Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple's iWatch Could Come With IOS, Earn $6 Billion a Year

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the better-than-a-swatch dept.

Google 327

Nerval's Lobster writes "Apple's long-rumored "iWatch" could earn the company $6 billion a year, if an analyst quoted by Bloomberg proves correct. Citigroup analyst Oliver Chen estimated the global watch industry's annual revenue at $60 billion a year, with gross margins of roughly 60 percent. "This can be a $6 billion opportunity for Apple, with plenty of opportunity for upside if they create something totally new like they did with the iPod," he told the newswire, "something consumers didn't even know they needed." Meanwhile, The Verge reports that Apple has " chosen to rework the full iOS to run on the watch instead of building up the iPod nano's proprietary touch operating system," which has led to battery issues: while Apple would like the device to last "at least 4-5 days" between charges, the current prototypes give somewhat less. While an "Apple TV" long dominated the rumor mill as Apple's next big product, the frequency and detail of "iWatch" rumors over the past few weeks suggests that a timepiece could be the company's next big project."

cancel ×

327 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What time is it? (-1, Offtopic)

diarrhea-uh-uh (1373577) | about a year ago | (#43071665)

Time for me to be the first commenter! (I was able to determine that without an iWatch.)

Re:What time is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071907)

I don't know what time it is... I have an iWatch.. it does lots of cool shit... but doesnt really tell the time.

Re:What time is it? (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43072013)

don't worry, your comment is about as valid as the article's magic math.

Basically: let's come up with a value for a market
and then: let's imagine apple getting 10% of that market. Forget costs, forget how they get to 10% or how long it takes them to get there. Let's just magic that they do.

cause/reality/logic? None of the three exist. Possibly the dumbest people on businesswatch aside from everyone else at businesswatch.

Re:What time is it? (2)

mspohr (589790) | about a year ago | (#43072207)

Back when I had a company, I hired a marketing guy who used this magic math. He'd come up with a huge number for the total market size and then tell me that we could capture x% of the market. He also was big on "hockey stick" sales graphs which predicted exponential sales increases "real soon now".
No clue on actually how to do that though... the guy was a psychopathic liar and nothing he ever said worked out.

Re:What time is it? (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about a year ago | (#43072315)

Most likely, Apple will have 100% of the market. Just like they did when they introduced the iPad and no real competition for almost two full years. From this perspective, the analyst isn't that far off. I must say, analysts may generally underestimate Apple. This one is a little bold. The iWatch might in fact turn out to be a dud.

Hey... kid... (0)

Ashenkase (2008188) | about a year ago | (#43071671)

wanna buy a watch?

Re:Hey... kid... (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | about a year ago | (#43071867)

Kids don't know what the purpose of watches are anymore, they're much more likely to use a mobile phone. It might work (a smaller package than a phone), but i suspect it's more likely to lead to a spate of muggings every summer.

Re:Hey... kid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43072185)

Isn't it easier to snatch a phone out of someone's hands than to grab a watch from their wrist?

Not sure whether I'd want one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071681)

but I'd put it far ahead of me wanting to wear e-goggles.

Re:Not sure whether I'd want one (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year ago | (#43071781)

E-monocles, e-goggles, and e-stopwatches. Its becoming very e-steam-punk up in here.

Re:Not sure whether I'd want one (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071883)

E-monocles

Like an E-Sir.

Re:Not sure whether I'd want one (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#43072009)

E-monocle

For even more pretension, and less function, try an e-lorgnette [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Not sure whether I'd want one (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071791)

Re-treading old territory versus hazarding new is precisely why GOOG is sitting at nearly twice per share as AAPL. Glass may be goofy, but it's different and ballsy. Wrist & smartwatches are old hat; been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt.

Re:Not sure whether I'd want one (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#43071935)

You might want to learn the difference between share price and market cap. For example, BRK-A is $152,742/share, GOOG is $821/share, and APPL is $420/share. But BRK-A's market cap is $250 billion, GOOG's market cap is $270 billion, and APPL's market cap is $397 billion.

Re:Not sure whether I'd want one (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#43072253)

I'm sick and tired of arguing with idiots about that. This is not really that difficult a concept...

Great, but what does it *DO*? (4, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#43071687)

Aside from the fact that the Apple logo alone will have people lined up outside of Apple stores across the country to buy this thin, I'm inclined to ask what this watch actually DOES (aside from the obvious "tells time").

The screen is going to be way too small to type on. And if Apple claims that Siri won't run on even older iPhones, it seems unlikely that it's going to run on this watch. So that leaves only the simplest of input options.

