Apple orders 5-6 million watches

[DravenGSX]

The headline read:

"What Exactly Is an Apple Watch For?
Apple Watch provides data and communicates in new ways, but big health-monitoring features are nixed for launch"

The health-monitoring features weren't nixed. They were big ideas that should've never been made public. The headline implies that things like the HRM were cut. It's misleading.

The timing of the article is also suspect as most analysts are pissed that Apple broke their 18 month projection and is sustaining.

 

[Cashmonee]

The headline read:

"What Exactly Is an Apple Watch For?
Apple Watch provides data and communicates in new ways, but big health-monitoring features are nixed for launch"

The health-monitoring features weren't nixed. They were big ideas that should've never been made public. The headline implies that things like the HRM were cut. It's misleading.

The timing of the article is also suspect as most analysts are pissed that Apple broke their 18 month projection and is sustaining.

I agree that the headlines are very misleading. However, it is interesting to see that Apple were apparently planning a much different product and had to pivot when that product wasn't feasible. As I said earlier, the most interesting part of the article is that Apple execs were left without a clear purpose for the device after the features were pulled. To me, if this is true, it clearly states that the Watch is a solution in search of a problem, and explains why they spent so much time on parlor tricks instead of features that would set it apart. That initial presentation goes much differently if they are able to show cutting edge health features and a clearly defined product.

If all of this is true, and of course that is a big if, I think we are seeing a difference between Cook and Jobs. I believe Jobs would not have released the watch under the circumstances described. I think it is possible Cook has felt pressure to show he can do more than just keep the ship from sinking, and maybe put out something before it was really ready.

Again, all rampant speculation, but to me the most interesting part. The good news is that it is Apple, and they will sell enough in all likelihood to keep the product around long enough to realized the initial vision in a couple generations.

 

[matrix07]

I agree that the headlines are very misleading. However, it is interesting to see that Apple were apparently planning a much different product and had to pivot when that product wasn't feasible. As I said earlier, the most interesting part of the article is that Apple execs were left without a clear purpose for the device after the features were pulled. To me, if this is true, it clearly states that the Watch is a solution in search of a problem, and explains why they spent so much time on parlor tricks instead of features that would set it apart. That initial presentation goes much differently if they are able to show cutting edge health features and a clearly defined product.

......

Again, all rampant speculation, but to me the most interesting part. The good news is that it is Apple, and they will sell enough in all likelihood to keep the product around long enough to realized the initial vision in a couple generations.

Man, I have a feeling if somebody want to sell you a bridge you would buy it. That article smells fishy, and I'm not the only one who thought that.

The Artful Dodge.

You're absolutely right about your last sentence though.

 

[UltimateSyn]

I land at LAX on April 14

Hoping for your (and my) sake that it doesn't launch on April 30

 

[Sharkey311]

I'd be rather upset with an April 30th release. I'm hoping pre-orders begin March and they ship in April like Tim Cook said.

 

[Cashmonee]

Man, I have a feeling if somebody want to sell you a bridge you would buy it. That article smells fishy, and I'm not the only one who thought that.

The Artful Dodge.

You're absolutely right about your last sentence though.

You prove your point with an article that is just as much speculation, if not more than the original? You are also linking to a blatant Apple apologist in Gruber, so I would take your source material with a grain of salt. I actually do find the points that Gruber said one would have to believe to be believable. If the original rumor was a little old, it would actually fit very well with the timeline. Gruber himself says that it may have happened exactly as described, and that Apple did expect to ship the watch in 2014, but had to change that. How does that not fit exactly with the WSJ? Also, the WSJ is a pretty reliable Apple source.

Sure, it could be all wrong. Perhaps this is what Apple wanted to ship all along. As a long time Apple observer and fan, I hope that isn't the case. That September keynote screamed "me-too" product and lack of vision. They showed sending beating heartbeats!

 

[lirn8]

Hoping for your (and my) sake that it doesn't launch on April 30

if it does launch on april 30 ill just have to expend my vacation
LOLOLOLOL

 

[kdarling]

You prove your point with an article that is just as much speculation, if not more than the original? You are also linking to a blatant Apple apologist in Gruber, so I would take your source material with a grain of salt.

