Apple's iWatch Could Come With IOS, Earn $6 Billion a Year 327
Nerval's Lobster writes "Apple's long-rumored "iWatch" could earn the company $6 billion a year, if an analyst quoted by Bloomberg proves correct. Citigroup analyst Oliver Chen estimated the global watch industry's annual revenue at $60 billion a year, with gross margins of roughly 60 percent. "This can be a $6 billion opportunity for Apple, with plenty of opportunity for upside if they create something totally new like they did with the iPod," he told the newswire, "something consumers didn't even know they needed." Meanwhile, The Verge reports that Apple has " chosen to rework the full iOS to run on the watch instead of building up the iPod nano's proprietary touch operating system," which has led to battery issues: while Apple would like the device to last "at least 4-5 days" between charges, the current prototypes give somewhat less. While an "Apple TV" long dominated the rumor mill as Apple's next big product, the frequency and detail of "iWatch" rumors over the past few weeks suggests that a timepiece could be the company's next big project."
Great, but what does it *DO*? (Score:4, Interesting)
Aside from the fact that the Apple logo alone will have people lined up outside of Apple stores across the country to buy this thin, I'm inclined to ask what this watch actually DOES (aside from the obvious "tells time").
The screen is going to be way too small to type on. And if Apple claims that Siri won't run on even older iPhones, it seems unlikely that it's going to run on this watch. So that leaves only the simplest of input options.
And the screen is going to be crazy small for much output, not that it will have much CPU or memory to do much anyway (unless the form factor is HUGE).
The only thing I can figure is that this is going to be a blutooth front-end for an iPhone, but in that case, having a full iOS install seems like overkill.
Has anyone actually seen a working prototype of this thing in action, who could maybe clue us in?
Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (Score:5, Funny)
It displays information in bright green on its black 5" x 3" screen. It can record sound and video footage for later playback. It uses a simple but elegant form of sonar and satellite tracking (where service is available) to map out areas where its user travels. Though input is slow, a user can also hand-enter and edit text messages on their iPip
The AppleCo iPIP also has a built-in radio and Geiger Counter, a built-in health monitor, motion sensor, and a unique program creating and editing tool, a light that illuminates the area around the user, (allowing them to see better in the dark), and also features a biometric lock that can only be opened by either the user or a skilled technician.
Coming soon! The AppleCo iPIP-Pad is an experimental tablet-sized version of the AppleCo iPIP series.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can rice the iPIP 2, I'm buying.
Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (Score:4, Insightful)
Aside from the fact that the Apple logo alone will have people lined up outside of Apple stores across the country to buy this thin, I'm inclined to ask what this watch actually DOES (aside from the obvious "tells time").
I can tell you one thing it doesn't do, as of this writing:
Exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I probably doesn't do a very good job of actually keeping time, either.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why it would, given that Apple devices in general are terrible at time.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/01/apple-iphone-4-alarm-problems-worldwide-clock-app-alarm-broken-3-days-in-a-row.html [latimes.com]
But what I want from an iWatch is the ability to access Siri, control music, and receive haptic alerts (since I often don't feel my phone vibrate in my pocket.) Two of those three are available on the Metawatch or Pebble, though the music control is really not great AFAICT.
Re: (Score:2)
It will, if instead of or addition to crystals keeping time, it is using the Atomic clock radio signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, lots of people believe it does, in a lab... Does that count?
It'll be one of those retro-active existence I guess...
Re: (Score:2)
And the screen is going to be crazy small for much output
You can bet that won't stop them from including HD for the iWatch 2, though. All glorious 1.5" of it. For use with iCokebottleglasses.
Re: (Score:2)
biometric device to keep track of your pulse, blood pressure. why buy the single use devices from the drug store?
bike computer for biking
the functions of the Nike fuelband and similar devices
remote control for iphone while you are running/biking to skip songs, change playlist, etc
it will probably be for people who see the light of day outside of cold basements and 24x7 staring at computer screens
Re: (Score:2)
Biometric monitoring device, yes. Probably somebody will buy that.
