Except it's not the iWatch is it?
As the Telegraph delighted in pointing out this morning, the new piece of tech is simply the Apple Watch and NOT the iWatch
I expect Steve would have hated that too!
Staffers at Apple have been working on their latest wearable wheeze for three long years, while the rest of us wondered where on Earth its legendary spirit of innovation had disappeared to. If you believe Tim Cook, Apple was on the job the whole time, beavering away in secrecy to create a timepiece which would once again …
Let's hear Apples design phiosophy from the man himself then: "Good artists copy, great artists steal"
Then sue, if their corners are round.
"Good artists copy, great artists steal" Was first said or at least said before by Pablo Picasso who unashamedly stole other artists ideas gave them his slant and made them his own but you can't knock his work (if you like that kind of thing).
Appoo have aimed the iWatch at the fashion market, if you look at the hipsters(?) ( I'm still not that sure what a hipster is) the guys turning up on holiday here have beards a ferret could live in, early '90s sort of samurai haircuts or '50s comic Biggles style hair, the girls seem to have gone for a Amy Winehouse/'60s backcombed look and wear bikini knickers that cover their belly buttons: all in all to an old ex hippy biker engineer it looks strange to me.
So iThing wise if it's a matter of style or fashion anything could happen.
The other aim for the iWatch is health with two built in sensors reading your wrist, as people seem to be far more health centric now, that should be a good selling point if enough useful apps are developed for it , iLifeStyle is coming!
Just not to me!
Steve Jobs did not approve that partnership. That was John Sculley, the guy who fired Steve Jobs.
Steve sure was happy to sell the PowerPC as long as it was viable, but I suspect that he never really committed to it. There were persistent rumors that Apple had a lab running MacOS X on x86, and MacOS X never really ran smoothly on PowerPC. As soon as IBM stumbled with the G5 and Intel recovered from the Pentium 4 stumble with the Core series, Steve switched the whole Mac line to x86.
we would have it. Really, unfortunately, Steve was maniacal enough to give people the fscking he thought they needed. IF he wanted a watch, the iPod nano or similar would have been a watch too! As many have predicted, Apple has reached a plateau, I am waiting for the next innovation, not shinier replication.
I don't know if there is another revolution like iPhone/smart phones on the horizon. I guess I'm waiting for someone to tell me I have a need...
I think Steve would have hated it because it looks like a watch and not an Apple product. A Steve designed watch would have been sleeker and shinier and would scream Apple. No knob on the side and a longer, curved screen.
No point wearing a watch that looks like a watch. People need to wear an Apple watch and people need to know people are wearing Apple watches.
@Thorne: Spot on. If there's one thing distinctive about Apple products it's that, for better or for worse, you can spot one a mile away, and a few years later, everything (successful) looks the same.
This watch looks somewhat nondescript and dare I say it, generic. I think Steve would have fine tuned it until it didn't look quite so "watchlike" and far more "Apple".
"Apple has reached a plateau, I am waiting for the next innovation, not shinier replication."
I have a couple of Apple products and they are largely excellent. However, Apple don't innovate - they never did. What Apple excelled at was looking at tech which hadn't caught on, could be significantly slicker, easier to use, and prettier, and they rebuilt that.
The iPod is just a Walkman in drag. The iPad is just a tablet PC that works properly. Jobs "visionary" status stemmed from his ability to look at other peoples work and see exactly where they'd gone wrong, how it could be improved, and how to make it appealing to people.
Apple is, was, and always will be about shinnier replication. It's what they do better than any other company in the world, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I know the fanboys will hate that, but unless someone can explain how most Apple products are innovative or original, then they're wrong.
So, without Jobs, do they have enough people that can replicate that sort of vision? I doubt it. I don't wholly buy the cult of the CEO thing, but Jobs was simply better at what he did than anyone else. He's fundamentally hard to replace, or replicate, and I think the next amazing Apple product may be a while in coming.
From the Online Etymology Dictionary - Innovate "introduce as new," from Latin innovatus, past participle of innovare "to renew, restore; to change," from in- "into" (see in- (2)) + novus "new" (see new). Meaning "make changes in something established" is from 1590s.
Invention and innovation are not the same thing. Apple has always innovated.
LucreLout» However, Apple don't innovate - they never did. What Apple excelled at was looking at tech which hadn't caught on, could be significantly slicker, easier to use, and prettier, and they rebuilt that.
Which of these products were widely available and used before Apple got their greedy paws on them?
