Shot By Adam wrote:
Go into any apple store and you'll see for yourself. The only section where nobody is looking at a device is the table with the watches. It's pretty funny actually.

The watch is EXTREMELY expensive for what it is.

Instead of comparing the sales to iPads or MacBook, it should be compared to Movado or Rolex.

I suspect that they may push it for one more year, and then just let it simmer like they did with AppleTV.  Apple TV is actually a great product that does essentially what a Fire Stick does or Chrome stick does for 3-4 times the price.  But it does it very well.


So like a BMW or a Porsche, most people can't justify having one when there are other options that are much more sensible.



I personally don't think that Apple thought that they would sell 20 million of them.  Until they can produce them for the sweetspot price ($200) for this type of product, it will remain a niche product.

Good Egg Productions wrote:

The watch is EXTREMELY expensive for what it is.

Everything Apple does is extremely expensive for what it does but that doesn't stop them from having an army of fanboys who lap up everything they put out. I remember buying a laptop years ago and when I was walking out of the store, box in hand, I stopped by the Apple kiosk and saw a laptop that was 100% identical to the one I was buying, even down to the brand of memory, brand and type of graphic card, etc. It was literally the identical computer except the one I was getting had 2 more USB 2.0 slots and there were the differences of logos. Other than that, the same computer. The Apple was over $1,200 more. So basically people who are buying that computer like their operating system so much they are willing to spend over a thousand dollars on it. I just had to chuckle.

Evan Hiltunen wrote:
Apple has a great product development scheme:

Let others innovate. Take what others have developed, polish, put it in a quality package, charge a premium price (and foster a status image), and create excitement/marketing. Become recognized as a trendsetter.

So, did they fail to polish properly? Is the quality not there? Fail to exploit the potential market? Or, is there really not a smart watch market to properly exploit?

In 3 months they sold what the *entire market* sold the previous year.  What, exactly, have they failed to do?

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I suspect that they may push it for one more year, and then just let it simmer like they did with AppleTV.  Apple TV is actually a great product that does essentially what a Fire Stick does or Chrome stick does for 3-4 times the price.  But it does it very well.

Except it's only 2.3 times the price of the chrome.. not 3-4 times.  And it does many things that the chromecast can't do (specifically work without an android device for its remote).  It's only 1.75 times more expensive than the Amazon Fire stick.

Yes.. more expensive.. but in many cases more features (especially when compared to the chromecast.. the fire stick is a little more feature-laden and also supports games.. something I really wonder why the Apple TV doesn't do).    For $69 (vs $29 or $39) it's a really great device.. an extra $30 or $40 for the extra features is well worth it for me.

Good Egg Productions wrote:

The watch is EXTREMELY expensive for what it is.

Instead of comparing the sales to iPads or MacBook, it should be compared to Movado or Rolex.

Watches, in general, are very expensive.  I paid $8000 for a Breitling watch for a gift once.  It's a really beautiful watch to be sure (if you like watches).  But basically all it does is tell time and have a stopwatch and tell the date. Sure it will last decades.  But I could buy an a new  apple watch (even one of the middling priced $700 ones) every 2 years for 20 years and still not reach the price I paid for the Breitling.

My Dad's Rolex is something like 40 years old.  Still works like a charm.  But servicing it and replacing the crystal costs more than twice the price of an apple watch.

All that goes to say that you can't really compare such things on "dollars per feature" alone.. though people seem intent on doing so.

Phoenix Digital Image wrote:
I haven't worn a watch in 35 years.  Do people still wear watches?

I'm in the same boat.. though it's been something like 20-25 for me. Prior to the advent of "smart" watches but after the advent of cell phones I sorta figured watches were more of an affectation than anything else... a piece of jewelry.  But zillions of people still love their watches.. and some will pay many thousands for one (though most will spend far less).  My dad loved his Rolex.. my mom loves hers too.  My business partner has a collection of fine watches that is worth more than a luxury car.

I don't know what the first "smart" watch was (aside from the casio calulator watch I had in the early 80s.. complete with fun numbers game!).. but the fitness band craze certainly has energized the market.  Then we got the "phone connectivity" watches like the Pebble (a real success story by any measure) and here we are. 

Will the market last? Certainly.  People show no sign of giving up their watches and the smart watches are getting better every generation.  Will apple continue to have a huge market share in watches? Almost certainly not.  But it's certainly possible for them to sell enough to make continued manufacture worth it -- if only to have a toe in the market.

