jcc wrote: »
Ok, here's another prediction. Along with the failed Apple Watch, Cook will now introduce another failed product. The 12.9" iPad.
Apple is well on its way to ruin. It may take 10 years but it's well on its way.
suddenly newton wrote: »
The rumor mill sometimes misses new products when Apple doesn't redesign the case. For example, the new iPod Touch, and the up-spec'd iPad 4 were both surprises that didn't leak earlier.
slurpy wrote: »
Not a big deal if no iPad Airs this fall. It's massively over powered for what it's used for, and can't think of significant upgrades for that form factor. They should focus on the mini and the Pro. A price drop to $399 would be pretty awesome though.
kasper wrote: »
AppleInsider reported on the new iPod Touch in April:
blazar wrote: »
The numbering system is confusing... A year would have been simpler but would remind people that their ipad is "old".
fallenjt wrote: »
3 iPad screen sizes and 3 iPhone screen sizes make everyone happy. Even though the sale of Mini was not that great, Apple should still retain it just like keeping 4" iPhone
canukstorm wrote: »
I agree with current Air 2 dropping to $399 would be awesome but why not also bring the rumored stylus capabilities to the Air 3 as well as the 12.9" iPad?
thewhitefalcon wrote: »
For the same reason the 15" MBP gets the discreet GPU option; differentiation.
The Air 2's chassis does tend to vibrate at louder volumes, many reviews commented on this.
wood1208 wrote: »
If Apple is smart and Apple is. Alternate upgrade of IPAD Air and Mini every other year. OR, ipad mini gets updated every other year but Ipad Air gets processor upgrade every year and major update every other year like iphone. Ipad is nice productivity device but not must like iphone. You can do some of the productivity o iphone 6 plus but still not as comfortable as larger screen ipad, macbook,laptop etc.
Of course it is. The Mac was a failure, as well. And has been for over thirty years.
Luckily, Apple doesn't give a flying **** about success or failure — they make great products, and keep making them as long as they keep making sensible (read: "insane", by industry standards) profits, and until they can replace them with something even better.
The Apple Watch just made them a billion dollars in three months. Of course it's a failure.
Apple is going out of business…eventually, and has been for nearly forty years.
It may take 10 years…or twenty…or thirty…but it's well on its way. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
This meme needs to die (hello, antennagate). I own one of these, too. The case is resonating, not vibrating. "Vibrating" implies some sort of radically destructive behavior.
Does your iPad ever vibrate its way off the table you sat it on? No, I didn't think so. It does, however, make the most of any resonating surface it's placed on, acoustically speaking.
Sure it is. If you been following Apple you would know this. If not for Steve, Apple would have gone under. The world is filled with "bozos". I keep thinking of the old saying from the investment world. You want to invest in a business that any idiot can run because eventually an idiot will run it.
Cook is clearly a very competent COO but I don't think he has the chops to make it as a CEO. His priorities are all screwed up. More than that, he has no clue what products to release. How can you be the head of Apple when you have no clue what would appeal to the consumers?
Well, if you've been following the company for so long then you should know that Steve Jobs wouldn't release a product unless it had some killer features. Please tell me what that is on the Apple Watch? Whenever I go to an Apple store I see next to no one at the watch counter. This is after just 3 months as you say. I have never seen a successful Apple product launch that has shown such tepid response after just 3 months.
Conversely, the Apple TV is a platform primed for disruption. Instead of releasing the next gen version 2 years ago that would have included a game controller and an app store, they'd decided to postpone it while others eat their lunch. An Apple TV with an app store and a game controller and other accessories would have been a killer feature that would go after other gaming consoles, a multi billion dollar business. It would have cleaned house. Instead, Cook is too stupid to know this and focused all his attention on a product that's not ready for prime time (Apple Watch). These are the kind of rookie mistakes that Jobs would have never fallen for.
Add to this his other moves like, hiring a bunch of fashionistas. Overpaying for a steaming/accessories business (Beats), that's all about diworsification. All of the senior execs leaving, including Jony Ive stepping back, you've got a real problem at Cupertino. There are literally a dozen or so instances like this since Cook took over that points to a leaky ship. But only if you open your eyes.
