there is starting costs, that for such a complex sub assembly, are pretty high in regards to the fixed cost. Especially with Apple requirements where anything less than perfect will be rejected, so yeld is probably low in the beginning. They may have not break even yet, but in the long haul, they will. Apple prepay most of the capital expenditure, but it is unlikely they cover yields too.
More, if they manufactured 2M, and because there is probably at least another supplier ( In their shoes I would go with more than one), it is far from meaning the sales are low. The WSJ article is just a typical FUD piece by clueless anal-ysts.
That's why I included details as to how I derived my numbers. This sets a clear line between wild ass guess and a concerted effort to find something real. My hope was that you would take the baton, not just through out an ASP.
I appreciate that, thank you. I'm at a job and don't have much time for detailed response ATM.
Ok, in case the sarcasm in my response wasn't obvious: I think it's a move will fail. It'll be the equivalent of Microsoft creating a tablet that is a laptop that is a toaster or whatever.
(This response is for SolipsismY too!)
Again odd.
Matching a watch with connected features is hardly the same as combining a tablet and a toaster. Both Apple and the Swiss are marrying tech and wearables but with different ideas on it.
Apple/Moto/LG's idea is a computer on the wrist with watch functions. The Swiss instead are developing wristwatches with limited computer functions. Why won't the Swiss idea appeal to some fashion-first buyers? IMO the tech watches we've seen so far are hardly so fashionable that traditional fine Swiss watches pale in comparison.
IMO they're smart not to try to compete with techs on tech features but instead to put design and tradition first and foremost since that's where their expertise is.
Note that traditional watchmakers are also developing connected smartwatches. They actually might be on to something IMO as they are generally eschewing apps on the watch itself to concentrate on notifications, fitness/health tracking and battery life.
The traditional watchmakers are "reacting" to a potential market disruption by iOS and Android OS Wearables.
Good for them. It will probably make a different in their less pedestrian lines, but won't protect the consumer lines all that much.
When you start seeing some red ink in traditional watch sales, then we will know.
Edit;
Thom Hogan, who writes about Nikon, calls people that are potential switchers "leakers", an apt name. The traditional watch manufactures look like they want to prevent leakage, more than actually compete with wearables.
2nd edit.
A perfect example of "leakers" is those that left iOS for Android OS for the phat phones. Not all came back when the iPhone 6 arrived, but none left for screen size from that point on. I'm guessing that the temptation of a fully formed smartwatch with apps will cause a lot of "leakage" for the traditional watch makers, just as it will for traditional automakers when the electric car takes hold. I would note that there will be sufficient interest in the mechanical complexities of internal combustion engines, so those will continue long after they make economic sense.
Well, see, neither of us knows. I actually believe that the ratio of Stainless models to sports models is far higher than you make out. Among the people I know who've bought one/are buying one, ASP is around €800.
Thing is, we don't know - and neither do the Swiss. We don't know what the market looks like, and the Swiss don't know whom they're developing at to counter Apple.
And Apple wants to keep it that way.
(I'm glad you mostly agree with the rest of my post.)
That's why I included details as to how I derived my numbers. This sets a clear line between wild ass guess and a concerted effort to find something real. My hope was that you would take the baton, not just through out an ASP.
Here's another factor to consider in ASP -- AppleCare for the Watch:
Sport: $49
Watch: $69
Edition: ???
We have AppleCare on all our Apple gear -- especially important for mobile -- the kids walk around looking at the iPhone or iPad.
Anyway, there is some percentage on Watch purchases that include AppleCare. I have no idea what that percentage is, but I suspect it is rather higher than lower.
When we had our Apple Stores, we (and Apple) really liked AppleCare sales. It was money up front for a service that may never be provided ... Even if the service is provided, Apple gains because of the time value of money!
We provided the best Apple Repair Service in silicon Valley (Calif?). We included among our customers: Mike "Scottie" Scott (former President of Apple); Regis McKenna "Himself"; John Sculley President of Apple; Woz; Dean Whitter III; Ted Nugent ...
The way I read the WSJ article, they purposefully concatenated a production issue and a demand issue. The Watch is not having a demand issue. It's having a production issue. But since the Watch has no competition, so what? This is a rather obvious attempt on the part of the WSJ to manufacture an issue out of whole cloth.
Can we say it has no competition? I see no major smartwatch competitor at the moment, but I would consider regular watches as a potential competitor since one is likely only to have one device on their wrist and only on one wrist.
