While cellphones have come a long way in a very short time — from the Wall Street bricks of the 1980s, to the gorgeous iPhone 6 devices of today — a new article from Wired argues that innovation takes place much more slowly in watch land: something that could spell trouble for Apple.
With insights from watch and clock historian Alexis McCrossen, the article notes that attempts to reinvent the watch have historically proven difficult, with a key example being the world’s very first electronic watch: the $2,100 Pulsar 1 from 1972.
Despite there being “very similar hopes to those swirling around the Apple Watch” the article points out that “a decade later, most watch-buyers were still expecting the same kind of analog features they’d wanted for years.”
McCrossen says out that despite the first wrist watches appearing in the 1880s, they didn’t actually outstrip sales of the pocket watch until 1927, with many in polite society considering it rude to continually refer to a person’s wrist: something that would surely happen a whole lot more with Apple Watch.
McCrossen also observes that many students and younger people currently don’t wear watches (a problem Apple seems to be very aware of), which means reeducating them in a whole new product category. Then there’s the whole question about whether it really does anything that your iPhone doesn’t already do.
These are all interesting talking points, definitely, but ones that I don’t think tell the whole story. Although Apple is using the familiar term “watch” to give new customers — unfamiliar with devices like the Pebble — something to latch on to, the timekeeping properties of the Apple Watch aren’t its main selling point, any more than the iPhone is considered to be just a phone.
Like the iPhone, the Apple Watch is a miniature portable computer, and its success or failure is going to be based on how well it pulls off this particular task.
Certainly analysts seem optimistic about Apple’s chances: with some suggesting that it could match iPad sales in its first year. We’ll have to wait and see.
Luke Dormehl is a U.K.-based journalist and author, with a background working in documentary film for Channel 4 and the BBC. He is the author of The Apple Revolution and The Formula: How Algorithms Solve All Our Problems … and Create More, both published by Penguin/Random House. His tech writing has also appeared in Wired, Fast Company, Techmeme and other publications.
20 responses to “Why Apple Watch may not be the overnight success Cupertino is used to”
“Despite their being “very similar hopes”
Luke. If you are going to write words that the world will read, shouldn’t you know the difference between “their,” “there,” and “they’re?”
Lol they corrected it.
I did. Thanks for pointing it out. I’d like to think my morning self post coffee is absolutely aware of the difference between they’re, there and their. Pre-coffee it’s more of a mixed bag. :)
Question mark goes outside the quotation marks in this case. If you’re going to write words that the world will read…
At current, that’s how I view the Apple Watch. That its a tiny wrist device that I would have an easier time using my iPhone for. At this point in time, I don’t see myself buying it nor having any use for it. That might change later but, its a harder sell for me as I don’t wear watches anyway.
Interesting points. I don’t know anyone in my peer group (40 some y/o professionals) that plans on buying an Apple Watch. We’re certainly not going to pay top dollar for a luxury watch that will be outdated in 2 years, and of questionable re-sale value
I’ve been wondering about that. Who would pay $1000 for a gold watch that you can’t wear in 4 or 5 years? Maybe some wasteful celebrities, but certainly not any upper-middle class folks who might be willing to spend the money on something that they can keep for a lifetime.
Some have speculated that Apple will offer to upgrade the insides of the watch, and let you keep the same gold casing, so that you’re only paying for the gold once. That’s an interesting idea, but then what happens when they make the Apple Watch 3 only half the thickness of the current watch? There are just too many variables that I think will keep a lot of people from buying.
I like the swappable modules idea and if they really could do this, I wouldn’t worry about them reducing the thickness of the case. I’d accept having a thick watch as long as they were able to offer a larger battery size with the smaller module for the older AppleWatches. It would be good for those who have a limited production AppleWatch Edition. I’m doubtful such a thing will happen but for the model I’d be getting if I get four years life out of it I’d be more than satisfied.
I’ve been looking at a number of fitness watches and they’re jam-packed with features including GPS and the more I see of these watches the less interested I am in AppleWatch. I hadn’t really been keeping up with watch tech so I thought the AppleWatch was a really big deal, but I see that even though the AppleWatch offers many other things on that attractive display, those things are not necessarily things I might even want or need.
I think what I’m really looking for is some plain band loaded with a dozen biosensors, with a relatively low-power scrolling display that basically transmits data to my iPhone which I could later review. I’m not looking for a shrunken-down smartphone for my wrist. I want to track my health and not necessarily show the world I’ve got an AppleWatch. I’d love to support Apple but I don’t like the idea of owning an 8-hour watch from any company.
Actually very few of Apple’s hit’s were overnight successes. The iPad may be the only one that truly qualifies.
Also, the audience for iWatch is not watch aficionados. It’s people who stopped wearing a watch because they carry a smartphone.
I suppose this is a valid thought but I’m pretty sure Apple sold 75% of its customers by saying “We’re creating Apple Watch” before even showing the device or what it does lolz
They said the same thing about the iPad. “Stupid name”, “who needs a tablet?”, “I already have an iPhone why would I need this?”.
It will be a huge success. I don’t know why we do this same song and dance every time Apple releases a new product category.
How can anyone compare the introduction of a smart watch to the introduction of a single-feature digital watch? It’s way more relevant to compare it to the introduction of the iPad, which shows that smartphone features can make a new product category.
“Why Apple Watch may not be the overnight success Cupertino is used to”
Was the iPod an “overnight success” when it was introduced in 2001? Nope!
Was the iPhone an “overnight success” when it was introduced in 2007? Nope!
Products don’t need to be an “overnight success” in order to be long-term successes.
I don’t think the watch is going to sell well. The sport version might sell but I don’t see people that buy rolex go for the gold one. Its not a watch that goes well with an expensive suit and even Tim Cook wears one because he as to. The potential for the watch is immense but I would prefer a circular shaped watch. Maybe for the version 1.2 in 2016.
I believe the major reason it will not catch on is crime. IPhones are stolen a lot, wearing these watches will make you a target.
Maybe they’ll add a “Kill My Watch” feature. ;-)
While “everybody” seems to want 5″+ screens on their iPhones, I can’t see a compelling reason why saving 2 seconds to pull out my iPhone would make me want to wear a 1.7″ screen on my wrist that I have to charge up daily. Not to mention the distracted driving excuses: “Officer, honestly I was just checking the time on my Apple watch”.
Well, first, getting notifications is only one function, and it’s not the most important. The fitness/health tracking is the big selling point…especially when it’s combined with all the features of a smartwatch so that you get the whole big package in one attractive watch. No one wants to wear a smartwatch AND a fitness band, so most choose the fitness band. But if you can have both, I think people will choose that option. Apple’s problem right now is waterproofing and battery life. If the 2nd or 3rd generation watch is fully waterproof and has a 3-4 day battery life, it will be a huge seller.
But second, not having to pull your phone out of your pocket can be a big deal, and not just if you’re lazy. I’ve worked at multiple financial institutions that have a zero tolerance policy for having your phone out at your desk (because you can take pictures of sensitive information). Being able to glance at my watch to see if a call or message is urgent would be nice. Same for driving. Looking down at your phone or holding your phone up while driving is dangerous. Being able to glance at your wrist while still looking forward with both hands firmly on the wheel is a big deal. (Obviously the safest option is just to wait until you’re not driving, but tech companies are in the business of selling convenience and instant gratification. If they can also make it safer, they should).
this isn’t just a watch so comparing it to watches is specious