I think you are confused. Yes, I agree that iPad was popooed before it was released but it sold like hotcakes once it was launched. There was a ton of interest afterwards for a few years. There were a ton of people ogling it once it launched for a long time. Even now, I see more people at the iPad counter than the Apple Watch. iPad ended up being the fastest selling Apple product ever. You know why? The killler feature was it's size. Jobs originally wanted to have something large so he can easily email while he was on the can, at least thats one of the stories floating around on why Jobs wanted it. And he was right. The size of it really made it useful.
The iPod still had many killer features even though it was serving a smaller addressable market.
Those other products are not really big enough to speak of. They're ancillary things are aren't meant to be tent poles. I don't think Jobs would have paid that much for Beats though. It remains to be seen whether or not having those beats folks adds anything to their streaming service. Thus far, it doesn't appear that it has.
Because, product differentiation. If stylus support and pressure sensitivity is the main differentiator of the iPad Pro, they're not gonna bring that to the Air, at least not right away.
That's a weak argument for product differentiation. There are many people that use the iPad Air / Air 2 for work-relate or productivity tasks. I think having the same specs, for the most part, across the 9.7" & 2.9" iPad would be a smart idea. That way the only deciding factor is screen size. It'd be analogous to having two different screen sizes for the MBA.
jcc wrote: »
I think you are confused. Yes, I agree that iPad was popooed before it was released but it sold like hotcakes once it was launched. There was a ton of interest afterwards for a few years. There were a ton of people ogling it once it launched for a long time. Even now, I see more people at the iPad counter than the Apple Watch. iPad ended up being the fastest selling Apple product ever.
and....that means nothing. At this point Apple has built enough good will that their most rabid fans would buy dog poo if it had an Apple logo on it. It's the other 99% of the population that you have to attract. I find it strange that during their last earning call, they refused to divulge sales numbers. Normally if they sold a lot of their products they like to gloat about it but not this time.
So all the numbers we have at this point mean absolutely nothing, yet you feel free to make up imaginary claims of your own ("people have lost interest in the Apple Watch, because I don't see them at stores, so Apple Watch is a failure"), as if they meant anything at all?
Right now, the hints Apple has given us are all we have, and frankly, they're looking pretty damn good, especially in the context of the history you yourself decided to dredge up. Also, I don't think you have a clue where Apple is headed with this thing.
1.) Why on earth would they "have to attract" the "other 99% of the population"? Apple is the most profitable computer manufacturer on the planet — just its desktops and laptops. What is Apple's market share of the computer market? Has anybody cared since about 2006? Not everybody will ever want to wear a watch. Maybe not even most people. That's fine.
2.) Yep, it's strange that they wouldn't divulge numbers. My guess is that they're trying to figure out where the luxury watch industry is headed in the age of the smartwatch, and they want to figure that out before any of the incumbent watch manufacturers do. At present, Apple are the ONLY ONES who have *any* kind of data on that market. None of the watch manufacturers are making smart watches, and none of the current smart-watch manufacturers are competing in the traditional watch market space, at all, let alone the luxury accessory market that Apple has just overrun.
Because THAT's where they are. They're not competing with Samsung, Pebble, Fitbit or whatever. They're competing with TAG Heuer, Omega, Tissot, etc. — and none of those even have a product yet.
Apple have 100% of that market, and they're not letting anyone in on how it works until they've figured it out.
I think you're very confused. Cook thinks that the Apple Watch is their next huge hit. It needs to be in order to replace the iPhone and iPad in holding on to Apple's growth trajectory. That means they need to sell in the hundreds of millions which means it needs to be purchased by a large % of the market. If not they are in deep doodoo. Building great products and having great people goes hand in hand. It's a virtuous cycle. Great products, great brand, great company brings great people to the company which in turn makes the products, brand, and company better. This virtuous cycle can happen in the reverse as well. Hence the recent management movements is an indication that all is not well.
