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.
Jony Ive Discusses Steve Jobs and Apple Watch in Vogue Interview
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Apple has to do this marketing stuff, then they are concern about it being a "flop".
Apple watch is not going to happen until they make it an independent product instead of an accessory to the iphone.
Until the watch can work without needing an iphone, then this expensive toy is dead in the water before taking off.
Sure the 20% percent will buy it when it comes out just to buy since it is Apple, but the rest will probably pass on this one...
Has potencial, but in its current technological state...a "dud".
Apple watch is not going to happen until they make it an independent product instead of an accessory to the iphone.
Until the watch can work without needing an iphone, then this expensive toy is dead in the water before taking off.
Sure the 20% percent will buy it when it comes out just to buy since it is Apple, but the rest will probably pass on this one...
Has potencial, but in its current technological state...a "dud".
The folks at Apple still know how to put on a presentation alright but without Jobs' reality distorting charisma they're not quite the same anymore.
That's very true. No matter how smooth they tried to be on the keynote presentations, one can notice a bit of stumbling or pause here and there.
There is only one man who's got that gift of presentation and that's Craig Federighi. Cook's presentation disturbs me and how he quoted about journalist stating that Android is a "hell stew of viruses" and then all of a sudden, iOS 8 had issues during the upgrade phase. There's some double standard going in here and using scare tactics to frighten people into buying iPhones based on Android phones' instability is not right, especially if the NSA can easily break into any phone including Apple's, no matter how secure they claim to be.
If Apple thinks their phones are the most secure, they need to think twice. The government sector will always have a way around it.
----------
Oh and by the way, this post was a bit off topic however but it had to be said.
There-I-fixed-it-for-you Dep't: "Foist" is the word that fits... ...and there's no end of egocentric, insecure narcissist types out there ready (almost begging) to be plucked....
Lots of users I know choose Apple gear at least mostly because it's... ...Apple gear... ...trendy and safe for their demographic (and some who don't because they're in PC/Android bastions where they face derision for showing up with a precious Ives design).
Fashion's a funny thing. Trends. Tribes. Flags. Gang signs.
What are you talking about? He's been with Apple for nearly 20 years and is responsible for iMac, iPhone, iPad among other hits. You might not like his sense of hardware and software design but Jobs loved it and so does Cook. I guess when you finally get your turn as Apple CEO we can expect big changes
----------
If you're receiving unwanted heartbeats from people in your close friends and family list, you've got more problems than an Apple Watch in your life.
I do see the benefit of having information displayed on your wrist. Why did watched end up on our wrist instead of in our pockets? Reaching into your pocket to check the time on your phone is too much of a hassle for something as small as checking the time or whether you got a Facebook like.
If you're nervous and waiting for your date, you may end up checking the time or your emails every 10 seconds, it looks silly to reach into your pocket every time. It's handy to be able to just glance at your wrist.
I don't think the iWatch is as important as the smartphone: if you don't have one, you won't be missing out on too many things. If you don't have a smartphone, you're missing out on a LOT of things. But maybe some people have extra money and people already liked to spend lots of cash on expensive watches that basically are just pretty things that display the current time - needlessly expensive but people loved them. This may work well for those people.
If you're nervous and waiting for your date, you may end up checking the time or your emails every 10 seconds, it looks silly to reach into your pocket every time. It's handy to be able to just glance at your wrist.
I don't think the iWatch is as important as the smartphone: if you don't have one, you won't be missing out on too many things. If you don't have a smartphone, you're missing out on a LOT of things. But maybe some people have extra money and people already liked to spend lots of cash on expensive watches that basically are just pretty things that display the current time - needlessly expensive but people loved them. This may work well for those people.
You're complaining about the battery life of the Apple Watch while also complaining that it should be a standalone device? Do you realize that if you wanted a smart watch to do anything besides tell the time and still get a full day of battery life you need a phone to work with it? How do you expect to get texts, emails, notifications, connected apps, phone calls, GPS, anything from iCloud without a phone???
Sure Apple is forsaking at least half of the smart watch buying market but let's face it, the Android users were never going to shell out $350-$500 for a smart watch anyway. They made that clear by buying into Android. So Apple is just targeting 500 million iPhone users worldwide. I think they'll be OK.
----------
They don't have a lot of sensors now but will you buy an Apple Watch next year when they add a lot more sensors? The first iPhone had no apps, GPS or ability to shoot video and look at it now. Apple made a bold step in a different direction from any smart watch maker. It might not play off as big as iPhone but then again, it might eclipse the iPhone altogether.
Why are you comparing this to an expensive watch that does one thing? Why not compare it to a cellphone that does many things, is priced similarly, becomes obsolete in a few years and is then replaced by a new one. Sounds like Apple has another iPhone on their hands if you ask me.
Have seen Tim Cook wear it on a couple of occasions now. The special event itself and his recent interview with Charlie Rose.
That's like saying, "iPhone users were never going to shell out $350-$500 for an iPad anyway. They made that clear by mostly only buying the iPhone under subsidy for an upfront cost of free to $200."
Since subsidized sales are not a good indicator, perhaps we could compare watch sales more to tablet sales. Except that tablets have a pretty long lifetime compared to smartphones (as we've seen from slowing tablet sales).