Remote control, maybe. Not for the phone but for some remote devices (lights? tv?)
Alarms? Probably.
Anyway I didn't wear a watch since the early '90s, I won't wear one now. I feel uncomfortable with something strapped to my wrist. I'll let other people handcuff themselves
Re: (Score:2)
The screen is going to be way too small to type on. And if Apple claims that Siri won't run on even older iPhones, it seems unlikely that it's going to run on this watch.
Product tying. It will require an iPhone to work, and I think it's pretty safe to assume the protocol for interacting with it will be locked down such that you can't use it with other devices.
It won't succeed. (Score:3)
The only reason the iPhone was as successful as it was is because the total cost in the US was concealed inside phone plans. If it had been for sale at the full price of $800-$1000 that carriers were paying it would have been a commercial failure in the US.
The US market is highly price sensitive, a do everything product that everyone wants might not sell at all because it's $50 outside people's price threshold.
"totally new like the ipod" (Score:5, Insightful)
Say what? Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?
I suppose you could say the design of the case was new, but MP3 players were out before the iPod.
Re: (Score:3)
As in it will be marketed like crazy, overpriced to make it seem "high tech", and almost no one in the media will give it the legitimate criticism it deserves for being a copycat?
Re: (Score:2)
When the iPod was introduced most portable music players stored about ten tracks. The iPad had enough capacity to store 1000 tracks. When everyone else was using slow USB 1.1 connections, the iPod used a fast FireWire connection.
Yeah, totally overpriced.
Re:"totally new like the ipod" (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?
It worked out of the box, as intended and easily for everyone from soccer moms to geeks and everything in between. It looked slick, the marketing campaign was tight and most importantly it fulfilled the needs of 'the majority' of consumers better than any other product on the market. Bash Apple all you want, but if you deny that I'd assume you're being deliberately obtuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Not obtuse at all.
It was a great product, but it was not "totally new".
Re:"totally new like the ipod" (Score:5, Insightful)
It was "totally new" in terms of being the first commercially viable product of its kind. There were flash-based players that held a few songs, laptop-drive based players that held more music but were not pocketable, and even MP3-capable CD players with the same problem. And then there was the issue of connectivity - the iPod used a much faster 1394 connection which made it feasible to sync. Even the similarly-sized Toshiba that came out shortly after the iPod - using the same drive - used a horrid DRM that made the device extremely painful to use. It was not a new idea, but then neither was the first airplane, telephone, or lightbulb.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However that does not make the device in question totally new.
Why do you care so much whether a device is subjectively new, or subjectively not new. Do you have some "NEW DEVICE" stickers you need to distribute or something?
What matters is if it's a good device that people want. THAT would be something new in the history of smart watches.
Re: (Score:2)
It worked out of the box
Not really. You had to install iTunes and connect it to a Firewire port. Then you had to carefully tag all your music because it didn't understand directories and file names.
There were better products on the market, but no-one could match the Apple hype machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. You had to install iTunes and connect it to a Firewire port
The first Mac was Mac only, and Macs already had iTunes on. So you're wrong there.
As music is ripped by iTunes, it gets the track list from an online DB. I didn't have to enter ANY tags. Clearly you did something stupid. Like perhaps ripping your music with an inferior music app that didn't do tags. Or stealing the music from others.
There were better products on the market, but no-one could match the Apple hype machine.
Bullshit. The iPod was an amazing and high quality machine. There was nothing like it on the market when it launched. And no "iPod Killer" ever caught up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Songs and albums map quite naturally onto a filesystem.
What directory structure? Which ever organisation you choose, it's always wrong in common scenarios. Music only seems to be hierarchical at to a casual view. Any experience actually doing it that way quickly reveals that it's wrong.
On the other hand, iTunes has more of a "play list" focused interface. It also has this strange inability to allow you to choose a single album.
