Apple Watch 2 Expected to Focus on Internal Upgrades Rather Than External Changes, Launch in Late 2016

[MaulRx]

Maybe you should look at how the industry works.

It's not a question of the industry. If they make more money on a product then is required to make it, they are profiting.

It's economics 101. Apple has earned the right to make and support products like TV and Watch based on the success of their other products. It's the upside of not always being one failed launch away from disaster like other tech companies.

 

[rowspaxe]

Apple Watch = epic fail.

Don't worry. Devs will fix it! Not really

 

[firewood]

... the third question a shareholder asks "Why are you not investing in areas of the company that are already making money so they can make MORE money?"

The ways that are currently making money that may or may not make more money in the future. Kodak invested a lot in the film business which was where the company was already making tons of money.

 

[yaxomoxay]

It's not a question of the industry. If they make more money on a product then is required to make it, they are profiting.

It's economics 101. Apple has earned the right to make and support products like TV and Watch based on the success of their other products. It's the upside of not always being one failed launch away from disaster like other tech companies.

I guess that you should go back to your economics 101 class, and re-read about the opportunity cost. The real cost of the Watch development includes the cost of missing other stuff due to re-allocation of resources.

Simplistic example. Developing+producing the watch $2B, sales $12B. Revenue is $10B, correct.
Now, for the sake of the example, Apple could've invested the $2B in improving the iPhone (research on batteries, design etc.), and that could've brought in $20B in extra iPhone sales (similar to what happened with iPhone 6). The opportunity cost of developing the watch would've been $10B in missed iPhone sales, therefore the Watch is a loss for all purposes of the stakeholders.
Again, I don't think that this is the case of the Watch, but it's a good question to be asked.

 

[ConnYoungy]

The FitBit type features are a good 50% of what justifies buying one, really. If you (like me) don't really care that much about that part of it? The "value" comes down to remote notifications, IMO. It's nice having the watch "ping" you with the haptic feedback and remind you of your next calendar appointment, vs. having to take the phone out of your pocket to view it. Same with text messages coming up on the watch, especially while you're driving and not supposed to be messing with your phone. You can glance at the watch while holding onto the steering wheel and see what just came in without much disruption at all. The fact you can respond to a text with a simple tap on a few pre-made responses (like "Yes", "No", "Call you later", etc.) means you can often do a reply in these situations too.

Personally I don't see the appeal of having a £400 remote screen so I can see when Ive got a text when my phone does that from my pocket. For anyone who carries a bag with their phone in I get it, but it still seems a bit excessive. Plus I've never in my life sent a text reply that was as blunt as yes, no, or call you later (although if I have said 'yes' or 'no' they're usually followed by questions that need longer answers).

It seems to me that the watch was supposed to unshackle people from their phones but really all it does is demand that you check that message or email immediately instead of thinking "I'll wait until I pull over". Not that Im sure other people don't find it super useful

 

[citysnaps]

Apple Watch = epic fail.

Yowzers! Not just a fail, but an EPIC fail. Did I just feel the Earth tilt a few extra degrees?

 

[MaulRx]

I guess that you should go back to your economics 101 class, and re-read about the opportunity cost. The real cost of the Watch development includes the cost of missing other stuff due to re-allocation of resources.

Simplistic example. Developing+producing the watch $2B, sales $12B. Revenue is $10B, correct.
Now, for the sake of the example, Apple could've invested the $2B in improving the iPhone (research on batteries, design etc.), and that could've brought in $20B in extra iPhone sales (similar to what happened with iPhone 6). The opportunity cost of developing the watch would've been $10B in missed iPhone sales, therefore the Watch is a loss for all purposes of the stakeholders.
Again, I don't think that this is the case of the Watch, but it's a good question to be asked.

No evidence exists to say that Apple has taken money from Paul to pay Peter. The watch is a new product line, something companies introduce all the time. Usually when existing ones are slumping or as an accessory to boost. The watch does both. It's ludicrous to even assume Apple, the richest company on the planet, would harm itself by taking necessary funds away from their golden boy to start something new. It pays to be the best.

 

[yaxomoxay]

No evidence exists to say that Apple has taken money from Paul to pay Peter. The watch is a new product line, something companies introduce all the time. Usually when existing ones are slumping or as an accessory to boost. The watch does both. It's ludicrous to even assume Apple, the richest company on the planet, would harm itself by taking necessary funds away from their golden boy to start something new. It pays to be the best.

Again, I don't think that it is the case of the watch. But I am pretty sure that with a "meager" $5B in revenues and declining iPhone sales the big shareholders are asking this question.

 

[Cole Slaw]

The killer app for me are the notifications. So I miss less calls, sms, whatsapp and I am more independent form the iPhone.

Isn't that a basic problem with the watch, though?
That you're NOT more independent from your iPhone. Doesn't the watch require the iPhone for most of it's more important functions to be able to work (such as the ones you listed)?

 

[bladerunner2000]

People finally caught on that they don't need gimmick devices.

 

[MaulRx]

Again, I don't think that it is the case of the watch. But I am pretty sure that with a "meager" $5B in revenues and declining iPhone sales the big shareholders are asking this question.

Then your point was? Just more mindless Apple moaning? By your logic they should be making one single type, color, screen size and storage size of iPhone(based on whichever is selling the best) and nothing more. Lest their bank account runs dry.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Then your point was? Just more mindless Apple moaning?

That the syllogism that since the watch is bringing revenue it is not a failure is wrong. It's more complex than that.

 

[MaulRx]

That the syllogism that since the watch is bringing revenue it is not a failure is wrong. It's more complex than that.

