Apple is failing to create a compelling use case for the Apple Watch. Thoughts?

[John Yester]

Far too many people don't have a "need" for a smartphone and yet millions of people have one. That tells me that many consumers do not buy certain technology gadgets based on "need". Everybody wants to feel important or want to be a part of the in-crowd. You can't convince me that a 5 year old child "needs" an iPhone. Having said that, Apple presented us with a reason to buy the  Watch. It is still up to us to decide if we should buy it or not.

Exactly. Very well said D

 

[Skatophilia]

It hasn't persuaded me to get one for two reasons:

1) I don't have an iPhone, which could be a problem since the watch doesn't really work too much without it...

2) I enjoy the classic watch. A Rolex is pretty sweet! That being said, I think in the future there will definitely be a huge need and want for these Apple/pebble/samsung/whoever watches.

 

[boovish]

It hasn't persuaded me to get one for two reasons:

1) I don't have an iPhone, which could be a problem since the watch doesn't really work too much without it...

2) I enjoy the classic watch. A Rolex is pretty sweet! That being said, I think in the future there will definitely be a huge need and want for these Apple/pebble/samsung/whoever watches.

You're not fooling anyone. You only have 25 posts here, and you own a Blackberry.

 

[Sammuel1973]

I wrote another thread but I think the duplication of the functions were by design. So when your Watch battery runs down you're not stuck waiting until it's charged up to continue doing something. You just pull your iPhone out and get on with what you're doing. It's like how your Mac, iPad and iPhone all do iMessages or phone calls now. I also think they did and dind't get into the market because of what competitors were doing lol. If you look at the last quarterly earnings the iPhone is selling like gangbusters and all their other products although lower sales have numbers the competitors would love to have. The competitors have been on the market for awhile now and yet none of their products are break out successes. So Apple didn't need to jump in because they are going to continue to make fists full of cash from their existing devices.
However on the other hand just because the competitors haven't made a breakout product yet doesn't mean it wont happen any time now. So Apple needs to jump in to get their product in the minds of consumers. It's what they do if you look back they are never first to market. They sit back and study what's on the market. Look at the flaws find better ways to do it and then come out with a "better" product. The timing has to be close to right though. You don't jump in early but if you jump in too late when another product has already taken hold then it's a battle to try and win those customers away.

You make some great points, although I must disagree that the duplication of functions are made by design. Perhaps Apple is spinning it this way on their marketing pieces. The "Start on Apple Watch. Continue on iPhone." kind of proves that. They will not flat out say the battery suck or that doing too much on the Watch is not feasible due to battery or small screen. They would never say most of the features require the IPhone to work. Cuz at the end of the day, the IPhone can perform more than the Watch, minus the shared drawing or heartbeat from the Watch. I see the codependency of the Watch a big negative instead of a selling point, imo. That is also true for all the makers, not just Apple.

When I tell friends about smartwatches, they say, "what can't I do on my phone that a smartwatch can?" Then of course we also have, "why would I want a smartwatch when it requires me to take out my phone anyway?" If makers can satisfy these 2 questions, perhaps the general public would view smartwatches more compelling? IMO.

For some of us, we can afford it, the Watch looks cool, and the conveniences could be helpful.

 

[jean15paul]

Far too many people don't have a "need" for a smartphone and yet millions of people have one. That tells me that many consumers do not buy certain technology gadgets based on "need". Everybody wants to feel important or want to be a part of the in-crowd. You can't convince me that a 5 year old child "needs" an iPhone. Having said that, Apple presented us with a reason to buy the  Watch. It is still up to us to decide if we should buy it or not.

I understand what you're saying and agree. Maybe "need" was the wrong word for me to use. What I was trying to say is that a smartphone allows people to do things they couldn't otherwise do. Therefore a smartphone fills a "need" ... or maybe I should say "has a unique purpose" since it's not really necessary.

A smartwatch on the other had does not allow me to do anything I couldn't do before. It's cool, and it's convienent (which I why I love my Pebble), but it does not serve a unique purpose.

I was hoping the Apple Watch was going to change all that and have a some additional capability or use case that would serve a unique purpose. So far I haven't seen it.