Bingo. Not to mention that Gruber has been way wrong himself. Timing is always hard to get in articles.

He seems to be doing some cheap Monday morning quarterbacking, to make himself look better.

I actually do find the points that Gruber said one would have to believe to be believable.

I do too.

One need only go back and search for all the articles (like this one from 9to5mac) on the incredible number of sensor engineers that Apple was hiring:

Experts in sensors for glucose, oxygen level, kidney function, ECG, and you name it.

It's incredibly obvious that Apple wanted more than just a simple heart rate sensor.

No doubt some of this fell by the wayside after Apple found out that the FDA would have to vet any software code that did diagnostics, some didn't work well enough, and some took too much battery. Maybe next time.

 

[Night Spring]

One need only go back and search for all the articles (like this one from 9to5mac) on the incredible number of sensor engineers that Apple was hiring:

Experts in sensors for glucose, oxygen level, kidney function, ECG, and you name it.

It's incredibly obvious that Apple wanted more than just a simple heart rate sensor.

On the other hand, how many sensors can anyone possibly expect to cram into a device the size of a watch?

I think it's clear that Apple is working on something to do with health sensors, but I don't think it's correct to assume that all those sensors were ever intended for the first gen Apple watch. This feels more like something Apple is working on now for release a few years down the line. Or maybe just exploring to see if a feasible product can even be made.

And I mean, if Apple only realized they needed FDA approval for health products AFTER they started working on the watch, Tim Cook really needs to fire himself. Please. It's so basic. FDA approval would have to be considered right from the conception stage.

 

[matrix07]

You prove your point with an article that is just as much speculation, if not more than the original? You are also linking to a blatant Apple apologist in Gruber, so I would take your source material with a grain of salt.

Then you know nothing about Apple, Jon Snow..

That September keynote screamed "me-too" product and lack of vision. They showed sending beating heartbeats!

..so it's no wonder you felt this way.

And I mean, if Apple only realized they needed FDA approval for health products AFTER they started working on the watch, Tim Cook really needs to fire himself. Please. It's so basic. FDA approval would have to be considered right from the conception stage.

You know, this is always an Android fanboy's wet dream (that Apple doesn't have a clue).. so it's no wonder some of them in this thread will eat this report all up. It's such a laugh really.

 

[Cashmonee]

Then you know nothing about Apple, Jon Snow..



..so it's no wonder you felt this way.



You know, this is always an Android fanboy's wet dream (that Apple doesn't have a clue).. so it's no wonder some of them in this thread will eat this report all up. It's such a laugh really.

I have no idea what your point even is. You have made no argument other than some people here are Android fanboys apparently. Just to make sure you know the score, I have a MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, iMac, iPad 2, iPad mini, Apple TV, AirPort Base Station, and iPhone 6 all currently in service. I have owned every iPhone except the 5. I have gotten my wife and her entire family onto to Apple computers, phones, and tablets. The only way I could be characterized a fanboy is as an Apple one. I own no other companies products save a work provided Samsung Galaxy Note 10, and a Garmin fenix 3.

I have followed Apple for years and "know" Apple enough to know that Jon Gruber is an apologist whose opinion and information is clearly biased in Apple's favor.

To me, the article's assumptions fit. The watch seems to be missing a killer feature. It is missing the Apple part of the watch. The thing that says this is different than the competition. I think the health sensors were supposed to be it, and probably still are. The lackluster reveal and silly features with no real clear direction tell me that maybe this wasn't exactly the product they planned, and they felt pressured to release something now instead of waiting to build the product they wanted from the start.

 

[Night Spring]

To me, the article's assumptions fit. The watch seems to be missing a killer feature. It is missing the Apple part of the watch. The thing that says this is different than the competition.

But do all Apple products really have a killer feature? Well, for the iPhone, it was probably multi touch. But what about the iPad? iPod? iMac? AppleTV?