Not when you are the best and have money to innovate. Go preach that crap on a Microsoft forum, a lot of us buy Apple not just for what the products are but for what they will be in the future.

 

[yaxomoxay]

a lot of us buy Apple not just for what the products are but for what they will be in the future.

That's a different subject that has nothing to do with the sales/revenue/economics conversation

 

[MaulRx]

That's a different subject that has nothing to do with the sales/revenue/economics conversation

No they are linked. A company like Apple has the money to do the side projects and new areas because they are successful with their core products. The watch is making them money by any metric you use, to cry about it otherwise is just plain ignorant.

 

[RickInHouston]

I must say, though, I have seen a few out in the wild. What strikes me as most odd is that they are being worn by really old people. I'm 55 and most I've seen are on people older than me.

I wouldn't wear a watch due to poor reading distance eye-site. Put glasses on, read watch. Pick up phone increase text size, read phone.

 

[yaxomoxay]

A company like Apple has the money to do the side projects and new areas because they are successful with their core products.

Again, that's another subject. They have money for R&D, and they use it. That doesn't mean that the product is successful. Apple is a very healthy company.

The watch is making them money by any metric you use, to cry about it otherwise is just plain ignorant.

This is where you're wrong. You define as making money as Revenue > Expenses. And by Revenue you look at direct sales only, and by expenses you look at direct expenses only (R&D, packaging, production etc.), which is an incomplete way to look at it. It is way more complex than that.

 

[MaulRx]

Again, that's another subject. They have money for R&D, and they use it. That doesn't mean that the product is successful. Apple is a very healthy company.



This is where you're wrong. You define as making money as Revenue > Expenses. And by Revenue you look at direct sales only, and by expenses you look at direct expenses only (R&D, packaging, production etc.), which is an incomplete way to look at it. It is way more complex than that.

Again, no it isn't. There exists no evidence that any of their existing products have been hurt in any way, sales or R&D, by the production of the watch. Furthermore, they have made money on their investment. No successful company pumps all their free money into one single product at the expense of everything else including, I don't know, innovation.

 

[576316]

It doesn't. I went into it assuming it would be an Apple TV like product.

All they will achieve is shooting themselves in the foot. Bring out a new Apple Watch every year and sales will be absolutely rubbish. Bring a new version out once every two or three years, and people will upgrade keeping sales figures relatively stable on release.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Again, no it isn't. There exists no evidence that any of their existing products have been hurt in any way, sales or R&D, by the production of the watch. Furthermore, they have made money on their investment. No successful company pumps all their free money into one single product at the expense of everything else including, I don't know, innovation.

I give up. Keep up.

 

[Keirasplace]

This giant thing?

This is one of the ugliest thing ever.

 

[seatton]

Apple Watch:
on Siri: Hey Siri (wait 10 seconds) set the time.. Hey Siri.. Hey.. set the timer for 5 minutes.. (wait 15 seconds)..done
on Apps: Starting up weather app.. shows old info.. wait for.. oh damn, does not work.. open other app
On glances: **** waiting... waiting ***

Apple watch needs more CPU power and faster response for it to work..
I still wear it every day though, notifications seem to do fine which i do love

Agreed. I have had the watch since day one and it does not do the job it is supposed to do fast enough. I pull LA Fitness app and have to wait for a couple mins in front of the counter so the bar code would show up to check in, for example.

 

[xDKP]

Based on......?! Guess?

 

[MaulRx]

All they will achieve is shooting themselves in the foot. Bring out a new Apple Watch every year and sales will be absolutely rubbish. Bring a new version out once every two or three years, and people will upgrade keeping sales figures relatively stable on release.

I think they know that based on how they have been giving us new bands since launch. You don't make money on a printer, you make it on the ink.
[doublepost=1460392832][/doublepost]

I give up. Keep up.

The online equivalent to taking your ball and going home because the other kids are better on the court.

Next.

 

[MisterK]

This makes sense to me. A lot of the optimism around the AppleWatch has died down as reality has set in about what it can do well and what it can't.

Apple should amplify the things it does well. Obvious, I know, but what does that mean?
In my mind, AppleWatch's strengths are novelty, notifications and fitness. In that order.

For novelty, the watch has to remain a source of delight for users. That means that it should continue to surprise. The stock watch faces become routine very quickly. I've imagined something like Google's Doodles but for the watch face. Imagine if there are time-limited watch faces that Apple makes to go along with events (like Christmas and Easter, July 4th or partnered for movie releases). I'd love to put my AppleWatch in the morning to see a surprise high-quality Apple-approved watch face. Much better than just changing a background picture or introducing the friction of a faces store with all the low-quality faces that would introduce. You'd obviously have the choice of using any of these. Perhaps you can pick between 5 time-limited ones at any time. An official Batman vs. Superman watch face would have been fun.

Apple should think of the watch as mostly a fashion accessory – a cooler watch rather than a smaller iPhone. With the stock functions, plethora of bands, and new faces introduced all the time, there's enough here for the sneaker/fashion crowd and gadget crowd.

Notifications are good, but they could be better. More actionable from the watch. Too often, I see that a person posted a comment on Facebook or something else that I need to pull out my phone for.

Fitness could also be amplified and the biggest help would be for the watch to be fully waterproof for swimming.

Speed is another consideration but it's not just the speed of apps launching but the whole UX of how you see them. Assume only a few apps rather than many. What if I could just swipe from the watch face screen and go to each of my apps. You could resort based on the latest installed and then the most often used. Forget the circles.