“With the Samsung and Qualcomm watches officially unveiled, the elephant in the room is now Apple,” Jason Schwarz writes for TheStreet.
“Samsung’s attempt at a watch is destined to fail because it lacks a ‘must have’ application that differentiates it from a smartphone,” Schwarz writes. “It won’t be easy to find a target market willing to pay $299 for mirrored functionality between the two devices. Apple will experience a similar fate if it chooses a similar approach to the iWatch.”
Schwarz writes, “To our knowledge, there has never been a watch that sold more than a few million units in a quarter. Apple needs to grow this new product category into 20 million units per quarter if it hopes to move the needle. If Tim Cook and company are serious about creating a viable new product category, then the following three elements are essential:”
1. iWatch should do something that iPhone doesn’t do.
2. iWatch should do something that that is enhanced by the wrist security.
3. iWatch should have so much high tech built into it that the product costs $400 or more and is sold with a subsidy.
Schwarz writes, “Without these three elements, the iWatch is at risk of becoming a negative catalyst for the stock.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Arline M.” for the heads up.]
Let me put it this way. For all the whiners on here complaining about not wanting a bigger than 3.5″ iPhone screen, here’s a solution for you.
Wear it on your wrist like an iWatch and let those of us who want a 4.8″ iPhone get on with life. Or wear it on your forehead with a Nike headband like the mark of Cain. I don’t care.
Did you post this comment in the right article?
REX
Ballmer’s left nut is some troll with half a brain and only 1 nut – he loves getting reactions like this and lives in a dark hole with no life. so just enjoy his stupidity and let all show some sympathy… for he has lost his way.
Amen! LOL!
no – I agree to some degree with BLN.
I see a solution for Apple customers in a different way.
I agree there is a number of people who want larger phone screens. He is right. And he is one also. I am another. Apple should and could do something very simple.
Offer iPhone in the three screen sizes it produces now.
and simplify its line at the same time providing clarity of products too.
SMALL 4.0″ / MEDIUM 7.9″ / LARGE 9.7″ — iPHONES
true cellular network ability and 4G LTE calling functionality in each size. A bluetooth ear plug could be provided as a solution for the Phablet issue to head joke.
SMALL 4.0″ / MEDIUM 7.9″ / LARGE 9.7″ — iPADS
no cellular network – wifi only – this defines the tablet compared to the phone.
I see the iWatch as something useless so far. Or a SIMPLER SAMRT PHONE without the need for a screen at all. TOTALLY interface with Siri – time / calling contacts / music location and directions — everything controlled or functioned by Siri. TIny screen fine or none.
do i want a tiny screen iWatch cell phone attached to my wrist ?
– no – i don’t like wearing my regular watch now – it gets in the way working on my computer desk – the time is on my computer and phone – what function is this device going to offer to revolutionize my life such that i would need it? I can call people back once i get the notification on my phone… iWatch would need to project the screen of my iPad but even that would be stupid – i will wait and see
Apple has a history of not catering to people who “want”. I’m being polite. Ignoring people who “want”.
Im thinking about the Nissan Smartwatch concept..
Imagine.. iOS7 in Car iWatch
F_ off.
Like the iPod mini years ago, Apple will kill the iPhone completely in favor of the iWatch : )
In due time…but not now.
yet iPod mini still are being produced – lol 🙂
There is an essential element not only for Apple’s iWatch success but for all their products that needs to be avoided at all costs.
That element to be avoided is any consideration, direction, or suggestions of what an analyst, jouranalist or Anustralian says in the mainstream media.
funny and wise – however everyone has the right to an opinion, even analyst and jouranalists.
You are absolutely right, everyone has a right to their opinion, just as everyone has a right to ignore it.
I certainly wasn’t suggesting for them to stop their drivel, it’s up to them to decided if they want to better humanity by being silent.
A subsidy? And presumably a contract? On a watch? I own many Apple products, but I will not enter into a contract for a watch.
But I will add one additional critical success factor to your list — a battery that lasts more than a day — unless I can simply lay it on a recharging pad, meaning no plug in. I think some consumers would even reject that.
