The race to own the wrist is in full swing ‒ and Apple hasn't even arrived. With less than two weeks to go (likely September 9th), here are three reasons why I think the iWatch will be a flop. The watch will be gorgeous, to be sure, but it won't come close to rivaling the adoption rate of other Apple tech.
The first hurdle is that it's really an evolutionary product category. Unlike the iPod, or iPhone or iPad, Apple isn't really inventing a new device ‒ it's working on a first release of a product that already has some big names staking out their claim in this category. Samsung (now on its 6th version), Motorola, LG and Withings to name a few.
Also, unlike the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad, we've owned and worn "wrist wearables" for generations. The iPod, the iPhone and the iPad were largely created from whole cloth - as standalone separate devices.
I'm not a watch connoisseur, but recent designs and aesthetics have come a long way from the clunky LCD blocks that comprised "first generation" wearable's for the wrist. Here's what a sampling of that competition looks like today ‒ which is to say not too shabby in their own right.
The second reason is the sheer amount of design hype. We've been teased and taunted for well over a year ‒ and trying to just guess what it might look like has been the personal hobby of some very sharp designers. The risk here is that the final iWatch design won't be that revolutionary from either the competition (above) ‒ or the fantasy design projects we've all seen before (below). So far, many of these have been elegant and impressive attempts to answer the fundamental question ‒ what could an iWatch look like?
With all of these as design placeholders, the iWatch reveal (always a big stage moment) just won't have the same wow factor as the iPod, the iPhone or the iPad. Once it is revealed ‒ we'll move at lightning connector speed into the third big hurdle ‒ value.
Price alone is perhaps the lowest threshold for diehard Apple fans because they're all very comfortable with expensive products that look elegant and make the right tech "statement." While the retail price is still unknown, it's been widely speculated to be about $300. I think it could easily be more because most of Apple's products tend to push pricing boundaries simply because they can.
Value, however, is a larger component than price ‒ and this is where the iWatch is basically an expensive addition or companion device to the iPhone itself. That's not unique to Apple because every version of wearable watch so far (including those from Samsung, Withings, LG and Motorola) lean heavily on the core component ‒ the one device you may return home to retrieve ‒ the smartphone itself. That means that whatever the final price of the iWatch ‒ $300, $400 ‒ or more, it's still just an expensive accessory. It will enhance the functionality of the iPhone ‒ and will collaborate seamlessly with it, but it won't replace it ‒ and that's a big challenge for all the wrist wearable manufacturers ‒ including Apple.
Even 'The Woz' (Apple Co-Founder Steve Wozniak) thinks the whole wearable category is a big risk for everyone ‒ including Apple.
"I feel that wearables are a hard sell. They are go-betweens for your smartphone but are an extra piece and need special advantages that the smartphone doesn't have, in my opinion. If they are just a Bluetooth go-between then it could wind up in the category of Bluetooth headsets: Fun to wear and show off for a day." Apple Co‒FounderSteve Wozniak ‒ C|Net article
In terms of hype, here's how Morgan Stanley is forecasting the adoption rate relative to other laudable Apple successes.
Don't get me wrong, the launch will be an exciting event - and the iWatch will be a typically impressive design achievement, but it won't be the breakthrough we've all come to expect from one of the worlds biggest tech giants. Given the high expectations, the wildly bullish forecasts by analysts and the competition already on the global stage, I think we'll look back this time next year and say that this first version of the iWatch was a flop.
No comments:
Post a Comment