Wye wrote:

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.

Do you work for Apple?   I ask because you seem to race to defend them in any thread.   The iWatch is nice.   One of my friends owns one.   I wouldn't buy it but I also don't own a iPhone.   I haven't see anyone with one and only a few people with smartwatches.   I have found that Apple improves products after the first or second generations.   Customers seem to be used to beta test.   That's a personal view I have no proof of this nor will I buy anymore Macbooks or iPads.   Frankly I see the iWatch as another overpriced Apple device.   Expensive and with fewer features then the competition but its pretty and says Apple so it has to be worth it.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

Do you work for Apple?   I ask because you seem to race to defend them in any thread.   The iWatch is nice.   One of my friends owns one.   I wouldn't buy it but I also don't own a iPhone.   I haven't see anyone with one and only a few people with smartwatches.   I have found that Apple improves products after the first or second generations.   Customers seem to be used to beta test.   That's a personal view I have no proof of this nor will I buy anymore Macbooks or iPads.   Frankly I see the iWatch as another overpriced Apple device.   Expensive and with fewer features then the competition but its pretty and says Apple so it has to be worth it.

Nope. Do you work for one of their competitors?

What's to defend? I'm just calling into question the logic of someone saying that a product that nearly equaled the entire markets previous year's sales in 3 months is a failure. By what sensible standard is that true?

I've already mentioned I have no interest in one but 4 million in sales in 3 months for one company when the next 10 competitors only managed to sell that many in 12 months is a pretty impressive feat.

Of course we all know that all 4 million sales are due to brain washing so I guess it's no biggie.

Wye wrote:
Of course we all know that all 4 million sales are due to brain washing so I guess it's no biggie.

yes.. we  do


www.dailydot.com/opinion/inside-apple-p … a-machine/

r T p wrote:


yes.. we  do


www.dailydot.com/opinion/inside-apple-p … a-machine/

Yup. Can't possibly be because they make a product that does what millions of people want for a price that they are willing to pay.  No. That's unpossible.

The lengths that people will go to slag a product they were never interested in buying from a company they have no interest in doing business with is astonishing. Did Tim Cook kill your dog or something? Did Steve jobs kidnap your hamster and hold it for ransom until you bought a MacBook?

Wye wrote:
The lengths that people will go to slag a product they were never interested in buying from a company they have no interest in doing business with is astonishing.

Wye wrote:
I've already mentioned I have no interest in one

or, conversely.

GK photo wrote:

or, conversely.

Except I'm capable of realizing that something I'm not interested in can still be interesting and useful to others.

Some people think that if they don't want or have use for something then anyone who does want it must have been brainwashed into getting it.

Wye wrote:
Yup. Can't possibly be because they make a product that does what millions of people want for a price that they are willing to pay.  No. That's unpossible.

if such claimed products were actually made why would there be a need for (arguably) the most advanced propaganda machine (known to man.. & woman).. spending billions to convince millions of what they should want.

i mean,  an ad here and an ad there in the Sunday paper should suffice...

Wye wrote:
The lengths that people will go to slag a product they were never interested in buying from a company they have no interest in doing business with is astonishing. Did Tim Cook kill your dog or something? Did Steve jobs kidnap your hamster and hold it for ransom until you bought a MacBook?

what daily dose of them Apple pills are you up to now?

Wye wrote:

Except I'm capable of realizing that something I'm not interested in can still be interesting and useful to others.

Some people think that if they don't want or have use for something then anyone who does want it must have been brainwashed into getting it.

why do you--in particular--care? especially when it comes to apple products? it seems you take personal offense to people who criticize apple products. or more accurately, you seem to take personal offense to folks who don't lionize apple products.

GK photo wrote:

why do you--in particular--care? especially when it comes to apple products?

it's a subject I know something about. So I talk about it.

it seems you take personal offense to people who criticize apple products.

Nope. I've criticized them myself. No. I just tend to correct people who like to don't have a firm grasp on reality. ie. Like those who would say a product that nearly outsold the entire previous year's sales of their top ten competitors in 3 months is a failure.

or more accurately, you seem to take personal offense to folks who don't lionize apple products.

