Rumors don’t actual Apple products make, see the perennial Apple TV — and the latest iWatch rumors. This is an opportunity to step back, look at Apple’s one and only love –personal computers — and use this thought to sift through rumors.
Every week brings new rumors of soon-to-be-released Apple products. The mythical Apple TV set is always a favorite: Gossip of an Apple buyout of troubled TV maker Löwe has sent the German company’s stock soaring. We also hear of a radio streaming service that will challenge Pandora and Spotify, and there’s the usual gaggle of iPhone, iPad, and Mac variations. More interesting is the racket surrounding Apple’s “stealth” projects: an iWatch and other wearable devices (and “racket” is the right word — see these intimations of stock manipulation).
There is a way to see through the dust, to bring some clarity, to organize our thoughts when considering what Apple might actually do, why the company would (or wouldn’t) do it, and how a rumored product would fit into the game plan.
The formula is simple: Apple engineers may wax poetic about the crystalline purity of the software architecture, execs take pride in the manufacturing chain and distribution channels (and rightly so), marketing can point to the Apple Customer Experience (when they’re not pitching regrettable Genius ads or an ill-timed campaign featuring Venus and Serena Williams). But what really floats their bots, what hardens Apple’s resolve is designing, making, and selling large numbers of personal computers, from the traditional desktop/laptop Mac, to the genre-validating iPad, and on to the iPhone — the Very Personal Computer. Everything else is an ingredient, a booster, a means to the noblest end.
Look at Apple’s report to its owners: there’s only one Profit and Loss (P&L) statement for the entire $200B business. Unlike Microsoft or HP, for example, there is no P&L by division. As Tim Cook put it:
We manage the company at the top and just have one P&L and don’t worry about the iCloud team making money and the Siri team making money…we don’t do that–we don’t believe in that…
Apple’s appreciation for the importance and great economic potential of personal computers — which were invented to act as dumb servants to help us with data storage, text manipulation, math operations — may have been, at first, more instinctual than reasoned. But it doesn’t matter; the company’s monomania, it’s collective passion is undeniable. More than any other company, Apple has made computers personal, machines we can lift with our hands and our credit cards.
With these personal computer glasses on, we see a bit more clearly.
For example: Is Apple a media distribution company? Take a look at Apple’s latest 10-Q SEC filing, especially the Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section starting page 21. iTunes, now reported separately, clocked $3.7B for the last quarter of 2012. Elsewhere, Horace Dediu sees $13.5B for the entire year. A big number indeed, and, certainly, iTunes is a key to Apple’s success: Without iTunes there would have been no iPod, Apple’s “halo product“, proof that the company could come up with a winner. Later, iTunes begat the App Store, a service that solidified the App Phone genre.
Some misguided analysts look at the numbers and argue that Apple ought to spin off iTunes. They use the old “shareholder value” gambit, but the “value” simply isn’t there: Horace Dediu puts iTunes margins in the 15% region, well below Apple’s overall 38%. iTunes is a hugely important means to the personal computer end, but it’s not a separate business.
How about Apple as a retail company? The success of the Apple Store is stellar, a word that’s almost too weak: The Apple Stores welcomed three times more visitors than all of the Disney parks, and generated more than $20B in revenue last year — that works out to an astonishing $6000 per square foot, twice as much as the #2 shop (Tiffany and Co.). But Apple’s 400 stores aren’t a business, they only exist to create an experience that will lead to more sales, enhanced customer satisfaction, and, as a consequence, increased margins.
Apple as a software company? No. The raison d’être for OS X, iOS, iWork, and even Garage Band is to breathe life into Apple hardware. By now, the calls for Apple to see the error of its ways, to not repeat the original sin of not licensing Mac OS, to sell iOS licenses to all comers have (almost) died.
During my first visit to Apple’s hypergalactic headquarters and warehouse in February 1981, I was astonished at the sight of forklifts moving pallets of Apple ][ software. The term “ecosystem” wasn’t part of the industry lingo yet, but I had witnessed the birth of the notion.
Apple had a much harder time building a similarly rich set of applications for the Macintosh, but the lesson was eventually learned, partly due to the NeXT acquisition and the adoption of object oriented programming. We now have a multi-dimensional macrocosm — a true ecosystem — in which our various forms of personal computing work together, share data, media, services.
Where does the current Apple TV device (the black puck, not the mythical TV set) fit into this scheme? Apple TV runs on a version of iOS, and it knows how to communicate with a Bluetooth keyboard — but that doesn’t mean the device is a personal computer. Perhaps Apple will (someday) provide a TV Software Development Kit (SDK) so developers can adapt existing iOS apps or write new ones. But I still see it as a lean-back device, as opposed to a lean-forward PC.
