Fair, but the Apple Watch has largely been an iPhone accessory rather than a standalone product. You could also point to AirPods. They sold a lot of them because a lot of people had iPhones. But neither is anything like the iPhone or the Mac in terms of defining a product category. Eventually, the Apple Watch is just going to be an iPhone on your wrist. More of a derivative, like the iPad.
The iPhone is a product that completely transformed the world and defines what a smartphone is. There are 3 billion of them so almost half the world owns a smartphone.
If your bar for "innovative" is seriously that incredibly high, prepare to be disappointed..
Agreed. But what are the contenders since 2008? The iPad and the Apple Watch. The iPad was really co-developed with the iPhone for all practical purposes, as the original iPad prototype inspired the phone. You can definitely make a case for the watch, but it's an extension of the phone in so many ways.
You need an iPhone to set up a cellular Apple Watch Series 4. After that, you can leave the phone at home and:
- Send and receive phone calls and messages
- Navigate using turn by turn directions
- Use Siri
- listen to synced music playlists with bluetooth headphones
- track activity and heart rate
- look at pictures
This is not that different from an iPhone prior to iOS 5, when you needed a computer to set up and update an iPhone.
Is the Apple Watch innovative? I would argue yes, it’s an incredible piece of technology. Will it be as successful as the iPhone? I would guess, probably not.
The phone started as an extension of the computer (iTunes was required for backup, app purchases, and syncing). The Watch is following that progression, iterating toward a stand-alone device.
I don't deny the Watch is a good product. And those who point out that you needed a Mac to use an iPod or an iPhone are correct. But the functionality of the devices themselves didn't overlap to the extent they do with the iPhone and the Watch. It's like Apple came out with the iPhone, then for an encore said "Hey, here's a bigger iPhone you can watch movies on! And here's one you can wear on your wrist!" I just don't see the Watch being on the same level as the Mac, iPod, or iPhone in terms of innovation (regardless of market success). I understand reasonable minds can differ.
There aren’t any thats my point. Its like they made the first ever car 10 years ago after lifetimes of horse carriages and you’re disappointed theres nothing else of that magnitude yet.
But it's not like nothing innovative has been released by others. There's the Echo, there's Google Glass, even the Pebble watch, which I would argue was more innovative (as watches go) than the Apple Watch two years later. Are any of them as financially successful as the iPhone? No, but I'm not saying Apple hasn't been financially successful, only that it has not been as innovative as it was in the past.
The iphone went from being a bit of a computer accessory to a standalone platform. The next watch OS release is likewise transitioning to not needing a phone in order to be set up.
I assume they want the watch to become a standalone platform (or at least, similarly to the ipod, a companion device to either an iphone or android phone), ultimately replacing your need for a phone at all.
That last statement of mine sounds absurd to me, but then again who would have predicted 10 years ago that many people would have a smart phone but no laptop nor desktop?
The iPod started off as a Mac accessory and ended up transforming multiple industries.
The iPhone was a Mac derivative and computer accessory that required iTunes to even work but became the most successful product in all of human history. You could call it just a ‘mac in your pocket’ but it would still be the most successful products
True. But the iPod and iPhone were functionally very distinct from the Mac. The Apple Watch seems more like a convenient extension that eliminates the need to pull your phone out, but not much more than that, at least in its first few years of existence. Apple is clearly gearing it up to replace the iPhone, but that trajectory has been evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Apple has sold as many AirPods as the echo. The AirPod is more functional and revolutionary then the echo. Are you kidding me? Echo is selling at a loss and that's what you claim as being revolutionary? The skill gap between alexa and siri is not high. https://loupventures.com/annual-digital-assistant-iq-test-si...
I don't think you can plausibly argue that the Echo is not a success for Amazon, I'm sorry. Apple would've loved to be in that market first, they just missed it.
You think Apple would have loved to sell a low margin $50-$150 product? Have you been following Apple for the last 40 years?
The only time Apple sold inexpensive electronics that I can remember were the iPod Shuffles and they were more expensive than other low end MP3 products.
But Apple wouldn't have needed to sell them at $50-150. They're Apple. They could've sold them for $399. They couldn't make the Echo because they lacked either the market insight to see the opportunity, or the technology to pull it off.
You mean like the HomePod? How is that working out? People will buy a $600-$1000 phone for two reasons - it’s highly subsidized/payment plans and the phone is considered a necessity. The number of people who would pay $400 for a smart speaker is minuscule. Heck iPads only started seeing an uptick when Apple started selling good low end models at $329.
The AppleTV was a decently early set top box and those didn’t change the world. It wasn’t until Roku and Amazon started selling them at basically break even or maybe a slight loss for $50 that those took off.
The HomePod isn't working out because:
a) it was way late to the market, and
b) Siri's technology lags behind Alexa.
Which supports my argument about lackluster innovation. I can say people won't pay $1200 bucks for a laptop with specs they could get for $800, either, but I'd be wrong because they do.
You might argue the AppleTV was innovative at the time it was released, but there were already very successful game consoles that had much the same functionality plus the games. Even if you count it as an innovation, it was announced in 2007.
Innovative products are not always successful. Now, if AppleTV had incorporated Alexa-level voice control technology back in 2013, that probably would've been innovative and successful.
People will buy a $1300 laptop because a computer is a necessity to get things done. Paying more for something you will use everyday. People will not pay $400 for a smart speaker. People just aren’t that into it b
Maybe so. But I still think if Apple had released an AppleTV with Alexa-quality voice control before the Echo came out, it would've been huge.
I'm wandering off-topic, but I keep imagining an alternative universe where Apple bought Nintendo and released an amazing Nintendo-AppleTV with fantastic voice control, leading to a game ecosystem today where you can seamlessly go from console-to-phone-to-watch playing the same game, with friends.
But in both cases, the overwhelming majority of people that get them have iPhones, because there is additional and important functionality that comes with the connection.
