Interesting Article why the Apple Watch will fail

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Wicked1, Feb 4, 2015.

  1. Wicked1 macrumors 68040

    Wicked1

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #1
  2. cmChimera macrumors 68040

    cmChimera

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
  3. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #3
    The touch points in the article are not new.

    People have long said that the price is a major factor and may in the end hamper sales.

    Similarly battery life is another major issue, 19 hours under perfect conditions is not something you want to hear when it comes to watches. With that said, Apple isn't standing out from the crowd on this, since other smart watches suffer from short battery life as well.

    The author goes on to critize the look which I think is a bit unfounded. It is a beautiful watch and people will be clamoring for it. The issue is, outside of rabid fans wanting it. Will regular consumers?
     
  4. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #4
    People have said the iPod, iPhone, iPad and so on would fail….
     
  5. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #5
    Author states $350 is too expensive for consumers. I suppose he or she was born after the first generations of the iPod which retailed for $499. It too was "boxy" and "fat."

    Author states the Apple Watch isn't Apple's new product savior. I suppose he or she did really research much before writing or would have discovered that Apple itself is 1) calling the watch a mere "accessory," and 2) not giving it an exclusive category like "Mac," "iPhone," "iPad." Shorter: Apple isn't suggesting it's going to have blow out sales.

    Author states rumored battery life is 10 hours. I suppose he or she found the lowest rumored battery life (from what source they don't state) to fit the slant of the opinion piece. Of course there are other rumors of longer battery life, but bottom line how can one form a credible opinion about battery life without anything credible. Cook has said users will want to recharge it nightly. I don't know how you can conclude anything from that other than it's less than 24hrs.

    Add author to the list of jokers who swore an Apple product would fail before facts about it were really known or was allowed to even come to market.
     
  6. NewtypeCJ macrumors 6502

    NewtypeCJ

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Location:
    Decatur, GA
    #6
    Wait till the author of this piece realizes that the price STARTS at $350 and just goes up from there!

    Generally speaking Apple products hold their value pretty well. I would imagine that Gazelle or some other places is going to want to buy back your Apple Watch for a decent price when a new one is announced. So is it really that big a problem?
     
  7. Rogifan macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #7
    I'm not aware of Apple ever calling :apple:watch an accessory. If you go to Apple's website the watch list listed on the nav bar along with Mac, iPhone and iPad. I think Apple is reporting it with other products like :apple:TV and Beats headphones for competitive reasons more than anything else.
     
  8. Technodynamic macrumors 6502

    Technodynamic

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    #8
  9. cleirac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    #9
    YAWN. CNN is failing almost since it's inception ... long past it's expiration date. Click & bait from a desperate author.
     
  10. Wicked1 thread starter macrumors 68040

    Wicked1

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #10
  11. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #11

    You are correct. I did a little research and my understanding came from this Bloomberg article which said:

    (full article here

    Of course that's not the same as Apple saying it on the record. However, reality is, it is an accessory by definition of the word since it requires an iPhone for full functionality. And while Apple does list the product separately on it's web site, that is so consumers can easily find it. Financially they are hiding in a category with other lower volume/revenue products. Apple definitely needs to manage expectations because much of the tech world is anxious to knock Apple off its pedestal. So it makes sense for them to soft pedal expectations right now.

    Apple sold 125K iPods from the first day of release mid-Nov 2001 to the end of that year. Nobody cared. If Apple sells 125K Apple Watches it's first weekend it will be declared an instant bust.
     
  12. mojolicious macrumors 68000

    mojolicious

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Location:
    Sarf London
    #12
    I think Apple would be ecstatic if 5% of iPhone users bought a first gen Watch over the course of the first year. It's a niche product with limited functionality, and potential purchasers will also need to 'approve' the aesthetics of the device as a piece of jewellery. Additionally it also needs to be paid for up front, although I'd imagine that it will be available as a $10 a month extra on a two year iPhone contract.

    I can't think Apple have any expectations that it's going to significantly reduce the company's dependency on the iPhone (which I don't really view as an issue, but seems to cause concern to the author of the article).
     
  13. droplink macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2014
    #13
    Why is that people think that just because a new version comes out, that you HAVE to buy the new version ?
    Does my car automatically break down when a new one is made ?
    Nope.
    Does Apple add new functionality to old phones/iPads with new OS updates ?
    Yes.

    People who don't understand technology should not comment on technology.
     
  14. Tycho24 macrumors 68020

    Tycho24

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
  15. Rogifan macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #15
    Agreesd. I couldn't access your link though. Does MR not allow linking to Bloomberg?
     