Hit the albums tab. Select one album. Select more albums. What's your problem?
As a "keep it simple for the n00bs" interface, it's rather laughable really.
And yet you don't seem to understand how to do the simplest thing with it.
Re: (Score:3)
I spent many hours organizing my files and making playlists so I could listen to an album (I like filler TYVM). The iPod for me was "Hey! It works with iTunes!" more than a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Say what? Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?
I suppose you could say the design of the case was new, but MP3 players were out before the iPod.
The interface and simplicity were new especially after they launched iTunes, I have a love hate relationship with iTunes. MP3s were really just solid state cassette players. iPods do have a different feel. In truth I never owned one until the Touches came out. 50% for me was being able to play movies. Watching my own choice of movie changed flying for me. The watch is risky. It's a little like when they started seeing how small they could make calculators. They hit insanity with calculator pens that needed
Re: (Score:3)
Say what? Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?
I suppose you could say the design of the case was new, but MP3 players were out before the iPod.
Seeing as how I was looking for an MP3 player at the time I'd say that's simple. Firstly the iPod had a proper interface, not some crappy LCD screen where you could hardly see more than the first few letters of the track name or simply no display at all just a set of buttons. Secondly it had storage space, lots and lots and lots of storage space. Competing players that were generally available where I was living at the time could hardly handle more than a few CDs. With the iPod had 5 and 10GB you could rip
Re:"totally new like the ipod" (Score:5, Funny)
Secondly it had storage space, lots and lots and lots of storage space.
I have it on very good authority [slashdot.org] that the iPod had less space than a Nomad.
Re: (Score:2)
Important relative to entry into the watch market, one new thing about the original iPod was convincing a large portion of the population to consider a $300 portable music player a must-have accessory (when previously a $100 CD-walkman was a stretch). Apple entering the watch market could mean that a whole lot of people --- who previously wore no watch, or a $30 Casio --- would start thinking it was "normal" to spend $250 on a watch that they will throw away in a few years for a newer model.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No way. Watches died for me twenty years ago. They should invent something with very different functionality (they probably will) which doesn't have to be worn around wrists. Maybe something I keep in a pocket. Oh wait, my smartphone!
Disclaimer: I know one person is not a statistical sample, I just hate things that wrap wrists and I know that Apple can sell anything to their cultists :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?
The user experience.
Apple isn't the company that comes out with the first primitive gizmo, that doesn't work right and nobody wants. Apple comes out with the first gizmo that does it right, and people want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In 2001 no one but Apple could have predicted that users would tolerate anything so hostilec and counter-intuitive, but Apple wisely knew that people will do anything you ask them to do.
Wake up geeko. File systems ARE 'hostile and counterintutive' to that great wasteland of humanity that corresponds to the vast majority of people on the planet. Just because the first words out of your mouth were PIP *.* A: B: doesn't mean that the rest of them are comfortable with trees and extensions.
That was Apple's real contribution - the first step in creating successful 'appliance computing'.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Apple's insight is that users aren't interested in "MP3 files" and their management. They are interested in their collection of music.
It's fundamentally primitive and clunky to try and represent artist, composer, album, CD, song etc by the use of directory and filenames. That's what ID3 tags are for.
And it's doubly stupid to try and manually maintain two different music collections. One on a PC, and a different one on a portable player.
And once you stop trying to use a filesystem and a file browser
Watch wearing is a declining trend (Score:2)
w/ an ever-increasing number of people just pulling out their cell phones as a latter-day pocketwatch.
Not sure what functionality Apple can come up w/ to reverse this --- I really can't see people doing the Dick Tracy thing....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Watch wearing is a declining trend (Score:4, Interesting)
Came to say this.
What we need is an iPocketwatch. Make it fit into old gold watch cases and work as a cell phone.
I wouldn't buy one, but every suit in the world would be all over it. Hipsters perhaps, depends on how that herd stampedes next.
Re: (Score:2)
Came to say this.
