Apple CEO Tim Cook just announced that the Apple Watch will begin shipping in April. Cook revealed the shipping timeframe during Apple’s quarterly earnings call with investors; the company enjoyed a blockbuster quarter backed by massive iPhone sales and huge growth in China. Now it will look to carry that success forward with the launch of Apple Watch, its first major new product since the debut of iPad in 2010. “We’re making great progress in the development of it,” Cook said. He also revealed that Apple is encouraged by the response from developers and app makers so far, saying “We’re seeing some incredible innovation.”
The Apple Watch could be a crappy product, but with these kinds of iPhone sales numbers, even a dud would be a huge success. These numbers are beyond my comprehension.
Dunno much about watches, my phone has one and I occasionally look at it.
That said, why isn’t the thing round, why doesn’t it have a centered crown and why should I charge it more often than my phone?
Ah, I see. This is fashion thing.
Least I’m saved from becoming a fashion victim, well the Apple version, as I don’t have an iPhone…course I could get the watch and everyone would think I must have an iPhone…you’d have to be really sad, and their will be such.
Apple made more profit in the quarter than Google will probably report in revenue. (And Google is supposed to be a 800lb gorilla!)
That is mind boggling.
Especially when you look at the impact of both companies. One makes phones that will be almost forgotten after 5 years. The other powers the infrastructure of the future.
> The Apple Watch could be a crappy product, but with these kinds of iPhone sales numbers, even a dud would be a huge success.
That makes no sense. The iPhone sells well because it’s good. If the apple watch is crappy it won’t sell well. Just like there are hundreds of millions of Android devices sold every year but Android watch is still a very small niche.
His comment is based on Thom’s presumption that Apple’s products sell well despite being inferior to the competition. It’s that idea that helps reinforce his idea that Apple is primarily a marketing company and not a tech company. Apparently nobody would buy Apple’s products to the extent that they do if they knew what Thom knows.
Which is why OSnews is a billion dollar website and Thom designs OS’s and sells them to the highest bidder.
It was a hypothetical. Even if the Apple Watch would be a dud, it would still sell well with these kinds of numbers of I phones sold.
Learn English instead of trolling.
Edited 2015-01-28 07:28 UTC
There is no money to be made in OS development these days. Even Microsoft are graciously letting those of us who use Windows 7/8.0/8.1 upgrade to 10 for free.
Perhaps this is why Thom has another job?
Possibly Thom is wrong, but there is another fallacy here can millions of people be wrong – Ummm – Well yes they can.
Liar.
My exact words:
“l. People do not buy iPhone and iPads because of marketing or the Apple brand – they buy them because they’re genuinely good devices that are an optimal fit for many, many people.”
http://www.osnews.com/story/27565/Here_we_go_again_Android_is_appar…
Go troll somewhere else.
Liar.
My exact words:
“l. People do not buy iPhone and iPads because of marketing or the Apple brand – they buy them because they’re genuinely good devices that are an optimal fit for many, many people.”
http://www.osnews.com/story/27565/Here_we_go_again_Android_is_appar…
Go troll somewhere else. [/q]
But you also quite clearly say in the summary:
A dud is a product that doesn’t work well or meet its intended functionality.
So I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who points out that what you are saying in effect is that Apple products will sell well or be a success even if they are useless, which is not only demonstrably not true – Apple has had some true duds such as:
– Power Mac G4 Cube
– MobileMe
– ROKR (in conjunction with Motorola
– iPod Hi-Fi
They didn’t sell or perform very well, which shows that Apple can’t make duds and expect them to sell massively.
And most people’s English is actually fine on this site. Maybe if you re-read your own submission you would actually see that you actually said what people are accusing you of.
You’re focusing on just one word, taking it completely out of the context of the sentence, which is as follows, emphasis mine:
This is VERY CLEARLY a hypothetical. I.e., with so many people buying iPhones, EVEN IF the Apple Watch was a bad product, it would still sell very well.