One could also argue that since you need an iPhone, smartphone competitors are also a factor in watch adoption. I know one Android user that would have bought an Apple Watch if possible l. I also know an iPhone 5(?) user that may have bought one if they supported iOS 6 (yeah, he thinks iOS 7 and beyond are huge steps backwards).
Here's another factor to consider in ASP -- AppleCare for the Watch:
Sport: $49
Watch: $69
Edition: ???
We have AppleCare on all our Apple gear -- especially important for mobile -- the kids walk around looking at the iPhone or iPad.
Anyway, there is some percentage on Watch purchases that include AppleCare. I have no idea what that percentage is, but I suspect it is rather higher than lower.
When we had our Apple Stores, we (and Apple) really liked AppleCare sales. It was money up front for a service that may never be provided ... Even if the service is provided, Apple gains because of the time value of money!
We provided the best Apple Repair Service in silicon Valley (Calif?). We included among our customers: Mike "Scottie" Scott (former President of Apple); Regis McKenna "Himself"; John Sculley President of Apple; Woz; Dean Whitter III; Ted Nugent ...
1) AC+ for Edition is $1500.
2) In one of my replies to [@]anantksundaram[/@] I did mention AC+, as well as other accessories, and even 3rd-party accessories as a measure of the revenue generated by this new product.
3) I purchased AC+, but I don't think I know anyone else that did. I know one person stated they aren't likely to drop it so why bother.
The traditional watchmakers are "reacting" to a potential market disruption by iOS and Android OS Wearables.
Good for them. It will probably make a different in their less pedestrian lines, but won't protect the consumer lines all that much.
When you start seeing some red ink in traditional watch sales, then we will know.
Do you think consumers who don't typically wear expensive watches daily if at all will suddenly decide to do so because they want a computer on their wrist that will tell time? The watchmakers looking to integrate smart functions with fine timepieces depend on the well-heeled for their revenue, not Joe-consumer. They'll concede the low-end to techs as long as they can continue to appeal to the high-end. I think staying true to what brung'em to the party while integrating the most-used functions from tech-watches like payments, notifications and fitness will keep them relevant for much longer than some here might otherwise expect.
They don't have to out-tech the techs and couldn't if they wanted to. But they can out-style them if they don't have to design the watch to house a computer screen full of apps.
Here's another factor to consider in ASP -- AppleCare for the Watch:
Sport: $49
Watch: $69
Edition: ???
We have AppleCare on all our Apple gear -- especially important for mobile -- the kids walk around looking at the iPhone or iPad.
Anyway, there is some percentage on Watch purchases that include AppleCare. I have no idea what that percentage is, but I suspect it is rather higher than lower.
When we had our Apple Stores, we (and Apple) really liked AppleCare sales. It was money up front for a service that may never be provided ... Even if the service is provided, Apple gains because of the time value of money!
We provided the best Apple Repair Service in silicon Valley (Calif?). We included among our customers: Mike "Scottie" Scott (former President of Apple); Regis McKenna "Himself"; John Sculley President of Apple; Woz; Dean Whitter III; Ted Nugent ...
1) AC+ for Edition is $1500.
2) In one of my replies to [@]anantksundaram[/@] I did mention AC+, as well as other accessories, and even 3rd-party accessories as a measure of the revenue generated by this new product.
3) I purchased AC+, but I don't think I know anyone else that did. I know one person stated they aren't likely to drop it so why bother.
Yeah, you did mention AC -- but we recently replaced our AC & Furnace & their were some installation issues ... so my mind didn't interpret AC as AppleCare
I have had my watches drop from the table while being charged (with a dangling cord). Depending on the band, the watch is clumsy to put on or take off -- easy to drop. Also, there was a recent article where someone dropped a Watch from about 3 feet and it broke the silicon crystal (hit just right).
The way I read the WSJ article, they purposefully concatenated a production issue and a demand issue. The Watch is not having a demand issue. It's having a production issue. But since the Watch has no competition, so what? This is a rather obvious attempt on the part of the WSJ to manufacture an issue out of whole cloth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
Can we say it has no competition? I see no major smartwatch competitor at the moment, but I would consider regular watches as a potential competitor since one is likely only to have one device on their wrist and only on one wrist.
One could also argue that since you need an iPhone, smartphone competitors are also a factor in watch adoption. I know one Android user that would have bought an Apple Watch if possible, an iPhone 5(?) user that may have bought one if they supported iOS 6 (yeah, he thinks iOS 7 and beyond are huge steps backwards).
