55"TV is much larger component of cost & % of cost on the TV, than the 4.7" screen is on an iPhone6. Some research points to margins on TV's of around 3-5% on average.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I do believe that Apple can increase its value in the living room area, perhaps with a more functional AppleTV which is also part of a home hub, and launches with a new/revamped over-the-top media service. An Apple "full TV" with a higher price but integrating in a very desirable service would be a nice offering, but expect that would be more niche than the current ?TV, in terms of units selling. Some upsides possible in gaming with the lighter/casual games market (especially if they could buy or license Nintendo for the game titles), but the bulk of console market is with Sony and MSFT for this next console generation.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Compare that to potential in wearables, even it if it </span>
doesn't become a massive market. Margins on Apple Watch are likely to be one of highest ever on Apple product, as cost of goods is lower as it is smaller, but still selling at a reasonable price starting at $350 USD. Selling 20M units in a year (say year 2) would provide more margin than the largest TV manufacturers would get (with estimated 50% margin on Apple Watch vs. 3-5% for TVs).
Maybe wearables won't pan out, but in terms of where to invest your R&D into new markets that can move the needle, I would say Apple is placing the correct bets.
To be clear, I definitely do NOT want Apple to start making TVs. I also don't think Nintendo is a good measure of success these days. They've fallen woefully behind in hardware. Their real asset is their creative and their established franchises.
The Apple Watch requires an iPhone. The Apple TV does not. There are a few hundred million people on earth with iPhones. There are 7 billion who could buy Apple TV. That's why I'd focus on the living room.
Apple has added game controller APIs to iOS. Why not go all the way and release an Apple branded controller for Apple TV? Why is there still no App Store for Apple TV? And game rentals could be huge revenue. Build the better mousetrap in an industry that is proven. And huge.
Imagine what a game changer it would be if anyone could create an app (channel) for Apple TV and sell content through in-app purchases? Apple doesn't need to reinvent TV. They just need to open up Apple TV and let the market do the rest. I also don't believe that Microsoft and Sony own the console market by default. Apple TV with beefed up hardware could be a competitor. It could offer a "good enough" gaming experience, coupled with all of its other features, to entice even more serious gamers. Adding Nintendo to the mix guarantees a win. Their hardware is stale, but people love Nintendo franchises, especially families.
Buy Sonos. Their hardware is elegant and Apple's music solution sucks. A bunch of airport expresses plugged into stereos? That's so NOT Apple. Sonos hardware fully integrated into the Apple ecosystem would be a home run.
In my mind wearables are all about sensors and recording metrics. A postage stamp size screen is extremely limiting. Everyone is throwing **** against the wall in wearables. And consumers generally don't care. Apple Watch will make a splash no doubt but I don't think it has nearly the potential of an elegant home hub solution with Apple TV and dedicated audio hardware.
Comments
You'll have to be more specific than hand waving. Exactly what part of the big reveal in September was too much speculation? Just asking.
Yeah, pretty much the same thing was said about MP3 players as well. When Apple introduced the iPod, EVERYONE was like, WTF!?. Apple has lost their mind. Guess what happened? Not only did Apple go on to sell millions and millions of them, it helped prop the entire MP3 player industry with it. Oh and help move the music industry into the 21st century. <--- This is what Apple can do to a specific market.
Should we move on to the tablet market next? You know, the market that Microsoft started in 2001 and dragged on for another 10 years before Apple came along with their own "useless" tablet that no one saw a use for. What happened there? Right... Apple went on to sell hundreds of millions and it also just happened to prop the entire tablet market with it. <--- This is what Apple can do to a specific market.
Now... what about this wearables market YOU see no need for... Right.
Apple is full of talented, smart people. I'm sure they did their homework. Even if they do the same with this watch that they did with the original iPod - sell it to the faithful - that user base today isn't just 25 million Mac users... it's a half a billion iPhone 5 (and later) users and growing. I think when the Apple Watch is released, we're going to see another surge of iPhone 6 sales.
I'm not the only one who doesn't see a need for wearables. The public clearly does not either. On the other hand, the public clearly DID see a need for portable music players long before Apple got into the market. You can't even begin to compare the iPod to the Apple Watch. Sony sold millions upon millions of Walkman models long before MP3s existed. The public clearly had a desire to carry their music with them. Yes, Apple definitely stepped into the MP3 player market at the right time with the right product.