That's even less accurate than your previous, wildly inaccurate statement.

r T p wrote:

if such claimed products were actually made why would there be a need for (arguably) the most advanced propaganda machine (known to man.. & woman).. spending billions to convince millions of what they should want.

i mean,  an ad here and an ad there in the Sunday paper should suffice...

I don't even know where to start with this.

So advertising is proof of inferior product now?

Chrysler spends about 2 billion a year on  advertising in the USA (six times what Apple spends on US advertising). So does Toyota. Ford spends about 3 billion. So according to you They're brainwashing a public that wouldn't buy their cars? They should just put an ad in the Sunday paper if their products are so good?

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

Wye wrote:

Nope. Do you work for one of their competitors?

What's to defend? I'm just calling into question the logic of someone saying that a product that nearly equaled the entire markets previous year's sales in 3 months is a failure. By what sensible standard is that true?

I've already mentioned I have no interest in one but 4 million in sales in 3 months for one company when the next 10 competitors only managed to sell that many in 12 months is a pretty impressive feat.

Of course we all know that all 4 million sales are due to brain washing so I guess it's no biggie.

Any and every post about Apple and in you race like another Apple fan.   They make fine products that they overcharge for.   Several months ago a tech reviewer posted that the basic iWatch cost $84.00 to make yet Apple charges over $300.00 to sell.   http://www.tomsguide.com/us/apple-watch … 20861.html   That's their right yet I see that as gouging.   I recall you defended them.   Why?   Apple isn't a personal friend.   Now comes reports of problems with the iWatch and burns.   https://bgr.com/2015/07/09/apple-watch-burn-complaints/   I'm sure you'd say people are wearing them wrong because that's what Apple might say.

I have no hate for Apple or their products.   Their customer service is excellent.   However not everything they sell is a good value and are often faulty.   That's not cool for things that often cost hundreds higher then the competition.   So its clear, I wrote Lenovo some nasty emails about Superfish.   I've gone some rounds with ASUS over issues with my wireless in a TF201 tablet.   You have a right to defend Apple.   I was just curious why or Wye... Lay on Mcduff.  Lay on.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Any and every post about Apple and in you race like another Apple fan.   They make fine products that they overcharge for.   Several months ago a tech reviewer posted that the basic iWatch cost $84.00 to make yet Apple charges over $300.00 to sell.   http://www.tomsguide.com/us/apple-watch … 20861.html   That's their right yet I see that as gouging.   I recall you defended them.   Why?   Apple isn't a personal friend.   Now comes reports of problems with the iWatch and burns.   https://bgr.com/2015/07/09/apple-watch-burn-complaints/   I'm sure you'd say people are wearing them wrong because that's what Apple might say.

I have no hate for Apple or their products.   Their customer service is excellent.   However not everything they sell is a good value and are often faulty.   That's not cool for things that often cost hundreds higher then the competition.   So its clear, I wrote Lenovo some nasty emails about Superfish.   I've gone some rounds with ASUS over issues with my wireless in a TF201 tablet.   You have a right to defend Apple.   I was just curious why or Wye... Lay on Mcduff.  Lay on.

Since when is presenting facts (as opposed to the half truths you guys present) "defending"

My statement about the cost is that it is stupid to count only the bill of materials as the cost of a manufactured good. Doesn't Matter what the good is. The cost of the materials isn't the cost of the device. It's a dumb thing to say because it contains no information about the *real* cost to manufacture and sell a thing. But no. You just present the half truth to make the "Apple is gouging its customers and they're idiots for buying it" point that everyone so desperately wants to make. If you've got some point to make at least use the truth. Not something you made up.

As for the burns. Shit happens. If it's a fault in the manufacturing or materials then they should fix it at their expense or refund people's money.


I wonder why nobody ever posted about Fitbit recalling a million fitness bands (that's a year's sales incidentally) because they were causing burns.  Doesn't fit the "Apple bad.. Apple users are sheep" narrative I suppose. More half truths.

Wye wrote:

Since when is presenting facts (as opposed to the half truths you guys present) "defending"

My statement about the cost is that it is stupid to count only the bill of materials as the cost of a manufactured good. Doesn't Matter what the good is. The cost of the materials isn't the cost of the device. It's a dumb thing to say because it contains no information about the *real* cost to manufacture and sell a thing. But no. You just present the half truth to make the "Apple is gouging its customers and they're idiots for buying it" point that everyone so desperately wants to make. If you've got some point to make at least use the truth. Not something you made up.