Wye wrote:

In 3 months they sold what the *entire market* sold the previous year.  What, exactly, have they failed to do?

Ummm, they failed to develop and produce a "must have" item, failed to change the market landscape to Apple Territory, etc.

For an Apple product the whole thing has been very disappointing.

Evan Hiltunen wrote:
Ummm, they failed to develop and produce a "must have" item, failed to change the market landscape to Apple Territory, etc.

Just wait until the iToilet comes out. You'll wonder how you ever managed to survive without it!

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

Just wait until the iToilet comes out. You'll wonder how you ever managed to survive without it!

Yep, by the time Apple gets through with "the toilet experience" our current setups will seem like an old Turkish prison hole in the floor by comparison.

Hope they hurry up!

Evan Hiltunen wrote:
Ummm, they failed to develop and produce a "must have" item, failed to change the market landscape to Apple Territory, etc.

For an Apple product the whole thing has been very disappointing.

You have stated that Apple failed to develop a "must have" item... Can you show another company that has developed a "must have" product in any category? I have been thinking about it and I can not really think of one?

Go Pro cameras comes to mind... Did you know that Apple sold more Apple watches in 3 months than Go Pro sold cameras in all of 2014?

You set a very high bar for Apple. Not sure they will ever have another success like the iPod, iTunes, iPhone or iPad. In my opinion, it will probably be smaller markets that generate profit. Apple Music, Apple Pay and Apple Watches are examples.

Apple reports quarterly numbers this week. Lets see if investors agree with your assessment.

What Fun Productions wrote:

You have stated that Apple failed to develop a "must have" item... Can you show another company that has developed a "must have" product in any category? I have been thinking about it and I can not really think of one?

Go Pro cameras comes to mind... Did you know that Apple sold more Apple watches in 3 months than Go Pro sold cameras in all of 2014?

You set a very high bar for Apple. Not sure they will ever have another success like the iPod, iTunes, iPhone or iPad. In my opinion, it will probably be smaller markets that generate profit. Apple Music, Apple Pay and Apple Watches are examples.

Apple reports quarterly numbers this week. Lets see if investors agree with your assessment.

I haven't set the bar high for Apple. Apple set the bar high and good for them.

I'm sure they will do just fine.

What Fun Productions wrote:
You have stated that Apple failed to develop a "must have" item... Can you show another company that has developed a "must have" product in any category? I have been thinking about it and I can not really think of one?

Refrigerators.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

Refrigerators.

In 2018 Apple released the iFridge which was considered by many to be the very first cold storage unit EVER!

Steve Jobs was hailed as a genius for this break-thru that would change the course of peoplekind.

Evan Hiltunen wrote:
In 2018 Apple released the iFridge which was considered by many to be the very first cold storage unit EVER!

Steve Jobs was hailed as a genius for this break-thru that would change the course of peoplekind.

That wouldn't surprise me!

The iFridge probably only works if it's hooked up to the iTunes store, and you have to purchase a monthly iCool plan to keep it running.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

That wouldn't surprise me!

The iFridge probably only works if it's hooked up to the iTunes store, and you have to purchase a monthly iCool plan to keep it running.

True to the above, but many will laud the clean, simple design and, to be fair, it should hold up reasonably well (and it better for the price).

Good Egg Productions wrote:
None of this seems to matter, really.

Apple is on track to make $53 billion this year.  That's profit, kids.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/17/technol … ings-2015/

The Apple Watch could be a dismal failure and they could just move on to the next thing.  But I suspect that they won't.  In terms of sales, I'm seeing between 2 and 4 million already.  If it's 4 million, that's more than all ALL other smartwatches sold in 2014.  I wouldn't call that a total failure, but certainly not the explosion of the iPad when it hit the streets.


So whether the watch sells or not, Apple share holders are going to be just fine.

Wait a second ... I thought us sensitive types were against huge, monolithic corporations crushing humanity.

Remember? Big business bad. Right?

In all seriousness, Apple, of course, will move onto something else. Somewhere, there is somebody, some company, that is creating something of value, but they don't have the wherewithal to really get it out there. Apple, in their wisdom, will swoop in and, ummmm, errr, innovate it and once again be hailed for their contributions.

I happen to think highly of Apple. Their whole approach, their rapaciousness, makes the Robber Barons look like toddlers.

What Fun Productions wrote:
You have stated that Apple failed to develop a "must have" item... Can you show another company that has developed a "must have" product in any category? I have been thinking about it and I can not really think of one?