And the screen is going to be crazy small for much output, not that it will have much CPU or memory to do much anyway (unless the form factor is HUGE).

The only thing I can figure is that this is going to be a blutooth front-end for an iPhone, but in that case, having a full iOS install seems like overkill.

Has anyone actually seen a working prototype of this thing in action, who could maybe clue us in?

Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#43071795)

Almost all of the Siri processing is done at Apple's data center. Older iphones can be hacked to work with Siri but newer iPhones haves better DSP and noise cancellation. A hypothetical iWatch could have Siri, IF it had internet connectivity (native or bridged to your iPhone).

Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (4, Funny)

PoliTech (998983) | about a year ago | (#43071897)

The AppleCo iPIP (Personal Information Processor) is an electronic device manufactured by AppleCo, using ultra-modern super-deluxe resolution graphics, which coupled with its capability to store large amounts of information and transfer data to and from holodisks and from data tubes make it the obvious choice for the wandering explorer, the out-on-his-own newbie or the all-around survivalist expert.

It displays information in bright green on its black 5" x 3" screen. It can record sound and video footage for later playback. It uses a simple but elegant form of sonar and satellite tracking (where service is available) to map out areas where its user travels. Though input is slow, a user can also hand-enter and edit text messages on their iPip

The AppleCo iPIP also has a built-in radio and Geiger Counter, a built-in health monitor, motion sensor, and a unique program creating and editing tool, a light that illuminates the area around the user, (allowing them to see better in the dark), and also features a biometric lock that can only be opened by either the user or a skilled technician.

Coming soon! The AppleCo iPIP-Pad is an experimental tablet-sized version of the AppleCo iPIP series.

Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#43071965)

I'll wait for the iPIP 2, which is rumored to have inventory cataloging too.

Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (3, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43071955)

Aside from the fact that the Apple logo alone will have people lined up outside of Apple stores across the country to buy this thin, I'm inclined to ask what this watch actually DOES (aside from the obvious "tells time").

I can tell you one thing it doesn't do, as of this writing:

Exist.

Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (1)

mspohr (589790) | about a year ago | (#43072221)

I probably doesn't do a very good job of actually keeping time, either.

Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#43072291)

Apparently, lots of people believe it does, in a lab... Does that count?

It'll be one of those retro-active existence I guess...

Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (1)

JeanCroix (99825) | about a year ago | (#43071971)

And the screen is going to be crazy small for much output

You can bet that won't stop them from including HD for the iWatch 2, though. All glorious 1.5" of it. For use with iCokebottleglasses.

Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#43071985)

With Super-Duper Ultra-Retina(tm) display technology?

Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43072093)

biometric device to keep track of your pulse, blood pressure. why buy the single use devices from the drug store?
bike computer for biking
the functions of the Nike fuelband and similar devices
remote control for iphone while you are running/biking to skip songs, change playlist, etc

it will probably be for people who see the light of day outside of cold basements and 24x7 staring at computer screens

Re:Great, but what does it *DO*? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43072317)

"Do"? What do you mean, what does it "do"? It's a device. By APPLE. What it DOES is exist and bring Apple $6B a year*. So get in line. NOW. You wouldn't want to be laughed at like all those Android schmucks were when that crappy G1 was released, right? They'll NEVER live down the shame of getting an Android phone, not even in four years! Man, they're so behind the times.

*: Figures promised by right of Analyst Predictuarantee, which differs from pulling numbers out of their asses by the fact that Predictuarantees are legally binding; therefore, any disadvantageous difference in this value and reality is a felony and customers WILL be arrested and brought to trial until the situation is corrected.

"totally new like the ipod" (4, Insightful)

sneezinglion (771733) | about a year ago | (#43071695)

Say what? Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?

I suppose you could say the design of the case was new, but MP3 players were out before the iPod.

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43071753)

As in it will be marketed like crazy, overpriced to make it seem "high tech", and almost no one in the media will give it the legitimate criticism it deserves for being a copycat?

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071821)

The generic MP3 player is just a solid-state version of the Sony Walkman. The Stereobelt, ancestor of the Sony Walkman, was new. In my opinion, there's been nothing particularly novel about any of the derivatives.

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (4, Insightful)

SilentStaid (1474575) | about a year ago | (#43071939)

Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?

It worked out of the box, as intended and easily for everyone from soccer moms to geeks and everything in between. It looked slick, the marketing campaign was tight and most importantly it fulfilled the needs of 'the majority' of consumers better than any other product on the market. Bash Apple all you want, but if you deny that I'd assume you're being deliberately obtuse.