As for the burns. Shit happens. If it's a fault in the manufacturing or materials then they should fix it at their expense or refund people's money.


I wonder why nobody ever posted about Fitbit recalling a million fitness bands (that's a year's sales incidentally) because they were causing burns.  Doesn't fit the "Apple bad.. Apple users are sheep" narrative I suppose. More half truths.

I lost the bet I made with another poster over how long you'd take to respond.   Damm!   I don't recall EVER saying anything you've said was dumb.   I might disagree with you but I don't find what you say dumb.   Thanks for the kind words.   We certainly can take into account what a product costs to make.   Their are associated costs but  $84.00 to $329.0 seems a tad much.   I didn't know about the Fitbit and the recall.   I thought we were discussing the iWatch and Apple.   Frankly if I owned a Macbook Pro that had the infamous stain on the screen I'd be livid.   If my iPhone bent in my pocket when Android phones didn't I'd not be happy.   If I was told to allow my new Macbook to boot 30 minutes I would be unhappy.   Not because devices don't break but because Apple claims to have have premium products and they certainly price them as such.

Take notice I didn't call you a sheep or say you're dumb nor have I said what you've said was dumb.   Again, why do you seem to take any critique of Apple personally.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

I lost the bet I made with another poster over how long you'd take to respond.   Damm!   I don't recall EVER saying anything you've said was dumb.   I might disagree with you but I don't find what you say dumb.   Thanks for the kind words.   We certainly can take into account what a product costs to make.   Their are associated costs but  $84.00 to $329.0 seems a tad much.   I didn't know about the Fitbit and the recall.   I thought we were discussing the iWatch and Apple.   Frankly if I owned a Macbook Pro that had the infamous stain on the screen I'd be livid.   If my iPhone bent in my pocket when Android phones didn't I'd not be happy.   If I was told to allow my new Macbook to boot 30 minutes I would be unhappy.   Not because devices don't break but because Apple claims to have have premium products and they certainly price them as such.

Take notice I didn't call you a sheep or say you're dumb nor have I said what you've said was dumb.   Again, why do you seem to take any critique of Apple personally.

It's a dumb thing to say since there's more to the cost of a thing than just the bill of materials. How are you having trouble understanding that? What other reason than deception is there to include only part of the costs of the thing when comparing cost to retail? Why aren't you accounting for research and development? Advertising? Sales staff? Tech support staff? QA staff? Shipping? Labor? All of the actual costs that go into making and selling the thing? Why are you (willfully) ignoring all of those when you say "this is how much it costs to make"?

As usual when an apple product has a problem the end of the world is nigh. But when exactly the same thing happens to another product. No biggie. It is what it is. Apple phones bend when you put a ridiculous amount of pressure on them and actually try to bend them. Hey guess what! So does the new Samsung phone.

I don't take these things personally (you guys can keep repeating that like your mantra. Doesn't make it true). I just find dishonesty and willful ignorance and willful selection bias to be worthy of saying something about.

I'll note that you haven't addressed the crux of the post of mine that you responded to.

I'll repeat my query here if you're interested in discussing it rather than your weird obsession with my employment status.

How is a product that, in 3 months, sold almost as many as the largest 10 competitors combined sold in a year considered a failure? By what logical standard can that possibly be true?

Wye wrote:
So advertising is proof of inferior product now?

of course not ..

the Apple brand is a great product

Wye wrote:

It's a dumb thing to say since there's more to the cost of a thing than just the bill of materials. How are you having trouble understanding that? What other reason than deception is there to include only part of the costs of the thing when comparing cost to retail? Why aren't you accounting for research and development? Advertising? Sales staff? Tech support staff? QA staff? Shipping? Labor? All of the actual costs that go into making and selling the thing? Why are you (willfully) ignoring all of those when you say "this is how much it costs to make"?

As usual when an apple product has a problem the end of the world is nigh. But when exactly the same thing happens to another product. No biggie. It is what it is. Apple phones bend when you put a ridiculous amount of pressure on them and actually try to bend them. Hey guess what! So does the new Samsung phone.