 

[jean15paul]

You make some great points, although I must disagree that the duplication of functions are made by design. Perhaps Apple is spinning it this way on their marketing pieces. The "Start on Apple Watch. Continue on iPhone." kind of proves that. They will not flat out say the battery suck or that doing too much on the Watch is not feasible due to battery or small screen. They would never say most of the features require the IPhone to work. Cuz at the end of the day, the IPhone can perform more than the Watch, minus the shared drawing or heartbeat from the Watch. I see the codependency of the Watch a big negative instead of a selling point, imo. That is also true for all the makers, not just Apple.

When I tell friends about smartwatches, they say, "what can't I do on my phone that my smartwatch can?" Then of course we also have, "why would I want a smartwatch when it requires me to take out my phone anyway?" If makers can satisfy these 2 questions, perhaps the general public would view smartwatches more compelling? IMO. For some of us, we can afford it, the Watch looks cool, and the conveniences could be helpful.

Well said. This is some of what I was trying to say.

 

[Ipheuria]

You make some great points, although I must disagree that the duplication of functions are made by design. Perhaps Apple is spinning it this way on their marketing pieces. The "Start on Apple Watch. Continue on iPhone." kind of proves that. They will not flat out say the battery suck or that doing too much on the Watch is not feasible due to battery or small screen. They would never say most of the features require the IPhone to work. Cuz at the end of the day, the IPhone can perform more than the Watch, minus the shared drawing or heartbeat from the Watch. I see the codependency of the Watch a big negative instead of a selling point, imo. That is also true for all the makers, not just Apple.

When I tell friends about smartwatches, they say, "what can't I do on my phone that my smartwatch can?" Then of course we also have, "why would I want a smartwatch when it requires me to take out my phone anyway?" If makers can satisfy these 2 questions, perhaps the general public would view smartwatches more compelling? IMO. For some of us, we can afford it, the Watch looks cool, and the conveniences could be helpful.

I see your point but still think the watch is another device in their right device for the right time myself. Your other point though I think that will change and the Watch might be the one to do it. I said it in another thread but in the days of cellphones aka dumbphones. I hardly saw people with their phones or laptops out during commutes. It was books, magazines and newspapers. Now if you contrast that with today all I see is smartphones, Tablet devices and laptops. The smartphone brought this about by enabling email, web browsing, Facebook while on the go. The advancement of data networks (3G, LTE) means now laptops are also connected and you see more usage I think. So I think all the friends that ask what they can do on the smartwatch that they can't do on the smartphone wont be asking that soon.

 

[SleepyTheDon]

I really see no benefit of using the Apple Watch over other smart watches

 

[iEd]

I don't think Apple failed to create a compelling case for the  Watch. The frequency at which folks are creating these  Watch threads over the past few days is compelling in it self that the watch is desired by not just iPhone users but Android users that will switch.


Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Sammuel1973]

I don't think Apple failed to create a compelling case for the  Watch. The frequency at which folks are creating these  Watch threads over the past few days is compelling in it self that the watch is desired by not just iPhone users but Android users that will switch.


Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

Ha, I noticed that too! Hopefully the desire continues. I haven't seen this much fanfare about any smartwatch.

 

[Just_Me_D]

I understand what you're saying and agree. Maybe "need" was the wrong word for me to use. What I was trying to say is that a smartphone allows people to do things they couldn't otherwise do. Therefore a smartwatch fills a "need" ... or maybe I should say "has a unique purpose" since it's not really necessary.

A smartwatch on the other had does not allow me to do anything I couldn't do before. It's cool, and it's convienent (which I why I love my Pebble), but it does not serve a unique purpose.

I was hoping the Apple Watch was going to change all that and have a some additional capability or use case that would serve a unique purpose. So far I haven't seen it.

I understood what you we're saying. Anyway, in the same manner that the iPad found its own purpose and shed the image of being an oversized iPhone, so will the  Watch and smart watches, in general. I also think that app developers will determine its uniqueness...

 

[Skatophilia]

You're not fooling anyone. You only have 25 posts here, and you own a Blackberry.

Just because I have a BlackBerry does not mean I'm not into other gadgets. In fact quite the opposite for me

 

[Bigeric23]

It might appear that way to people who haven't used Apple products; however, I've never been disappointed by the experience of any iDevice I've ever purchased.

 

[Kierkegaard]

For me, it would be more compelling if the Watch is a standalone, where its features does not rely on the IPhone. For those who do not want to wear a smartwatch, Apple can still continue to make the IPhones, but leave the option for those who would prefer all the conveniences to do things on the wrist. I suspect there would be more new consumers willing to jump platform.