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (1)

sneezinglion (771733) | about a year ago | (#43071975)

Nope. Not obtuse at all.

It was a great product, but it was not "totally new".

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43072107)

It was "totally new" in terms of being the first commercially viable product of its kind. There were flash-based players that held a few songs, laptop-drive based players that held more music but were not pocketable, and even MP3-capable CD players with the same problem. And then there was the issue of connectivity - the iPod used a much faster 1394 connection which made it feasible to sync. Even the similarly-sized Toshiba that came out shortly after the iPod - using the same drive - used a horrid DRM that made the device extremely painful to use. It was not a new idea, but then neither was the first airplane, telephone, or lightbulb.

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43072033)

Fanbuy, huh?

There were plenty of easy to use mp3 players out there. Many of them didn't need the bloatware called iTunes since they acted as a generic storage device. Not sure which is easier for soccer-moms, but iTunes is not the quickest way to get music on a player. About the only thing in your list that is possibly true is the slick look of the device, but that is subjective. I would at least have mentioned that typically the iPod had a better SNR than many (but not all) of its rivals. But in a world of 129kb mp3's (yesterday) and Youtube to mp3 conversion (today) that may have been (or not be) too important.

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43072247)

The iPod's media management system revolved around "songs" and "albums" rather than "files" and "folders". This abstracted away a layer of complexity that typical users were uninterested in, greatly increasing the ease of use.

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (1)

Daetrin (576516) | about a year ago | (#43072177)

Okay, i just recently defended Jobs as being a brilliant marketer, a douchebag, but a brilliant marketer. So as much as i hate Apple i'm willing to give them credit where credit is due. And yes, making an "easy to use" "slick" device with a good marketing campaign is a GREAT business strategy. However that does not make the device in question totally new. Many companies have benefited from Second mover advantage [wikipedia.org] . All of them did a great job of taking a product that already existed, ironing out the bugs, adding some basic improvements, and selling it well.

There already exist Android watches, and watch add-ons for Android smartphones. The only novel thing about the iWatch that i've heard so far, if it's true, is the use of a flexible screen to make it in the form of a slap bracelet. But slap bracelets have been around since the 80s and slap bracelet watches have been around for awhile too. If slap bracelet watches already exist, and smart watches already exist, combining the two may be cool, but i'm not entirely sure it's novel. Even so i think it would be more innovation than went into the iPod (again, if it's true.)

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43072203)

It worked out of the box

Not really. You had to install iTunes and connect it to a Firewire port. Then you had to carefully tag all your music because it didn't understand directories and file names.

There were better products on the market, but no-one could match the Apple hype machine.

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071961)

The design of the iPod or most apple products is definately not new , most of their products are based on 1960s tech. http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (1)

avandesande (143899) | about a year ago | (#43072037)

The vendor lock-in with ITunes is what was new....

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43072115)

Say what? Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?

It bucked the trends in major ways.

Unless I'm wearing revisionist sunglasses, by 2001 it was fairly common that you could put music onto a player simply by mounting it and copying files to it. Or remove music by mounting and deleting. If I recall, some players (I remember one I got from 2003, though that's two years after the iPod) had an extra semi-cumbersome step where you had to tell it to re-scan the directories, but other than that, music players were normally Easy to work with.

The iPod introduced the idea of only being able to use a single proprietary application, which required Mac OS (I think it may have become available on Windows too since then, but that's it) and you had to do a bizarre "syncing" operation. In 2001 no one but Apple could have predicted that users would tolerate anything so hostilec and counter-intuitive, but Apple wisely knew that people will do anything you ask them to do. That was a serious innovation, and without it, lots of things we take for granted today (e.g., unskippable ads on Blu Ray discs, "app stores," and other retrotechs) would not be around now.

The iPod was, for many people, the genesis of "fuck you" computing. They might not have invented it, but they were among the very first in a truly mass market, so in a virtual sense, they paved the way.

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (1)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year ago | (#43072121)

Say what? Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?

I suppose you could say the design of the case was new, but MP3 players were out before the iPod.

The interface and simplicity were new especially after they launched iTunes, I have a love hate relationship with iTunes. MP3s were really just solid state cassette players. iPods do have a different feel. In truth I never owned one until the Touches came out. 50% for me was being able to play movies. Watching my own choice of movie changed flying for me. The watch is risky. It's a little like when they started seeing how small they could make calculators. They hit insanity with calculator pens that needed a stylus so once you lost the stylus you found yourself hunting for toothpicks. They were a flop. A touch interface watch seems a little insane. They are talking about a wraparound screen so it's a little more the size of the smallest iPods for screen size. I'd have zero interest and tend to think they'll flop. Then again I thought the iPads would flop since all they are is an oversized Touch. Also the Nano watchband did really well on Kickstarter so there is a change they'd be a hit. 6 billion seems like a pipe dream though.