I don't take these things personally (you guys can keep repeating that like your mantra. Doesn't make it true). I just find dishonesty and willful ignorance and willful selection bias to be worthy of saying something about.

I'll note that you haven't addressed the crux of the post of mine that you responded to.

I'll repeat my query here if you're interested in discussing it rather than your weird obsession with my employment status.

How is a product that, in 3 months, sold almost as many as the largest 10 competitors combined sold in a year considered a failure? By what logical standard can that possibly be true?

I recognize that companies have to make a profit.   People have to be paid.   However if $84.00 is production cost then Apple is making $245.00 dollars in profit on each watch.   A iPhone 6 reportedly costs $200.00 to make, sold for over $600.00 :   http://time.com/3426087/apple-iphone-6-cost/   Apple must pay their workers well....  Those who work at their factories in China average under $2.00 per hour according to what I've found.   Workers at stores with those smiling friendly faces make under $14.00 per hour.   Maybe they could do better if they worked on commission.  So what about their competitors?   The Moto G costs around $123.00 to make and sold for around $180.00.    Samsung Gear 2 Neo Smartwatch costs $150.00 and from what I've found costs Samsung close to $100.00 to make.

Do these other companies who charge less have inferior products?    Not  according to the tech magazines I read.   Maybe they pay their workers less or perhaps don't have the same ad costs.   Or maybe just maybe they aren't into gouging their customers and coasting on their brand name.   I know Apple sells a lot of stuff.   You tell us all the time in case we missed it.   Personally I'd feel better about Apple if they paid their workers in China or here a bit more.   Can't cut into those profits  though.   As for willful ignorance and bias and dishonesty.   This is all opinion.   Yours as well.   You are no more right or wrong then anyone else.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I recognize that companies have to make a profit.   People have to be paid.   However if $84.00 is production cost then Apple is making $245.00 dollars in profit on each watch

You keep saying this as if it's true.

$84 is the *estimated* cost of the bill of materials.  It is *not* the production cost.  Why do you keep insisting it is?

Even if $84 is the *actual* cost of the bill of materials.  That doesn't mean Apple makes in profit $245 per phone.  Why do you keep insisting it does?

This is a really simple concept... certainly not subject to opinion.  The profit made is retail price minus *all* costs associated with putting the product in the customer's hand.  That's how profit works.  I sold it for this much.. this is how much it cost me to design it, build it, package it, sell it and otherwise make it possible for the customer to give me their credit card and pay for it.. what's left is my profit.

Why do you keep misstating the facts? What's *your* angle on all this that you need to keep repeating what is *clearly* not true? I ask not because I'm taking your misrepresentations personally ... but rather because I'm trying to figure out what goes on in a person's head that they need to just make stuff up like this.

Zack Zoll wrote:
So to bring this discussion back down to Earth, here's how the Apple smartwatch can sell 4 million units and still be a flop:

Prices range from around $200 to $1000. Let's average that out, and say every single model sold cost $500. Let's also assume that every single one was purchased directly from Apple, with no middle man, at a 50% markup. That's pretty standard for direct sales, and having no proof of exactly what they cost to make vs. what Best Buy, etc. pays for them, it's a solid guess.

That means that they made 10 billion dollars. Now factor in advertising and R&D, and their profit is whatever is left - I'm guessing 3-4B. That means that based on my dodgy math, Apple made $80-$90 every time they sold a $500 smart watch. If the majority of their sales were the base model, then they would have lost money on every sale.

Your math is *very* dodgy.  4 million (the assumed sales figure) * $250 (the 50% markup) is 1 billion dollars.  The rest I can't figure out how you calculated.

A product that is a failure doesn't mean that it doesn't sell. It means that it doesn't sell enough to justify bringing it to market. Look at how many movies grossed $150-$250M  and were flops based on production costs.

Indeed.. but an ongoing product (unlike a movie) doesn't have just a few weeks to make a profit.  It can be unprofitable at first and build to a profitable status later. Though this is all supposition at this point.  We have no idea how profitable (if at all) the Apple Watch product is at this point.  Probably never will.   But the idea that anyone (besides the bean counters at apple) is *certain* that it's unprofitable at this point is silly.