In any case, sales of the $100 black puck don’t move the needle. Four million Apple TVs were sold in 2012; even if ten million are sold this year — and that’s a very optimistic estimate — it won’t make a noticeable difference, at least not directly. Apple TV is a neat part of the ecosystem, it makes iPhones, iPads, Macs and our iTunes libraries more valuable, but it’s still just a member of the supporting cast.
This brings us back to the putative iWatch. Computer history buffs will recall the HP 01 watch. Buoyed by the success of its handheld calculators, including the programable HP 65 with its magnetic card reader, HP convinced itself it could make a calculator watch, introduced in 1977:
A technology tour de force, fondly remembered by aging geeks, but a market failure: too expensive, too hard to use, ill-fitting distribution channels.
Apple is in a different spot. Today, you can find a number of iPod watchbands such as this one:
It’s hard to imagine that Apple would merely integrate an existing accessory into a new iPod. Sales of the iPod proper are decelerating, so the iPod-as-iWatch could give the line a much needed boost, but it’s difficult to reconcile the rumors of “100 people” working on the project if it’s just a retrofit job. Is Apple working on an iWatch that can be experienced as an Even More Personal personal computer — an “intimate computer”? If so, many questions arise: user interface, sensors, iOS version, new types of apps, connection with other iDevices… And, of course price.
This would be much more interesting than the perennially in-the-future Apple TV set. Of course, iWatch and Apple TV aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. If the Löwe buyout rumors are true, Apple could do both — the company could develop its own watch device and repurpose Löwe’s TV. (I still doubt the TV set part, as opposed to enhancing the black puck.)
But once we understand what Apple’s only business is, and that the related software, retail, and services are simply part of the supporting cast, Apple’s attitude towards big acquisitions becomes clearer. Apple isn’t looking at buying a big new business, it already owns The Big One. So, no movie studio, no retail chain or cable company, no HP or Dell, or Yahoo!. (But… a big law firm, perhaps?) Integrating a large group of people into Apple’s strong, unbending culture would, alone, prove to be impossible.
A small acquisition to absorb technology (and talented people) makes sense. The cultural integration risks remain, but at a manageable scale, unlike what happened to Exxon in the early eighties when it burned $4B (that was real money, then) in a failed attempt to become an information systems company — you know, the Oil of the Twenty-First Century.
Let’s just hope Apple doesn’t talk itself into a “because we can” move.
Related columns:
- War in the Valley: Apple vs. Google TweetIt was long overdue: Eric Schmidt (Google’s CEO) finally resigned from Apple’s Board of Directors. Usually, these resignations are handled in the smoothest of ways: Thanks for the distinguished service and the like. This time, Steve Jobs issued a pointed statement: “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome [...]...
- iPhone Applications: Apple people now believe in a Supreme Being TweetNo, no, not Steve Jobs but an even higher entity smiling upon the company. As I hope to show, Apple’s hard work years ago is now about to pay huge unexpected dividends on the iPhone. When the iPhone first came out of Steve Jobs’ quasi-divine hands in January 2007, it was a hack, the result [...]...
- Apple: The End Is Nigh TweetThe end of iPhone/iPad One Size Fits All, that is. So far, Apple has managed to sell more than 300M iOS devices using only a single size for the iPhone and another for the iPad. I’m becoming convinced this can’t last much longer. Soon, I believe, we’ll see a range of physically distinct iPhone and [...]...
- The enduring Apple TV Fantasy Tweet We all want TV Done Right, free of the Soviet Era set-top box, UI and opaque contracts. We imagine Apple will put all the pieces together. But what’s desirable and “obvious” might not be so simple or soon… “When I go into my living room and turn on the TV, I feel like I [...]...
- Fantasy Apple TV TweetOn August 15th, The Wall Street Journal published yet another story about Apple’s imminent invasion of the TV business. According to people who are “familiar with the matter”, the Cupertino company is… …in talks with some of the biggest U.S. cable operators about letting consumers use an Apple device as a set-top box for live [...]...
28 Comments
I dislike watches but I think Apple may do one. Not a watch but a monitor. It’s all about the wrist. Cus’ apparently sensors on the wrist can deliver significant medical and exercise information. In the next five to ten years, this info link might become a critical health and insurance function. Put emergency alerts on it for disabled and old folks. Include localized Siri for timers and reminders. OK, add a clock etc. Apple loves the challenge of small and simple gear. And it loves disruption. Nobody does them better. At $200 it will sell a billiard.