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (2)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year ago | (#43072271)

Say what? Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?

I suppose you could say the design of the case was new, but MP3 players were out before the iPod.

Seeing as how I was looking for an MP3 player at the time I'd say that's simple. Firstly the iPod had a proper interface, not some crappy LCD screen where you could hardly see more than the first few letters of the track name or simply no display at all just a set of buttons. Secondly it had storage space, lots and lots and lots of storage space. Competing players that were generally available where I was living at the time could hardly handle more than a few CDs. With the iPod had 5 and 10GB you could rip your entire CD collection and store it on one device that fitted in your pocket. At the time there was nothing like the iPod. The iPod did for music players what the 707 did for commercial aviation. There were many airliners before the 707 in lots of different sizes, shapes and configurations, but the 707 redefined the concept so thoroughly and so successfully that all modern airliners look bear a distinct family resemblance to the 707 to this day.

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#43072287)

Important relative to entry into the watch market, one new thing about the original iPod was convincing a large portion of the population to consider a $300 portable music player a must-have accessory (when previously a $100 CD-walkman was a stretch). Apple entering the watch market could mean that a whole lot of people --- who previously wore no watch, or a $30 Casio --- would start thinking it was "normal" to spend $250 on a watch that they will throw away in a few years for a newer model.

Re:"totally new like the ipod" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43072303)

I don't know. What exactly will be new about this iWatch? You want a smartphone watch there is already this [ebay.co.uk] or there is the "I'm Watch" which supposedly runs Android, though it is designed to be paired with a smartphone rather than be a smartphone in itself. I'm sure what they actually mean by "totally new like the ipod" is a more marketable version of something that is already available.

P.S. I'm aware of the Pebble smartwatch, but didn't mention it because AFAIK it doesn't run Android (or any other smartphone OS), but Apple's rumoured watch is rumoured to run a version of its smartphone OS.

Watch wearing is a declining trend (2)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year ago | (#43071703)

w/ an ever-increasing number of people just pulling out their cell phones as a latter-day pocketwatch.

Not sure what functionality Apple can come up w/ to reverse this --- I really can't see people doing the Dick Tracy thing....

Re:Watch wearing is a declining trend (3, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#43071851)

Ever seen a hot chick with tight pants? Or a hipster with tight pants? Yeah, they need to lube up their pockets to get anything in and need the jaws of life to get anything out.

Re:Watch wearing is a declining trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071853)

I don't want a smart phone, not all of the time anyway. It's getting harder to find just a phone. Maybe that's where this comes in. I would be very cool if I could have a wristwatch phone when I'm doing something that causes things to fall out of my pocket, like bike riding, motorcycling, skiing, whatever. But when I'm done, it would be just as nice to be able to take that wristwatch phone and plug into an iPod touch and have it act like an iPhone.

It will be really interesting to see how Apple changes their interface to accommodate such a small form factor.

Re:Watch wearing is a declining trend (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about a year ago | (#43071871)

I feel the same way about the Dick Tracy thing. Seems to me the google glass would be a better "next thing". I think I would rather have smart technology moved into my glasses, also I don't wear a watch.

Re:Watch wearing is a declining trend (3, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#43071893)

Came to say this.

What we need is an iPocketwatch. Make it fit into old gold watch cases and work as a cell phone.

I wouldn't buy one, but every suit in the world would be all over it. Hipsters perhaps, depends on how that herd stampedes next.

very uncertain conversion (5, Insightful)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about a year ago | (#43071711)

I'm not sure how well traditional watch sales would convert to iWatch sales. traditional watches are really more of a jewelry piece, not a highly functional device, they just happen to have a couple of functions. At the same time, it is very much not clear if iWatch devices would cannibalize iPad/iPod/Iphone sales. To just estimate $6 billion of sales at a product we don't even know if its real sounds like analysts trying to pump up AAPL share price.

Re:very uncertain conversion (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43071905)

Honestly, it seems like the 'analyst' pulled the number straight out of his ass even by financial analyst standards.

Aside from the problem you note(today's watch spending is heavily skewed toward overpriced jewelry and 1$ quartz cheapies by the metric ton, which doesn't tell you how big the market for a 'far more expensive than a cheapie, far more powerful and less purely aesthetic than jewelry' product would be), why the focus on revenue?