Evan Hiltunen wrote:
It certainly doesn't matter that the watch doesn't really do what the customer wants it to do.

Except you have one such customer who posted to say that it does do what he wants it to do and he likes it.  He can't possibly be telling the truth can he?  No.. that's unpossible!  Why would anyone do that?!?

XPlayer wrote:
I have a Samsung gear watch but only because I received it as a gift. I would never purchase such a thing. It's pretty neat if I'm on the go I can answer calls without taking my phone out of my satchel. I can also snap pics on the go and it is perfectly square ala instagram. I think the watch takes better pictures than my S5 but I haven't been too impressed with the S5 overall.

Really? The S5 has generally been regarded as a pretty fantastic phone (probably one of the top 2-3 Android phones when it was released). And the camera is still one of the best available of all smartphones. Curious as to what it takes to impress you, unless you got a lemon or something.


As to previous posts about how has the Apple watch "failed"....sure, it's sold more than all others combined, but that was expected just because of the built-in fan base--not because it was necessarily better than anything else out there. I think users are finding out why the other watches' sales are so low...it's just not that useful of a product (yet) and word is getting out. Especially at those prices.

Wye wrote:

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.

If the forecast is 20 million and you sell 4 million, that's a failure. If the other vendors only set a goal to sell 1 million and they sold 1 million, then it's not a failure.

I'm not stating these are the target numbers - just presenting the reason why the word "failure" is being thrown around. The goal was much higher than what they sold, is my understanding. And/or that the reception has been underwhelming.

Wye wrote:

Except you have one such customer who posted to say that it does do what he wants it to do and he likes it.  He can't possibly be telling the truth can he?  No.. that's unpossible!  Why would anyone do that?!?

There ya' go! Proof that the iWatch is a success.

Why are you arguing with me when I am agreeing with you?

Sleepy Weasel wrote:

If the forecast is 20 million and you sell 4 million, that's a failure. If the other vendors only set a goal to sell 1 million and they sold 1 million, then it's not a failure.

I'm not stating these are the target numbers - just presenting the reason why the word "failure" is being thrown around. The goal was much higher than what they sold, is my understanding. And/or that the reception has been underwhelming.

....but, but, but Apple sold more smart watches than the other vendors combined. All of the other criteria you list is just a distraction from, well, from my saying the iWatch is successful.

Perhaps I can put it in a way that is easy to understand:

Apple iWatch is a success. It's the consumers that are wrong.

Sleepy Weasel wrote:

If the forecast is 20 million and you sell 4 million, that's a failure. If the other vendors only set a goal to sell 1 million and they sold 1 million, then it's not a failure.

I'm not stating these are the target numbers - just presenting the reason why the word "failure" is being thrown around. The goal was much higher than what they sold, is my understanding. And/or that the reception has been underwhelming.

Apple has never publicly stated how many they targeted for sales.

Analysts pulled that number (or whatever number) out of a hat and then expected apple to meet those numbers for some reason. As far as I know Apple has never announced sales targets for the watch.  That's not a failure on apples part. That's a failure on the analysts' part. That anyone would think they would sell 5 times the entire markets previous years sales in three months seems incredible to me. Has that ever happened?

Wye wrote:

You keep saying this as if it's true.

$84 is the *estimated* cost of the bill of materials.  It is *not* the production cost.  Why do you keep insisting it is?

Even if $84 is the *actual* cost of the bill of materials.  That doesn't mean Apple makes in profit $245 per phone.  Why do you keep insisting it does?

This is a really simple concept... certainly not subject to opinion.  The profit made is retail price minus *all* costs associated with putting the product in the customer's hand.  That's how profit works.  I sold it for this much.. this is how much it cost me to design it, build it, package it, sell it and otherwise make it possible for the customer to give me their credit card and pay for it.. what's left is my profit.

Why do you keep misstating the facts? What's *your* angle on all this that you need to keep repeating what is *clearly* not true? I ask not because I'm taking your misrepresentations personally ... but rather because I'm trying to figure out what goes on in a person's head that they need to just make stuff up like this.

