[Macworld]

Post your comments for The Macalope Weekly: It could've been worse here

[mathogre]

Greetings O Enigmatic One! Being a Math Ogre, I know something of the life of mystical creatures.

On the surface (as opposed to the Surface), an Apple Watch seems, well, dumb. What's next, an Apple Toothbrush? How about an Apple Nose Hair Trimmer? It could be an exclusive through the Sharper Image! Hmmm... Oh yeah, NDA. I know nothing of such devices. *Wink, wink.*

So no, I don't grok an Apple Watch.

But what if you try to grok an Apple Watch, and forget the limits of what you know about watches and remember what you do know about Apple. How would you grok this device?

Apple is about making really cool things they want to use. So you start looking at things it could be and things it couldn't.

It's a wristwatch inasmuch as it is a device that you wear on your wrist with an attached band. The band can be an integral part of the device if they want or need.

The watch could be a Bluetooth device hanging off iOS devices, primarily an iPhone, but any other iOS device would do. While the antenna could be in the device, the band could also host the antenna.

The device has both microphone and speaker. This is to use Siri through the iPhone/Bluetooth link. You can speak with Siri through the watch and listen to Siri's response. Some limited text/graphical responses are displayed on the watch. You can set alarms using Siri, and they would be local to the watch.

"What the weather like Siri?"

"You're near a window. Go look yourself."

You can get iCal appointment data on the watch. This data can be updated through the iOS device or it can be stored locally if, heaven forbid, you're away from your iOS device. Why have it on a watch though if you have the iPhone with you? It's because a quick glance at your wrist could tell you what appointment is next.

This watch could have a flexible screen. A year or so ago I recall Wired having an article on flexible glass from Corning. They showed a roll of it. Add two or three different displays on the surface (different surface but still not the Surface), and you have other ways to interact.

How cool (or hot) would it be to be thermocouple powered? How about motion powered? If you had to actually charge it, could it be done with an induction charger?

Apps. It's all about apps. A little anyway. The face could be digital; it could be analog. You could have a Mars app, so you could live on Mars time. Those crazy kids down at JPL would like that. Lunar phase. Melty face Dali clock.

If you look up watch manufacturers at Amazon, well then Apple is DOOMED! You'll find hundreds of them. If they make their own watch, it will be because it's a cool device that makes sense to them.

[RobLewis]

The redoubtable Richard Dawkins identified a main source of evolution denialism as "argument from personal incredulity". As in "Why, personally I just can't BELIEVE that X could happen, therefore it didn't."

Lots of this kind of reasoning among the tech punditry.

[Remiss63]

Dear M-A-L

You had a type up there in the first sentence of the third paragraph before the conclusion of this scathing Dan Lyons critique:

As yourself why someone would do that. He probably does it because he believes it. Siegler is certainly opinionated and antagonistic ...

I believe "As" should be "Ask".

[thinkman]

Quote

Dear M-A-L You had a type up there in the first sentence of the third paragraph before the conclusion of this scathing Dan Lyons critique: As yourself why someone would do that. He probably does it because he believes it. Siegler is certainly opinionated and antagonistic ... I believe "As" should be "Ask".

Perhaps you meant "typo" rather than "type". How embarrassed you must feel. Right, Oh Great Horned One who can do no wrong - usually? ツ

[bigh]

mathogre, you got me thinking (not an easy thing... well done)!

Back when the rumors of the ipad were reaching a frenzied state (about six months before the device was announced), I suggested on this site that it would be a media consumption device, not a machine designed for general computing. Seems obvious now, but at the time everyone was swept up in rather fantastical visions.

My thoughts on this watch (if it really is being developed) are that it will be designed as a front-end for someone carrying their iPhone or iPad with them... the watch won't do any heavy lifting - it will essentially be a small *thin client* for the more capable iOS devices - a small mobile monitor and input device for the true computing device. I imagine it would leverage existing Apple tech like AirPlay, Siri, etc.

In that way battery drain will be minimal. More importantly, it's an addition to the apple ecosphere - it will entice users to buy an iPhone or at least stay with the iOS platform, which is the hallmark of all Apple devices. It will be voice-driven, and will work wonderfully to control the new AppleTV.

FWIW and FTR, I'm not a fan of either rumored products... I'm waiting for the revamped pro machines.