The Apple Watch is totally different. Despite years of effort on the part of many companies to convince the public to embrace wearables, the market is still tiny. People simply don't see the utility or need. It's not about MY lack of interest in the wearables market. It's about the FACT that the public has not embraced the entire category. Do you think the Apple Watch is going to single handedly change that? I don't.
I am in complete agreement with you, however, about the size of Apple's iPhone installed base working in its favor. They will sell a few million watches no problem, probably in the first weekend. But what will sales be a year later? Once the fans get theirs, will Apple be able to convince a steady stream of (subsidized...which is a key point) iPhone buyers to plunk down another $350+ for the watch? I don't think so.
I don't think the watch is going to be a total failure. Personally, I have no interest in buying one, but I can definitely appreciate the appeal. I think they are smart to create an iPhone accessory. I think it's too expensive for the casual buyer. At $199, I think a lot of iPhone owners might get one just for the novelty, coolness, and occasional time-saving it offers. But at $350+, I don't think it's a casual purchase. But if they can sell a few million every quarter, it'll pad the bottom line nicely.
Personally I think the watch is more about Cook and Ive declaring their independence from Steve, stepping out of his shadow. They've made it very clear that the watch was developed after Steve. Given all the talk about how Steve "cracked" TV before he died, any TV-related product Apple releases will still have his fingerprints all over it. The Apple Watch is Apple's "look, we CAN innovate WITHOUT Steve" product. I hope it works for them. I've been a customer for 32 years and I'd love to see my portfolio gain even more value. Either way, success or not, I hope that after the dust from this wearables theater settles, they'll get serious about the living room and gaming. That's where the money is.
As usual, many of the commenters here clearly didn't read the article, but instead jumped right in with an opinion. It clearly stated in the article that while Android Wear watches were only ~700K estimated shipped, that is a fraction of the 4.6 million "smart wearable bands" shipped in 2014. So this is one estimate of the market size, ~5M units of smart wearable bands that will be the primary ?Watch market. Yes, Apple will compete as well with "general watches", but it will be difficult to categorize which of those sub-markets it is primarily competing in.
I think the estimates by analysts of 26M and greater in calendar 2015 are very aggressive. I think if the Apple Watch does 10M units in calendar 2015 (or double the entire market of 2014), especially when released for under 3 quarters, it would be a very successful introduction. If they are doing 50M sold in calendar 2017 with a release 3 ?Watch (10x the market of 2014), I think that will be extremely successful for an entirely new computing & device platform. If it really catches on, clearly lots of room for upside, but those are my definitions of success from a units perspective.
Hopefully they'll just ban themselves.
I saw a lot of iPad hate in the forums when it was announced in 2010 (those threads are still there). Most of those trolls are no longer posting in the forums.
720k sold, for the entire year of 2014, and that's ALL of them combined! How laughable. How pathetic. How embarrassing. What an epic fail.
I bet that more than 720K buttplugs were sold in 2014 than all Android watches. That tells you how desirable an Android watch is. Besides a few fanatics, even the average consumer knows garbage when they see it.
In case you are actually interested:
http://www.queerty.com/life-imitating-art-butt-plug-sales-spike-500-percent-after-french-president-defends-giant-one-20141205
You just pulled that estimate out of your... never mind.
Android Wear smartwatches start below $100 too so this doesn't look good as far as demand for this overall class of devices goes. The Canalys site says the Moto 360 was the clear leader:
http://www.canalys.com/newsroom/over-720000-android-wear-devices-shipped-2014
They say it was supply constrained. Between the Moto X phone and the 360, they are doing pretty well for design but buyers aren't noticing it. Lenovo owns Motorola now so maybe they can turn it around and get people moved away from Samsung.
Apple has the benefit of the single brand. Android's weakness is diluting one brand across a whole range of poor quality manufacturers so nobody can trust it. When Samsung doesn't deliver, they don't know where to turn.
It's still ages until the Apple Watch launch. I thought it would be soon but it's due in Spring, which starts March 20th and could be as late as June.
I had a patient yesterday who had an Android watch. It's the first one I've ever seen in the wild. I asked her about it. She liked it. She says she used it to check her messages and that it had substantially reduced the number of times she fished her watch out of the purse. I didn't give her a hard time about it. But I commented on it in the first place because it was so big and clunky looking. The Apple Watch won't be that clunky, I think... but I think it's gonna look too big until I get used to it. I won't be first in line for one, but I'll be watching with interest.
