“Though the odds are likely stacked against my skepticism, I’m not convinced Apple plans to sell a smartwatch,” Rocco Pendola writes for TheStreet. “There’s something unsettling about the world’s greatest company jumping into a market manufactured by a consensus of less-than tech companies.”
“Consumers haven’t necessarily said we demand more wearable devices. And I don’t think they qualify as products people don’t know they want until Apple tells them so. Rather they’re an attempt by tech companies to create a frenzy that might never take,” Pendola writes. “But here’s the cool thing about the questionable prospects of the wearable market from what should be the perspective of Apple fanboys and investors: It doesn’t matter. The fate of an Apple smartwatch will have very little impact on Apple’s near- or even long-term prospects.”
“If I’m wrong and an iWatch (or smartband) happens to sell well — like five million units out of the gate — that’s icing on Apple’s cake. Just icing because there’s no way this thing sniffs iPad, let alone iPhone sales numbers. Some would classify mere cake icing as a failure. But I wouldn’t. I would just call it a product I wasn’t all that jazzed about acting as a periphery to Apple’s core and — hopefully — boosting or helping Tim Cook maintain healthy margins. If I’m right … an Apple iWatch either fails or never materializes,” Pendola writes. “The material outcome of an iWatch failure isn’t different at all from what will happen if an iWatch — or some sort of wearable from Apple — never even happens in the first place. $1,000 for AAPL remains in the cards. It doesn’t depend on iWatch being the next big thing or even being a thing.”
Pendola writes, “It’s nothing more than noise — a mere distraction — to what will be the central Apple story for the rest of 2014 heading into 2015… iPhone 6.”
Read more in the full article here.
And Pendola to hell
If there is a iWatch I can see cardiologists recommending it to patients. A patients BP and activity levels could be forwarded to the doctor for review. The use of a iWatch is endless. I hope the rumors are the real deal.
And Medicare would pay for it!
Correction: The U.S. taxpayer, those left, that is, would be forced to pay for it.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
This device is being developed with the help of the Mayo Clinic. Also, per the WWDC, Cleveland Clinc is showing interest. This could be huge.
This could lead to an entre into the medical devices industry.
Just a thought?
I’d prefer a no-display toe ring. It’s a sensor thingy, talking to my iPhone. Waterproof, durable, and induction-charged.
Ok, I assume he is looking at what was $1,000 and is now $142.86 per share after last weeks split.
Try reading the story . . . “Even post-split, AAPL could be a $1,000 stock.”
I actually agree with Mr. Pendola in that iWatch doesn’t make sense. From what I understand about Apple, they introduce things that often eliminate needing extra items in our lives. A Mac (or later iMacs and notebooks) is about CPU and monitor together eliminating the need for separate 3 pieces. Same philosophy applies to iPods, iPhones and iPads. iPhones/iPads got rid of the physical keyboards as well as styluses.
When cell phones gained traction, it killed the need for watches. All of a sudden, we realised we didn’t want to be tied to the watches on our wrists, unless it’s a status symbol for certain people. Point is, with iWatches you all of a sudden have to convince people that they NEED watches once again. Why? How would that affect your iPhone sales?
It’s like Google Glass, an external thing that you didn’t need all your life, and now the onus is on Google to convince others that they simply have to have it.
I just don’t see Apple play this game. Closest they ever got to introducing an external item was Apple TV and I still miss their late great Macintosh TV.
Since we haven’t seen this we call it an iWatch. Think of it as a different device that happens to occupy your wrist. This provides some advantages and opportunities.
The advantages are that you can quickly glance at a text message or incoming caller ID without reaching into your pocket for your phone. Also, a vibration on your wrist is much easier to detect than an alert from your phone, especially if it is in a bag or if you are in a noisy environment.
The opportunity is that being on your wrist the device can make continuous measurements about your body. This could be huge. Imagine that instead of checking your heart rate and blood pressure once a year in their office they could instead access your records and see a full year of near continuous records. This will usher in a new era of health care.
I agree and if it were not for the fact that Nike are committing to the health platform while gradually withdrawing from the hardware I might just believe the logic this was purely a platform for others to exploit rather than Apple issuing hardware itself.
Considering Apple stock is only at $93 and change, a $1000 prediction is pretty optimistic.
Not only “optimistic,” but also highly improbable in the near term. Apple at AAPL $1000 would be worth about $6 TRILLION. That is significantly more than the current TOTAL market cap of ALL NASDAQ companies (combined).
Some of these self-proclaimed “experts” don’t have any common sense. They don’t seem to realize that Apple is already the most valuable publicly traded company, and what it means to double its current market cap, let alone increase it by more than 10x.
Thank you for showing the rest of the class the math involved in such silliness. you get a gold star.
You are forgetting that Apple ca retire more shares (buyback)… And at this pace it could be quite a lot!
Yes, because Apple is planning to buy back 90% of outstanding shares. 😉
You are forgetting (or do not realize) that buybacks are mostly attractive when the stock (of the company doing the buyback) is considered under-priced. In other words, AAPL was a bargain at $400, and a decent deal at $500. If AAPL reaches and exceeds its all-time HIGH, that is a BAD time to do more stock buybacks. And there is NO NEED to do buybacks at that point, because AAPL has positive momentum; what’s the point of spending tens of billions to push it some more.
There may be talk of doing more stock buybacks, but that’s just a “Carl Icahn” move to put the possibility out there, to nudge AAPL higher through “speculation” (AKA “manipulation”). Or the option to do more stock buybacks may come in handy, if AAPL takes a significant dip for some reason.
So, there is NO WAY that stock buybacks are going to get AAPL to $1000 (post-split) per share, or even to $200.
there’s gonna be an iWatch (if that’s what they call it), and it’s gonna be mostly driven by Siri. You will be able to send voice messages, text messages, but not be able to have a direct conversation. it will also monitor you’re heart rate, blood pressure?, and access the internet using Siri.
I see a ring / iPhone / EarPod link.
The phone processes.
The ring allows quick activation without shuffling sleeves or fishing out of the pockets.
The EarPods (neat invisible and crazy comfortable) let you hear what’s up and speak back.
If this doesn’t happen in some form within ten years I’ll be shocked.
Weaker than usual for Rocco. Almost content-free, a filler piece written before the split and coughed up after a spot of food poisoning to make a deadline
“written before the split”
Ah… there you go dashing my hopes… hopes that my Apple stock would be worth a few tens of millions in the near future.
/s
Why don’t people read the story before commenting on it! “Even POST SPLIT! “
I did read the story and thought that was tacked on.
Rocco is good – i’m not sure why you would say weak!
There is a certain justice in your comment. Rocco is a lightning rod because of his vocal and contrarian analysis, and his colourful and provocative hyperbole. His extreme positions are daring, but this article seemed a bit out of joint, as if hastily updated post-split. Does anyone really think—even Rocco—that the company could ascend to an adjusted $4900 high water mark?
“There’s something unsettling about the world’s greatest company jumping into a market manufactured by a consensus of less-than tech companies.”
You definitely could say that about mobile phones too. The tech used before the iPhone was second class and the software and support were abysmal.
It seems logical now that the touch screen and apps were the way to go for a smartphone but no-one had got it right.
So an iWatch could be more than just a watch, but how Apple will implement that I don’t know. I also don’t know that I will buy the 1st generation. My biggest concern is that the sales volume will be lower than expected.
Yup my fears too. But then I suppose before the iPad there was little enthusiasm for a device that seemed to add little to the mix. Wow how wrong we were.
Not everyone was wrong about iPad: