Slashdot Mirror
Apple's iWatch Could Come With IOS, Earn $6 Billion a Year
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."
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?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
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.
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....
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
I'm not sure how well traditional watch sales would convert to iWatch sales. traditional watches are really more of a jewelry piece, not a highly functional device, they just happen to have a couple of functions. At the same time, it is very much not clear if iWatch devices would cannibalize iPad/iPod/Iphone sales. To just estimate $6 billion of sales at a product we don't even know if its real sounds like analysts trying to pump up AAPL share price.
(Posting AC because I'm at work)
Look, I'm a huge Apple fanboy, believe me, but come on! We're posting articles from FINANCIAL ANALYSTS now? When these nimrods have something valuable to say, it'll already have been old news for several months. His entire job is built on speculation and generating (or deflating) interest in a company. He does NOTHING OF VALUE! And we're going to put stock in his thoughts?
Come on. I know the Slashdot of yesteryear is gone and dead but let's not post commentary from financial analysts, even if it is about Apple.
iWatch? 6 billions a year? I mean, seriously? Or is it some crazy Apple shareholder wanting to jump a ship and spamming like crazy all channels to get price up "back where it belongs"?
Apple is history as supergrowth company. Niche products. No amount of hype will save it from fall. And this show screwed logic of public companies in US - it's all about "supergrowth", not profit.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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.
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.
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.
Ken
E-monocles, e-goggles, and e-stopwatches. Its becoming very e-steam-punk up in here.
A)Blend
B)Last as long as my Citizen Eco-Drive?
I don't think there are enough Apple lemmings (people who buy anything with the apple logo) to generate $6 billion ... but I've underestimated them before. Maybe by next year kids will be watching YouTube vids on their iWatch. Maybe then Apple can sell iGlasses to salvage their damaged vision, or an iMagnifyingGlass so that even the aging hippies can watch tiny porn.
Watches are actually jewelry. People wear them for status, for how they look. Can the Apple esthetic complete in that market? Style and status has been effective for Apple but they are competing against folks who are a lot better at it then Microsoft and Nokia.
Can it really have some features where I going to wear a watch for the features in addition to carrying the smartphone?
Definitely something for the atypical slashdotter, but if Apple can bring something to the market which combines iOS, the Nike+t, the Fit Bit, and/or the Suunto Core they could potentially capture a good portion of the exercise watch / band market. Current options aren't truly versatile (e.g. hiking, running, backpacking, daily activity), but combine this with Apple's UI and they could produce a very interesting product that I'm likely to try.
Yes, I've looked at Motorola's GPS watches and was far from impressed.
Kids don't know what the purpose of watches are anymore, they're much more likely to use a mobile phone. It might work (a smaller package than a phone), but i suspect it's more likely to lead to a spate of muggings every summer.
E-monocles
Like an E-Sir.
You could always go all Flavor flav and where an ipad around your neck.
ipad necklace
I have a watch already. It's called a smartphone.
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.
You might want to learn the difference between share price and market cap. For example, BRK-A is $152,742/share, GOOG is $821/share, and APPL is $420/share. But BRK-A's market cap is $250 billion, GOOG's market cap is $270 billion, and APPL's market cap is $397 billion.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
E-monocle
For even more pretension, and less function, try an e-lorgnette.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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.
Who wants to be seen wearing an iWatch? Ewww!
every chance I get. Is that going to cost me now?
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.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
An issue I have with the financial analysis is that there is a 20B market for watches out there. Just a guess but probably older and more conservative people buy watches now. They aren't going to sell this to them- they have to depend on a fad to develop with teenagers/hipsters for this thing...
love is just extroverted narcissism
Just for the record, isn't this actually the first product line that Steve Jobs has had nothing to do with?
/facepalm
"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.
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.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
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.
...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 solution looking for a problem. Most of the things I can imagine it being useful for require a second component. Except for basic time, weather, fb status updates, text messages, maybe a bezel mounted camera, it lacks enough screen real estate for very intensive information or touch interaction. It also lacks an elegant way to communicate via voice without a headset. I could see it as part of a suite of components - a core watch with wireless internet and connectivity, a super-slim screen linked over a wireless connection, an intra-aureal transducer (like a hearing aid) with both speaker and conduction microphone with a "release" to allow outside sounds in without removing the unit. It could be your communication hub, with the peripherals added to subtracted as you had space/desire to carry them. But that's a lot of wireless transmission for a battery which is going have to weigh no more than a few grams.