Everything said here is a OPINION because we have no actual ideal of how much Apple actually makes on the iWatch.   However if after production its $245.00 then is advertising and getting it to market, etc. so much more then competitors. 
I don't know.   I think that Apple overcharges for everything they sell.   Years past that wasn't too bad but not cool when these alleged premium devices have the kinds of problems many develop.   Its horrible that for their latest Macbook they  charge a additional $79.00 for a hub and that same Macbook has a update that breaks things.   

Yet the thing that amazes and amuses me is the defense of all things Apple.   What goes on in a person's head that they seek out any negative remarks made about their beloved company.  Apple isn't a deity (I guess right)   I'm not defaming a religion or a person.   Perhaps a examination of your motives is in order or you can call what I said dumb again.   If that makes you feel better have at it.   LOL

Wye wrote:
Apple has never publicly stated how many they targeted for sales.

Analysts pulled that number (or whatever number) out of a hat and then expected apple to meet those numbers for some reason. As far as I know Apple has never announced sales targets for the watch.  That's not a failure on apples part. That's a failure on the analysts' part. That anyone would think they would sell 5 times the entire markets previous years sales in three months seems incredible to me. Has that ever happened?

I understand that. And I said "goal" when i should have said "expectation"...but also put the word "failure" in quotes because it is arbitrary.

Although I did read an article a few minutes ago about how Apple isn't expected to release sales numbers on the watch, while they happily flaunt iPad and iPhone numbers quarterly. While they supposedly never planned to release numbers, even before its release, it's still curious.

Regardless, smartwatches, in general, are just not to the point of being useful. The growing pains of the Android watches is that the manufactures can't seem to figure out what people expect the thing to do or they don't meet users' expectations. or they're ugly, or too big. While the Apple Watch looks nice, it doesn't do anything a lot of the other watches do. Some watches may even do more or have more apps available.

The ultimate smartwatch would function separately from the phone, take pictures, make phone calls, and, well...be a smartphone on your wrist with at least a few days (a week would be better) of battery life per charge. And look nice. But a watch is completely impractical for viewing photos, typing, watching video. And daily charging, on top of charging your phone daily. It's too much. I wonder how many people are using their watches daily. I mean using them - not just wearing them to show it off as a status symbol.

Star Wars Episode I made almost $1 billion during its initial theatrical run. It was a terrible movie. But it had a built-in fan base ready for a new product and people bought it. George Lucas could have filmed a wall with nothing but a light saber glowing against it and people would have paid to see it. Successful? I guess. Profitable? Yes. But still crap.  I think most people would call the Star Wars prequels a failure, despite profits. Just another way to look at it, I guess.

Wye wrote:

Zack Zoll wrote:
So to bring this discussion back down to Earth, here's how the Apple smartwatch can sell 4 million units and still be a flop:

Prices range from around $200 to $1000. Let's average that out, and say every single model sold cost $500. Let's also assume that every single one was purchased directly from Apple, with no middle man, at a 50% markup. That's pretty standard for direct sales, and having no proof of exactly what they cost to make vs. what Best Buy, etc. pays for them, it's a solid guess.

That means that they made 10 billion dollars. Now factor in advertising and R&D, and their profit is whatever is left - I'm guessing 3-4B. That means that based on my dodgy math, Apple made $80-$90 every time they sold a $500 smart watch. If the majority of their sales were the base model, then they would have lost money on every sale.

Your math is *very* dodgy.  4 million (the assumed sales figure) * $250 (the 50% markup) is 1 billion dollars.  The rest I can't figure out how you calculated.


Indeed.. but an ongoing product (unlike a movie) doesn't have just a few weeks to make a profit.  It can be unprofitable at first and build to a profitable status later. Though this is all supposition at this point.  We have no idea how profitable (if at all) the Apple Watch product is at this point.  Probably never will.   But the idea that anyone (besides the bean counters at apple) is *certain* that it's unprofitable at this point is silly.

I miscounted the number of zeros on the calculator, is what happened.

So that means that even assuming Apple sold zero base models,and sold them all direct, AND a terrible accountant(me) inflated the numbers, we're still looking at less than $100 per sale.

Going off corrected numbers, Apple is in the hole until they pay off R&D costs.

That's not that different than a movie. Most films aim to break even open ing week, with actual profits coming later from rentals and sales, licensing, and international audiences. It's not uncommon for films to take several months to turn large profits.