What we need is an iPocketwatch. Make it fit into old gold watch cases and work as a cell phone.
I wouldn't buy one, but every suit in the world would be all over it. Hipsters perhaps, depends on how that herd stampedes next.
You woke up a few neurons I was trying to kill with alcohol.
Apple products position themselves as trendy, luxury items that you can't live without, right? Isn't the trendy luxury watch market already crowded by fancy five-figure watches? I expect the iWatch to take as much of that market as the digital watch did.
very uncertain conversion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:very uncertain conversion (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, it seems like the 'analyst' pulled the number straight out of his ass even by financial analyst standards.
Aside from the problem you note(today's watch spending is heavily skewed toward overpriced jewelry and 1$ quartz cheapies by the metric ton, which doesn't tell you how big the market for a 'far more expensive than a cheapie, far more powerful and less purely aesthetic than jewelry' product would be), why the focus on revenue?
Apple doesn't give a damn about revenue, never has, they care about profit(so, theoretically, do all for-profit corporations; but Apple is particularly aggressive about simply ignoring segments whose margins don't excite them).
In terms of Apple's ability to make a profit on watches, today's watch market tells us essentially nothing: the cheap seats tell us nothing because Apple would never hit those price points, the expensive seats tell us nothing because Apple doesn't do jewelry. As it stands, the market for 'smart watches' is vanishingly small, almost wholly irrelevant to the watch market generally.
Re: (Score:2)
>Honestly, it seems like the 'analyst' pulled the number straight out of his ass even by financial analyst standards.
Came in here to say this.
Re: (Score:2)
Jewelry is a type of fashion accessory; but the design and production of fashion accessories is a much larger, more varied, and in many cases quite a bit of a different matter than the production of jewelry. The two are hardly identical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
traditional watches are really more of a jewelry piece
iDevices are to some extent jewellery too. All the way back to the white headphones that came with the original iPod and all the posers with their original iPhones or talking to Siri in Starbucks.
Come On! (Score:5, Insightful)
(Posting AC because I'm at work)
Look, I'm a huge Apple fanboy, believe me, but come on! We're posting articles from FINANCIAL ANALYSTS now? When these nimrods have something valuable to say, it'll already have been old news for several months. His entire job is built on speculation and generating (or deflating) interest in a company. He does NOTHING OF VALUE! And we're going to put stock in his thoughts?
Come on. I know the Slashdot of yesteryear is gone and dead but let's not post commentary from financial analysts, even if it is about Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about increasing his shares...
What kind of astrotrash is this? (Score:2, Insightful)
iWatch? 6 billions a year? I mean, seriously? Or is it some crazy Apple shareholder wanting to jump a ship and spamming like crazy all channels to get price up "back where it belongs"?
Apple is history as supergrowth company. Niche products. No amount of hype will save it from fall. And this show screwed logic of public companies in US - it's all about "supergrowth", not profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Share value from present valuing vapor profits is, sometimes, not vapor.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when Apple was a computer company. In fact, its only recently that they've been anything but. They have used advertising well, but so did everyone else. This 'all Apple is a marketing company' is getting rather trite and over used.
Does anyone use watches anymore? (Score:2)
This could be really cool if they were able to pack the functions of an iPhone into a stylish looking watch.
However, until they've got the tech that well established, it's going to be a hard sell for most of us: we replaced our watches will cell phones and, in the interest of not carrying duplicate expensive devices, rely on the phone exclusively to tell time.
Re:Does anyone use watches anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
This could be really cool if they were able to pack the functions of an iPhone into a stylish looking watch.
However, until they've got the tech that well established, it's going to be a hard sell for most of us: we replaced our watches will cell phones and, in the interest of not carrying duplicate expensive devices, rely on the phone exclusively to tell time.
Watch sales are nearly $20 Billion, annually, so yes, ``someone still uses a fucking watch.'' http://www.fhs.ch/en/statistics.php [www.fhs.ch]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but most of that comes from one sale of the $15 billion "Rolex God" to a Saudi prince.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them I would believe are either status symbol for elegant and rich people, or are presents which no one wears actually. iWatch don't fall in either of these categories.