That's how you can tell Steve Jobs is absent. I can picture him at the Apple HQ celebration of yet another successful product launch. He says how pleased his is with the result from the Apple Watch development team. While everyone's applauding he tells them that's why he is confident they can do a standalone version that will also be thinner than the original. As the engineers feel a bead of sweat tricking down their necks...

 

[Kierkegaard]

You make some great points, although I must disagree that the duplication of functions are made by design. Perhaps Apple is spinning it this way on their marketing pieces. The "Start on Apple Watch. Continue on iPhone." kind of proves that. They will not flat out say the battery suck or that doing too much on the Watch is not feasible due to battery or small screen. They would never say most of the features require the IPhone to work. Cuz at the end of the day, the IPhone can perform more than the Watch, minus the shared drawing or heartbeat from the Watch. I see the codependency of the Watch a big negative instead of a selling point, imo. That is also true for all the makers, not just Apple.

When I tell friends about smartwatches, they say, "what can't I do on my phone that a smartwatch can?" Then of course we also have, "why would I want a smartwatch when it requires me to take out my phone anyway?" If makers can satisfy these 2 questions, perhaps the general public would view smartwatches more compelling? IMO.

For some of us, we can afford it, the Watch looks cool, and the conveniences could be helpful.

I think it was the best they could do for version 1.0. The battery life should be better but I don't think the lower bound of it will be that much lower depending on what the user is doing. Since it's a watch the display doesn't time out so that's a fairly constant drain that was planned. The big drain is the bluetooth radio, right? There are no apps resident on the watch so the user playing around making the display change should not shorten the life of the charge by a lot. That's just my guesstimate. I just realized that the xfactor is the drain caused by the sensors. But similarly, I don't think they count on getting close to 18 hours by disabling the sensors which are integral to the functionality. You have voice control, that is what I plan to exploit as much as possible. And that's upgradable by software.

 

[jeffgoldstein2]

Don't think these will do well.

 

[Dave Marsh]

If I recall, it was when rumors started about Apple looking into the smart watch category that Samsung leaped into gear to create a smart watch first. So, I'm not sure it's fair to say Apple is late to the game.

I think Apple is testing the waters for a full-on wrist computer, for when the technology matures, and in the interim years will be upgrading their devices annually as electronics further miniaturizes, battery technology improves, and display technology offers creative ways to view data is better ways. I can envision holographic displays down the road that permit larger virtual displays that will eventually displace carrying a computer around in your pocket. Of course, that will require substantial engineering improvements, but it looks to me that that's the direction we're moving in. How quickly we get there is anyone's guess, but Apple certainly has the resources to commit to that R&D.

 

[ctt1wbw]

I don't see any tech blogs saying the same thing about any Android Wear device. Why the sudden need to have Apple justify it to you now? Don't you already know what it can do? I mean, really, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what it can do based on the others on the market.

 

[tigerinexile]

I've been using a Pebble for the last year and a half.

I see a use case for a smartwatch, period.

The Apple Watch? Does it better for an iPhone, but the battery may be an issue.

I resolved not to buy the first year model. Then resolved only to get the cheapest model. Then preordered the steel and sapphire model with a Milanese loop band.

They get us every time. So I expect that the Apple gang, which is currently 30-50% of the North American market, will supply sufficient customers over time.


Sent from my iPad Air using Tapatalk

 

[Guacho]

Far too many people don't have a "need" for a smartphone and yet millions of people have one. That tells me that many consumers do not buy certain technology gadgets based on "need". Everybody wants to feel important or want to be a part of the in-crowd. You can't convince me that a 5 year old child "needs" an iPhone. Having said that, Apple presented us with a reason to buy the  Watch. It is still up to us to decide if we should buy it or not.

I do think that the reason Apple presented us was not 100% compelling and after reading many reviews that seems to be the feeling, that doesn't mean the watch will fail, it'll be interesting how this unfolds.
The point of "needing " the phone or watch is pointed towards the fact that without the watch we'd still be able to get messages, control music, use Siri, etc. "need" in a sense that without the cellphone we'd be pretty much cut out of all this content and features, not that we need a cellphone to survive...but it plays a more important role, technologically speaking

Note: came back to say: have a wonderful day, How could I forgot that.. =)