If alternative smartwatches were any competition, they'd be competing right now. They aren't. Now, it's possible that, starting from where they are now, in a year they might be able to actively compete in the quality smartwatch market. But in the meantime, Apple isn't holding still, is building up its production capacity, and is building up its stable of quality apps.
As for the idea that regular watches compete, except on the very high end they compete like a bicycle competes with a motorcycle. Two different devices for two different markets. Yes, they both have two wheels and move people from place to place, but their markets are entirely different. At least right now.
No. The WSJ journal was obviously trying to manufacture an issue out of whole cloth. Not that that's surprising. What's surprising is the number of people who have been taken in by this particular shell game.
Do you think consumers who don't typically wear expensive watches daily if at all will suddenly decide to do so because they want a computer on their wrist that will tell time? The watchmakers looking to integrate smart functions with fine timepieces depend on the well-heeled for their revenue, not Joe-consumer. They'll concede the low-end to techs as long as they can continue to appeal to the high-end. I think staying true to what brung'em to the party while integrating the most-used functions from tech-watches like payments, notifications and fitness will keep them relevant for much longer than some here might otherwise expect.
They don't have to out-tech the techs and couldn't if they wanted to. But they can out-style them if they don't have to design the watch to house a computer screen full of apps.
The supplier reported earnings data just like Apple does every quarter. They did their duty to their stockholders as a publicly traded company. When they miss their projections they have to justify why it happened, there's no "leaking" of information here.
Hmm....I'm not aware of, say, Intel or Qualcomm calling out specific companies. For example I don't think Qualcomm ever mentioned Samsung even though everyone knew they were the large client Qualcomm was losing. This supplier didn't have to specifically mention Apple or the Watch.
Do you think consumers who don't typically wear expensive watches daily if at all will suddenly decide to do so because they want a computer on their wrist that will tell time? The watchmakers looking to integrate smart functions with fine timepieces depend on the well-heeled for their revenue, not Joe-consumer. They'll concede the low-end to techs as long as they can continue to appeal to the high-end. I think staying true to what brung'em to the party while integrating the most-used functions from tech-watches like payments, notifications and fitness will keep them relevant for much longer than some here might otherwise expect.
They don't have to out-tech the techs and couldn't if they wanted to. But they can out-style them if they don't have to design the watch to house a computer screen full of apps.
You talk like someone who hasn't used a Watch yet. If you did, you'd never make the ridiculous statement that you did in your first sentence. Telling the time at a glance is useful, but it's far from the only use.
I really like the Milanese band ... except for one thing -- the magnet at the end tends to automatically fold over and attach itself to the first 3/4 inch (closest to the end) of the band. I am surprised that Apple didn't engineer this band so the first inch, or so, from the end is not magnetic. But ... That's something that Steve Jobs would've done]
it's impossible to know what a man who died 4 years ago would or would not have done while testing one of the many different bands for the Watch, if he would have tested all of them at all, which i doubt. Ive did most of the designing. remember the hockey puck mouse?
Do you think consumers who don't typically wear expensive watches daily if at all will suddenly decide to do so because they want a computer on their wrist that will tell time? The watchmakers looking to integrate smart functions with fine timepieces depend on the well-heeled for their revenue, not Joe-consumer. They'll concede the low-end to techs as long as they can continue to appeal to the high-end. I think staying true to what brung'em to the party while integrating the most-used functions from tech-watches like payments, notifications and fitness will keep them relevant for much longer than some here might otherwise expect.
They don't have to out-tech the techs and couldn't if they wanted to. But they can out-style them if they don't have to design the watch to house a computer screen full of apps.
They could always out style them.
See my edit of that post about "leakers".
GG is on my block list so I don't see his posts unless someone quotes him.
As to his comments highlighted above:
So, the person who wears a luxury watch doesn't want a computer on his wrist???
Just what tech will they add to provide payments, notifications and fitness?
It seems to me that those few features require Storage, RAM, CPU, Communications, Battery -- isn't that what a we call a computer these days?
And, just who are they going to get notifications from? Notifications of what?
Where will the fitness data be held, analyzed, processed and presented?
What payment service will they use??? Will they roll their own with the CC companies or use the Wal-mart, CVS offering?
Can we say it has no competition? I see no major smartwatch competitor at the moment, but I would consider regular watches as a potential competitor since one is likely only to have one device on their wrist and only on one wrist.
Good point. I'm not sure I would have bought an AW just yet if my Omega hadn't shit the bed just now...