Plus a lot of iPads were sold to people without iPhones.
Hmm. So there might not be a direct comparison available yet. Thoughts?
500 million is how many have been sold since 2007.
Currently there are about 1.5 billion smartphone subscribers, of which 12% use iPhones.
So they would be targeting the current 180 million iPhone users worldwide.
Still a lot, of course, but how many of those can afford (and/or will pay for) a $350+ watch that could be out of date in a couple of years?
I wonder if Apple will set up subsidized phone+watch combinations at carriers?
Yes, but the busniess model for a fashion wearable piece is MUCH different than Apple's typical tech products. They are not the same, no matter what Apple claims. I don't think Apple can blur the lines between the two, but we'll see...
Not sure what you mean about iPad. I was speaking more to Android customers and their low spending habits. Sure they'll consider a $200 smart watch but Apple Watch was always going to price them out of the market anyway so that's not a sale Apple is losing because they are only focusing on iOS users.
As far as 500 million, you're right, I guess I'm exaggerating best case scenario a bit. But just think of the expected 50 iPhone purchases in the U.S. alone by year's end. Then throw in the 20-30 million expected from China. That's a lot of excited consumers looking to pair the Apple Watch with their new iPhone in early 2015. Conservative estimates put Apple Watch at 10 million sales in 2015. That overshadows all Android smart watches combined by a factor of several times.
I was just thinking that an iPhone+Apple Watch bundle would be a great promotion in stores. If they even just shaved off $50 for that purchase, many people would jump on it. It's not Apple's style to bundle items for discounts but this is a new Apple now that probably wouldn't have done an Apple Watch like this just a few years ago. Anything can happen.
Yeah! If it were good enough it would sell well on word of mouth alone, like their other products!
...what?
I love my MacBook. I appreciate his sense of style for hardware design, though interestingly enough, I don't find the Apple Watch to be particularly attractive. My main complaint with Ive is with what he's done now that he's been put in charge of the user interfaces of IOS and OSX. Jobs didn't put him in charge of those areas. Jobs put Scott Forstall in charge of those areas.
But it's the fact that he's butchered the UI yet talks as though everything he does is perfection that I find particularly annoying.
Fair enough but I think your complaints say more about general change than any particular change. Every few product cycles there must be change for change's sake. This happened under Jobs and will continue to happen under anyone who runs Apple. It take a few minutes for some users to adjust while some other users never adjust. It's rarely ever because the changes themselves were that bad. Remember, Apple is a few years ahead of all of us in terms of UI and hardware so when they add a swipe from left to right gesture to go back, for instance, it seems weird at first and suddenly makes sense now that the screen sizes have caught up to that design language.
Sending your heartbeat to someone else across the room is a gimmick. I'm not talking about a medical reason, and neither were they when they presented it. It's not ignorant at all.
'creepy'?
Almost as soon as the watch was announced a lot of people on various forums singled out the heartbeat wrist tap thing to try and name it as 'creepy', as if it Apple would make it so that anyone could get unsolicited taps from strangers.
It must be obvious to blind freddy that in order for this to work there would have to be a handshake of some kind to set it up. In which case if one has already given permission to be tapped by someone then it cannot be called 'creepy' and all that that word implies.
It's like people are busting their balls to denigrate this object with any sort of outlandish vitriol.
Almost as soon as the watch was announced a lot of people on various forums singled out the heartbeat wrist tap thing to try and name it as 'creepy', as if it Apple would make it so that anyone could get unsolicited taps from strangers.
It must be obvious to blind freddy that in order for this to work there would have to be a handshake of some kind to set it up. In which case if one has already given permission to be tapped by someone then it cannot be called 'creepy' and all that that word implies.
It's like people are busting their balls to denigrate this object with any sort of outlandish vitriol.
This sums up why I don't think the Apple watch will be a success. It'll just be a target for ridicule.
I traditional watch with the ability to vibrate and display a couple of symbols telling me I have missed a call/text/email is the only sort of smart watch I personally would consider.
Dictate? Ha. No. It's call inferring meaning and its used by everyone with a functioning brain. The OP was using the word pejoratively, not as an observational descriptions. If my inference is incorrect then please diagram the statement for me to show me where I am wrong. You presenting a dictionary definition of the word, but didn't show any context to how OP used the word in the manner you state he was doing so.
Your inference of what the OP meant may well be correct (indeed, I believe I share your interpretation), but it's not what he said. There's no definition of the word novelty by which the described item has to be useless.
My interpretation is that he meant it's a gimmick, which again doesn't mean it has no value - it merely reflects the intent behind it: it's added to attract attention, often to distract from a lack of real features, but if it happens to add real value as well then that's fine: it doesn't stop it being a gimmick (or a novelty).
No wonder the refresh of the iPhone was rather dull and featureless in style. J. Ive is too busy with his celebrity appearances, interviews and such. Thereby preventing him from doing any significant design work.
Yet that's the good news and proves he hasn't lost his touch, he simply hadn't had time to engage with members of the design team.
Yet that's the good news and proves he hasn't lost his touch, he simply hadn't had time to engage with members of the design team.