The iDevices are more and more tethered to internet based services, which means data all the time. That seems at direct odds to the cost of data in power consumption. Maybe they've found a need I just don't know about yet (aside from cool factor...for which you can already pay $500-$50,000 to put something cool on your wrist).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I'm sick and tired of arguing with idiots about that. This is not really that difficult a concept...
"could earn the company $6 billion a year"...
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/
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
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.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
Waiting for the inevitable Apple patent filing claiming no prior art to telling time, knowing the time and alarm clocks. FSCK Apple.
Organization? You must be joking..
I have a smart phone, an Ipod touch, and Ipod classic, a GPS, a Nexus 7" tablet, an Omega seamaster watch, why would I possibly start to believe that an iWatch is something useful. My phone does a good job of somethings, but sucks for browsing the web. my ipod touch is good for somethings but doesn't have the storage capacity for a road trip. my GPS is just bigger and more useful than the other devices. My tablet is big enough to browse the web on and easier to reply to emails than on the phone. My watch is all ways ticking away. Every gadget does what it was intended to do well. Another half fast gadget that does everything, but poorly isn't something I need in my life. Oh, and yes, I have a digital camera even tho every device but my GPS has a camera. they all suck.
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.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
Watches are for slaves. In our post-employment utopia, wearing a watch is as bad as wearing a pocket-protector.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Sony does have an Android watch 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 ...
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
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.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
....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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
http://www.sonymobile.com/gb/products/accessories/smartwatch/
As far as I know they have not even announced it. It's just rumors.
or a jacket with pockets....or they just ask someone else.
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.
Other than the Garmin Forerunner models, where I can definitely see the iWatch being a drastic improvement over the terrible Forerunner UI, I don't know how many markets this really disrupts. However, I do think the bigger loser would be Garmin as I don't know anyone who would buy their watch products as long as the iWatch improved battery/data collection life. /perspective of an ultrarunner
Hagrin.com
Think about what you're saying. Think about it from Apple's perspective.
Kids don't wear watches.
Hundreds of millions of kids. No watches.
And no competition.
That sounds like a market ripe for exploit by someone who already owns the hearts and minds of half the population.
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.
These gentlemen are generally part of a business which has the goal of selling stock to people. Their employers often receive a lot of business from the companies they cover.
It a business full of potential and actual conflicts of interest. Their overall accuracy is proven to be worse than simple coin flips or dart throwing in various academic research studies.
They have a long history of issuing far more positive or buy recommendations than sell recommendations.
I would NOT trust anything from one these individuals, especially one making a buy recommendation.
This sort of story is NOT reliable information.
I anticipate a display made out of seven segment LED displays, a throwback to the first digital watches - their kitsch-factor will win over skeptics and cause a resurgence in LED displays.
Ken
What about a 'thin client' for your iPhone? Imagine an easily viewable display attached to your wrist (Dick Tacy-style) tethered via Bluetooth to your iPhone. It would only present one or two apps at a time, and with only minimal interaction the battery can be long-lasting.
A display half the size of an iPhone display would suffice, and could likely carry/hide a large enough battery to achieve several days of use.
Ken
Could have just said:
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Maybe you meant 'death throes'? 'Death thralls' are something akin to zombies wanting to eat your brains!
love is just extroverted narcissism
The iPip offloads its computation to the server in your stockings: the Pipi longstocking.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Indeed. I would *totally* buy a smart-watch. I would *love* an awesome smart-watch. I certainly wouldn't be a first-generation one, and I wouldn't buy one from Apple anyway, but I would totally buy a device in that form-factor, designed to go on a wrist, after they've perfected the concept. (I give it 10 or 20 years, assuming the concept catches on rather than fizzling out. Which is also totally possible, but would be kind of too bad.)
It's so bizzarre what people will say to pass the time. If Apple decides to produce a buggy whip, that decision alone doesn't translate to billions even if most Apple users were robots, desperate for another feel-good purchase. WHO WEARS A WATCH?! Every devices these days has time on it, do you really want to put one back on your wrist when you already have it in your pocket? Or your backpack? Or your music player?!
Yeah, Apple's kind of lost its way ever since . . . well, you know . . .
""Apple's long-rumored "iWatch" could earn the company $6 billion a year"
Only if they charge $1B per copy.
Watches are for fashion. People use their phone to check for time. They won't get rid of their 4" phone screen for a 1" watch screen
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
That seems like a lot of work to keep a watch going.