Your point would be valid IF (ALERT: THIS IS ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL) the sentence were as follows:
See the difference?
Edited 2015-01-28 09:40 UTC
If I am understanding you right, then what you are basically saying is that the statement should be interpreted as “If the Apple Watch sells as much as the iPhone, then it would be a huge success”. Which is pretty much a tautology and definitely not how one would ordinarily interpret that statement at first glance – at least I wouldn’t naturally interpret it that way.
In any case, even if that was the intended interpretation, underlying that is a suggestion that a dud could sell that well for whatever reason (I suppose this might be because one person’s dud is x million people’s “not-a-dud”) but nonetheless, there is a suggestion that people could still buy it in droves because they are duped into buying a product that doesn’t meet their needs or wants.
And if one reads in between the lines a little bit more, then there could be a further suggestion in there that a dud made by Apple could sell really well because, well, it is made by Apple.
What?
That is not even remotely what is suggested, and not at all how “one would ordinarily interpret that statement”. The statement requires no special interpretation or reading-between-the-lines – that is, unless you do not understand constructions with the modal verb “could”.
The market potential for the Apple Watch is intrinsically linked to iPhone owners, and possibly even to owners of recent iPhones. With numbers like 75 million iPhones sold, EVEN IF (ALERT! HYPOTHETICAL! ALERT!) the Apple Watch was a dud and sold to “only” 10% of Q1 2015 iPhone buyers, that still adds to up 7.5 million Apple Watches sold – a huge number for a new product, and possibly higher than all Android Wear devices sold to date. And that would just be Q1 2015 iPhone buyers!
In other words, it’s pretty much impossible for the Apple Watch to NOT be a success. Hence my statement: EVEN IF the Apple Watch were to be a piece of crap (ALERT! HYPOTHETICAL! ALERT!), the sheer size of its target demographic ensures it will still sell in the millions.
I can’t believe I have to explain a simple hypothetical in this much detail.
Ah, here we have the problem. You are actively looking for supposed Apple negativity, but since my statement is not negative, you have to “read between the lines” to find something supposedly negative.
Still, I’ll humour myself and get into this. This is not related to the what came before (your misinterpretation of the Apple Watch remark and possibly does not apply to you specifically at all).
The idea that a product could sell well ONLY because it is made by Apple is not impossible or even far-fetched; in fact, the power of brands is well understood and very well documented (just look at music, movies, etc. to see examples all around you). However, as I linked to above, and have said on numerous occasions, the idea that iPhones, Macs, and iPads only sell because marketing is bullshit; they sell because they’re a perfect fit for a large number of people.
However – and here we run into the problem I, and many with me, have with die-hard Apple fanatics – that does not (I repeat: DOES NOT) mean that the iPhone is the best phone, period, that the Mac is the best PC, period, that the iPad is the best tablet, period. It simply means that for a large number of people, these products are the optimal choice.
However, that does not make them the best always, which is what a lot of Apple bloggers and fanatics seem to believe – and they will use whatever means to “prove” said assertion. Over a decade ago, not a single Apple blogger would argue that high Windows PC sales and profits indicated that they were better than Macs; however, now that the reverse is true (Apple products sales and profits soaring), it suddenly means they are the best ever always!
Apple fanatics used to state that popularity != quality. Now that Apple is popular, popularity has magically come to mean quality. I.e., Apple seeing soaring iPhone sales MUST mean the iPhone is the best phone – but soaring Windows sales a decade ago did not mean Windows was the best operating system or that the PC was the best platform.
It’s these kind of mental gymnastics – the constant moving of goalposts – that is a sure sign you’re dealing with someone who is far too infatuated with something, far too stuck inside The Bubble to see clearly what lies beyond. Goalposts are moved to make sure the narrative stays the same – “products from company A are the best [because reasons]”, where “reasons” shift.
When 5-6 years ago, when I said Android’s market share would overtake iOS within years, Apple fanatics called me a troll. When Android’s market share did overtake iOS, the goalpost was suddenly shifted to “profit”. When Samsung eventually raked in huge amounts of profit from Android, the goal posts were shifted again by focusing only on the US, Japan, the UK, and Australia – leaving out the vast majority of the world (if you talk to Apple fanatics, you’d get the impression Europe, Africa, and South-America do not exist).
This moving of goal posts allows the fanatic (of any product, company, sports team, etc.) to maintain her narrative “[product, company, sports team, etc.] is the best”, even when conditions change. People without a specific attachment or bond to [product, company, sports team, etc.] would, instead, adjust their narrative.
I myself am a perfect example of the latter category. Back when the iPhone 3GS came out, it was hands-down the best smartphone on the market, offering the best user experience. Android was still crappy, Symbian was as LOL as always, and nothing much else existed. Hence, I bought a 3GS, and loved it to death (I still have it). Android eventually got better, however, and while still not entirely up to par with iOS, it reached a tipping point with the Samsung Galaxy SII – which I also bought, and also really liked (again – I still have it, running KitKat).
Today, both platforms are more or less on par, and the idea that one is better than the other overall is crazy. However, one platform may still be better in specific situations or for specific people.
The problem with overly vocal Apple fanatics (like “themwagency”, who has been harassing OSNews staff for over a decade) and bloggers, is that they are trying so hard to maintain their narrative that they will perceive everything that may not fit inside that narrative as a threat to their very core sense of self. They are so deep inside The Bubble they are no longer able to perceive The Bubble’s edges.
This means that people who are not in The Bubble, people who are perfectly capable of grasping e.g. the difference between a company and its products and who have the ability to criticise one but not the other, are perceived as a huge threat by these fanatics. An Apple fanatic is not worried by rabid Android fanboy idiots (trust me, they exist in droves) – no, she is most worried about reasonable people, people who can build a reasonable case, founded in proper facts and with the correct dose of ifs and buts.
That’s why such fanatics completely and utterly ignore all the positive things reasonable people say, and only focus on the negative things. Just look at “themwagency”‘s comment above – that statement does not apply to me at all. I have never said anything even remotely like it. In fact, I have said – as linked above – the exact opposite countless times. People like him do that a lot – they try to paint reasonable critics as rabid idiots by putting words into their mouth and selective perception (only remembering negative remarks, but never the positive ones) so that it becomes easier to attack them.
I’ve run OSNews for ten years now, and I have a lot of insight into and understanding of how fanatics – regardless of object of adulation – work. Studying how these people try to find reason in their adulation and their obsessive desire to maintain their narrative is one of the most fascinating aspects of running a site like OSNews.
Edited 2015-01-28 12:27 UTC
I did say “If I understand you correctly”, which I evidently did not.
Unfortunately spoken language, unlike a computer programming language, is about nuance and not just about the literal. More so if that language is English, which is spoken in virtually every country in the world and is the international “currency of exchange” as it were.
In any case, right there, you are saying, even if “only” (your emphasis) 10% of the 75m buyers in Q1 2015 buy one, it would be a success.
No one ever makes the same calculation of Samsung Galaxy buyers. As far as I can tell, you never said, “The Samsung Gear could be a crappy product, but with these kinds of Samsung Galaxy sales numbers, even a dud would be a huge success”. (Reference any quarter in which Samsung sold 40m+ Galaxies here.)
There is an implicit assumption that Apple duds can be huge successes, but non-Apple duds, e.g. Samsung duds, cannot be successes.
Here is a challenge: can you name one successful Apple dud?
And that also pre-supposes that a dud is something that one could objectively identify.
The biggest fallacy though is that Apple has a niche demographic (you don’t use the word niche, but that is the essence of what people mean when they say Apple has a demographic). You don’t get to sell 75m phones in 3 months to a niche demographic. You don’t sell 75m phones in 3 months to fanatics. To put that in perspective, that is a bit more than 1% of people in the world buying iPhones in the last 3 months.