Actually, to me, the most Apple like feature of the Apple watch is the interchangeable bands. It's an improvement over *traditional watch bands* -- it's so simple, when I saw it, it was like, "of course this is how watch bands should be, why did no one think of this before?"

Plus, there is the digital crown. Another feature I don't think anyone else has.

So maybe Apple watch doesn't DO anything different from other smart watches, but HOW it does it is distinctly Apple. IMO.

 

[Cashmonee]

But do all Apple products really have a killer feature? Well, for the iPhone, it was probably multi touch. But what about the iPad? iPod? iMac? AppleTV?

Actually, to me, the most Apple like feature of the Apple watch is the interchangeable bands. It's an improvement over *traditional watch bands* -- it's so simple, when I saw it, it was like, "of course this is how watch bands should be, why did no one think of this before?"

Plus, there is the digital crown. Another feature I don't think anyone else has.

So maybe Apple watch doesn't DO anything different from other smart watches, but HOW it does it is distinctly Apple. IMO.

When they launched, the iPad, iPod, iMac, and Apple TV all had a killer feature that clearly separated them. The iPad was the tablet done right. The iPod was the an intuitive and easy to use interface, the iMac was the powerful and beautiful all-in-one, and the Apple TV was the first usable living room computer. In the years since, many have caught up and even surpassed (see Roku), but the initial launch was something "better" than the rest.

I completely agree on the bands. They are truly awesome and brilliant, but not enough. They are a side note, not the main event, ala multi touch on the iPhone. The digital crown is interesting, though questionable how usable and necessary. I just don't see anything that would tell me this is the watch to buy. I don't feel any smartwatch checks that box, including the Watch.

 

[Night Spring]

I completely agree on the bands. They are truly awesome and brilliant, but not enough. They are a side note, not the main event, ala multi touch on the iPhone. The digital crown is interesting, though questionable how usable and necessary. I just don't see anything that would tell me this is the watch to buy. I don't feel any smartwatch checks that box, including the Watch.

Put that way, I have to agree that I'm not a 100% convinced that the Apple watch as it is today will be useful. To me, the biggest "missing" feature is that it is dependent on the iPhone. The device I'm really waiting for is a watch that is a phone, allowing me to ditch my iPhone and just go out with my watch and my iPad.

But this is a stepping stone to getting there. In that way, it reminds me of the original Macintosh. I was in college when they came out, and our dorm had a computer room with Macs. I watched my artistically inclined dorm mates draw impressive pictures with the Paint program, but I wrote my term papers on the university mainframe. Back then, the mouse driven GUI felt more of a gimmick than anything truly useful. It was so slow it was impractical. Looking back, that was the foundation of today's main computing platforms. But when it originally came out, it felt like a solution looking for a problem. It took years, maybe a decade, before GUI matured enough to be truly useful.

So I think Apple watch may be more like that. Not 100% useful or fully mature right out the gate, but with the potential to grow into the future of computing.

 

[matrix07]

To me, the article's assumptions fit. The watch seems to be missing a killer feature. It is missing the Apple part of the watch. The thing that says this is different than the competition. I think the health sensors were supposed to be it, and probably still are.

This is like saying Apple want to put A8 chip in the original iPhone but can't. Of course they would want to, if they could. The original iPhone doesn't have GPS or App Store. Was it not the phone Apple aimed for?
The thing is.. you may think the watch lack the so-called killing feature but that doesn't mean Apple engineers are idiots who don't know what sensors will work. To say that the current watch is not what Apple aimed is such a laugh. They aimed as much as the current technology allows, just like they always do. You don't be impressed by it? Well... tough luck.
I for one am glad that Apple doesn't do this check-list features like all other brands out there.

When they launched, the iPad, iPod, iMac, and Apple TV all had a killer feature that clearly separated them. The iPad was the tablet done right.

This is such a revisionist it makes me want to laugh again. Remember "the big iPod Touch"? In fact, when the iPad launched many many people just complained like you're complaining now.. that it lacks a killing feature.
What Apple Watch lacks is not a killing feature. it only lacks Jobs' salesmanship.