Time base are belong to us.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
I believe that Apple are not working on a watch, and there will never be an iWatch (or equivalent). I could be wrong. But it a) just doesn't sound like it's anywhere near awesome enough or cutting-edge enough for them to give it the time of day (heh), b) the functionality is covered thoroughly by other things, c) anything that needs to be recharged frequently is not going to work.
Smart watches are probably going to come along, but I see them more as 3rd-party accessories than as an actual mainstream Apple product.
watches with LED displays that first dropped to reasonable prices in the 70s. They didn't last long because pushing a button to see the time was a PITA. You had to have your opposite hand free and the displays were generally unreadable in sunlight (sort of like most color LCD displays now).
If you gotta push a button to see the time, the thing will fail as a watch.
I can only assume you have no kids and don't know any kids, nor have seen any kids lately. I worked for a youth fashion retailer a couple of years ago and watches are huge with the young cool people. My daughter is a tween and her and all her friends have them and love them. They are no longer just a time piece, they are a fashion accessory.
1. The previous generation iPod nano (which was usable as a watch) was phased out so that it would have a larger non-wearable design. If Apple has been working on this product for some time, they would probably phase out that design strategically so that it could be reintroduced in the new "iWatch."
2. Apple likely would not market the product as "iWatch" as it sounds too tacky and limits consumers' perception of what it can do.
3. Forget the "iWatch-as-a-Bluetooth-frontend" idea. Apple probably wants to push for getting rid of the iPhone altogether and make the "iWatch" a phone in itself. That would shake things up quite a bit. It might still be useful for Bluetooth communication if people want to get the "iWatch" for that, but that's a minor selling point.
4. Tim Cook serves on the board of directors at Nike, which makes the Fuelband. He is also a fitness buff and would have interest and expertise in the wearable computing domain.
... it doesn't require a phone. A stand alone smartphone that already has an Internet and phone connection.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
A small device with a fully-blown smartphone OS on ones wrist might get uncomfortably warm.
On the topic of evil companies:
At least the Sony SmartWatch couples to your existing Android device in your pocket so it doesn't need an entire battery-sucking OS crammed into it.
Oh, and also this one actually exists right now.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I suppose, however, since "swatch" did so well when it did, an iWatch would do okay... a little okay... customized clock faces, multiple time zones, GPS for tracking and a few biometric sensors to compete with those exercise oriented watches. I somehow don't think they will go that route.... I expect an iPod for the wrist. Anything I would want them to do will probably never happen... especially being able to change watch batteries.
Nixie tube display, or maybe a little CRT. With a 10 ga power cord that runs up your wrist to a backpack battery (lead-acid).
Already been done. By Woz himself (well, I don't know if he made the watch, but he has one).
How often do you have to check the time? More importantly, how often do you have to check the time when it's not readily available right in front of you. Phones don't replace watches they merely help fill in the gaps that aren't already filled with a clock. There is a clock in the corner of every screen, they cost a dollar and can fill any wall you want. Watches are faster to check than a phone but the need for that extra speed often does not offset the cost of wearing a watch because they just aren't that needed any more.
I would totally go for an e-monocle.
I had one bad eye due to an injury in my youth. My other eye was fine. I don't like contacts so I wear glasses when I need to see distances (I'm fine for close up work). In fact, at one point I passed my driver's test wearing just one lens over my bad eye because I had broken the "lens" over my good eye. Ended up wearing those glasses for another couple of years with only one lens.
But many years ago, I looked into getting a monocle. Thought it'd be a fun thing to wear. Pick up a Nazi uniform and a riding crop and I had a built-in Hallowe'en costume. Unfortunately monocles are very expensive because they tend to have to be custom made and fitted and, due to the vagaries of fashion, there's not much demand for them anymore.
Nowadays, unfortunately, my "good" eye isn't so good anymore, so I really need two lenses.
I don't think I was claiming that it was an obvious game changer, just that it was the first commercially viable product of its kind. If they hadn't developed one, we'd still have had small audio players - they were just the first practical ones for the mass market so they get the gold star.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Remember Swatches? They were cool when I was a kid. Some people would wear 5 or 6 of them at a time.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
That google-glass thing is a pile of shit, but glasses with screens in each eye are coming, and will be really cool, especially after a couple of generations and they get really slick. Just like the watches, when it's one big flexible screen you can curl around your wrist and stretch out flat, then everyone will want one.
Rocket Surgeon.
Does anybody really know what time it is? (I... don't...)
Does anybody really care? (Care...)
Although I can't imagine why (About time...)
We've all got time enough to die.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
The point is that you have to remember to compare those devices with the iPod of the same era, which was the 1G. And the 1G wasn't that much better, especially when you take the price into account. I think people have a tendency to recall what the iPod later became, not what it was at launch.
they were just the first practical ones for the mass market so they get the gold star.