Seriously, I like the idea of a smart watch. But it has to make sense both functionally and economically.
10 hour battery life is a constant goal and engineering challenge for Apple – and they pride themselves on it.
An advancement in solar charging this iWatch would be greatly needed. Or the use of tiny fuel cells. Something crazy to power and let Apple capitalize on new innovations to pass on down to other products later on. An iWatch could do everything iOS does on iPhone. But, YES power is the most important point for this item. And a high price tag would be beneficial at first to enable success for this product in effect leading to translating the benefits to the other products – if successful and cost come down.
The cost of new and radical technology is the only way #3 is going to come about.
People would only pay a big price on a watch that is from Apple… ONLY if Apple provides a revolutionary consumer fuel cell or entirely new solar collection system to power this tiny device. The benefit will be passed down to other devices if in fact sales are good and product costs are effective. Otherwise Apple needs to sell low and populate the consumers with a product that just is so needed for some reason.
I can not see #1 happening. iOS does what it does yet by definition, a product that is a watch must do the basic clock then. iPhone has a clock. So #1 is redundant. Unless the watch projects the screen of iPhone for presentations? OR has 3D holographic something. #2, why does a watch need to enhance anyones security? Kids and locating them is a great idea, then this device is for them. And might play educational games too. Not seeing this happening.
Number 3 is more likely. And more like Apple to push its innovation and gain profits on the risk it takes to gain production to other areas of future products. Apple selling a few hundred thousand watches that run fuel cells might see the light one day that those cells are placed into a Phone.
iPod touch, was essential to spread the invested costs for touch screens.. as Apple offered the iPhone at high premium prices – the sales of iPod touch has always been important – the same screen size – same component – this keeps volume up – orders up and balances the investment. An like flexible screens or fuel cell coming to market — would pave the way for placing its profits into other products. Like putting fuel cells into iPhone later if successful. A big – but – calculated risk.
Possibly a subsidy from Apple – ie the device costs $250 to make (so should sell for $400) but they charge $200 to sell bulk loads of them to strengthen the iOS ecosystem and bring back those who were fooled into roids.
Threes a number of ways they could go with it – but if they make one, everyone will want one.
Not sure about number 3. it would have to be a phone plus alot more. I think $199 is the right price point.
Design appeal
Usability/functionality
Work with phone or standalone in a more limited way.
I think the biggest problem is design and scale for men or women.
Women don’t want to wear a mans sized watch and men don’t want to wear a smaller women sized watch.
The clasp bracelet concepts are neat looking, but look uncomfortable for men especially, but there is more real estate. I can see doctors and specialized work related scenarios wearing this at work to keep hands free, but it must be comfortable and easy to get on and off.
Just my two sense! (pun intended)
Yes, I’m not buying #3 either. Not happening. 😎
I should clarify. Not the second half of #3 about the high cost.
It’s really not so much about the “high tech”of the device, more about the intelligence being used to design it’s “purpose”.
The other guy’s thinking: “Duh, lets make it tell time and mirror some functionality.”
Apple: “You’re gonna feel like you just stepped through the door onto Fhloston Paradise, and go WOW.” 🙂
iWatch = What are we “watching” tonight?
Can’t w8 to see all these so-called analyst strike by the iWatch!
iWatch like in ” I watch TV ”
Talk about wearable stuff… LOL
Oh please Apple do not fall for this baby-boomer-Dick-Tracey driven watch B.S. This will be in the attic next to the Apple Hi-Fi 6 months after it is released. The phone is the form factor for communication, the iPad mini is the form factor for the PDA , and the iPad for light mobile computing.
Now a watch that is a peripheral to seamlessly tie the other devices together ( and to iCloud too) that might me worth something.
I see an iWatch being more of a health/fitness product.
Wow, 400 hundred dollar watch with a subsidy! Super high tech? What?! Jason, let Apple do what they do best and make analyst, like you, look stupid on a day to day basis. In addition, “TheStreet’s” pavement has ended a long, long time ago Jason.