• Expandable & affordable personal computer (Apple ][)
• GUI (Lisa & Macintosh)
• Laser Printer with PostScript
• Personal Digital Assistant (Newton)
• 32-bit OS in a home computer (Mac OS 7 onwards)
• USB (iMac onwards)
• FireWire
• very light powerful laptops (MacBook Air — although I do prefer Netbooks)
• really small computers (Mac Mini)
That's not a bad list for innovation.
Ah yes, the usual anti-Apple rant from the Pulpit I see.
Perhaps you might have been better asking if Steve (the devil incarnate) Jobs would like the offerings from Motorola, Samsung etc as a bit of balance?
Is that a no?
Will this get moderated off? Probably.
"if Steve (the devil incarnate) Jobs would like the offerings from Motorola"
the Moto 360 certainly. Actually, I thought that Apple would present a round and slim iWatch, and incarnate the next Swatch. THAT would have shaken the market, but a Casio clone from 20 years ago...
It's not a Casio clone. Casio's battery lifes are measured in months, if not years, and certainly not hours, it was visible in sunlight and was waterproof. It also didn't need a charger (albeit a beautifully engineered one) to be carried too.
It also didn't need a phone or to be replaced annually.
It also brings with it a new first-world problem of will my watch last the day.
The apple watch is beautiful, functional and will be loved by many the world over but doesn't do well on many of the critical success factors of a watch.
I think that if there was anything that Steve Jobs didn't like it was probably Tim Cook's sycophantic approach..
I honestly can't imagine that Steve Jobs would have been happy to appear on the stage for the 6th time selling yet another version of the iPhone. The iWatch as much as I can appreciate the technology and it's finesse is just another [Apple] Product......which I don't imagine that Steve Jobs would have been overthrilled about either, it's just to normal....
I do not know if it was Steve himself who was the innovator or if it was his team, ie Johnny Ive et al but I am convinced that Tim Cook can't get his team motivated/angry/inovative as Steve was capable of doing. Steve had personality and that counts, whereas Tim is just Tim...
Apple are moving into a catch up phase now and will struggle hard with what they now have to offer, would Steve have been pleased with this position, I doubt it.
I suppose you were marked down for your last paragraph. I don't think Apple are playing catch up. Yes they have produced bigger phones, but besides that "compromise" I don't see them struggling TBH. They will just soldier on as Apple even if it kills them.
Besides that, I totally agree. Tim would be too touchy feely for him, I think. I feel that, for example, Tim he has selected a committee of people to craft the latest Apple products... Make them as inoffensive and foible free as possible being the main tenet.
They really do lack that genius individualist "spark" of love-them-or-hate-them design that older products had.
The angled iPhone 4 is a classic example. Distinctive to the eye to be sure, but hideously uncomfortable in the hand ... immediately rendering the 3G series clunky-looking. The iPhone 6, which I believe is the first non Steve iPhone, is by comparison smooth and unobtrusive. It is also rather staid and could be said to be boring... It also goes back to glass which, being curved, is likely to be scratched, a bugbear Jobs was known to get sweary about.
>I suppose you were marked down for your last paragraph. I don't think Apple are playing catch up.
Playing catch-uo might not effectively be the correct term, alternatively I could have used "late to market".
I definately think that Apple are moving moving away from innovation and relying more heavily on their brand name. With Steve it was everything, the product, the look, the uniqueness, the presentation etc, with Tim it's just another apple.
If you could find someone who did not know and you put the iwatch and the motorola 360 in front of them (unpowered) and asked which was the apple device then most would choose the 360. After all the concept art about what the iwatch would look like it is disappointingly like adding a strap to an ipod nano.
> Depends. Was it his idea?
One of the omissions from this launch seems to be the substantive reference to Steve Jobs. I seem to remember just after Steve died Tim commented that there was a pipeline of products that Steve had road mapped out that covered the next few years. So I suggest the absence of reference to Steve Jobs in the launch of the watch would seem to indicate that this was a project that wasn't on the roadmap and hence didn't have his backing.
I remember when the iPhone was announced everyone said it was too big, the trend was for smaller phones and it was too expensive.
Then the iPad was announced everyone said it was dead in the water as MS couldn't sell the concept and that it was just a big iPhone.
Apple watch ugly (Vogue have already disagreed) no-one needs one (I've been using a pebble for 9 months and it is really useful on a packed London train)...blah blah blah.
Time will tell.
What has made me really me laugh is the IT people being asked their opinion who have said it is not stylish (these guys are very fat, sweaty and have the dress sense of an IT bloke), it is not us in the IT crowd who are going to make or break this produc (I know many IT friends who have windows 8 phones)t, it's the public and from what I've heard already they might do well again.