[Jimbotomy5cxd]

The iWatch hype is incomprehensible to me. Here's the thing: Apple's revenues in 2013 were $165 billion. The entire watch industry's revenues, from what I could tell, were less than $50 billion. A fair chunk of that business is from luxury watches that Apple will never touch, watches that cost more than any iMac. And a lot of those watches are the cheap $30 kind that again Apple wouldn't compete with.

The upshot of all this is that even if Apple could craft a watch that every watch-wearing person in the world decided to give up their Rolexes and Casios for, it would amount at most to about $50 billion in revenue, or a quarter of their likely annual revenues within a couple years. More realistically it would seem to be a $10 billion or so opportunity, something that would add all of 5% to the top line after several years.

I just don't see it as worthwhile for Apple.

[ingus]

Quote

mathogre, you got me thinking (not an easy thing... well done)! Back when the rumors of the ipad were reaching a frenzied state (about six months before the device was announced), I suggested on this site that it would be a media consumption device, not a machine designed for general computing. Seems obvious now, but at the time everyone was swept up in rather fantastical visions. My thoughts on this watch (if it really is being developed) are that it will be designed as a front-end for someone carrying their iPhone or iPad with them... the watch won't do any heavy lifting - it will essentially be a small thin client for the more capable iOS devices - a small mobile monitor and input device for the true computing device. I imagine it would leverage existing Apple tech like AirPlay, Siri, etc. In that way battery drain will be minimal. More importantly, it's an addition to the apple ecosphere - it will entice users to buy an iPhone or at least stay with the iOS platform, which is the hallmark of all Apple devices. It will be voice-driven, and will work wonderfully to control the new AppleTV. FWIW and FTR, I'm not a fan of either rumored products... I'm waiting for the revamped pro machines.

What you say about the watch makes a lot of sense. As far as staying within an ecosystem, you're also right, with the added point that nothing locks you in to a platform (any platform) more than walled in media. If you bought a lot of movies from a vendor, you're stuck with that vendor. It's the main thing that has me still defending physical media. Whether it's iOS, Android, Nook, or Kindle, you're locked in to each one, and locked out of the others. What amazes me is just how tolerant we consumers are about that. Right now, the only tablet that supports everything is the Surface Pro, and why I wish for an iPad Pro.

This post has been edited by ingus: 16 February 2013 - 04:32 PM

[LunaticSX]

Quote

The entire watch industry's revenues, from what I could tell, were less than $50 billion. A fair chunk of that business is from luxury watches that Apple will never touch, watches that cost more than any iMac. And a lot of those watches are the cheap $30 kind that again Apple wouldn't compete with.

The upshot of all this is that even if Apple could craft a watch that every watch-wearing person in the world decided to give up their Rolexes and Casios for, it would amount at most to about $50 billion in revenue, or a quarter of their likely annual revenues within a couple years. More realistically it would seem to be a $10 billion or so opportunity, something that would add all of 5% to the top line after several years.

An Apple smart watch as a standalone product may not generate a lot of revenue all on its own for Apple. That's not where its value lies, however.

How many other products and services are available from Apple that don't actually generate a lot of revenue on their own? Let's see: iLife, iWork, Mac OS X, Final Cut Pro and other pro apps, iCloud... iTunes music, movies, TV shows, and other content... iBooks... Apple Maps, Siri...

So why does Apple keep doing anything of these things, if they're each not at least $10 billion businesses?

Obviously it's because they add value to Apple's other products.

What would an Apple smart watch on its own be useful for, without being connected to an iPhone, iPad, Mac, or other Apple device? Probably only about two things: Telling time and playing music like a last-generation iPod Nano in a wristband.

So the value in a hypothetical "iWatch" is not that it would be so useful on its own, but that it increases or improves the usefulness of your other Apple products, in particular the iPhone. The point at which a smart watch becomes a viable product for Apple is where it's expected to increase sales of iPhones, iPads, etc. a significant amount.

Finally, while the revenues from an Apple smart watch may never amount to a whole lot on their own, it'd be easy to see them eclipsing those of several other current Apple hardware products, like the still-in-production iPod Classic, the iPod Shuffle, keyboards, trackpads, mice, cables, other accessories, etc. It wouldn't even be hard to imagine it might get up to the current level of Apple's "beloved hobby," the Apple TV.

[Crow]

I think those who scoff stumble over the word "watch". A so-called iWatch would be simply a watch in the same manner your iPhone is simply a phone.

