Analyst: Apple's iWatch may be priced at $299, could generate $17.5 billion worth of sales in 12 months
posted by Florin T. / Feb 04, 2014, 11:31 AM
According to CNET, Morgan Stanley analyst Katy Huberty recently predicted that Apple may sell $17.5 billion worth of iWatches in 12 months after the gadget’s initial release. At the moment, there’s no way of telling for certain when (or if) Apple will launch its rumored smart watch, but it could happen towards the end of 2014.
It’s hard to believe that Apple will manage to sell too many iWatches to customers who do not already own iOS devices. That’s why Katy Huberty assumes that the iWatch’s customer base will be similar to that for Apple’s iPad. Apparently, the new smartwatch might cost $299 - that’s also the price that Samsung's Galaxy Gear watch had at launch in late September 2013.
As revealed not long ago, the iWatch could have many health-related functions that will reportedly be used with a new Healthbook app which may debut on iOS 8 later this year. Other than that, the features of Apple's first smart watch remain a mystery for now.
Would you buy a $299 iWatch if it's going to be released this year?
Posts: 4063; Member since: Jul 23, 2013
For the question, NOPE, smart watches just serve 0 purpose. I don't need it to tell me I walked however many Km, I can already guess that. For that matter the phones usually keep track of that and so why pay another $300. These companies need to stop wasting time (lol no pun intended) with these smart watches and look into augmented reality or some kind of mind reading device. Something that is truly inspirational and makes money from providing value instead of milking idiots with more money than sense and hardcore zealots.
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 11:33 AM 8
Posts: 569; Member since: Dec 11, 2008
They might serve 0 purpose for you but that doesn't mean others won't find them useful. With the world becoming more and more health conscious these smartphone health accessories are going to be big. A pedometer is really nothing. Being able to motor heart rate, blood pressure, calories burned, sleep patterns, and more is much more relevant than how many steps you took. Most of those can be monitored through various apps but why not make it much easier and let one app/device monitor it all without having to manually enter the data? Making thing easier to use in everyday life and more efficient is what most people are looking for in their busy lives. FitBit is having success with their health wearable that run about $99 and only offer health info. We're already seeing info on Samsung's "S Health" app and you can bet that the Gear 2 will have health features added. I think $300 is a decent retail price, especially for anything Apple. 60 Million sold in a year does seem pretty high considering the iWatch will only work with other Apple devices were Pebble and FitBit work with more than one OS. There is still more functionality that can be added like being able to monitor blood sugar for diabetics. Or what if the watch was able to call 911 for you if it notices your heart rate is incredible low or that you may have just suffered a heart attack? Seems much more useful to everyday life than augmented reality.
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 1:30 PM 6
Posts: 4063; Member since: Jul 23, 2013
I like how you're hopeful for it to have significant meaning so +1 anyway, but I don't think those are actual uses or good ideas. Heart rate, blood pressure, calories burned and sleep patterns (plus whatever else you didn't mention) are far more complicated to measure than a watch can do on your wrist. It introduces way too many complicated variables that make that data useless. It can give you a very inaccurate reading based on how and where it is positioned on your wrist, but that is just irrelevant when you have to go home measure it with something serious anyway (in case it is for a serious condition). Also, no you should not measure blood glucose with it. Anyone who becomes reliant on an inaccurate monitor can end up dying because "their watch didn't go off". Also, it will possibly not be accurate enough and lead to a whole host of false reports causing a lot of inefficiency. Finally, calling 911 for any reason "automatically" is really stupid because that would lead to a dangerous number of false reports that will actually lead to the whole system coming under stress. The best they can do is to have an "oh s**t" button functionality but why pay $300 for that, there are cheaper ways. What I am trying to say is that you can not trivialize medical instrumentation that easily to be able to say a watch can measure it to any degree of accuracy. That is dangerous if taken seriously and borderline useless otherwise because it makes the function a little more than for the sake of false gratification. So aside from a tiny smart phone with less functionality, it is at best jewellery.