But there's another strike against tech here: when the iWatch 2 comes out, nobody will buy the iWatch 1 unless the price is greatly reduced. But the release of a sequel doesn't keep anyone from seeing the first movie - if anything, it gives the first movie more exposure.

Being that the watch is a tech product, you also have to ask how many people would want to spend several hundred on a piece of tech that duplicates what they already have, but would be happy with an older model. I suspect that number is very small. It's not like a phone, where you're going to get a new one anyway, and they're just convincing you to buy a more expensive model. Or a camera, where the target demo just wants good photos, and usually doesn't care about whether or not there is a new model.

Look at phone sales worldwide. Most countries in Europe don't use a contract plan to sell; you buy the phone at full price, and have no contract, or a much cheaper one. In those countries, people are more likely to own older versions of the iPhone.


Apple's demographic (and most everyone else's) pretty much guarantees that they can only sell a lot of these when they're new. And since the R&D cost is so high on tech, that's not a sustainable business model.

That's why I say that unless Apple addresses the reasons why people actually wear a watch, or come up with a way to give the watch something the phone doesn't have(other than a strap), it's lifespan is limited. Maybe that lifespan is ten years, but it's still a limited lifespan.

Wye wrote:

Zack Zoll wrote:
So to bring this discussion back down to Earth, here's how the Apple smartwatch can sell 4 million units and still be a flop:

Prices range from around $200 to $1000. Let's average that out, and say every single model sold cost $500. Let's also assume that every single one was purchased directly from Apple, with no middle man, at a 50% markup. That's pretty standard for direct sales, and having no proof of exactly what they cost to make vs. what Best Buy, etc. pays for them, it's a solid guess.

That means that they made 10 billion dollars. Now factor in advertising and R&D, and their profit is whatever is left - I'm guessing 3-4B. That means that based on my dodgy math, Apple made $80-$90 every time they sold a $500 smart watch. If the majority of their sales were the base model, then they would have lost money on every sale.

Your math is *very* dodgy.  4 million (the assumed sales figure) * $250 (the 50% markup) is 1 billion dollars.  The rest I can't figure out how you calculated.


Indeed.. but an ongoing product (unlike a movie) doesn't have just a few weeks to make a profit.  It can be unprofitable at first and build to a profitable status later. Though this is all supposition at this point.  We have no idea how profitable (if at all) the Apple Watch product is at this point.  Probably never will.   But the idea that anyone (besides the bean counters at apple) is *certain* that it's unprofitable at this point is silly.

I miscounted the number of zeros on the calculator, is what happened.

So that means that even assuming Apple sold zero base models,and sold them all direct, AND a terrible accountant(me) inflated the numbers, we're still looking at less than $100 per sale.

Going off corrected numbers, Apple is in the hole until they pay off R&D costs.

That's not that different than a movie. Most films aim to break even open ing week, with actual profits coming later from rentals and sales, licensing, and international audiences. It's not uncommon for films to take several months to turn large profits.

But there's another strike against tech here: when the iWatch 2 comes out, nobody will buy the iWatch 1 unless the price is greatly reduced. But the release of a sequel doesn't keep anyone from seeing the first movie - if anything, it gives the first movie more exposure.

Being that the watch is a tech product, you also have to ask how many people would want to spend several hundred on a piece of tech that duplicates what they already have, but would be happy with an older model. I suspect that number is very small. It's not like a phone, where you're going to get a new one anyway, and they're just convincing you to buy a more expensive model. Or a camera, where the target demo just wants good photos, and usually doesn't care about whether or not there is a new model.

Look at phone sales worldwide. Most countries in Europe don't use a contract plan to sell; you buy the phone at full price, and have no contract, or a much cheaper one. In those countries, people are more likely to own older versions of the iPhone.


Apple's demographic (and most everyone else's) pretty much guarantees that they can only sell a lot of these when they're new. And since the R&D cost is so high on tech, that's not a sustainable business model.

That's why I say that unless Apple addresses the reasons why people actually wear a watch, or come up with a way to give the watch something the phone doesn't have(other than a strap), it's lifespan is limited. Maybe that lifespan is ten years, but it's still a limited lifespan.

