Ondrej Holzman Apple often changed the established order wherever it arrived. Many expect the same now that Tim Cook is about to enter a new product category. The long-awaited introduction of the so-called wearable device is apparently behind the door, and it is most often referred to as the iWatch, a smart watch, for which, however, showing the time should only be a secondary function.
Although nothing is known for certain about Apple's new wearable product, a watch with high added value seems to be a likely option. Many competitors have already introduced their entries in this category, but everyone is waiting for Apple to show how it should be done right. And their waiting is understandable, because even though more and more different smart watches are appearing (Samsung has already managed to introduce six of them this year), none of them have yet been able to bring greater success.
[do action=”citation”]It is playing on different values and Apple has to adapt.[/do]
There are many arguments why the iWatch should have this feature and that feature in order to be successful, and on the contrary, what they should avoid if Apple wants to flood the entire market with them, similar to, for example, the iPhone or iPad. For now, Apple is perfectly guarding its strategy, but a partial recipe for a successful watch can already be found in the company's current portfolio. Many may think of the iPad or the iPhone introduced three years earlier, but the wearables segment is different. Apple should try to replicate a completely different model here and remember the now almost dead iPods.
iPods are truly at the end of their lives, and it's hard to imagine their resurrection at this point. The last time Apple introduced a new player was two years ago, and since then its inactivity in this field and financial results indicate that sooner or later we will have to say goodbye to the pioneering player. However, even before Apple definitively cuts the rope on which iPods hang, it can introduce their successful successor, which could be just as profiled, just as advertised and occupy a similar position in Apple's portfolio.
Yes, I'm talking about the iWatch. Several shapes, several colors, several price levels, different focus - this is the clear characteristic of the iPod offer, and exactly the same must be the offer of a smart apple watch. The world of watches is different from the world of phones and tablets. It plays on different values, it is selected according to different characteristics, and if Apple wants to succeed here as well, it has to adapt this time.
Watches have always been, and unless something revolutionary happens, they should continue to be primarily a fashion accessory, a lifestyle item that casually tells time. Apple can't come out with a single variant of the watch and say: here it is and now everyone buy it because it's the best. It went with the iPhone when it is common for them to have all same phone, it worked with the iPad, but the watch is a different world. It's fashion, it's a kind of expression of taste, style, personality. That's why there are big watches, small watches, round, square, analog, digital or leather or metal.
Of course, Apple can't get away with ten smart watches and start playing watch boutique, but it is precisely in the current range of iPods, which has developed over the course of ten years, that we can find a way to meet success. We see a miniature music player for every pocket, a compact player with a display, a larger player for more demanding listeners, and then a device approaching a higher class. Apple must allow exactly such a choice in the case of the iWatch. This can be in the form of more shapes, more colors, changeable straps or a combination of these and possibly other alternatives, but it is important that everyone can choose their own watch.
In recent months and years, some really great capacities from the fashion world have come to Apple, so even though Apple is venturing into a lifestyle product for the very first time, it has enough skilled people in its midst who know how to succeed in this field. Of course, the possibility of choice will not be the only factor that will decide the success or failure of the iWatch, but if Apple intends to sell its new product as a watch, it must be reckoned with.
Let's not forget, however, that we are talking about Apple here, which is perhaps the most capable of surprising. For his presentation on Tuesday, he can have a completely different strategy ready, and maybe he can sell just one watch with such a story that in the end everyone will say "I have to have this one". However, fashion is, after all, something different from the world of technology, so for Apple to connect them, the mere resolution of black, white and gold will probably not be enough.
I agree that a watch must first and foremost be a fashion accessory, otherwise it only appeals to a narrow group of geeks, for whom functionality comes first and whose fashion can handle almost anything.
I do not agree at all that the iWatch will be available in many very different models like the iPod. I'm betting that Apple will really surprise (when has Apple not surprised the rest of us?). The current concept of a watch with a circular or other body and a belt is centuries out of date and inadequate for the needs of modern devices. Its shape is always tailored and dictated by a single application – showing the time on a circular/square dial. If we replace this limited space with an LCD display, we only get miniature, poorly perceptible information, unclear navigation, and then the context is completely missing (have you seen Android Wear fully controlled in action?). It's the same with the battery, it can't fit into a small body with a long life.
As an elegant solution for wearables of the 21st century, in my opinion, the concept viz. 1st image of this article – a large display using flexible technology and a built-in flexible battery inside the entire device. If Apple manages to reduce the consumption of the display as much as possible and ensure super battery life, then it is possible to obtain a revolutionary fashion platform from the device and thus customize its appearance and fashion through downloadable skins, not outdated straps.
And here we are with Apple-style devices - a revolutionary concept, revolutionary technology, revolutionary ways of use. One mass market device for everyone, which everyone can customize according to their own fashion through software customization. From the company that brought us the Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad in short, you can't expect a classic watch with a strap. It's no coincidence that the launch of the iWatch takes place at the same place where Steve introduced the iMac. I expect nothing less than a revolution and the first word that everyone utters when looking at the iWatch will be the traditional "Wow!" - a necessary ingredient for the success of every new product category from Apple.
It's a matter of taste, but those bracelets you mentioned on the 1st screen are horrible. I don't know how they used the sensors in them, as they have to be in close contact with the wrist. So the applicability in sports would be zero. And personally, I think that this is a design mostly for women. A guy wouldn't put rings like that on his wrist.
