An Interesting Theory (about Apple and Nike)...

[NYCAAPL]

Apple is rumored to release a wearable technology device this year (or "iWatch" as some people are calling it). Nike released the FuelBand in 2012 and discontinued it this year (despite its mass popularity). Apple CEO Tim Cook is on the board of Nike, Inc.

Was the Nike FuelBand a secret test-run for a wearable wrist device that Apple is thinking of releasing?

Apple doesn't just put their brand name on anything, and a new category release may just be too risky for CEO Tim Cook to undertake in the post-Jobs era. After all, given Apple's blockbuster-after-blockbuster track record for new category releases, I think this makes a lot of sense. What do you think?

 

[cambookpro]

Half the reason Apple products sell is due to the logo. Even if this were true, Apple could release the same product tomorrow, add their logo to it and it would sell millions more than it did.

Though I don't think it would make sense - what would happen if the product really took off and it was Nike branded? The FuelBand did well, but not Apple-well. Apple wouldn't get anything out of it. I think you overestimate Cook's power there.

 

[maflynn]

Half the reason Apple products sell is due to the logo.

I think you can make the same argument with Nike, I know too many people that choose them because of the swoosh logo.

As for Nike developing stuff for apple in secret - that's a little far fetched. I think they saw the writing on the wall and wearables was/is a fad. I still think this is the case.

 

[vvswarup]

Half the reason Apple products sell is due to the logo. Even if this were true, Apple could release the same product tomorrow, add their logo to it and it would sell millions more than it did.

Though I don't think it would make sense - what would happen if the product really took off and it was Nike branded? The FuelBand did well, but not Apple-well. Apple wouldn't get anything out of it. I think you overestimate Cook's power there.

I think you can make the same argument with Nike, I know too many people that choose them because of the swoosh logo.

As for Nike developing stuff for apple in secret - that's a little far fetched. I think they saw the writing on the wall and wearables was/is a fad. I still think this is the case.

The logo sells products only up to a certain point. If the product sucks, no logo is going to help. Putting that logo will lead people to question future products. It's that simple.

Wearables aren't a fad. It's just that few people are doing it right. Wearable are exactly that-wearables. The design considerations are different from that of a smartphone. For starters, looks matter as much as functionality. A smart watch for example, has to look good on one's wrist. All the smart watches out there such as the Pebble and Galaxy Gear do great stuff but they don't look great on one's wrist. In the case of Pebble, the watch looks so unfashionable that it's relegated to the "fitness band" bin. The same goes for the Fuel Band, although the FuelBand is much less conspicuous than the Pebble or Galaxy. In any case, a business executive isn't going to wear those things to work. Now the Moto 360 on the other hand is a step in the right direction in terms of looks. We don't know what it will be able to do but it looks pretty fashionable. That will expand the use of smart watches beyond simple fitness bands.

 

[maflynn]

The logo sells products only up to a certain point. If the product sucks, no logo is going to help. Putting that logo will lead people to question future products. It's that simple.

I have to disagree - I know plenty of people who see the fruit logo and buy it immediately.

Wearables aren't a fad. It's just that few people are doing it right.

Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell, but so far I've not seen any trends that would lead me to believe its anything but a trend.

 

[Menel]

I think you can make the same argument with Nike, I know too many people that choose them because of the swoosh logo.

As for Nike developing stuff for apple in secret - that's a little far fetched. I think they saw the writing on the wall and wearables was/is a fad. I still think this is the case.

Still, done right with the right marketing, a fad can make a corporation a bundle of cash. Thats what drives them.

 

[NYCAAPL]

The point of this is,

Nike has a lot less to lose with a failed attempt with a wearable device. The fuelband is the prefect test run to see if people would actually wear a piece of tech on their bodies.

I wear my Rolex submariner on my left wrist and my fuel band on my right. Apple knows that I will never give up my luxury timepiece, this is why they will approach the market with a fuelband like device.

 

[NYCAAPL]

Apple Hires Two Former Nike FuelBand Engineers, Possibly for iWatch Team

https://www.macrumors.com/2014/07/08/apple-nike-fuelband-hires/

 

[vvswarup]

I have to disagree - I know plenty of people who see the fruit logo and buy it immediately.

That's my point. People see the fruit logo and buy it immediately because Apple has built such a name for themselves that the fruit logo as you like to call it is instantly recognizable.

Put it this way. Apple was quick to come out and make a statement about Apple Maps. Forstall, the man at the helm of Maps, was promptly forced out of the company. Apple's response was typical of a company trying to protect its brand image. The Maps debacle is serious for a company of Apple's caliber. People expect a level of excellence from Apple and Maps was far below that bar.

What do you think the result would have been if there were a few more screw-ups of the magnitude of the Maps debacle? Do you think people would "see the fruit logo and buy it immediately?"

My point is that brand recognition isn't some ancient secret as it's being made out to be. All Apple has done is build a name for themselves to such a point that looking at the Apple logo bring something to mind instantly before people touch it. People expect a certain level of excellence from a product carrying the Apple logo. At the end of the day, Apple has to back that "logo" up with substance.