I hope she doesn't mind wearing a watch which spies on her every move.
If she's into being social online, I'm sure she won't mind.
Now it takes one quarter to sell 74 million.
The writing is on the wall....
And that writing is... 'whoa holy mother of f**k, they sold 50million in the first year'.
For the who wears watches? OLD PEOPLE!!!
OK, so first, Apple has NEVER stated any such thing as to how many they expect to sell. Only the stupid ANALysts are spouting numbers that have no basis in reality, and they're simply pulling numbers out of their arse. Apple has internal numbers, but that will NEVER be released to the public.
Second. I guess you're a young person of nowadays with little respect for us "old fogeys". I wear a watch every day, but don't consider myself old. Saying that, will I buy an Apple Watch gen 1? No. I waited for the 3gs iPhone, so will wait a few generations before taking the plunge, but I definitely will at some point.
Oh, and as to who may buy an Apple Watch? Consider that literally millions of people own an iPhone 5 and 5s that will then be able to use Apple Pay if they buy the watch. That alone might spur a few million in sales, and is something that I have not seen discussed before. Yes, some people will pay the price JUST for that feature. I love my iPhone 6 plus, and use Apple Pay wherever I can. It is quick and easy to use, so I can see people doing this prior to upgrading their phone.
I guess my other question is, how can you possibly be bashing something that hasn't been released, and not all of the features have been finalized and released as well??? I don't get it. Wait for it to be released, buy one, then you can bash to your heart's content. Otherwise, STFU. Oh, and maybe an english course might come in handy as well.
your lack of vision is stunning.
From Mainframe to Desktop to Laptop to Phone to Watch. It is so obvious that each revolution in personal computing is making the computer smaller and closer to the body.
100% agree. Which might explain why I'm losing my interest in technology. I like my humanity. You might want to replace your eyeballs with implants or have some implanted device monitor your body chemistry and release drugs and supplements into your bloodstream in order to optimize the machine. You might want to BECOME a machine. But I don't. Kurzweil is right. Our future culture won't be biological, but it will be human. Will it be normal to just remove a baby's eyes at birth in the future and replace them with implants? Will we design our children's DNA? Maybe women won't even get pregnant any more and we'll just make babies in weird cryopod looking things? Given how many kids are autistic today, it might only be a few generations before we don't make babies the old fashioned way. Maybe the Apple Watch can help with all of that?
I have no problem with vision. What I have a problem with is the watch interface. It is inherently limited. From mainframe to desktop to laptop to phone, the screen has always been big enough to display enough information to be useful. A watch cannot do the same thing. Furthermore, unlike a mainframe, desktop, laptop, or phone, the watch isn't a stand-alone device. It requires another device to be useful. And it's expensive enough to not be a casual purchase. And the wearables market is very small.
Apple Watch will be a nice new hobby for Apple.
Either way, success or not, I hope that after the dust from this wearables theater settles, they'll get serious about the living room and gaming. That's where the money is.
I will say that you put in a good amount of detail as to why you are skeptical on the wearables market, rather than the trollish one-liners of pazuzu, BF, the lawyer, etc. I agree that it is not a large or "beyond niche" market so far. Whether Apple can make the category desirable with a much better product & its brand power is certainly the big question in consumer electronics in 2015. I think Apple has a good history here, which is why I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. Nothing is guaranteed though.
On your last comment regarding the living room and gaming, I would be interested to understand why you believe that the living room (TV & gaming) is a much bigger market (in terms of impact to the bottom line). In looking at video games, let's try Nintendo. Per their annual report for 2013 (latest I could find in quick search), their annual revenue was $6.7B USD world wide, on which they had an operating loss of $387M USD, and a net income of $75M. So that is a big top line number, but a horrible bottom line by Apple standards. Apple probably makes more on the bottom line from its current ?TV and content business (as their SGA is spread across multiple lines) than Nintendo does.
With TV's again there is a lot of big top-line revenue, but with razor thin margins which mean very little profit. Look at Sony, which has bled red ink on is CE business for years. The issue is that with big devices, the margins tend to be lower in anything of mass market - the value add of functionality, ecosystem, brand, etc - is not as effective at getting a higher % price, based on the cost of goods. That LCD display on a 55"TV is much larger component of cost & % of cost on the TV, than the 4.7" screen is on an iPhone6. Some research points to margins on TV's of around 3-5% on average.