The 1G didn't achieve mass-market success. It was a very expensive product that couldn't work with 98% of computers.
"So, what is this watch going to *DO* that will garner more than a yawn from the general population"
:) Go low energy bluetooth, go! It might find your keys and other junk too :)
It'll find your phone, dude!
Well there was that time when somebody literally ripped off a guy's finger while stealing his ipad.
If they grab the face of your watch though, they can easily snap the band off with relatively little force. Sure they'll break the band in the process, but that is usually easy to fix. So long as the face isn't broken it isn't a problem.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
It could make sense for Apple users (I am one).
+ Locate your other iDevices via findMyiThing and/or Low Energy Bluetooth
+ See info that you want to see on your wrist
+ Tough device (waterproof?) that can make a call or text or something
I'd buy a $100 tough watch to use as a 'backup smartphone' if it was done well.
I think you are missing the point. Do you think it's just going to be a watch? I think we're finally going to have the Dick Tracy wrist phone complete with picture. I think we're going to have a whole raft of new apps that let you control things from your wrist.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
If anyone does buy this, it will likely be only because it has an Apple logo on it.
You might want to learn the difference between share price and market cap. For example, BRK-A is $152,742/share, GOOG is $821/share, and APPL is $420/share. But BRK-A's market cap is $250 billion, GOOG's market cap is $270 billion, and APPL's market cap is $397 billion.
Hate to get involved but if you bought share over the past 6 months Apple have lost about 40% where Google have risen 20%, which is the proof of his point.
There used to be PalmOS watches. There are now Android watches. I know someone who has one - it was bought out of a research grant for various HCI and ubicomp projects. They try to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. The main features you want from a watch is never having to think about charging it. Even with an eInk screen, getting reasonable battery life is going to be painful. It's essentially a passive device - something you glance at, but with a UI that's too small for anything active. The old PalmOS ones had a 4-icon screen, and even they were painful to use. Being able to sync your calendar alarms to a watch is somewhat useful, but only for people who are likely to carry a watch in places where they want alarms but don't want to carry a phone or computer. Possibly Apple has found a use-case that everyone else missed, but it seems a bit more like bandwagon jumping than anything else.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
A lot of people do. It amazes me the number of people I see pulling out their phones to check the time. It seems very cumbersome to me, but then I grew up using a watch. A lot of people never owned one and so never got used to the convenience. The first time you wear a watch, it feels strange and it takes a while to get used to having one on. For people in their teens and early 20s, their reaction is often to say 'why do I need this uncomfortable thing, I could just use my phone' and never even spend an hour getting used to the feel.
It also doesn't help that most mens watches seem to be designed for people who feel that it's an affront to their masculinity not to be lifting weights all the time, so are huge blobs of metal. I have a very comfortable Skagen watch that tells the time and is sufficiently thin and light that it's easy to forget that I'm wearing it, but most male watches look like they'd be more useful as a bludgeon than a timepiece.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Excuse me, small tip from your friendly neighbourhood necromancer - don't feed your thralls a steady diet of brains. Brains are high in calories and fat, you'd end up with couch potatoe zombies, totally useless. Brains are a small treat for a job well done. Normal diet for your thralls should be based on lean muscle and crunchy bones. Time to re-read the Necronomicon, dear colleague!
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Anyone who "needs" a watch in order to save the three seconds it takes to take your phone out of your pocket and put it back needs to purchase a gun, put it to the roof of their mouth and pull the trigger.
You first.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Nice to see Apple has transitioned from stealing ideas from Xerox and BSD to purloining Kickstarter ideas. Classy.
The point is that you have to remember to compare those devices with the iPod of the same era
I did. It had less storage than the laptop-drive based players, but in return actually fit in your pocket. It had many times the storage of even the most expensive flash-based players. You could transfer music to it in a comparatively short time owing to it's interface (and lack of on-the-fly DRM).
But really, by the time the PC version came out 9 months later, it was still unique on the market. It had a two-year run before even the Gigabeat was announced, and it had the magical ability to run the USB 2.0 at 1.1 speeds - owing to the DRM strategy.
You are correct, though, 3 years later the flash version of it is what really took off. By then there were plenty of iPod-clones on the market.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Phones are the modern pocketwatch.
sentence: apple may be late. sentence 2: apple isn't late because they're new.
nice try, but apple isn't magically not late to the market because it's new to them.
There you go! That's a solid criticism all right!!!