crowley

Xed said:

waveparticle said:

Xed said:

waveparticle said:

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. 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not understanding how GPS would affect the ability to setup up an Apple Watch with a Watch app.

To setup Apple Watch you need a device that has both cellular and GPS. 

1) Why do you think this? Are you claiming that I can't disable cellular and use WiFi to setup an Apple Watch? What does GPS have to do with setting it up?

2) Assuming for a second that it needs Cellular+GPS, then why is this not possible on iPads that have those chips which is "a device that has both cellular and GPS."

AppleInsider said:

"The capability will make it easier for multiple people to use the same device and allow them to quickly make payments inside the headset," claims the publication, "just as iPhones allow people to confirm payments using scans of their fingerprints or faces, the people said."

JP234 said:

chasm said:

macxpress said:

I wouldn't really say they're hammering Apple with fines lol...thats a little exaggeration there. The amount of money Apple is being fined is a drop in the bucket for them. I doubt they even noticed it leaving their bank account. Not really impressed with the clickbait headline there. 

It is a 10x increase from previous fines. It’s not clickbait, and it is newsworthy. Furthermore, it is not a “drop in the bucket” of Apple’s Brazilian sales.

It's the EU demand for USB-C that's going to cost them. But they've already planned to do it worldwide, probably before that legislation takes effect.

Hedware said:

It will be interesting to see how Apple fares against Australian unions. Most likely to be a repeat of the EU-Apple exercise over USB-C cables.