A year after launch, it’s now clear that pretty much no one needs an Apple Watch

Re:A year after launch, it’s now clear that pretty much no o... by beambot on Sunday April 10, 2016 @04:08PM (#11467923)

> Thus, Apple may say they want to sell a bajillion watches, but what they really need to do is sell enough watches and have enough credibility that if smart watches disrupt smart phones, Apple already has a seat at the table.

And that is the difference between Apple-with-Jobs and Apple-without-Jobs. Apple with Jobs didn't worry about "if smart watches disrupt..."; Apple with Jobs built products that DID disrupt.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A year after launch, it’s now clear that pretty much no o... by skywhopper on Sunday April 10, 2016 @05:08PM (#11468169)

Jobs had plenty of duds, as well. Remember the ROKR? Or the iPod Hi-Fi? If you do, then you know what I'm talking about. If you don't, well, you just proved my point.

Anyway, disruption doesn't happen in a year with the first version of a product in a brand-new market category. But when watches do become capable enough to disrupt phones, Apple is well-positioned to ride that wave.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A year after launch, it’s now clear that pretty much no o... by hellofunk on Sunday April 10, 2016 @04:39PM (#11468056)

Um, except plenty of evidence exists that Jobs was involved with the Apple Watch plans from the beginning -- supposedly all major product lines released through 2015 began under his watch (no pun intended).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A year after launch, it’s now clear that pretty much no o... by beambot on Sunday April 10, 2016 @04:49PM (#11468106)

Big difference between a project beginning (experimentation) and going all the way to launching...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A year after launch, it’s now clear that pretty much no o... by jasonlotito on Sunday April 10, 2016 @05:13PM (#11468186)

Or... DID EVENTUALLY disrupt. Or DID get killed and forgotten when it didn't disrupt. Apple has had it's share of failures.

[ Parent | on HN ]