But it's not as high as it would have been if Imaginary Magical Steve Jobs were still around.
Because Imaginary Magical Steve Jobs can do anything.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch Chipmakers Said to Be Gearing Up Production
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because Imaginary Magical Steve Jobs can do anything.
I think the thing that will make it essential is the simple tap to pay, not even needing to TouchId or have your phone out, assuming ApplePay really does take off would be pretty awesome having all your cards on your wrist with such a simple way to pay. This will become it's most used feature I think.
----------
he was pretty awesome wasn't he
I highly doubt upgrades (except for maybe the S1 chip in the high-end versions for one or two chip generations, say S2 and S3) will work because the external design will also change over time.
I also doubt the $349 will cover anything other than the Sports edition without Sapphire given Apple's gross margins near 40%.
Maybe even the bands are sold separately (which would make sense from a logistics point of view) and the $349 only covers the watch itself.
There are whole forums full of threads saying any successful product is terrible.
Why is everyone assuming the "Sport" edition is the cheapest?
I don't understand why everyone assumes the Sport edition--i.e., the aluminum watch--is going to be the cheapest. Apple tends to have three configurations of its products, which end up being "good," "better," and "best." If you look at Apple's website, they seem to have aligned the three models in a similar fashion: "Apple Watch," "Apple Watch SPORT," and "Apple Watch EDITION".
Also, the page on the "sport" model talks about how they used a custom alloy and special "Ion-X" glass for improved lightness and durability compared to the stainless steel model. That seems to also indicate that the "Sport" version of the watch is seen--at least by Apple--as an upgrade, compared to the stainless steel version.
I don't understand why everyone assumes the Sport edition--i.e., the aluminum watch--is going to be the cheapest. Apple tends to have three configurations of its products, which end up being "good," "better," and "best." If you look at Apple's website, they seem to have aligned the three models in a similar fashion: "Apple Watch," "Apple Watch SPORT," and "Apple Watch EDITION".
Also, the page on the "sport" model talks about how they used a custom alloy and special "Ion-X" glass for improved lightness and durability compared to the stainless steel model. That seems to also indicate that the "Sport" version of the watch is seen--at least by Apple--as an upgrade, compared to the stainless steel version.
I thought it said "30-40 trillion" units
Jeebus, hahaha, maybe they hired Doctor Evil to run their supply chain
I think, not unlike the latter generations of mobile devices, itll be determined by the apps (which will be driven by the SDK, and what can really be done with the platform).
Im pretty excited about a brand new Apple platform and have been knocking around ideas. I wasnt developing for iOS at the beginning of that platform, so I only have the perspective of there already being 100Ks of apps. vs. being more on the ground floor.
I cant wait to wade into WatchKit
(side note: Hey, he works out...
)Yeah, Im wondering as well. Theres been quite a few folks in the tech sector (various podcasts, blogs), who have suggested the internals being sealed and self contained kind of point to a modular design what would allow swapping an S2", then an S3" into the same case - maybe only at Apple stores. Though I imagine if its successful there will also be advances in the physical design as well.
Agreed. Apple products require a considerable amount of troubleshooting on Cook's watch.
Apple will probably sell 200M Iphones in 2015,
5S+6+7 Phones 450M by the end of 2015 + 100M still active 5, 5c = 500M
All those other devices ALSO have blue tooth LE and could be compatible with the watch if Apple decides. Considering how tightly the ecosystem is woven, I don't see what not most of them will be compatible with it.
These are the first candidate other device to be compatible w
All Tablets past from 3 onward have Bluetooth LE
That would add 100M device just there.
I'd guess the watch can also work with any tablet (at least for the data part) and every Mac that has Blue tooth LE
so basically you're saying that people will rather splash 500$+ on a watch just because they're too lazy to grab their credit card/cash in the pocket?
Considering how much time Apple has spent pre-launch and the time the watch has been in development, it is probable that the software will be rock solid at launch.
1998: iMac? No one's going to take this thing seriously. It's ugly, I thought Steve was gonna save Apple, not with this freakshow.
2001: iPod? Why would I pay $400 for an MP3 player? That's pointless, so is that iTunes thing. Steve Jobs failed on this one.
2007: iPhone? No. I'm not paying $500 for some big screened toy, who no one professional would ever use. Everyone wants and uses Blackberry, especially in Enterprise. Apple's screwed. Plus I have my iPod, why would I need one built into my phone?
2008: MacBook Air? are you crazy! It doesn't even have a SuperDrive built into it, and I'm not paying $99 for an external one. What a disaster.
2010: iPad?!? Really Steve!?!? What a horrendous name for an unneeded product. $500 for a big iPod touch? No way, no one is gonna pay for that. I have my MacBook Air and my iPhone, I don't need an iPad.
2012: iPad mini? Steve said NO MINI TABLETS! What is wrong with Apple? They have such a flawless record and now they can't stop failing... Steve really knew what he was doing. Apple's doomed, I have an iPad for a reason.