I do believe that Apple can increase its value in the living room area, perhaps with a more functional AppleTV which is also part of a home hub, and launches with a new/revamped over-the-top media service. An Apple "full TV" with a higher price but integrating in a very desirable service would be a nice offering, but expect that would be more niche than the current ?TV, in terms of units selling. Some upsides possible in gaming with the lighter/casual games market (especially if they could buy or license Nintendo for the game titles), but the bulk of console market is with Sony and MSFT for this next console generation.
Compare that to potential in wearables, even it if it doesn't become a massive market. Margins on Apple Watch are likely to be one of highest ever on Apple product, as cost of goods is lower as it is smaller, but still selling at a reasonable price starting at $350 USD. Selling 20M units in a year (say year 2) would provide more margin than the largest TV manufacturers would get (with estimated 50% margin on Apple Watch vs. 3-5% for TVs).
Maybe wearables won't pan out, but in terms of where to invest your R&D into new markets that can move the needle, I would say Apple is placing the correct bets.
I wasn't aware you had to "declare independence" from a man who no longer walks the earth. It would be like declaring your independence from the Duke of Prussia.
Gee, you're so clever.
The main problem with the "Android" camp is that Google has really lost control of the ecosystem. I mean it's a totally awful platform to develop for to begin with, but between the fragmentation and the third-party firmware that doesn't come with/support Google's Apps, it's really in a spot where it's going to implode. We already see both Samsung and LG switching to OS's they bought, and using it in other products instead of Android.
The perceived advantage of using Linux is that it lets you roll something out rather quickly, even if it's all cruft tacked on. Maybe I will care when a Linux "Steam Box" can run all the same software that is available with other distributions. This is the single worst failing point of Linux as a whole. The entire "not-invented-here" and a subset of them that won't run any software that isn't blessed by the GNU/FSF. Linux has become the "insane communist left" of the operating system political spectrum by such people. FreeBSD is the liberal-centerist (OpenBSD is to the left), Apple to the right of it, and Microsoft further right until we get to proprietary closed black-box operating systems used in Vehicles, Airplanes and satellites.
As far as Apple Watch is concerned, people were switching from wearing 10-100$ watches to 900$ Cell phones and not turning back. People who still wear watches were seen as unstylish. So there will of course be some friction in getting people to start wearing watches again. Clocks are one of the easiest things to find without needing one personally. From where I stand there are no less than 10 devices that tell time.
We've been here before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Datalink
Except all of those products you mentioned were selling and profitable or didn't exist EXCEPT wearable smart watches.
Enough said. Go back to your drawing board.
I highly doubt it. Millions already have a smart watch in their pocket. It's called an iPhone. Get a gold chain for it and call it a day.
"Amazing" is not good enough.
To be clear, I definitely do NOT want Apple to start making TVs. I also don't think Nintendo is a good measure of success these days. They've fallen woefully behind in hardware. Their real asset is their creative and their established franchises.
The Apple Watch requires an iPhone. The Apple TV does not. There are a few hundred million people on earth with iPhones. There are 7 billion who could buy Apple TV. That's why I'd focus on the living room.
Apple has added game controller APIs to iOS. Why not go all the way and release an Apple branded controller for Apple TV? Why is there still no App Store for Apple TV? And game rentals could be huge revenue. Build the better mousetrap in an industry that is proven. And huge.
Imagine what a game changer it would be if anyone could create an app (channel) for Apple TV and sell content through in-app purchases? Apple doesn't need to reinvent TV. They just need to open up Apple TV and let the market do the rest. I also don't believe that Microsoft and Sony own the console market by default. Apple TV with beefed up hardware could be a competitor. It could offer a "good enough" gaming experience, coupled with all of its other features, to entice even more serious gamers. Adding Nintendo to the mix guarantees a win. Their hardware is stale, but people love Nintendo franchises, especially families.
Buy Sonos. Their hardware is elegant and Apple's music solution sucks. A bunch of airport expresses plugged into stereos? That's so NOT Apple. Sonos hardware fully integrated into the Apple ecosystem would be a home run.
In my mind wearables are all about sensors and recording metrics. A postage stamp size screen is extremely limiting. Everyone is throwing **** against the wall in wearables. And consumers generally don't care. Apple Watch will make a splash no doubt but I don't think it has nearly the potential of an elegant home hub solution with Apple TV and dedicated audio hardware.