Wall Street Journal:
Apple is gearing up for a strong start. People familiar with the matter said the company is asking suppliers in Asia to make five million to six million Apple Watches in the first quarter.
First quarter translates to this April through the end of June. If these numbers are correct, supply shouldn’t be an issue unless Apple sells many, many boatloads of Apple Watch.
ABI Research estimates that Apple will sell 11.8 million Apple Watches in 2015, accounting for nearly half of all wearable devices, including fitness trackers and non-Android smartwatches.
“People have left the door open for Apple. The others haven’t done a great job here yet,” said Nick Spencer, an analyst at ABI Research.
Amen to that last bit. None of the current crop knocks me out design-wise. Add to that the simple fact that no other watch will have access to the Apple Watch APIs and iOS ecosystem. No other watch will be able to play in this space.
When Apple Inc. started developing its smartwatch, executives envisioned a state-of-the-art health-monitoring device that could measure blood pressure, heart activity and stress levels, among other things, according to people familiar with the matter.
But none of those technologies made it into the much-anticipated Apple Watch, due in April. Some didn’t work reliably. Others proved too complex. And still others could have prompted unwanted regulatory oversight, these people said.
We are about to enter into the same universe of planned obsolescence as the iPhone. Unlike a traditional watch, the Apple Watch will have a shelf life. Just like the iPhone, the hardware will age as miniaturization makes its way into new areas and new components/sensors become available. The hardware will become less performant as the OS itself matures, evolves, takes advantage of new hardware.
At the same time, the healthcare industry will evolve to embrace the brave new world of wearable sensors. The logjam here (at least in the US) is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA is there to protect privacy, prevent fraud. HIPAA is necessary, but is a wall that sits between your watch/phone and your doctor.
As both sides evolve, more and more of the sensors that currently sit in your doctor’s office will make their way into your pocket and your wrist. Ultimately, this means that each successive generation of Apple Watch will render previous generations obsolete. And that fact is yet another of the many factors that distinguishes the Apple Watch from traditional timepieces.
No other watch will be able to play in this space.
ha
I’ve been thinking about the life cycle of the Apple Watch and, a regular watch. With a watch that costs several hundreds of dollars, it would be something you would want to last. For something costing several thousands, like the gold one, you’re going to be with in your rights to consider that your watch wouldn’t become obsolete in the space of 12 months.
With this, I had a deep look in to the marketing video that announced the Apple Watch and something struck me. I think the S1 may be upgradable. Apple are pitching this a quality time piece and with that, quality time pieces tend to run on Movements. The Movement in a Rolex or an Omega requires servicing to keep it functioning at it’s best. Having the ability to remove and replace the S1 with an S2 would keep people in the ecosystem and allow Apple to focus on improving the internals and then improving the sensors. A bit like the iPhone ‘s’ model; First brings in new design, ‘s’ brings in enhancements.
The Apple Watch could work the same way. V1 is the design, V1s is the newer Movement. V2 is a slimmer design and new materials, V2s is more Movement improvement.
Perhaps I’m kidding my self here, but we won’t know till it’s on our wrists. I wrote up the notes from the video here: http://www.tame-geek.co.uk/tech/apple-watch-upgradable/
Gruber already published this theory, so you’re in good company.
http://daringfireball.net/2014/09/apple_watch
Just to clarify, the first quarter figures are for calendar Q1 (Jan. – March) not Apple’s Q1
Given that the previous sentences define the space as one only Apple can be in API-wise, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.
Planned obsoleteness is the Apple way.
Coolers! I hadn’t seen the write up. Thanks 🙂
What’s the alternative? Stop innovating and have people say they can’t?
I don’t know that we’ll see Apple move 12 million watches in Calendar 2015, certainly NOT FY15, which ends 30 Sept. I think ten million is a better number and that will 65% Sport at $350, 33% for the stainless at $999, and 2% Edition at $4999.
The obsolescence I have trouble with. I think Apple has been shocked at iPad upgrade rates, and I think tablets have much more to offer generation over generation than a watch would (although that totally depends on sensor/software integration and improvement). Part of me says there HAS to be some kind of logic-capsule upgrade where for a significant, but not deal-breaking fee you can get new brains for your watch every year without buying a new watch. But then the logistics/mechanics/economics of that are all totally counter the Apple way. I just don’t know. Maybe the watch will be on a 2-year development cycle with upgrades expected every four years?
I wouldn’t place a bet either way.
Well, if I had to, I’d bet against the first version being upgradable. But it might be something they add later.