Do you think consumers who don't typically wear expensive watches daily if at all will suddenly decide to do so because they want a computer on their wrist that will tell time? The watchmakers looking to integrate smart functions with fine timepieces depend on the well-heeled for their revenue, not Joe-consumer. They'll concede the low-end to techs as long as they can continue to appeal to the high-end. I think staying true to what brung'em to the party while integrating the most-used functions from tech-watches like payments, notifications and fitness will keep them relevant for much longer than some here might otherwise expect.
They don't have to out-tech the techs and couldn't if they wanted to. But they can out-style them if they don't have to design the watch to house a computer screen full of apps.
That may depend on their age group. Older people are more likely to wear nice watches but are also not likely to be into CE as a general rule, so that's a moot point. To paraphrase Jobs, it doesn't matter, these people will die off..
Apple's goal here is longterm. I'd even argue it's much more longterm than any other product they've ever made.
My younger brother and his wife has been wearing nice watches for his adult life but him and his wife now wear Apple Watches, the SS models. His is the SS band (he didn't want to wait an extra month for the black so it's the silver). He has friends that did the same and I say these are 25-35yo age groups making $150- 300k per year per household.
Will they never wear or buy other watches again? I assume they will but they almost always wear their Apple Watch. The real question comes in a year or two if they will buy another Apple Watch and then another on the next cycle or two. I'm not even sure Apple has a firm grasp on this aspect of the market yet.
Yeah, you did mention AC -- but we recently replaced our AC & Furnace & their were some installation issues ... so my mind didn't interpret AC as AppleCare
I have had my watches drop from the table while being charged (with a dangling cord). Depending on the band, the watch is clumsy to put on or take off -- easy to drop. Also, there was a recent article where someone dropped a Watch from about 3 feet and it broke the silicon crystal (hit just right).
My friend that didn't buy AC+ did say that if he drops it will putting it on or taking it off, which means likely on the carpet. Also the weight and size will help protect it compared to an iPhone or iPad.
I bought it because I figure the chance of me smashing it against something whilst attached to my wrist are fairly high. I have done so but so far no issues.
If alternative smartwatches were any competition, they'd be competing right now. They aren't. Now, it's possible that, starting from where they are now, in a year they might be able to actively compete in the quality smartwatch market. But in the meantime, Apple isn't holding still, is building up its production capacity, and is building up its stable of quality apps.
As for the idea that regular watches compete, except on the very high end they compete like a bicycle competes with a motorcycle. Two different devices for two different markets. Yes, they both have two wheels and move people from place to place, but their markets are entirely different. At least right now.
No. The WSJ journal was obviously trying to manufacture an issue out of whole cloth. Not that that's surprising. What's surprising is the number of people who have been taken in by this particular shell game.
They are completion. Even if there are only 800k Android Wear devices sold this year that's 800k that aren't Apple Watches. If Android Wear also has a comparable feature set and user experience it any also mean not getting someone to jump from an Android smartphone to the iPhone and Apple Watch.
We can also include fitness bands as completion to Apple Watch because so much of the interest in Watch is for health tracking. If that is your primary interest and Fitbit is simpler and cheaper but with a nice iPhone app then they may see Apple Watch as not worth it (and yet if fitness bands didn't exist they may have invested in Watch, so it's definitely competing for their money and their wrist).
How many Pebble are expected to be sold this year? Are their sales up or down from last year?
Comments
there is starting costs, that for such a complex sub assembly, are pretty high in regards to the fixed cost. Especially with Apple requirements where anything less than perfect will be rejected, so yeld is probably low in the beginning. They may have not break even yet, but in the long haul, they will. Apple prepay most of the capital expenditure, but it is unlikely they cover yields too.
More, if they manufactured 2M, and because there is probably at least another supplier ( In their shoes I would go with more than one), it is far from meaning the sales are low. The WSJ article is just a typical FUD piece by clueless anal-ysts.
That's a better take that mine; thanks.
I appreciate that, thank you. I'm at a job and don't have much time for detailed response ATM.
Matching a watch with connected features is hardly the same as combining a tablet and a toaster. Both Apple and the Swiss are marrying tech and wearables but with different ideas on it.
Apple/Moto/LG's idea is a computer on the wrist with watch functions. The Swiss instead are developing wristwatches with limited computer functions. Why won't the Swiss idea appeal to some fashion-first buyers? IMO the tech watches we've seen so far are hardly so fashionable that traditional fine Swiss watches pale in comparison.
IMO they're smart not to try to compete with techs on tech features but instead to put design and tradition first and foremost since that's where their expertise is.