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 3:12 PM 1
Posts: 569; Member since: Dec 11, 2008
We're just at completely different ends of the spectrum on this one. To me, the sky's the limit on what you could with something that's strapped to your wrist as long as it has the right hardware. Also, with what the Fitbit Force and Flex can track I see absolutely no reason why a smart watch could do all that and much more. Algorithms that take into effect your current movement, position (standing or laying down) , body temp, and heart rate could paint a pretty good picture of your overall health condition. Direct 911 calls wouldn't be the best idea but you could easily have the calls sent to a Care group that would determine whether it really is an emergency. Similar to home security systems that call Brink first and then they call police/fire if needed. There would be instances where it calls in error but I'm sure "Life Alert" has its share of false/accidental calls. Also be curious what percentage of regular calls to 911 aren't emergencies anyways. That's all just the tip of the iceberg. Independent GPS to allow tracking of kids without given them a cell phone or even employees. We've all gotten use to pulling out our phone to get info and communicate, but being able to look at your wrist is much easier. Especially if you don't have any free hands. Only thing easier than looking at your wrist is just having "look" like you do with Glass.
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 7:47 PM 0
Posts: 201; Member since: Oct 02, 2012
30 years ago if someone told you your telephone would be able to give you turn by turn directions, or take pictures and videos someone would've said, "Why would you need a phone to do anything other than to talk on?". It's impossible to predict the direction technology will go. To say something "isn't needed", is against the principles of technology. Something new is ALWAYS needed. Whether it works or not is a different story, but pushing the envelope is always the goal. I think you are closing your mind to possibilities. We are at the infancy stages of what tech wearables are. You'll look back at comments like this 5 years from now (probably from your SmartWatch) and say, "What was I thinking?"
posted on Feb 05, 2014, 8:48 AM 0
Posts: 1693; Member since: Aug 18, 2013
It's expensive, but if I remember right, Galaxy Gear costed the same when it came out. If this has better battery life, I think that this is not bad.
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 11:35 AM 2
Galaxy Gear's options were severely limited. It was a slap job to cash in on the smart watch phase before Apple came out with the iWatch.
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 12:49 PM 2
The Gear has 5-6 days battery life when used like a Sony Smart Watch (by pressing the button to wake). It only gets 2 days battery life when the motion sensor is used to wake the device when you lift your arm. The battery life is not as bad as was reported, especially since the update. Having to use a cradle to charge is what can be annoying. But I know 6 days isn't good enough for some people. You will usually see more complaints about the Galaxy Gear from people who have never used one for any length of time. And the complaint will be something ambiguous and not mention a problem with any specific function. For example, what does "slap job" really mean?
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 3:54 PM 5
Posts: 2014; Member since: May 03, 2011
This prediction doesn't surprise. Let's be honest there are millions of die hard apple fan boys (that's no diss) which every other oems would love to have and you know they are going to by a new Apple product regardless of anything. Those fans alone will give apple the no 1 device.
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 11:41 AM 0
Posts: 154; Member since: Oct 30, 2012
why does this device need a slide to unlock feature??
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 11:45 AM 1
Posts: 315; Member since: Dec 16, 2013
That image isn't real. It's just a mock up.
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 12:06 PM 2
Posts: 26; Member since: Apr 15, 2012
assuming the $300 per watch, the 17.5bn is them selling almost 60 million of them in one year, and that is an incredibly bold guess. Thats almost half as much as what they sell in iphones in a year (~150 million).
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 11:48 AM 5
Posts: 364; Member since: Apr 05, 2013
Hurray for math... Yeah, that's not happening. Follow the logic? watches are niche products. Smart watches are niche products. ___________________________________ Everyone will want an apple smartwatch!
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 11:54 AM 2
Posts: 10457; Member since: May 14, 2012
Not going to happen. Pebble or Sony hasn't even remotely sold over 5 combined, and for them to try to pull off 60 million to hit that target goal is impossible. EDIT: Saw CNET's name. Dear God. 5,000TH POST!
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 11:51 AM 3
I stopped reading at Pebble and Sony lol. Apple always makes their product boom. Congrats on 5000 :) :)
posted on Feb 04, 2014, 12:08 PM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):