How about $2500? Or $4,000, or $10,000?
I paid $2200 for my Tag. $7K for my Cartier. I wanted a PP, but it was $60K. Had to pass. The Omega I like is $22K
If Apple wants to make something in this market, and could be deemed an elegant time piece, then these are the prices.
If it’s $199, well, Timex makes a piece. Or go to Walmart for the $39.95 special.
The point is: for a watch, there is no justification for anyone to complain about the price. No matter what it is… If it’s crap…it’s crap. I doubt we would get crap from Apple..again. We’ll see.
Apple make top quality products, but I’ve never seen them as a truly luxury brand. Even companies like Cartier make lots of different designs so people have a choice, that variation and the resulting smaller numbers sold goes some way to explaining the price. Apple will likely make a handful of models/colours. Are Apple really going to bother with selling watches that will sell in volumes of thousands?
Apple will no doubt make a beautiful design, but when buying an expensive watch you’re to an extent buying it more as a piece of jewellery than just something to tell the time.
This is a very interesting view point that I hadn’t considered. But I doubt apple is as worried about pleasing luxury watch buyers as they are with the average “techie”, who isn’t going to pay that much for a device.
too rich for me…
i am extremely happy with my SWATCH at 350.00
and sadly i rarely wear it unless I am out on a special occasion just to have something on my wrist… to
place Apple in that category – I don’t think so…
Apple is about software and hardware for computing purposes – so a 22k watch that very few will buy – sorry no way – Apple Inc. is a consumer driven company now, not to compete with elite jewellery companies – i do not agree or see your vision
however, what i do agree with – is, high price should not be complained – specially if technologically Apple presses forward with something important to transcend into other products – example power consumption going fuel cells or solar power that is so radical… that later the iPad and iPhone could adopt the same technology… so the initial premium is a well calculated risk for Apple
Those watches are absurdly overpriced so the people that wear them can brag, and no offence meant to you. Please justify why any watch anywhere should cost over $1000 or even $500 in this day and age. Aside from it being diamond studded and/or the cost of the materials. What justifies that crazy price ?? I’d love to see the manufacturing BOM costs for those watches so we can know the crazy margins they’re making.
From a non-nerd view point…
#1 – the iWatch needs to look good.
Feature parity with a smart phone is the only way I think any company is going to be able to justify prices more than a couple of hundred (and that’s pushing it. Voice control is the only way a smart watch would be able to come close to the functionality of a phone, and even if it worked well all the time, I don’t think it’s something that people would want to have to use all the time eg if they’re in an environment where it would be almost impossible to be heard, or where they didn’t want to be heard.
I think it has to be looked at as something that would offer more functions than a regular watch, but anyone thinking it could replace a phone in any sort of fashion is nuts. There is room for integration, but I just think a lot of people are thinking too big.
Since Apple especially aren’t going to sell more than a few colours they’re not going to be able to charge big money for it solely as a fashion statement or even a piece of jewellery like many watches are. The price has got to be reasonable.
I really don’t understand why Samsung thought it needed a camera.
In a way, I think there is something to be said for a smart watch not being viewed as a watch at all, rather technology you wear on your wrist. People like nice watches, expensive watches, designer watches. They might not want to give them up for a generic (albeit good looking) iWatch. They might wear both though.
#3 is ridiculous,
#2 is meaningless,
#1 is obvious.
A wrist device is the wrong place to put a phone or an iPod, so at this time all of the ones on the market only offer limited functions and/or remote display/control.
There are few reasons one can see a standalone wrist-mounted “smart” device being an essential purchase:
1) enterprise/military security keys
2) health monitoring (healthcare and/or sports)
3) locator beacon for your kids, etc
4) truly secure wallet
There might be some more specialized functions that could make a semi-permanently attached device desirable, but the general public isn’t going to rush out to buy the latest iGadget unless the costs are under control.
Great comments.
The iPhone does everything iOS offers.
Yet it lacks real-estate space.
The iPad lacks only the true telephone calling feature. Yet offers two sizes of screens.