General public have really abandoned watches.
I love watches, but won't get this (Score:4, Insightful)
I love watches: mostly purely mechanical (automatic) watches. I have a couple of them: ranging from hundreds of dollars to $2,000. I think they're great, and love the mechanical nature. I have a couple of digital ones because I think they're neat, but I don't wear them that often. The digitals are also cheap so when I wear them when I travel or something.
That being said: I can't imagine myself getting this one. Sure, on one hand I guess it's interesting... but no.
As it stands, a watch is pretty much just jewelry now-a-days... clocks are everywhere and most of us already have cellphones to check the time. Now to put an iOS device on your wrist instead of your pocket. No thanks.
I mean, I could see wanting to get the Google Goggles more than this thing and THAT's saying something.
Put another way... (Score:2, Interesting)
If every number I made up turns out to be true, this product I know nothing about could represent $6BN in revenue for Apple.
Seriously, it's speculation built on top of more speculation... Oh, wait, it's slashdot, never mind.
Exercise Watch Potential (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I've looked at Motorola's GPS watches and was far from impressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's UI? Palm Pilot style grid of icons? Outdated home button?
Maybe you mean multitouch? Yeah, that'll work great on a 1.5" display... How will use use Apple's very poorly designed suite of gestures? The laughably-bad four-finger swipe on a watch is going to take some impressive contortions! Will it come with sandpaper so users can file-down their fingers?
I'm just going to go ahead and guess that you haven't put much thought in to how the UI will actually work, but assumed that Apple would come up w
Who is going to buy this? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a device that runs apps already. It's called a smartphone.
I have a device with Bluetooth for my headphones. It's called a smartphone.
etc. etc.
Re: (Score:3)
I still wear a watch, old habit perhaps but it's also just a glance away when I'm in a hurry to catch the bus or whatever. With the current trend of smartphones growing to 4-5 inches they're soon approaching mini tablets at 7 inches, maybe people feel they want something smaller and more convenient again? I don't know, but I think you're being far to pessimist. If Apple can provide me with something that's more convenient because it's on my wrist than in my pocket, maybe something smaller that complements t
Re: (Score:2)
....except the phone already displaced all of that stuff.
That device is getting LARGER rather than smaller. That's being driven by the fact that a lot of people like MORE rather than less screen space. Until you crack that display size problem, you may have a problem convincing people to downsize their mobile devices.
The Dick Tracy types have been been proved wrong already. Get over it.
I watch (Score:2)
every chance I get. Is that going to cost me now?
Who wears watches? (Score:3)
Nobody wears watches anymore! We carry smartphones with time displays in our pockets. Or are those iPocketWatches?
Hmmm let's see
Step 1) Sell iPhone, with clock.
Step 2) People stop wearing wristwatches, use iPhone to tell time.
Step 3) Sell iWatch, with phone. No one carries iPhone anymore.
Step 4) Sell iPocketWatch. It's just like the iWatch, but bigger! And goes in your pocket!
Step 5) Go to step 3. Head assplodes.
Post-Jobs era (Score:3)
Bloomberg confirms: journalism is dying (Score:2)
/facepalm
Less space than a Nomad, no wifi,... (Score:2)
...lame?
I can see a market for these, but in this case it's not me. It would have to replace my phone to be "worth it". I wear a watch - it's a time piece, not quite jewelry. I'm particular about how my watch looks as a reflection of my style, but not in a way that is statusy. Quite the same for my phone - which does happen to be an iPhone - which I got because at the time I bought it it was easy to use, comfortable to hold and store, and had the apps I needed when other phones did not.
It seems like a sol
Here we go again.... (Score:2)
Other possible "could"s in an infinite Universe...