Apple doesn't give a damn about revenue, never has, they care about profit(so, theoretically, do all for-profit corporations; but Apple is particularly aggressive about simply ignoring segments whose margins don't excite them).

In terms of Apple's ability to make a profit on watches, today's watch market tells us essentially nothing: the cheap seats tell us nothing because Apple would never hit those price points, the expensive seats tell us nothing because Apple doesn't do jewelry. As it stands, the market for 'smart watches' is vanishingly small, almost wholly irrelevant to the watch market generally.

Re:very uncertain conversion (0)

mcmonkey (96054) | about a year ago | (#43072047)

Apple doesn't do jewelry.

o_O

Apple doesn't do precious metals and gem stones, but Apple certainly does fashion accessories, aka jewelry.

Re:very uncertain conversion (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43072243)

Jewelry is a type of fashion accessory; but the design and production of fashion accessories is a much larger, more varied, and in many cases quite a bit of a different matter than the production of jewelry. The two are hardly identical.

Re:very uncertain conversion (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about a year ago | (#43072147)

>Honestly, it seems like the 'analyst' pulled the number straight out of his ass even by financial analyst standards.

Came in here to say this.

Re:very uncertain conversion (2, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43072259)

traditional watches are really more of a jewelry piece

iDevices are to some extent jewellery too. All the way back to the white headphones that came with the original iPod and all the posers with their original iPhones or talking to Siri in Starbucks.

Come On! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071717)

(Posting AC because I'm at work)

Look, I'm a huge Apple fanboy, believe me, but come on! We're posting articles from FINANCIAL ANALYSTS now? When these nimrods have something valuable to say, it'll already have been old news for several months. His entire job is built on speculation and generating (or deflating) interest in a company. He does NOTHING OF VALUE! And we're going to put stock in his thoughts?

Come on. I know the Slashdot of yesteryear is gone and dead but let's not post commentary from financial analysts, even if it is about Apple.

Re:Come On! (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | about a year ago | (#43072277)

And we're going to put stock in his thoughts?

It's all about increasing his shares...

What kind of astrotrash is this? (1, Insightful)

Pecisk (688001) | about a year ago | (#43071727)

iWatch? 6 billions a year? I mean, seriously? Or is it some crazy Apple shareholder wanting to jump a ship and spamming like crazy all channels to get price up "back where it belongs"?

Apple is history as supergrowth company. Niche products. No amount of hype will save it from fall. And this show screwed logic of public companies in US - it's all about "supergrowth", not profit.

Re:What kind of astrotrash is this? (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43071769)

Apple has always been a marketing company that happened to make some electronics to sell. This is precisely normal for them.

Re:What kind of astrotrash is this? (1)

bmimatt (1021295) | about a year ago | (#43071857)

... or a design company.  It's design that they sell it seems.  I'll stick to my automatic, thank you very much.

Re:What kind of astrotrash is this? (1)

MrMickS (568778) | about a year ago | (#43072063)

I remember when Apple was a computer company. In fact, its only recently that they've been anything but. They have used advertising well, but so did everyone else. This 'all Apple is a marketing company' is getting rather trite and over used.

Re:What kind of astrotrash is this? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#43071823)

Vaporware product could make vaporware profits.

Re:What kind of astrotrash is this? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#43071915)

Share value from present valuing vapor profits is, sometimes, not vapor.

Re:What kind of astrotrash is this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43072215)

I can tell by your user ID that you're already old enough to know the answer to the question you just asked.

You know that "news for nerds, stuff that matters" slogan? That shit died out in the early 2000's. What Slashdot is now is the collective jizz rag of every tech company in the business. I mean think about it. This article, the one you posted on, actually puts a dollar figure on the amount a product Apple might not even have fucking BUILT yet. It's complete trite, utter nonsense, it offers no new information. What is it, then?

It's a bunch of hand-waving and carrot-dangling for investors. As you may have reddit...*cough* read on another site, every time Tim Cook has spoken to the media in his new position as Apple's dictator, Apple's stock has dropped. Every. Single. Time. When Steve Jobs spoke people practically grovelled at his feet, analyzing every frame of video to see if his health had improved or worsened -- he could literally make a product up on the spot and people would have been throwing money at him left, right and center to get it made...because if it did, the stock they also bought would go through the roof. The problem is that Apple hasn't had a product explode like the iPod in years. Apple and the stockholders simply don't trust Tim Cook, they don't think he's capable of the same sort of innovation, they don't think he's as ruthless about suing competitors out of existence. Tim Cook seriously needs some buzz, a product developed under his rule that puts Apple back at the forefront, or at the very least, a few steps ahead of Samsung. Problem is, as I've mentioned, no one is particularly keen on Cook's ideas, particularly not Apple investors.