Apple could simply the options to A or B.
A phone or tablet. And offer each in three sizes. The differentiating factor could remain that the iPad in 3 sizes does not make phone calls and uses wifi only. Where the iPhone in 3 sizes does. Clearly why its called a phone. And why its a tablet. And clearly less of a convergent product.
Apple TV doesn’t play games – but it should as it provides a link to your home theatre for all devices and is a iOS device – it still remains a unique product with Airplay and gaming that way – add LeapMotion and Apple has a cool product.
So iWatch doesn’t need to offer something so wildly different. Yet has the potential too. However, http://www.imsmart.com/en/i-m-here/overview
and
http://www.imsmart.com/en
and
http://www.thetileapp.com/?utm_source=AdWords&utm_medium=CPC
could be helpful additions for Apple, my iWatch could be important for iTV and changing channels.
#3, iWatch like all other IOS products — most likely will do many things and not offer much that is unique from what the phone (iPhone) or tablet (iPad) does. All have cameras, all play music, all browse the internet all play games. All are gaining Siri, All do FaceTime and iMessage. Would a flexible screen change things change my needs? NOT likely.
iPods no longer seem relevant and actually look cheap, the iWatch might push out the iPods for good. I just cant see it still. But if Apple does we soon will understand what we need again. Since my iPhone and iPad do music I don’t need iPod. IPad with telephone capabilities like iPhone simply creates the Phonelet or Phablet… a good idea honestly if Apple provides a ear base bluetooth solution for tablet calling.
‘3. iWatch should have so much high tech built into it that the product costs $400 or more and is sold with a subsidy.’
Sorry, I love Apple products and even I wouldn’t buy an iWatch for $400. And sold with a SUBSIDY? Who is subsidizing it? Doesn’t that imply a contract? I’m not signing a contract for a watch, no matter who makes it.
Jason Schwarz is CRAZY!
By stating a $199 price point, I actually was thinking luxury watch pricing.
I would never pay $199 for any watch.
For it to catch on, it has to be consumer affordable, focal point on teenage textmaniac girls with allowances,
I also hope the quality is not junk, but at least make it feature rich if it is housed in Samsung plastic.
It has to be something Apple can set up and make for just sub $100 bucks and hope to make $50 margin after all the other marketing and shipping costs. Pretty much just barely over the cost of making the nano.
This is not near as big profit maker as the iPhone, iPad, etc.
That is why you have to sell a zillion of them. But it is yet another category that Apple knows they can rule.
The two features that Apple needs to include in “iWatch” are:
1. It is a standalone multi-touch device (IOW, no requirement to connect it to another device for full functionality, including updating the OS and adding apps) with much of the functionality of a smartphone in a small form factor (e.g., tells time, has widgets for weather, stocks & calculator, calendar app, sound via a speaker and headphone connector, Siri, web connected, etc.).
2. It should have at least 24 hour battery life with heavy use.
Unless and until Apple can meet those criteria, I think it’s still an R&D proposition.
Pixar already showed us the iWatch in Toy Story — Buzz’s wrist band flip-up communicator!
I picture George W Bush saying it when when I read the words “Its got so much high tech built into it”. That’s how silly it sounds to me 🙂
It needs to work by itself, last more than 24 hours, and make iphone integration useful
I hope I’m not alone in thinking there ain’t no Apple watch a’comin’. That said, however, as I wear a watch with unbridled regularity, I do say all I want it to do is let me see the time at the briefest of glances, perhaps the date. I don’t want to have to push a button, say a word, press a screen, pair a bluetooth device, or have to charge it. I want to put it on the dresser at night, put it back on in the morning, and replace a battery (or wind it, fer crissakes) once in a blue moon.
If I recall correctly Tim stated that the wrist was of Interest. He did not say a watch was interest. Nor did you say a wrist watch was of interest. Maybe we all have this wrong it’s not about a watch it’s about an iwrist Something on your wrist that may tell time but only as a secondary feature and do all kinds of other things.
cheap pandora charms jewelry outlet