Note that traditional watchmakers are also developing connected smartwatches. They actually might be on to something IMO as they are generally eschewing apps on the watch itself to concentrate on notifications, fitness/health tracking and battery life.
http://syndicate.details.com/post/intuitive-analog-inspired-smartwatches-by-vector-watch
They aren't "on to something".
The traditional watchmakers are "reacting" to a potential market disruption by iOS and Android OS Wearables.
Good for them. It will probably make a different in their less pedestrian lines, but won't protect the consumer lines all that much.
When you start seeing some red ink in traditional watch sales, then we will know.
Edit;
Thom Hogan, who writes about Nikon, calls people that are potential switchers "leakers", an apt name. The traditional watch manufactures look like they want to prevent leakage, more than actually compete with wearables.
2nd edit.
A perfect example of "leakers" is those that left iOS for Android OS for the phat phones. Not all came back when the iPhone 6 arrived, but none left for screen size from that point on. I'm guessing that the temptation of a fully formed smartwatch with apps will cause a lot of "leakage" for the traditional watch makers, just as it will for traditional automakers when the electric car takes hold. I would note that there will be sufficient interest in the mechanical complexities of internal combustion engines, so those will continue long after they make economic sense.
Here's another factor to consider in ASP -- AppleCare for the Watch:
We have AppleCare on all our Apple gear -- especially important for mobile -- the kids walk around looking at the iPhone or iPad.
Anyway, there is some percentage on Watch purchases that include AppleCare. I have no idea what that percentage is, but I suspect it is rather higher than lower.
When we had our Apple Stores, we (and Apple) really liked AppleCare sales. It was money up front for a service that may never be provided ... Even if the service is provided, Apple gains because of the time value of money!
We provided the best Apple Repair Service in silicon Valley (Calif?). We included among our customers: Mike "Scottie" Scott (former President of Apple); Regis McKenna "Himself"; John Sculley President of Apple; Woz; Dean Whitter III; Ted Nugent ...
Can we say it has no competition? I see no major smartwatch competitor at the moment, but I would consider regular watches as a potential competitor since one is likely only to have one device on their wrist and only on one wrist.
One could also argue that since you need an iPhone, smartphone competitors are also a factor in watch adoption. I know one Android user that would have bought an Apple Watch if possible l. I also know an iPhone 5(?) user that may have bought one if they supported iOS 6 (yeah, he thinks iOS 7 and beyond are huge steps backwards).
1) AC+ for Edition is $1500.
2) In one of my replies to [@]anantksundaram[/@] I did mention AC+, as well as other accessories, and even 3rd-party accessories as a measure of the revenue generated by this new product.
3) I purchased AC+, but I don't think I know anyone else that did. I know one person stated they aren't likely to drop it so why bother.
How's battery life on the 38mm models?
They don't have to out-tech the techs and couldn't if they wanted to. But they can out-style them if they don't have to design the watch to house a computer screen full of apps.
Yeah, you did mention AC -- but we recently replaced our AC & Furnace & their were some installation issues ... so my mind didn't interpret AC as AppleCare
I have had my watches drop from the table while being charged (with a dangling cord). Depending on the band, the watch is clumsy to put on or take off -- easy to drop. Also, there was a recent article where someone dropped a Watch from about 3 feet and it broke the silicon crystal (hit just right).
The way I read the WSJ article, they purposefully concatenated a production issue and a demand issue. The Watch is not having a demand issue. It's having a production issue. But since the Watch has no competition, so what? This is a rather obvious attempt on the part of the WSJ to manufacture an issue out of whole cloth.
Can we say it has no competition? I see no major smartwatch competitor at the moment, but I would consider regular watches as a potential competitor since one is likely only to have one device on their wrist and only on one wrist.
One could also argue that since you need an iPhone, smartphone competitors are also a factor in watch adoption. I know one Android user that would have bought an Apple Watch if possible, an iPhone 5(?) user that may have bought one if they supported iOS 6 (yeah, he thinks iOS 7 and beyond are huge steps backwards).
If alternative smartwatches were any competition, they'd be competing right now. They aren't. Now, it's possible that, starting from where they are now, in a year they might be able to actively compete in the quality smartwatch market. But in the meantime, Apple isn't holding still, is building up its production capacity, and is building up its stable of quality apps.
As for the idea that regular watches compete, except on the very high end they compete like a bicycle competes with a motorcycle. Two different devices for two different markets. Yes, they both have two wheels and move people from place to place, but their markets are entirely different. At least right now.