"could tank big-time"
"could be operated by monkeys"
"could be operated by dolphins (as it's waterproof)"
etc etc... speculation is always fun. http://xkcd.com/1158/ [xkcd.com]
Shouldn't be hard to make! (Score:2)
I'm curious how this will be all that much different than an ipod nano mounted on a permanent wrist band. Outside of playing music and maybe voice based services such as maps or Siri (assuming cell data)I don't see the point over an actual iPhone based on screen size. Something that fits a wrist is not going to be great at reading text efficiently.
Maybe they can ship a free iMonocle with it.
Sony has an Android watch ... (Score:2)
Sony does have an Android watch [sonymobile.com] that is been out for a year or more.
But history will be rewritten so that Steve Jobs would be the pioneer of smart watches, and even doing so from his grave too ...
Re: (Score:2)
Until Apple gets sued over the two-way wrist radio [wikipedia.org] similarity.
Latest-Nano-Sized iWatch w/iOS would sell, but (Score:2)
What is really needed is not an explicit watch, but an approximately nano-sized device that runs full iOS, and that can also couple to a bigger iOS device like a tablet or a phone, and is sold waterproof and you're not turning to some third party for a special coating. And an official Apple watchband for it, of course, as well as an armband, and anything else to which you might conceivably attach the thing.
$6 Billion? Really? (Score:3)
I, too, think that the $6 billion figure for the possible size of an iWatch market to be completely fictional. Not going to happen, but I'd really like some of whatever these guys are smoking to come up with a number like that.
As others have already said, a lot of people no longer wear watches because they now carry cell phones. Still others only wear watches as jewelry. Yes, I take the point others have made here that many/most/all Apple products are fashion statements, so you could argue an iWatch would still be jewelry, but in the world of watches, there seems to be generally two categories of "fashion" watches: watches that are "traditional jewelry" meaning that they are gold/silver/titanium, or made from other "traditional" jewelry materials, and watches that have an interesting/modern design (think the original "Swatch".) An iWatch can't compete against the traditional jewelry market and still have a touch screen. The two designs are pretty orthogonal -- I have a hard time thinking that the watch's function as something pretty/shiny/classic can be shared with something with a usable touch LCD screen and not fail at both. I can see how it might be possible to go after the modern/interesting style of "jewelry" watch with a stylish simple/elegant design -- again, think "Swatch" only with some ipod/iphone features included. (I realize the Swatch group now owns many luxury brands. I'm referring to the primarily plastic modern-looking watches like the original Swatch that came out in the 1980's) Anyway, a modern-styled plastic-case iWatch sounds really workable to me, but will that capture 10% of the market? Not bloody likely. Look at watch sales. Where is all the money being made? At the low-end plastic watches? Nope. The highest sales and margins are in the traditional jewelry-type watches. Something I can't see Apple competing with.
So, if Apple is going for an iWatch, they can't target the high-end jewelry watch market, so that's out. They can't target the low-end quartz or digital watch market, because that is already saturated with low-margin products. Their only hope is to define a new market somewhere in the middle with enough margin to make money. So, what is this watch going to *DO* that will garner more than a yawn from the general population (certain Apple fanboys excepted.)
You've got to do more than tell time. A cheap quartz watch will do that, and do it more stylishly.
So, okay, add in an MP3 player, stop watch, and maybe GPS, and other features runners/cyclists might want.
Yes, an iPhone/Smartphone can do those things, but they aren't as small/compact/portable. That's really all an iWatch might have going for it. -- size. Target the sports crowd so that you don't have to take your iPhone running with you. Otherwise, the crowd that already stopped wearing watches because they have a smart phone won't give it a second look.
Could they pack the ability to make phone calls into a watch? Maybe. Generally the two things that eat power on a smartphone are wifi and the display. Take out wifi (or turn it off) and make the screen much smaller, and you might be able to shrink a cell phone into a watch. That might make an iWatch attractive. However, the nice thing about having a smartphone is all the other things you can do with it --things that are going to be hard on a watch (texting, web browsing, e-mail, playing games, etc.) So, if you buy an iWatch that can make calls, do you also keep your smartphone? Do you have two cellphone contracts? If that's the case, I'd rather just have one device and use (or not) a regular watch. The trend in smartphone screen size is going bigger, not smaller. So, the iWatch as a cellphone replacement doesn't seem to make sense.