[lwdesign]

My wife came up with an interesting idea that there are basically two kinds of people: Those that make more of you, and those who make less of you. That also applies to tech "journalism". There are some authors who simply can't wait to find fault with Apple and their products. They're so impatient to start spewing their particular brand of negativity that they have to tell all of us that a product THAT MAY NOT ACTUALLY EXIST will fail miserably and be Apple's downfall, finally...eventually... er, see, we told you some day it would happen!

It's about as annoying as the kid who screams "Mommy, mommy, watch me, watch me!" at the top of his lungs at the public swimming pool. Apple has had win after win after win with its products, but these ignoramuses still keep predicting disaster at every turn, seemingly out of sheer peevishness that Apple has continued to disappoint them by thriving magnificently.

Apple's strength, of course, is in surprising everyone with products that change and disrupt for the better, lives and entire industries. Look at the computer revolution: Apple proved that a mass-market personal computer was feasible with the Apple II. Then Apple developed the first practical mass-market GUI with the Mac. Then Apple developed a practical laptop with a trackball, then a trackpad. Then Apple developed a practical mass-market music player and its ecosystem, followed by a pocketable computer/music player/phone, followed by a tablet -- and all of these were copied slavishly by competitors.

If Apple comes out with a "watch" you can be sure it will be much more than a simply a dopey iPod nano/watch with a wristband. Apple specializes in engineers and designers who come up with ideas of stuff that haven't been thought of before, or haven't been refined to usability before. Apple has never been a me-too company. Its products are finely developed engineering marvels that are actually useful and entertaining, and that help us accomplish the things we do and need each day. For example, I could get by without an iPhone/smartphone, but WITH it, I get by BETTER with apps that provide me with just about anything I need or am interested in.

A wearable computer has been a concept since 1946 when Chester Gould created Dick Tracy's 2-way wrist radio, which became a wrist tv in 1962. I'd like to see a wearable device that would connect to my various Macs, my iPhone, iPad and even my Apple iHome Controller (my fantasy product that would be built into my house and control heat, AC, TV, electricity usage, lock and unlock doors and windows, and security system. A curved screen could wrap around my wrist, giving a larger screen area without the intrusive bulk. It could be all things an iPhone is now, plus be a link to all my existing Apple products, including my TV and home as mentioned above. Even though it's a small point, having my phone on my wrist would be infinitely preferable to having to dig it out of my pocket whenever I want to take or make a call, or check the weather, or set an iCal appointment.

I can't tell you how many times I've had to struggle to get my iPhone out of my jeans pocket when I'm driving (I live in jeans). Having a wrist phone alone would be worth the price of admission, because all I'd have to do is raise it to my mouth and say "Hello?" (proximity sensor, y'know). There are so many possibilities that take a wearable computer away from being a dopey iWatch, yet the glowers-that-be with their limited imaginations can only see failure.

[AdamC]

I wonder how many journalists are told to tone down a story and how many will cave and this is one of them - the one that caved.

http://forums.applei...40#post_2279131

[SockRolid]

Some day, maybe in 30 years or so, there just might be an "iPhone sticker." It will be about the size, weight, and cost of a postage stamp (a 2013 first class stamp, that is) and it will look like a smaller version of the Apple logo sticker that Apple ships with all their current products.

The iPhone sticker could have all the features of today's iPhone 5, you'll stick it on your temple, and it will broadcast 8K 3D images right into your brain with full 64-channel Dolby® Atmos-In-Head surround sound and optional mega-bass. And you'll just "think" to Siri instead of talking to her.

I'm sure Apple has at least roughly mapped out the next 20 years of their product pipeline. And I'm sure any "wearable" computing products they ship in the next few years will be awesome. But they'll just be interim steps toward "wearably invisible" computing products.

[haldor42]

I have to admit that with Mr. Cook at the helm of Apple Inc. It seems the product cycle has quickened to a dizzying pace. I for one like to have a little time to enjoy my High Priced Apple products for a year or two before something better faster and enjoyable comes along. Months mark the upgrading cycle at Apple making buyers remorse more and more apparent.
Tim seems to be like Big Oil, squeezing every bit of cash out of the market.
Those loyal and former loyal are not going to miss anything too important these days at Apple. Like a diet, it would behoove our wallets to set aside a special date to Buy. Like once every 3 years. Then our wallets won't be so emaciated every 6 months.