2014: Apple Watch? What a terrible idea! No way am I gonna spend even $350 for the base model. I have an iPhone for a reason, plus I haven't worn a watch in years. How arbitrary.
Last edited:
The bracelet itself points the stainless steel watch being more expensive. That alone normally cost quite a bit. That and also saphire being used for the watch face. If the bracelet costs $100 dollars all by itself (more than the rubber one
, you can see how the stainless one might be more expensive.The watch is so thick that the cuff will not button. You'll need long sleeved T's. Cook looked foolish with his sleeve pushed up for the silly looking watch.
----------
Like iOS 8?
How many work places expressly forbid cell phone use on the job??? This will satisfy my desire to keep track of what's going on in the outside world, while not putting my job in peril.
That being said, just want to own one, too...
If you include Q4 2015, yes, 500 million compatibe phones is maybe possible in a stretch.
Here are the historic sales in comparison with the obvious spikes in every Q1 (because Apple's FY ends in September with Q4):
http://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007/
The 500 million estimate is really high, it's a stretch for Apple to ship 200 million iPhones per year from now on.
Since we now know the Watch has to be charged daily and there's no killer use case so far (at least I haven't seen one. Why should most consumers want to wear a watch and charge it daily when they have a smartphone in their pocket that does most of the stuff on a bigger screen) I still doubt we see more than 20-25 million in unit sales in year one.
That would equal to an attach rate of about 5%. As I mentioned before, that could drop off later because most people will probably upgrade their iPhone more frequently than the Watch (as long as the Watch isn't stand-alone or subsidized).
Last edited:
so basically you're saying that people will rather splash 500$+ on a watch just because they're too lazy to grab their credit card/cash in the pocket?
Yes, just like people spend $500+ to have the keyless entry and start feature on their cars so they don't have to dig in their pockets for a key fob.
It's called convenience, and people will pay extra for it if they perceive value received. I can say personally, I thought touch to unlock was stupid when I ordered it on my first car because pushing a remote button isn't that hard. But I bought it b/c it was the only way to lower my convertible top remotely. Since then I'll never buy another car that doesn't have keyless entry. I'm getting ready to order my next car and it's a $1000 now. Sold.
It's easy to get addicted to things that make life easier, even if thats just being able to open the car trunk w/o a key or pushing a remote button.
Can't wait for the Apple Watch b/c I hate digging in my pockets to just to see someone I don't want to talk to is calling or read a stupid text.
It's just slightly thinner than my wristwatch which fits fine under longsleeve cuffs if you use the wide button or just let the sleeves bunch up a hair.
Not a real deal breaker for people who want to pay upwards of $350 for a watch.
It'll be a 1st generation software release of a complex product...there will be bugs. The more Apple does to eliminate them, the better, but there will always be bugs in complex software (especially initial releases).
cellphone makers - are just trying for dear life to create a new category that nobody cares for.
Steve jobs once said not to chase the trends but to create them
Apple has failed
Perhaps they're creating a watch trend where people, you know, actually buy and wear smart watches and like them?
They've never really taken off. Then again, none of them have the type of integration with the smart phone that the Apple Watch seems to be trying to undertake. Could be interesting. Still hard to say.
While I agree that it is a niche product that won't get the sales they want; what are the other cook failures you speak of?
----------
I doubt we see even 20-25 mil. I think ~5-10 million in the first year at the most.
The shareholder in me hopes the watch is a huge success. The former Apple enthusiast wishes the company would get a CEO who is able outside the counting house.
Obviously not every Apple product matches my needs.
The iMac and iPod did;
Nano, MB Airs, iPads, and iPhones definitely do;
Apple TV, MB & iPad Minis don't.
If I can't use it I don't buy it.
And I don't see how the iWatch will, so I won't be racing out to buy it. If I find a genuine use where it appreciably enhances my daily life then I'll reconsider. For now I don't see it replacing my current fitness watch.
None of that means I feel Apple shouldn't develop the iWatch. I like how they continue trying to earn my money with products I might be able to use.
The iMac and iPod did;
Nano, MB Airs, iPads, and iPhones definitely do;
Apple TV, MB & iPad Minis don't.
If I can't use it I don't buy it.
And I don't see how the iWatch will, so I won't be racing out to buy it. If I find a genuine use where it appreciably enhances my daily life then I'll reconsider. For now I don't see it replacing my current fitness watch.
None of that means I feel Apple shouldn't develop the iWatch. I like how they continue trying to earn my money with products I might be able to use.
This is its most compelling point to me too. And my main concern is that it'll fall short when compared to a $150 fitness band because, as best we know thus far, it's useless without an iPhone nearby. I do not exercise with my iPhone; it's too large, too fragile, and too expensive. The Apple Watch simply can't be an adequate fitness device unless it can perform all fitness related tasks independently from an iPhone, including GPS tracking. Heck, even an iPod nano can track your distance (without GPS) when jogging; can Apple Watch even do that on its own?