 

[cmChimera]

I think it's pretty obvious Apple wants to have more tech in the Apple Watch. Whether or not they wanted more in the first gen than they got is debateable. But jumping to the conclusion that Apple hired experts in sensors because they wanted the sensors in the first iteration doesn't make a lot of sense. Apple obviously sees this as a long term product so they're likely hiring people in anticipation of that as well. I think Gruber is right overall. There is no way that in June of last year, Apple intended to have more sensors in the first generation Watch. I think the plans were probably finalized at that point.

 

[VFC]

This is like saying Apple want to put A8 chip in the original iPhone but can't. Of course they would want to, if they could. The original iPhone doesn't have GPS or App Store. Was it not the phone Apple aimed for?
The thing is.. you may think the watch lack the so-called killing feature but that doesn't mean Apple engineers are idiots who don't know what sensors will work. To say that the current watch is not what Apple aimed is such a laugh. They aimed as much as the current technology allows, just like they always do. You don't be impressed by it? Well... tough luck.
I for one am glad that Apple doesn't do this check-list features like all other brands out there.

This is such a revisionist it makes me want to laugh again. Remember "the big iPod Touch"? In fact, when the iPad launched many many people just complained like you're complaining now.. that it lacks a killing feature.
What Apple Watch lacks is not a killing feature. it only lacks Jobs' salesmanship.

Apple does have the option of holding up the release of the iWatch until it has a killer feature perfected (more that just the HR sensor).

Regarding the iPad. If you go back and do some research on the release timing; Apple had to wait for the outsourcing of manufacturing from the US to China before it could get the cost/price down to a reasonable level. The US lost thousands of high-paid jobs while the world got a sub $1,000 thin tablet.

 

[matrix07]

Apple does have the option of holding up the release of the iWatch until it has a killer feature perfected (more that just the HR sensor).

..and have all the sensors that can complicate the system instead of a few they know will be working very well to test the water? I don't think that is a smart choice either. Killing feature is all in one's head. It's just a perspective. From Six Color:

what does it do?

Lots, from what we can tell—in fact, a lot more than we really expected the first model of a new product line to do.

See?

Regarding the iPad. If you go back and do some research on the release timing; Apple had to wait for the outsourcing of manufacturing from the US to China before it could get the cost/price down to a reasonable level. The US lost thousands of high-paid jobs while the world got a sub $1,000 thin tablet.

The original iPhone were made in China, 3 years before iPad announcement.

 

[kdarling]

And I mean, if Apple only realized they needed FDA approval for health products AFTER they started working on the watch, Tim Cook really needs to fire himself. Please. It's so basic. FDA approval would have to be considered right from the conception stage.

It's not that cut and dry.

I think Apple wasn't sure what they'd be doing with the sensors... or rather what they would be allowed to do with/without FDA approval.

I.e. just collect data, or go further and give advice, or even do health diagnostics.

It was because of this uncertainty, that they had to meet with the FDA several times to both lobby for more freedom, and to get clarification. It's also why after their last meeting, the FDA noted that:

"The earlier FDA is involved and advising, the less likely that Apple would be caught by surprise later when they wish to release a new product, if that product must be regulated." - FDA

 

[Night Spring]

It's not that cut and dry.

I think Apple wasn't sure what they'd be doing with the sensors... or rather what they would be allowed to do with/without FDA approval.

I.e. just collect data, or go further and give advice, or even do health diagnostics.

It was because of this uncertainty, that they had to meet with the FDA several times to both lobby for more freedom, and to get clarification. It's also why after their last meeting, the FDA noted that:

"The earlier FDA is involved and advising, the less likely that Apple would be caught by surprise later when they wish to release a new product, if that product must be regulated." - FDA

Where did you read this?

And sure, this kind of exploratory process takes place -- but it should be very early in product development. That is, I believe Tim Cooks has said that Apple has been working on the watch for three years. Well, the type of discussion you are talking about should have taken place in the first year.