Just a quick note: The German TV manufacturer is spelled Loewe not Löwe. The oe is for real, not a circumscription of the umlaut ö
Hey, Dick Tracy … we can finally make a watch like you’ve been using for decades.
Think of the possibilities, given Apple’s currently available technology.
Widely cited, but linking here for completeness: Bruce Tognazzini’s thoughts on what an “iWatch” could do.
Many interesting ideas, although some are geeky enough that only Google would attempt to put in a widely appealing consumer product:
http://asktog.com/atc/apple-iwatch/
a Business program in PBS showed a pie chart of Disney division during their recent earning report.
50% was cable division while movie division was 10-15%.
So you can see that just because subsidization of ESPN is what
is making money for Disney. More people aren’t watching. It just cable
prices are increasing even during recession.
In the mean time they want to move this model to the Internet. This battle is refight of radio and TV that happen during their introduction.
Broadcast TV is dying just look at the programming in on-air TV during weekend.
It is most sports and informercials. There is no growth.
Broadband is in the same boat that cable companies control most of the access.
while ma bell are controlling the wireless.
So Do you see Apple’s UI changing this dynamic. I don’t see it.
Persuasive analysis. But it leaves a couple of questions:
1. Did Steve really take all the disruptive visionary magic to the other side with him? Is the Apple Magic Hat empty?
2. What will Apple do to keep ahead of Samsumg and Google? Apple fan(atic)s want an Apple watch or TV to become the Next Big Thing, to give Apple another 5 year headstart.
If not these products, then what?
If no NBT at all, then whither Apple? Will it become the next Sony?
Please tell us the answer, Jean-Loius!
Mike
“…With these personal computer glasses on, we see a bit more clearly.”… Could it be IT, the next “big thing”, the new paradigm? A new way of interfacing in 3-D for ALL tasks (getting information—directions, search results, stock quotes, up-to-the-minute news, any kind), manipulating computer files, video & music media handling, communicating, writing, controlling household items… the sky is the limit)? Can’t imagine now many people wearing a head-mounted display, but if a company could invent and design a wearable mobile “something” that make us want to do just that (and stand in line for it), we know its name. Just a thought… Thanks for the blog!
Good analysis as usual.
As to the Apple SmartWatch, I propose they call it the ‘iShackle’. I guess Apple have figured out that people are often using one hand to hold their phone while driving, watching tv, et cetera. That’s a hand they could be using for giving more money to Apple…
While I agree that prior to 2007, many people were negative about Apple producing a phone, it seems to me that the whole ‘smartwatch’ category never had much going for it. Unlike cellphones, which is a proven market, there is not one single example of a successful smartwatch: Microsoft and Fossil tried it many years ago, some smaller companies have tried it, the concept has never taken off.
The problem, as I see it, is:
i) the real estate is quite small. Not too many people are willing to wear a large piece of hardware on their wrist, unless it’s a social marker (big clunky Rolex). Most smartwatches were aiming for affordability. Maybe they should have priced their watches at €3000.
ii) with so little room, what functions can it perform that you can’t already do with your phone? Most people no longer wear watches because they can tell the time from their phone. As a companion device, you would still need to carry your phone with you in order for it to work. There is probably no room for a SIM slot/antenna, unless Apple were to go SIM-card less. If we assume that it must rely on a data connection through another device (phone, wireless network), it will likely not have local storage (everything is stored in iCloud), meaning the device will work as a remote control for other devices. If so, then what convenience will it offer that will still be able to markup Apple’s profit margin.
Maybe Apple are combining this with a new Apple TV, so that you can use it as a game controller/tv controller.
Frankly, I don’t (yet) see the appeal, not because I have no faith in Apple’s design chops, but because the whole concept seems to lack a certain raison d’etre.
If they do come out with one, I hope that they put a transparant display in front of a mechanical face, so that when the display is inactive you see the classic watch face, and as soon as the display is turned on, you only see (part of) the display.
To build a truly low cost iPhone, one needs to radically rethink how a small (and therefore cheaper) phone would work. What if Apple designs a small iPhone with a 2.5 inch curved touch screen that is worn like a watch. A new UI to allow screen navigation in a smaller screen real estate, Siri integration for online search, and a one week standby time courtesy of the flexible batteries built into the wristband. And bone conduction sound technology so that your index finger doubles as the earphone (you just need to place your index finger behind your ear). Think Different.