But in term of Apple's growth trajectory, that's one reason you hear the rumors of them building a car. A car is priced at 6X+ multiple, to that of their other products. That means they have to sell fewer of them to keep their growth trajectory. The problem is, do they have some must have differentiator compared to other manufacturers? My guess is no. Like the Apple Watch, Cook has no clue and is only interested in keeping the revenues growing as long as possible without actually paying attention to what he's releasing. He's counting on the rabid fan base to buy whatever he sell due the the good will built during Steve Jobs' tenure. That's a recipe for failure and how to turn a great company into a mediocre one. History is filled with once great tech companies like this.
Take a gander at this: http://fortune.com/2015/07/27/apples-toxic-hellstew/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=10%20Things%20In%20Tech%20You%20Need%20To%20Know&utm_campaign=Post%20Blast%20%28sai%29%3A%2010%20things%20in%20tech%20you%20need%20to%20know%20today&nr_email_referer=1&utm_content=10ThingsSAI
Cook needs someone who actually knows good products and when to launch them.
P.S. Since you're confused I'll let you know what the killer function of a Apple Watch is. It's health monitoring. If Steve were alive he would have waited until that's possible before releasing the watch. It's the must have feature that would prompt massive sales. You do realize that telling time is only a minor feature for the purpose of the watch don't you? That means that they're not in fact competing against the other watch manufacturers like those you mentioned. The fact that Cook is bungling around with fashion tells me that he's as clueless as you. Steve would have honed in immediately like me on what the important killer feature is for the next gen Watch. It's not really about telling time but about providing your health info. Imagine having a doctor strapped you your wrist 24/7 that can monitor every vital sign. Overtime, it will be able to warn you and give you advice on your health. For example, if it notices that you have a spike in your blood pressure Siri would let you know as well as possible solutions, or that your blood sugar is too high or so other ailments months or years before it's detected in a physical. This info can also be communicated to your doctor who will be able to monitor things remotely. Who wouldn't want such a device strapped to their wrist? And if everyone has one strapped to their wrist, and people usually only wear one watch, it's game over for all other watch manufactures. Fashion has nothing to do with it. It's about releasing and morphing the defining feature of watches. Steve would know this.
With the sky high cost of healthcare and the ability to catching diseases early, I fail to see why everyone wouldn't want to own that kind of an Apple Watch. Detecting diseases early when they have the best prognosis and lowest cost for treatment, this watch would pay for itself in short order and become a must have device for the generations to come.
And since you've edited your post to tell me what the killer function of the Apple Watch is — "health monitoring" —, let me tell you what the killer functions of the Apple Watch are:
1.) It tells the time.
2.) It's gorgeous.
Now, those two killer functions are what sells $1,000 watches. No TAG Heuer does anything a Rolex can't do, and no Rolex does anything a $40 Citizen can't do. What sells the Rolex? It's number 2 up there that generates value.
You are utterly confused at this fact and blame Tim Cook for releasing some sort of unfinished product, when the very fact that a $1,000 version of this product that is technically completely identical to its cheaper, less gorgeous brother even EXISTS makes it obvious that this product is not at a "feature" market.
As for what else it does, this is going to become important at the low end, and you're probably right that health monitoring is a major factor there — in fact one popular survey seems to indicate that Apple Watch owners are already exercising more than they were before they got it. How's that for an "unfinished" product?
I doubt, though, that there will ever be the full package of sensors that you seem to imply as necessary: Health monitoring needs to be reliable above all else, and even basics like blood pressure are kind of difficult to measure with something that still needs to be a regular watch most of the time.
Also, this is kind of a dumb argument, sort of like saying that a pro computer's killer feature is being great at graphics processing. Uh…no. I couldn't care less about graphics processing on my studio machine. It's just not of interest to me.
I don't even use the activity monitoring functions on Apple Watch, because they react in weird and useless ways to standing on stage and playing keyboards for two hours on end.
You wanna know what the actual killer feature of the Apple Watch is for me, personally?
It lets me keep my phone in the pocket, almost entirely eliminating a major time-vortex from my daily life. This is huge.
But everybody else's mileage can (and will) vary.