Apple’s target demographic is the same as the target demographic for Samsung Galaxy S’s. If the Apple Watch is a dud, it will fail like the Gear failed regardless of how well Apple markets it and regardless of the demographic it targets. If it does well, if it is a huge success, then it is _probably_ because it is NOT a dud, regardless of how many analysts and pundits claim it to be so.
See? You’re doing again! do you see how you are putting words into my mouth and seeing things that aren’t there? There is ZERO reason to assume I’m referring to Apple buyers as a niche. Zero. There is no possible way to turn “target demographic” into “niche”.
See how you are making things up, adding things, just to maintain your own narrative? Can you imagine how infuriating it can be to have people do that to you?
That assumption is not implicit – it’s 100% intended. Apple’s brand is A LOT stronger than Samsung’s brand. Apple’s brand can make up for a lot. Hence why despite the consistent grumblings from die-hard Apple users about Apple’s problems right now with software quality, they show zero intention of buying competing products. This is because Apple’s brand is strong enough for these users to warrant the assumption that the product will get better over time and issues will be resolved.
That’s not denigrating, anti-Apple, or anything even remotely like that – it’s a fact of business and how brand loyalty works. Heck, don’t take it from me – Apple bloggers and fans love to point to studies that highlight the high brand loyalty among Apple users!
So yes, the chances of a crap Samsung product still being a success are lower than that of a crap Apple product being a success, simply because Apple’s brand – and the associated trust and loyalty among consumers – is a lot stronger. This is no different than fans sticking with a sports team even during harsh times for said team.
This is not rocket science.
Apple TV. Yosemite. iOS 7/8. All of their mice. Their internet services. All duds for different reasons (limited functionality, bugs, issues, etc.), yet still hugely successful. Heck, even the Cube was a dud with lots of issues, yet, despite claims to the contrary, it sold relatively well in its first quarter: 29000 Cubes out of a total of 308000 Macs that quarter. 29000 seems like peanuts now, but it was almost 10% of total Mac sales – not bad, considering that lineup also consisted of iMacs, iBooks, PowerBooks, and PowerMacs – all of which had far better price/performance ratios.
So yes, there are countless examples.
Apple releases their quarterly report today, with mind-boggling sales, revenue, and profit figures, but there is no repost on OS News about that. There is an repost about Microsoft’s Surface increasing its miniscule sales figures by 24%. Otherwise just an repost titled regarding the Apple Watch launch along with a snide remark about its usefulness, despite the author of the article never having seen, touched or used the device or the operating system on it at all, ever. Interesting, there’s no slant or bias here at all, oh noooooo.
Edited 2015-01-28 08:26 UTC
This news item is about the quarterly report… It is linked RIGHT THERE.
RIGHT THERE.
Wtf?
Calm down, these kind of non-technical articles are subject for trolling.
Well, even technical articles are.
This news item is partly about the results, but with a title like “Apple Watch will be released in April” I can understand that people think it is only about the watch. Most sites would make 2 seperate news items for this, you made it one which is fine by me
Don’t let this commenter bother you. Bias would be 1 article “iPad down, Surface up, Apple doomed”
That’s what I was talking about. Yes, there was a link in the post regarding the quarterly report, but the article was titled ONLY about the Apple Watch release date, there wasn’t a word about Apple’s quarterly report there in the title. The first sentence in the post used the word “crappy” even though Thom has never touched or used the product before. Yes, he covered his butt with the words “might be” but come on, the suggestion of the following word “crappy” is obvious. I’m not an over-sensitive Apple fanboy, but that choice of words and the headline that had nothing to do with Apple’s quarterly report do nothing to dispell Thom’s assertions that he is not biased in any way towards Apple.
Edited 2015-01-30 09:23 UTC