No. The WSJ journal was obviously trying to manufacture an issue out of whole cloth. Not that that's surprising. What's surprising is the number of people who have been taken in by this particular shell game.
Do you think consumers who don't typically wear expensive watches daily if at all will suddenly decide to do so because they want a computer on their wrist that will tell time? The watchmakers looking to integrate smart functions with fine timepieces depend on the well-heeled for their revenue, not Joe-consumer. They'll concede the low-end to techs as long as they can continue to appeal to the high-end. I think staying true to what brung'em to the party while integrating the most-used functions from tech-watches like payments, notifications and fitness will keep them relevant for much longer than some here might otherwise expect.
They don't have to out-tech the techs and couldn't if they wanted to. But they can out-style them if they don't have to design the watch to house a computer screen full of apps.
They could always out style them.
See my edit of that post about "leakers".
Hmm....I'm not aware of, say, Intel or Qualcomm calling out specific companies. For example I don't think Qualcomm ever mentioned Samsung even though everyone knew they were the large client Qualcomm was losing. This supplier didn't have to specifically mention Apple or the Watch.
No complaints -- but that may be bacuse of the extra chargers.
Do you think consumers who don't typically wear expensive watches daily if at all will suddenly decide to do so because they want a computer on their wrist that will tell time? The watchmakers looking to integrate smart functions with fine timepieces depend on the well-heeled for their revenue, not Joe-consumer. They'll concede the low-end to techs as long as they can continue to appeal to the high-end. I think staying true to what brung'em to the party while integrating the most-used functions from tech-watches like payments, notifications and fitness will keep them relevant for much longer than some here might otherwise expect.
They don't have to out-tech the techs and couldn't if they wanted to. But they can out-style them if they don't have to design the watch to house a computer screen full of apps.
You talk like someone who hasn't used a Watch yet. If you did, you'd never make the ridiculous statement that you did in your first sentence. Telling the time at a glance is useful, but it's far from the only use.
they might be onto something, you say?
it's impossible to know what a man who died 4 years ago would or would not have done while testing one of the many different bands for the Watch, if he would have tested all of them at all, which i doubt. Ive did most of the designing. remember the hockey puck mouse?
GG is on my block list so I don't see his posts unless someone quotes him.
As to his comments highlighted above:
So, the person who wears a luxury watch doesn't want a computer on his wrist???
Just what tech will they add to provide payments, notifications and fitness?
It seems to me that those few features require Storage, RAM, CPU, Communications, Battery -- isn't that what a we call a computer these days?
And, just who are they going to get notifications from? Notifications of what?
Where will the fitness data be held, analyzed, processed and presented?
What payment service will they use??? Will they roll their own with the CC companies or use the Wal-mart, CVS offering?
C'mon!
Good point. I'm not sure I would have bought an AW just yet if my Omega hadn't shit the bed just now...
That may depend on their age group. Older people are more likely to wear nice watches but are also not likely to be into CE as a general rule, so that's a moot point. To paraphrase Jobs, it doesn't matter, these people will die off..
Apple's goal here is longterm. I'd even argue it's much more longterm than any other product they've ever made.
My younger brother and his wife has been wearing nice watches for his adult life but him and his wife now wear Apple Watches, the SS models. His is the SS band (he didn't want to wait an extra month for the black so it's the silver). He has friends that did the same and I say these are 25-35yo age groups making $150- 300k per year per household.
Will they never wear or buy other watches again? I assume they will but they almost always wear their Apple Watch. The real question comes in a year or two if they will buy another Apple Watch and then another on the next cycle or two. I'm not even sure Apple has a firm grasp on this aspect of the market yet.
My friend that didn't buy AC+ did say that if he drops it will putting it on or taking it off, which means likely on the carpet. Also the weight and size will help protect it compared to an iPhone or iPad.
I bought it because I figure the chance of me smashing it against something whilst attached to my wrist are fairly high. I have done so but so far no issues.
They are completion. Even if there are only 800k Android Wear devices sold this year that's 800k that aren't Apple Watches. If Android Wear also has a comparable feature set and user experience it any also mean not getting someone to jump from an Android smartphone to the iPhone and Apple Watch.
We can also include fitness bands as completion to Apple Watch because so much of the interest in Watch is for health tracking. If that is your primary interest and Fitbit is simpler and cheaper but with a nice iPhone app then they may see Apple Watch as not worth it (and yet if fitness bands didn't exist they may have invested in Watch, so it's definitely competing for their money and their wrist).
How many Pebble are expected to be sold this year? Are their sales up or down from last year?