What better way to attract investors than to start injecting rumours to paid lackeys like Slashdot editors of a product that could potentially outshadow the iPod? Let the investors think that Apple is about to pull another rabbit out of a hat and cash in, so that they actually have the capital to build the thing? It's the essence of vapour-ware, exactly how that term is meant to function in the real world -- "suggest" a product, hype it up, hope the money rolls in, develop said product.

It's "astrotrash" pure and simple -- what confuses me is this. You're certainly aware of that yourself, so why the FUCK would you keep coming to this site in the first place? You think calling the editors out is going to make a difference? They've already got their check. Maybe, just maybe, instead of spending your time lamenting how Slashdot has gone down the toilet, you might want to consider leaving altogether. Slashdot is a marketing entity and they need viewership to survive. If you're coming back here on the hopes that it won't be a complete mess of thinly veiled advertisments, you're no better than the "clever" folk who think that their witty responses to trolls will somehow wipe them off the comments section.

The iWatch (you)... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071735)

...is worth $6 billion?

Meh.

Screens Getting Smaller and Bigger? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071739)

Why is it that at a time when cellphone screens are getting increasingly bigger, there's a focus on smaller screens for a watch?

Re:Screens Getting Smaller and Bigger? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071887)

You could always go all Flavor flav and where an ipad around your neck.

ipad necklace [google.com]

Does anyone use watches anymore? (1)

concealment (2447304) | about a year ago | (#43071759)

This could be really cool if they were able to pack the functions of an iPhone into a stylish looking watch.

However, until they've got the tech that well established, it's going to be a hard sell for most of us: we replaced our watches will cell phones and, in the interest of not carrying duplicate expensive devices, rely on the phone exclusively to tell time.

Re:Does anyone use watches anymore? (4, Insightful)

tyrione (134248) | about a year ago | (#43071793)

This could be really cool if they were able to pack the functions of an iPhone into a stylish looking watch.

However, until they've got the tech that well established, it's going to be a hard sell for most of us: we replaced our watches will cell phones and, in the interest of not carrying duplicate expensive devices, rely on the phone exclusively to tell time.

Watch sales are nearly $20 Billion, annually, so yes, ``someone still uses a fucking watch.'' http://www.fhs.ch/en/statistics.php [www.fhs.ch]

Re:Does anyone use watches anymore? (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#43071855)

Yeah, but most of that comes from one sale of the $15 billion "Rolex God" to a Saudi prince.

Re:Does anyone use watches anymore? (1)

Pecisk (688001) | about a year ago | (#43071951)

Most of them I would believe are either status symbol for elegant and rich people, or are presents which no one wears actually. iWatch don't fall in either of these categories.

General public have really abandoned watches.

I love watches, but won't get this (3, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year ago | (#43071761)

I love watches: mostly purely mechanical (automatic) watches. I have a couple of them: ranging from hundreds of dollars to $2,000. I think they're great, and love the mechanical nature. I have a couple of digital ones because I think they're neat, but I don't wear them that often. The digitals are also cheap so when I wear them when I travel or something.

That being said: I can't imagine myself getting this one. Sure, on one hand I guess it's interesting... but no.

As it stands, a watch is pretty much just jewelry now-a-days... clocks are everywhere and most of us already have cellphones to check the time. Now to put an iOS device on your wrist instead of your pocket. No thanks.

I mean, I could see wanting to get the Google Goggles more than this thing and THAT's saying something.

Re:I love watches, but won't get this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43072061)

I echo this. I only wear a watch if I'm out on a road trip or in the wilderness, because I can't be bothered to care about phone calls or keeping anything charged. In a watch I want simplicity and relative certainty that it will work for a few days/weeks/months without needing any other infrastructure, including electricity.

The only market which will buy this initially are the Apple religious nuts who consume everything hoping it will increase the size of their metaphorical dicks/boobs.

Put another way... (1, Interesting)

kenh (9056) | about a year ago | (#43071773)

If every number I made up turns out to be true, this product I know nothing about could represent $6BN in revenue for Apple.

Seriously, it's speculation built on top of more speculation... Oh, wait, it's slashdot, never mind.

Battery issue is a simple fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071779)

Just make strap out of a flexible polymer battery [infoniac.com] - problem solved.

But will it.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071785)

A)Blend

B)Last as long as my Citizen Eco-Drive?

Re:But will it.... (1)

MatrixCubed (583402) | about a year ago | (#43072217)

C) Run Linux?

