Personally, I can't agree enough with this. Positioning the wearable as a "iBracelet" means that it can be work at the same time as a consumer's watch; whereas an "iWatch" potentially limits the market.

That said, I can completely understand the position of making an iWatch and forcing the choice between existing watches and Apple's. However, to me it's better to competing with fitbit than rolex.

I believe that they're already doing tooling for it at the manufacturing company where I intern. So don't make that bet with too many people

Foxconn intern?

What do you call a bracelet with a touch screen? Semantics, anyhow.

Agree, it's as valid as calling your pocket touchscreen computer a "phone".

a watch is a wearable bracelet that just happens to tell time, and often a few other things.

Watches made the transition from time piece to jewelery many years ago. With the time being ubiquitously available watches have been relegated to being a "wearable bracelet" (is there any other kind?) - A Rolex submariner, for example, does the exact same thing as a $5 plastic cheapy, but people still buy Rolex and all the other > $5 watches as jewelery (i.e. social signalling of status)

The bet has to have a deadline or noone will be eating steak or sushi.

No deadline means he can never win the bet, but whoever he is betting with can, so seems win win ;)

Why wouldn't they include the time on a wearable bracelet?