Really, the only market opportunity I can see for an iWatch is as a wearable ipod with more features (like GPS, maybe have it sync with your iPhone calendar to alert you to appointments, etc.) That could actually be kinda cool. Would I buy one? No. Will it grab 10% of the watch market? Um... probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
MEH. (Score:2)
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame. [slashdot.org]
Watches are for slaves. In our post-employment utopia, wearing a watch is as bad as wearing a pocket-protector.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hey... kid... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it easier to snatch a phone out of someone's hands than to grab a watch from their wrist?
Not if you don't want them to know it happened [youtube.com].
Re:Hey... kid... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah like how do you even tell the time on a phone?!
Easy, by spending more time on taking it out of your pocket and putting it back afterwards than on actually looking at the time....
What's really funny is how often I wonder what time it is, so I dig my phone out, then notice I have texts or e-mails or whatnot, then after checking that out, put the phone back in the holster, then several seconds later, I still wonder what time it is.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
E-monocles
Like an E-Sir.
Re: (Score:3)
E-monocle
For even more pretension, and less function, try an e-lorgnette [wikipedia.org].
Re:Not sure whether I'd want one (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sick and tired of arguing with idiots about that. This is not really that difficult a concept...
Re: (Score:2)
This class of devices screams for an ambient light, back solar celled, display technology. Until they've got that, they should stop. To keep from embarrassing themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
This class of devices screams for an ambient light, back solar celled, display technology. Until they've got that, they should stop. To keep from embarrassing themselves.
My guess is that it will use some form of high-resolution eInk display. LCD is too pedestrian for Apple and not groundbreaking enough.
Re: (Score:2)
"Apple would like the device to last "at least 4-5 days" between charges, the current prototypes give somewhat less."
One of the big selling points for watches is that they virtually never need a battery replacement. And those that do require frequent recharge (think old wind-up watches) can be charged up in virtually no time and without plugging in. For the average user, the watch is on the wrist for virtually all waking hours. No-one is going to want to buy a watch that is rendered useless because they forgot to plug it in before going to bed, and they don't have the time to charge it the next morning.
I'm certain it will have wireless charging, so as long as you take it off at night and put it on your bedside stand, it will be charged for the next day.
Some people still buy mechanical wind-up watches, so a watch that needs to be placed on a charging mat doesn't sound that bad.
Re:What time is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
don't worry, your comment is about as valid as the article's magic math.
Basically: let's come up with a value for a market
and then: let's imagine apple getting 10% of that market. Forget costs, forget how they get to 10% or how long it takes them to get there. Let's just magic that they do.
cause/reality/logic? None of the three exist. Possibly the dumbest people on businesswatch aside from everyone else at businesswatch.
Re: (Score:3)
Back when I had a company, I hired a marketing guy who used this magic math. He'd come up with a huge number for the total market size and then tell me that we could capture x% of the market. He also was big on "hockey stick" sales graphs which predicted exponential sales increases "real soon now".
No clue on actually how to do that though... the guy was a psychopathic liar and nothing he ever said worked out.
Re:What time is it? (Score:4, Funny)
Could have just said:
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely, Apple will have 100% of the market. Just like they did when they introduced the iPad and no real competition for almost two full years. From this perspective, the analyst isn't that far off. I must say, analysts may generally underestimate Apple. This one is a little bold. The iWatch might in fact turn out to be a dud.
Re:What time is it? (Score:4, Informative)
there is approximately a 100% chance that apple will never have 100% of the market. There is actually a lot of competition in the watch market, and apple is not the only entrant - they're just like Microsoft, a late entrant to the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know they have not even announced it. It's just rumors.