‘Planned obsolescence’ is a very specific term, meaning a very specific thing: using subpar components to deliberately limit the life expectancy of a device.
Building a device with the components currently available in sufficient quality and quantity is not planned obsolescence, it is just the only thing that can be done at all.
Of course there will be better Apple Watches in the future. But first generation models won’t sell for up to 2 million USD like some Geneva timepieces either.
Agreed. Planned obsolescence is one of those terms that it seems the press just don’t understand.
The funny thing is, you could easily make the case that what Apple does is the opposite of planned obsolescence. The Mac that I bought 4 years ago not only still works fine but has actually improved with subsequent software updates. The same will likely be true of the watch: a year in its OS will be updated and no doubt will gain new features. That watch won’t be obsolete; it will still work just as well as, if not better than the day it left the store.
Rumors are that Apple plans to weigh individual watches for gold content. If that’s true, they must be able to separate the solid gold chassis from the other components. It seems a small step from there to being able to upgrade the “movement” of the watch.
The profit margins on the gold version will be extraordinarily high even for Apple. Perhaps they will include 1 or 2 “free” upgrades for the gold version only? We’ll find out in a month or so.
The WSJ’s online presence is F***ed
Passwords are case sensitive
Passwords must be between 5 and 15 characters in length
Passwords may not contain symbols, punctuation marks or spaces.
WTF?
The way it’s phrased concludes that “None of the current crop knocks me out design-wise” and that “No other watch will be able to play in this space.”
Phrasing.
I feel dumb, because I still don’t know what you’re talking about.
Doesn’t really matter, haha
Compared to what? Dirt-cheap commodity Dells that last two years if you’re lucky?
The obsolescence thing is why I don’t believe any Apple Watch will cost much more than $1,000. Everyone thinks the gold watch will cost thousands. Gold is not a significant expense when it comes to objects like this. A watch with 18K gold will have about $100-$150 worth of gold in it. How much more could it cost for the innards?
The gold on a watch is only a few microns thick. A watch made of gold would be bent out of shape within a few weeks. Gold watches are plated, not solid.
No, but saying crazy things about Apple is rather common.
Perhaps someone more knowledgable can confirm, but I’m pretty sure the case is solid 18-karat gold. It’s not plated.
You are cherry picking “phrases” to make a (weak) point about how Dave Mark is Apple biased. The point is weak because you are misconstruing, either by being deliberately obtuse or genuinely misunderstanding, what Dave is saying.
Dave Mark wrote:
“Add to that the simple fact that no other watch will have access to the Apple Watch APIs and iOS ecosystem. No other watch will be able to play in this space.”
Dave is saying IN ADDITION to the fact that none of the current crop knocks him out design-wise that none of the Android watches will (obviously) be able to play in the iOS space.
Like Drew said, this is not gold plate.
It’s also not pure (fine) gold, because you’re quite right about that – pure gold is far too soft for jewelry, especially watches.
(You can, if you have hard fingernails, scratch fine gold with your bare hands.)
But 14-20kt gold, in the right alloys, can be plenty sturdy enough for a watch; and IIRC Apple made a big deal about its special alloys for the gold Apple Watch.
(A $10k Breitling or $33k Rolex ain’t gold-plate.)
No more than every computer or phone is “planned” in that “better ones will rapidly make it unappealing”.
An Apple Watch is likely to still be operable in 10 or 20 years*, if you replace the battery a few times; and that’s an unavoidable side effect of … every available battery technology.
(* It’s possible it might need maintenance for the knob or the watchface or the like, true.
Just like … a non-computerized watch.)
$150?
Gold is $1200 an ounce as of today (and that’s bullion prices, mind you, for raw metal).
18K gold is 3/4 pure; so $900 an ounce just for the metal [assuming the alloy is free] – and gold is very dense.
The chassis for an Apple Watch will have to have at least a full ounce of metal, de minimus.
(BGR estimates 35 grams, which seems plausible. That’s over an ounce.
I don’t normally trust BGR without a pinch of salt, but that particular analysis is sensible.)
Looking forward to both the puff pieces and hatchet jobs we’ll be seeing when this device becomes available. /s
No.
“Amen to that last bit. None of the current crop knocks me out design-wise. Add to that the simple fact that no other watch will have access to the Apple Watch APIs and iOS ecosystem. No other watch will be able to play in this space.”
His major statement is “none of the current crop knocks me out design-wise” He “added” that nobody else can make an ios watch. “This space” based on how it was phrased is literally the smart watch space.