  16. telefono macrumors 6502

    telefono

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    #16
    What a load of garbage. The idiot should read the article after the Apple Watch is released
     
  17. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #17
  18. daijholt macrumors 6502a

    daijholt

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Location:
    Wales, UK
    #18
    It starts at $350 because its a premium device. I suppose Watch is doomed because of its price just like iPhone is. Maybe Apple should lower the price of all of them to compete with the Samsung Juggernaut.....Oh wait, we've already been down that road.

    If price was a problem for Apple, they wouldn't have just posted profits of gargantuan proportions whilst everyone else's continues to plummet.
     
  19. al256 macrumors 6502a

    al256

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2001
    #19
    You scared me. I thought my memory was going and had to pull the original press release. But yes, I remember jokes about the iPod costing the equivalent of rent and other such comparable things.

     
  20. Smeaton1724 macrumors 6502a

    Smeaton1724

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Location:
    Leeds, UK
    #20
    First generation the product is premium and priced accordingly, second, third, fourth etc prices come down. Prices will be lower when the segment has matured.

    iMacs, MacBooks, iPods, iPhones and iPads have got multiple tiers in subsequent years. First iPod was £300 and had 5GB storage (in the UK), now a nano is £120 and has 16GB. If you want cheap then wait 2/3/4 years and pick up a second hand device!
     
  21. sonicrobby macrumors 68020

    sonicrobby

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Orleans
    #21
    It's clearly an bashful article, but I do tend to agree with most points. What I'm going to hate is the iterations of the watch. I want to buy a watch that will last me several years, similar the iPad or Mac, it's not something I plan to upgrade as often as an iPhone.

    I am an apple fanboy, and I have enough money to probably buy the cheapest model for slits and giggles, but it's more to test the watches practical uses in my daily life. But in general, if money weren't burning a hole in my pocket, a $350 watch would be hard for me to justify if it's only benefit is keeping me from pulling out my phone everytime it vibrates. So I'm hoping to test it out and be surprised by any impactful features to justify it! :D
     
  22. kdarling macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    Cabin by a lake
    #22
    Of course, much of Apple's revenue comes from subsidized iPhones, where the buyer doesn't pay very much upfront. That is, $200 or less for most buyers in the US.

    Because of their higher upfront cost, Watch sales will likely be more comparable to iPad sales.

    So, something like 1 - 1.5 million a month in the US.

    Hmm. But... the iPad could be used by anyone, iPhone owner or not. The Watch requires an iPhone. So we'd better cut that down even more. Anyone have figures on how many iPads in the US are owned by non-iPhone users?

    Yet another big difference from the iPad is that people can justify buying extra tablets for the family and various locations, whereas it's more difficult with a single-person item.

    Thoughts?
     
  23. Mad Mac Maniac macrumors 601

    Mad Mac Maniac

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Location:
    A little bit of here and a little bit of there.
    #23
    Yes, exactly this. First let me state that I doubt Apple, or any company, will have a product as successful as the iPhone anytime in the next 20 years. The iPhone had over $51 Billion (yes with a "b") in revenue last quarter alone. For comparison that's more than Microsofts ($26.5B) and Google's ($18.1B) total quarterly revenue COMBINED. Point is, iPhone is such a huge success that not even Apple should be expected to replicate anytime soon. But that's ok, Apple doesn't need to replicate it. Apple just needs to keep their ecosystem sticky. Apple Watch is not intended to decrease Apple's dependence on iPhone... it's intended to increase our dependence on iPhone.

    Let's imagine for a moment that 5% of iPhone users get an Apple watch. You would think that would be a "flop" by Apple standards right (to the analysts)? There are probably around 500M iPhones in use, so that would be 25M Apple watches sold. Estimating an ASP of $450, that would result in over $11B in revenue. Nothing to sneeze at.

    I don't know if Apple watch will take off (akin to the iPad) or be a niche ecosystem builder (akin to the Apple TV), but either way I think it will be a respectable contribution to Apple.
     
  24. Rogifan macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #24
    But look what happened to the iPad. It took off in a BIG way and now is basically flat to declining. I'd much rather see Watch have the slow(er) ramp up of the iPhone. And that's what I think will happen. Unless of course the product completely flops.
     
  25. sracer macrumors 603

    sracer

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Location:
    Land of Bongos and Beatniks
    #25
    Do you honestly not know what people are talking about when they talk about having to buy the next generation of a device?

    With every new generation of product, Apple introduces a new hardware element... it isn't just software.

    There are people who want the full experience of Apple's products. That necessitates upgrading the hardware every time Apple produces another generation. Of course one could argue that wanting that is THEIR problem.

    Technology more than just OS updates. ;)
     

Share This Page