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
Regardless, smartwatches, in general, are just not to the point of being useful. The growing pains of the Android watches is that the manufactures can't seem to figure out what people expect the thing to do or they don't meet users' expectations. or they're ugly, or too big. While the Apple Watch looks nice, it doesn't do anything a lot of the other watches do. Some watches may even do more or have more apps available.

I don't disagree with you here.  personally I have no desire to wear a watch.  heck.. it took one *hell* of a woman to make me want to wear a ring It's the same problem I have with "eye wearables" like the google glass.  I spent 6 thousand dollars to get glasses off my face.  I don't want to spend another thousand to put them back on without one *hell* of a reason.

BUT

That doesn't mean that a) some people have use and desire for them and b) they won't get better over time.. much better.  A product category has to start somewhere.  Do you remember what portable GPS units were like 20 years ago?  God.. I do.. they were fucking terrible compared to what we have today.  But that didn't stop people from buying them and making great use out of them.  Remember what mobile phones were like in the 80s? What a laugh. But people use them and look where we are now.

Companies (and customers) on the bleeding edge are the only reason we have the well polished products we have today.  The Android Wear and Apple Watch devices of 2015 need to exist in order for us to make the versions we'll see in 2017 and 2020.

The ultimate smartwatch would function separately from the phone, take pictures, make phone calls, and, well...be a smartphone on your wrist with at least a few days (a week would be better) of battery life per charge. And look nice. But a watch is completely impractical for viewing photos, typing, watching video. And daily charging, on top of charging your phone daily. It's too much. I wonder how many people are using their watches daily. I mean using them - not just wearing them to show it off as a status symbol.

And one day you will get such a device.  I have no doubt. Just as we have desktop computers and laptops and tablets, each with their own use case.. so it will go with watches.  Are you going to use a Wacom stylus on a watch to edit photos? no, of course not. But there will be a great deal of utility for those who want it.  Arguably there's enough utility for the current crop of adopters.

I suspect alot of people are using their watches (of any brand) for any number of things if reviewers are to be believed.  The Apple Watch, in particular has been very well reviewed.  Just google "Apple Watch Review" and read.  Very positive reviews. Perfect? no.  No criticisms at all? No, of course not.  But still people seem to like it.

Art Silva wrote:
OP, The Smartwatch in general hasn't really taken foothold across the board. It's something that the public doesn't "Need" right now.
But in my observations on the street I have seen more Fitbit type wrist activity (watch) trackers followed by a few Apple watches and a smattering of Samsung smart watches. All in all the standard phone in hand is still going strong among Smart Device users, regardless of what the earlier graph says.

Apple Refuses to release the data of how many watches have been sold.  There be some educated guesses....2-5 Million.

I would venture to say...that with Apple..it is best to wait until the 3rd Generation.




https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct … u4msCCBaoA

Wye wrote:
I suspect alot of people are using their watches (of any brand) for any number of things if reviewers are to be believed.  The Apple Watch, in particular has been very well reviewed.  Just google "Apple Watch Review" and read.  Very positive reviews. Perfect? no.  No criticisms at all? No, of course not.  But still people seem to like it.

There will always be people that like it and use it. There are plenty of Android watch wearers that get use of them too. I'm sure there are people that also liked Episode I. Not saying they're wrong - but I think in the minority.

Other than a heartbeat sensor, I can't really think of many things any of these watches can do that your phone can't. When they can start to monitor your blood glucose level, cholesterol, have independent wifi/internet access, etc., then I think we're on to something. I'm talking about all watches, not just Apple.

I don't have one because I work from home. I don't need constant notifications or my heartrate monitored. I certainly don't want to strain my eyes to read emails or texts on the thing. Heck, before any of the nicer Android watches came out, I spent $300 on a nice-looking Citizen watch. I've worn in 3 times. Trying to sell it for half of what I paid for it and I can't. Comfort is a problem for me. It's big and heavy and bulky. None of the smartwatches I've seen alleviate that issue. I also don't want to buy new tech every 1-2 years when they become outdated or have another device to constantly charge.

I stopped really wearing watches when I got my first flip phone. A device would have to be very useful for me to acclimate to wearing something on my wrist again. I think a lot of others feel the same way. Sure, I *could* find use for a smartwatch, but I certainly don't *need* it the way I need my phone for work and play.