The shortcoming of that picture is that you can't see the device in context - the hand is missing there. It then acts like a giant steamer wheel and doesn't show a natural look on the hand.
Various fashion, charity and fitness belts are also a big hit among men. Someone wears everything together. As for the fit, Apple certainly worked hard on the perfect fit (as the patents on patentlyapple.com indicate) and prepared a male and a shorter female version.
For some, it may be unusual from the beginning, like the 2007 iPhone without buttons, but a smartwatch for the 21st century simply cannot work in a body designed several centuries ago for a single time-keeping application.
Nice consideration. I agree with the author, the watch from Apple either has to be in several versions from the beginning or one, but such that everyone sits on their ass. Personally, I would take a combination of both - sit on the ass from each variant;))
As written in the article, time will be more of an additional function, i.e
when it's also not quite right, the time indicator will be one of a number of functions. In that
context, I don't know why the arrival of some iWatch is expected in the media,
when the similarity with the watch will only be that the "Ináramek" will also be
carry on hand. So I would rather expect the arrival of some "iwrist".
Personally, I don't think this product will do "something amazing"
that "they will surprise us and we don't know what" (a fountain would be "amazing"). Maybe that
mainly expected by those who buy apple things for image. I believe that vs
competition, which has not used the bracelet's potential so far and therefore does not sell much, will bring
rather a "different view" of how such a
the bracelet can be used on the hand - so rather the main benefit should be in practicality,
usability. Therefore, I rather expect a "wonderful" bracelet supplemented, for example, with various sensors
(the end of "fitness bracelets"?) + transfer of handy ones
features that better connect us to our devices and to the rest of the world.
And everything should work "amazingly" easily.
Therefore, I also think that in this case Apple
he could not inspire with what he had already created, they would "only" be transferred from the existing
some functions, but rather he had to involve a lot of thinking like "thinking out of the
box" and look for interesting connections with your products in other fields (e.g. ihealth)
What I'm a little worried about in the near future is recent recruitment
"fashion experts", i.e. a possible shift from concentration
on function to concentrate on form.
I can't help but ask how the competition hasn't used the potential yet? By that I mean, what practical functions would you add to such a device, apart from those already offered by the competition? Apparently, these devices are sold, which I wonder about myself (more like fitness bands than watches). If I want an elegant and high-quality watch - I will consider something completely different from a smartwatch. If I want a watch for sports, I will again go to specialized chronometers designed for that. I really only see this type of watch and bracelet as an extension of a mobile or other portable device. I will not even comment on what Samsung presented at IFA as a separate watch for calls, in my opinion, that is a completely wrong step. I hope for one thing about Apple, that it will be able to sell it again, because I never doubted the meaning of the tablet, but only Apple "sold" it to people in such a way that it is a natural part of our lives. He could somehow do the same in the field of wearables. The question is what and how, because I think the vision of ambient intelligence is a long way off, as well as a sufficient spread of NFC-type technologies, etc., where I see real practical use.
Just that
if Apple should come with just another "watch" (preferably an i-bracelet) what
offered by the competition, then I don't really believe that
would this move make business sense and
any "marketing frenzy" they may try around the product
unleash may end up sounding ridiculous. The bracelets are certainly selling well so far,
likewise the ipod was a blockbuster in the past, then it was integrated into the mobile and today
ipod is more in the background. Companies like
Samsung et al are trying to create a "wearables" market today, but the goods are small
added value - some fce are more pleasant to have on hand but on the other hand, it is big
added value for me to invest a relatively large amount of money? When you need to
I'm reading a review about the Samsung Gear S, so maybe the watch is only for the "geek market"
With yours
I agree with the watch buying approach and therefore it doesn't make much sense to market
another “i-watch”(…especially if you consider yourself a tech leader), but rather the one
i-bracelet that will offer "interesting features" - what should those features be after me
don't ask, someone at Apple is getting paid for that - but they will surely have to have a high premium
value, because who else buys an iphone for at least 15 plus a watch
for about 10 - and from this angle, Apple will have to surprise a lot
it made a lot of sense to buy this bracelet as well. In particular, it will be functions for which
the mobile phone is impractical or unusable. However, build only on the transfer of functions from the mobile phone
on the hand - it's already here and understandably so
it doesn't have much response.
I agree, I'm mainly interested in the added value, but I think it will be aimed at fitness and then at the interconnection of all Apple devices (similarly to how iOS is now connected to Mac OS). That extended cellphone arm makes sense, but it's not for everyone. For someone who has a number of meetings and organizes them, receives emails and drives often, there is a use for it. Especially when he has a mobile phone with a larger screen in his pocket (which is also a trend). We'll see, I like to be surprised.
Maybe it won't be a watch at all. I wouldn't even be surprised, because I think Apple will want to distance itself from the Samsung smartwatches, etc. I'll see and I hope it surprises me a lot :)
After everything I've seen and read, I get the feeling that it makes more sense to transfer information from the user to existing Apple devices, similar to the Smartband. Of course, more sophisticated and smarter. Why another display? Watches? I like the watch as it is. Complete with a bracelet? Why not…
I'll add more. Why can't Apple make an affordable thing that everyone wants and can afford, or at least most? A thing that makes sense and doesn't cost that much? But that only makes sense with an iPhone. The bracelet as a perfect sensor for transmitting information from the user