Microsoft tried this several times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071803)

This is going to be a colossal failure. Hipsters and teenagers are not a big enough market to sell wireless watches to.

Re:Microsoft tried this several times (1)

avandesande (143899) | about a year ago | (#43072099)

An issue I have with the financial analysis is that there is a 20B market for watches out there. Just a guess but probably older and more conservative people buy watches now. They aren't going to sell this to them- they have to depend on a fad to develop with teenagers/hipsters for this thing...

If you didn't know you need it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071807)

You most likely still don't need it.

I'm sorry IBM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071827)

A little off topic here, but this Elizabeth Stahl chick has GOT to go on the advert on the right hand side of the page.. "She" honestly drives me away from your products. Everytime I see her mug I think "wow, with all the money you have that's the BEST looking female engineer you could come up with?"..

apple lemmings (1)

Sterculius (2856655) | about a year ago | (#43071829)

I don't think there are enough Apple lemmings (people who buy anything with the apple logo) to generate $6 billion ... but I've underestimated them before. Maybe by next year kids will be watching YouTube vids on their iWatch. Maybe then Apple can sell iGlasses to salvage their damaged vision, or an iMagnifyingGlass so that even the aging hippies can watch tiny porn.

watches are jewelry (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071833)

Watches are actually jewelry. People wear them for status, for how they look. Can the Apple esthetic complete in that market? Style and status has been effective for Apple but they are competing against folks who are a lot better at it then Microsoft and Nokia.

Can it really have some features where I going to wear a watch for the features in addition to carrying the smartphone?

D.O.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071841)

"Apple would like the device to last "at least 4-5 days" between charges, the current prototypes give somewhat less."

One of the big selling points for watches is that they virtually never need a battery replacement. And those that do require frequent recharge (think old wind-up watches) can be charged up in virtually no time and without plugging in. For the average user, the watch is on the wrist for virtually all waking hours. No-one is going to want to buy a watch that is rendered useless because they forgot to plug it in before going to bed, and they don't have the time to charge it the next morning.

Re:D.O.A. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#43071979)

This class of devices screams for an ambient light, back solar celled, display technology. Until they've got that, they should stop. To keep from embarrassing themselves.

Re:D.O.A. (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year ago | (#43072213)

This class of devices screams for an ambient light, back solar celled, display technology. Until they've got that, they should stop. To keep from embarrassing themselves.

My guess is that it will use some form of high-resolution eInk display. LCD is too pedestrian for Apple and not groundbreaking enough.

Re:D.O.A. (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year ago | (#43072167)

"Apple would like the device to last "at least 4-5 days" between charges, the current prototypes give somewhat less."

One of the big selling points for watches is that they virtually never need a battery replacement. And those that do require frequent recharge (think old wind-up watches) can be charged up in virtually no time and without plugging in. For the average user, the watch is on the wrist for virtually all waking hours. No-one is going to want to buy a watch that is rendered useless because they forgot to plug it in before going to bed, and they don't have the time to charge it the next morning.

I'm certain it will have wireless charging, so as long as you take it off at night and put it on your bedside stand, it will be charged for the next day.

Some people still buy mechanical wind-up watches, so a watch that needs to be placed on a charging mat doesn't sound that bad.

Exercise Watch Potential (4, Interesting)

getto man d (619850) | about a year ago | (#43071849)

Definitely something for the atypical slashdotter, but if Apple can bring something to the market which combines iOS, the Nike+t [nike.com] , the Fit Bit [fitbit.com] , and/or the Suunto Core [suunto.com] they could potentially capture a good portion of the exercise watch / band market. Current options aren't truly versatile (e.g. hiking, running, backpacking, daily activity), but combine this with Apple's UI and they could produce a very interesting product that I'm likely to try.

Yes, I've looked at Motorola's GPS watches and was far from impressed.

Who is going to buy this? (2, Interesting)

TheRedDuke (1734262) | about a year ago | (#43071909)

I have a watch already. It's called a smartphone.
I have a device that runs apps already. It's called a smartphone.
I have a device with Bluetooth for my headphones. It's called a smartphone.
etc. etc.

I have a music player already, it's called a walkm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43072025)

And not too long ago:

I have a music player already, it's called a walkman (or discman if you prefer).
I have a device that runs apps already, it's called a laptop.
etc.

*You* might get use out of it, you might now. Someone probably will.

Re:Who is going to buy this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43072183)

I will make a band that lets you attach your smartphone to your arm. Scratch that. I'll file a patent for such a device and let everyone else pay me. Have a device good enough to be a smartphone but small enough to use a strap? Too bad, no strap for you unless you pay.

