Last Active
  • Apple Watch sets new US record, now owned by 30% of iPhone users

    danox said:
    Me too once they offer blood pressure monitoring….
    It is extremely difficult to do. Blood circulation is the most genius design by nature. Scientists figured out that our heart pumps blood very lately. Because it reveals itself only through the pulse. 
  • Apple Watch sets new US record, now owned by 30% of iPhone users

    Xed said:
    dewme said:
    red oak said:
    A better way to analyze attach rates is using installed bases, not quarterly sales.  People buy iPhones and Watches on different timetables 

    Using those metrics, the attach rate is approx: 

    150 million Watches / 1.1 billion iPhones = 13.6% 

    I don't know if one way of looking at attach rate is necessarily better than another. Both ways provide useful information but over different time windows. If you're actively doing something to try to boost attach rate, like modifying your marketing mix in some way (which includes product changes), looking at the delta in a smaller time window may give you more immediate feedback about the effectiveness of your campaign.

    What strikes me as a bit counterintuitive with respect to the iPhone-Apple Watch attachment is that over the last few Apple Watch releases Apple has actually made the watch more autonomous and less reliant on the iPhone. That would seemingly result in a decrease or slower rate of growth in the attach rate. This may lend more credence to your interpretation of what is a better way of looking at the attach rate for this particular pair of products. 

    My gut feeling here is that the Apple Watch has simply become a more attractive product on its own and the attach rate with iPhone has less to do with iPhone and more to do with Apple Watch itself. The iPhone is still obviously a halo product that buoys up a wide range of other Apple products, and yes, you still need an iPhone to setup and make best use of an Apple Watch, but I think the Apple Watch is largely improving its attractiveness based on its own merits. If the hard iPhone dependency went away the Apple Watch would probably still do quite well.
    As far as I know the Watch still requires the owner to also own an iPhone. That means that all Watch owners also own iPhones. This can't even be setup using an iPad at this point, AFAICT. This means that Apple Watch to iPhone use is effectively an easy sales of one divided by the sales to the other, multiplied by 100. Only Apple would have a better ratio with iCloud account linking to be able to weed out people with multiple iPhones and Watches, or even weed out iPhones used as single-used devices by companies, for example, to get more accurate ratios.

    I think this is due to iPad does not have GPS. 
  • Compared: Apple Watch Series 8 vs Google Pixel Watch

    wd4fsu said:
    Why Apple won't put GPS into iPad? Many apps won't work without GPS. 

    Um, cellular iPads DO have GPS, and the GPS doesn't require an active cellular subscription to be used.  It's worth the extra $$ to get the cellular iPad in my opinion.

    Apple Watch has a GPS and a GPS+Cellular. The price difference is $100. If Apple Watch can do this, why iPad cannot? 
  • Compared: Apple Watch Series 8 vs Google Pixel Watch

    Why Apple won't put GPS into iPad? Many apps won't work without GPS. 
  • Apple RAM supplier gets one-year reprieve from US tech ban

    First of all, memory chips are not advanced processors. Second, SK Hynix has memory chip plants in China that was the ban came from. Lastly, the one year reprieve is so SK Hynix can move the plants out of China.