The iPod was also criticized by many at first and predicted as a failure. There doesn't seem to be a good track record for people predicting failures by Apple since 2000. That doesn't mean the watch will be a hit, but it would be foolish to bet against it.
I saw a backstage interview of Cook on ABC News last night and the ABC guy wanted to see how his heart rate and blood pressure were doing after his presentation. Cook was going to show him, then thought better of it, saying "there's still a few secrets in here we haven't told anyone about yet" so Apple may be holding back a few things until it goes on sale for competitive reasons.
I don't like the apple watch design - I do like the moto 360 design, and it's cheaper - though not having an android phone anymore, it'd be pointless buying even if I could afford it.
I've no doubt they'll sell a fair few of these things, but remember they've had just as many flops as they've had successes.
The Register should really have learnt by now not to bet against a new Apple product. I remember their coverage of the iPad announcement and the repeated jibes and hilarity that ensued for WAY too long, even when even the most hardened Apple sceptic had to admit it was actually a massive hit - painfully embarrassing to read let alone write. I hope we don't have to subjected to a repeat of that but I suspect we will.
I've always delighted in Apple-bashing (even whilst buying some of their products) for... well as they had some horribly devoted buyers who took the bait every time.
What Apple just delivered on was on one hand uninspiring - but on the other what us 'fandroids' had delighted in mocking Apple for not producing before. I suddenly miss Apple not giving a toss what their detractors say and ploughing their own furrow - it was clearly a rubbish furrow *glances away from Apple's revenues*, but they should at least have had the courage of their rut.
...I think everyone is asking the wrong questions.
It's not about what it looks like to a large degree - it just has to be reasonable, and not fugly (which it isn't - when you see them on people's wrists they look just fine - sure it's chunky but so is my current (normal) watch, it's not unusual).
Given that it is not fugly, what matters is what it DOES, and not even whether it does what YOU want it to do, being a Reg reader, journalist, or paid shill. It's whether it does what existing (and potential) iPhone 5 through 6+ owners want it to, since that is both their target market and a requirement - nobody will buy an iPhone to get the Apple Watch, but if you have an iPhone and you like the idea of being able to quickly see who's calling you before you grab your phone in a meeting, or read that text on the (crowded) train without getting your phone out or track your daily movements to get a little fitter, or get walking directions without anyone in a strange city you're visiting (and don't know how safe it is) seeing you head-down staring at Google Maps on your $1000 phone as you walk.
I suspect that tens of millions of the 200 million potential audience will want this.
It's not rubbish, it's not shit, it's not even overpriced really when you look at the functionality, it's well designed given the limitations of the technology, and it'll be improved on, in the same way as the iPad was, and people should just take a step back and a deep breath and stop with the vitriol.
If you don't like it, don't buy one.
If you do, do.
There is an astonishingly high correlation between my predictions of Apple product success and what actually happens. Sadly it is negative. I am almost always exactly wrong.
I loved the cube. I thought the iPod was a pointless kids toy. I knew with great certainty that no one would pay silly money for a phone, even with an 'i' in front of it. I could go on.
The principle also applies to major technology decisions made by Apple over the years. I got them all dead wrong - although .... maybe choosing BeOS would have lead to even greater success?. See? I am the Anti-Paul the octopus of Apple.
What is the point of all this? Well. I think the Apple watch is a great product , and that the Health SDK thingy is a brilliant strategy. I really like the looks of the new iPhones. Pay by bonk (how it should be done) and many other iOS 8 features look excellent in my eyes.
Oh dear.
...was say "Yes Steve signed off the Watch before he died!" and it would have been golden.
I'm expecting that snippet to be pushed in a few weeks if the press coverage doesn't improve.
As I've said before, that poor guy must have been so busy approving/signing off all those prototypes and concepts for the next 8 years from his death bed.
Well, Apple did innovate with this new watch. One can control it by turning the stem; it's shocking no other digital watch maker thought of it. However, a stem is awkward to grip; a digital watch ought instead to have a knob with the edge sticking out like a transistor radio instead - that wasn't practical for mechanical watches. Or has Apple's patent covered that?
So Apple has come out with a watch that looks as crap as the Samsung effort, and technically seems to have all the same problems but is a year later to market.
They've also produced two new phones that have finally caught up with the fact people like bigger screens several years after everyone else went there, and Jobs went to his grave insisting were too big.
Pretty clear that Apple's era of defining the market is behind it and it's basically just following the leaders now.