Yeah... NO!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43071995)

So I am an apple fanboy too... And this one is just plain stupid. Kinda like the name "The New iPad"... WTF... Someone needs to be fired at Apple...

Nothing says 'I'm over 40!" like apple products (1)

elabs (2539572) | about a year ago | (#43072079)

Who wants to be seen wearing an iWatch? Ewww!

I watch (1)

fredrated (639554) | about a year ago | (#43072081)

every chance I get. Is that going to cost me now?

Not gonna win this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43072089)

Apple might have fooled the iSheep with the iPod, iPhone, and iPod. But not this time. Even those who are mentally challenged now know that intelligent people do not buy Apple products. Apple won't get away with it again. If only Steve was still around to witness it.

Who wears watches? (2)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#43072091)

Nobody wears watches anymore! We carry smartphones with time displays in our pockets. Or are those iPocketWatches?

Hmmm let's see

Step 1) Sell iPhone, with clock.
Step 2) People stop wearing wristwatches, use iPhone to tell time.
Step 3) Sell iWatch, with phone. No one carries iPhone anymore.
Step 4) Sell iPocketWatch. It's just like the iWatch, but bigger! And goes in your pocket!
Step 5) Go to step 3. Head assplodes.

Post-Jobs era (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43072111)

Just for the record, isn't this actually the first product line that Steve Jobs has had nothing to do with?

Bloomberg confirms: journalism is dying (1)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year ago | (#43072131)

/facepalm

User Interface and Interaction Models (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43072139)

The reason that the iPod took off was that funky wheel on the front. Also, the tight integration with the PC was important (back then -Less so, today).

This is all about usability and a rich user experience. That's something that Apple has absolutely mastered for decades.

It is small things. It is how a button looks "clickable," or responds after you let go of the mouse button (instead of before). It is a homogenous and rich user experience. That is why, even when competitors have more mojo in their devices or operating systems, Apple still gets more money for less bang.

This rich and COMPLETE (the "COMPLETE" part is vital) user experience is incredibly important to "Average Joes" (completely unrepresented by the SlashDot crowd). It also seems to be something that technically-proficient folks completely fail to understand. I think it's jaw-dropping. I don't know how many times I've heard folks say that "The GIMP is just as good as Adobe Photoshop, so all these users are idiots for paying Adobe.", when The GIMP was using X11. The GIMP X-Windows UX sucked golf balls through a garden hose. Now that it is native on the Mac, it stands a far better chance.

I'm assuming that Apple won't release it unless they think that it's a "game changer" for "Average Joes." Not sure what that "game changer" will be. They have certainly flubbed before (Can anybody say "Newton"?). They certainly aren't losing ten seconds of sleep over what this crowd thinks.

$6Bn? Maybe, but probably not. That's a number that was yanked out of someone's butt to achieve exactly the effect that it has: buzz.

Less space than a Nomad, no wifi,... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#43072219)

...lame?

I can see a market for these, but in this case it's not me. It would have to replace my phone to be "worth it". I wear a watch - it's a time piece, not quite jewelry. I'm particular about how my watch looks as a reflection of my style, but not in a way that is statusy. Quite the same for my phone - which does happen to be an iPhone - which I got because at the time I bought it it was easy to use, comfortable to hold and store, and had the apps I needed when other phones did not.

It seems like a solution looking for a problem. Most of the things I can imagine it being useful for require a second component. Except for basic time, weather, fb status updates, text messages, maybe a bezel mounted camera, it lacks enough screen real estate for very intensive information or touch interaction. It also lacks an elegant way to communicate via voice without a headset. I could see it as part of a suite of components - a core watch with wireless internet and connectivity, a super-slim screen linked over a wireless connection, an intra-aureal transducer (like a hearing aid) with both speaker and conduction microphone with a "release" to allow outside sounds in without removing the unit. It could be your communication hub, with the peripherals added to subtracted as you had space/desire to carry them. But that's a lot of wireless transmission for a battery which is going have to weigh no more than a few grams.

The iDevices are more and more tethered to internet based services, which means data all the time. That seems at direct odds to the cost of data in power consumption. Maybe they've found a need I just don't know about yet (aside from cool factor...for which you can already pay $500-$50,000 to put something cool on your wrist).

Here we go again.... (1)

Kittenman (971447) | about a year ago | (#43072281)

"could earn the company $6 billion a year"...

Other possible "could"s in an infinite Universe...

"could tank big-time"
"could be operated by monkeys"
"could be operated by dolphins (as it's waterproof)"

etc etc... speculation is always fun. http://xkcd.com/1158/ [xkcd.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>