Go Pro cameras comes to mind... Did you know that Apple sold more Apple watches in 3 months than Go Pro sold cameras in all of 2014?

You set a very high bar for Apple. Not sure they will ever have another success like the iPod, iTunes, iPhone or iPad. In my opinion, it will probably be smaller markets that generate profit. Apple Music, Apple Pay and Apple Watches are examples.

Apple reports quarterly numbers this week. Lets see if investors agree with your assessment.

GoPro has something like a 92% market share, and Sony is the only competitor with more than a 1% share. Apple has never had that level of dominance, even with iPods. Those were something like an 80% share. It's about 92% now, but it doesn't matter anymore - there are very few markets where people that wanted music on their phone wouldn't spend that couple hundred on a better phone. IPod's main competition is Android phones with memory card slots. That's the main reason why I use Android. That and NFC.

The Apple smartwatch is a doomed product. No matter how well it sells for how long, it will eventually go away. Think about the target market: tech nerds that want to impress people or have the coolest gadget.

Let's break that down. Tech nerds. These guys are going to want the newest, best tech as soon as it's available. By definition, the smartwatch can never be as powerful as a phone. Even if it had the same battery,processor, and abilities, it still sits on your wrist. That means it has a small screen that is harder to navigate, harder to type with, and nearly impossible to play any game more complicated than Tetris. Since those guys are after high tech, they will ALWAYS have something more powerful in their pocket. The only way the watch can survive indefinitely(at a large scale) is if it gets a hologramatic display like in some newer cars - something to fix the screen size issue.

Now the other issue: bling. I'm not a rich guy, but I love watches. If I see somebody with an Omega or a Rolex, or even a really nicely maintained Hamilton, I appreciate that, and will say so. Watches are classy.

A smart watch is not classy. It's not low-class either, but it's not classy. It's a modern-eay calculator watch, worn mostly by the same people. It's a thing you wear to use- not a piece of jewelry.

There are only a few affordable smart watches I've seen that get the point.

People that still wear reasonably priced watches do it because they want to know what time it is without using their phone. Or in some cases, because they always wore a watch, and it's just a thing that they do. They also use watches because even though many of them have batteries, they only need to address that once a year, at most. They just always work.

I have three watches I regularly wear. I wear a Citizen Eco-drive almost every day, because it is self-charging. I've had it for a decade, and it died on me once, in the middle of the winter. I switched to a UV light in my office, and it hasn't died since. Every morning I put it on, and the time is perfect.

I also have a few antique watches I wear to special events. Again, no battery issues. I wind it and set the time, and I'm good all night and most of the next day.

The only smart watches that have any permanent staying power are the ones that address the reasons why people still wear watches in the first place. There are a few companies that make analog smart watches; either the top half is a normal watch, or there is a normal watch with a 'smart' overlay. Most of these watches only receive texts, emails, and notifications, and some allow you to respond by voice. But the really important aspect is that if the battery for the smart bit goes, it's still a perfectly good analog watch. Some of them are even designed so if that happens, the watch just looks like a watch - you can't even see that there is a missing section.

THOSE are the watches that will continue to sell, albeit in much smaller numbers. Those products address the people that are already wearing watches, and give them something extra for their money.

Apple,Moto,and most other smart watches are doomed to fail because their business model involves convincing the same people that they talked out of watches to go back to wearing them again. It's the same reason why Fuji can still sell new 120 film cameras, but CaNikon would fail massively if they tried to mass-produce a brand-new 35mm camera.

Most people don't even know Fuji still makes 120 cameras, but they do, and they sell. The reason is that those cameras address an existing customer, rather than trying to conjure one up from thin air.

Cool new products only sell for as long as they are cool and new.

What Fun Productions wrote:
I believe by the 3rd or 4th generation, the Apple watch will be quite amazing.

If I'm the customer, and I have LOTS of Apple stuff, in order for the watch to be useful to me, it has to replace my smartphone, ( or do Everything it does ) and that destroys Apple...

Evan Hiltunen wrote:
Generally, the iWatch is a failure. Function-wise, market-development-wise, and overall product-wise.

If 4 million units in 3 months is a failure then imagine how the other 10 vendors feel that they only managed to sell that many all together in a year!

Any one of them could only dream of such a failure.

joeyk wrote:

If I'm the customer, and I have LOTS of Apple stuff, in order for the watch to be useful to me, it has to replace my smartphone, ( or do Everything it does ) and that destroys Apple...

Why would you expect a watch to replace a phone?

And if it did why would that destroy apple? They'd just be replacing one product with another.