Jean-Louis Gassée: Apple’s appreciation for the importance and great economic potential of personal computers — which were invented to act as dumb servants to help us with data storage, text manipulation, math operations — may have been, at first, more instinctual than reasoned. But it doesn’t matter; the company’s monomania, it’s collective passion is undeniable. More than any other company, Apple has made computers personal, machines we can lift with our hands and our credit cards.”
It would be very difficult to say it any better than this.
I liked this article not because it tells us whether Apple will release a watch or an SDK for the Apple TV, but because it tells us, if they do either of these things, whether that is important or not. Apple sells headphones and battery chargers, but that doesn’t make them an accessories company.
A ‘smart watch’ would just be another accessory, in itself it would not be a platform.
The situation with the Apple TV is a little different. It is essentially an iOS device, and with an SDK content providers, games developers, etc would be able to develop apps for it. Does that make it a true computing platform in the sense that the iPhone, iPad and Mac are?
I agree with J-L G that it still would not be as important, as seminal and game changing a product as these others, mainly because the interaction model simply isn’t rich enough. True computing platforms have rich interaction models and TV devices, even games consoles, have limited and highly specialised user interfaces and input devices.
I still think Apple will do it. I think the Apple TV with an SDK has a bright future as a media access and entertainment device, but it will still mainly be an accessory. I think this is why Apple has taken their sweet time over providing third party developer access to the Apple TV. It’s just not a priority for them.
An Apple TV as a platform may be a big deal for Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo of course because it may well wipe out their console businesses. But that doesn’t make it a big deal for Apple. After all an Apple smart watch might well wipe out all the other smart watch companies, but for apple it would be a sideshow.
The iWatch rumor is great and amazing but it has a major flaw: battery life. Unless Apple or some other company solved the battery life issue the iWatch is dead.
A watch is a very personal device which can’t be charged every day. It’s a pain in the a*s. Plus, the small screen etc provide to real information compared to the smartphone. What an iWatch could be, is a proxy to the iPhone and iOS devices. An extra input for Siri powered services.
Great read, one serious point of contention. Apple TV not part of the ecosystem?? The Apple TV and the Xbox 360 are KEY items to the ecosystems. You are underestimating Display Mirroring. It makes Apple TV the device allowing all of your PCs from MacBook to iPhone to enter everyone’s favorite screen in the house. It is the hub, which I can throw in my bag and travel with to ensure whatever is on any of my other devices can be seen and heard on the screens in my hotel as well as the board room.
Can we go back to Steve’s comment (first one in the list), about a device that could be attached to one’s wrist, could be with us day AND night, under the sun or in the shower… a ruggedized device which would be even more personal than a personal computer..
My understanding is that we are seeing indeed large scale innovation on the sensors front.. (not just for medical testing).. Anyone has an idea if Apple patented a lot on that front ? or acquired technologies ?
Almost all media / blog speculation on an “iWatch” falls into the same trap they fell into with “iPhone.” Too much focus on the “Phone” / “Watch” feature, which is only a small part of the device’s suite of features.
Even today, nearly six years after the launch of iPhone, it is still referred to as a “smartphone.” Which implies that adding a few apps to a large-screen cell phone is enough to compete in the “smartphone” segment of the market. It isn’t. iPhone is a next-generation computer that has a phone feature. Similarly, an “iWatch” will be yet another post-PC computer that’s even smaller. Not a watch that runs apps.
Defining next-gen products with legacy terms is ancient. Cars used to be called “horseless carriages.” 100 years from now, people will wonder why iPhone was called a “smartphone” when it’s clearly so much more.
Siri will be the soul of this product (if true)…it will have to come with order of magnitude in AI / Voice enhancements…
What could be more personal than a wristband computing device that exists to save your life in extremis and make your life better during normal times?
To be useful it would need an independent permanent cellular data connection and sensors tailored to the needs of the user. Heart or pacemaker monitor for those at cardiac risk; blood sugar monitors for diabetics; locators for Alzheimer’s sufferers; Siri to summon emergency aid for anyone at threat. No phone, just the data connection.
The ‘Special Sauce’ only Apple can bring is a centralized iHealth and i911 data centre that stores in privacy-protected fashion the personal, security and health information about each iWatch wearer, so as to be able to instantly take appropriate emergency action. Cardiac irregularity or arrest triggers geo-location and notification of the nearest appropriate responder, and an emergency appeal to Siri triggers a police dispatch.
In other words it would again be a case of the services that sell the watch, and these services could be made available by Apple in many more countries than any other firm on the globe, with the possible exception of Blackberry. Reciprocally, for Apple this would increase the incentive for international expansion of Apple into countries not now served..
So the watch as a stand-alone device would sell service, security, Siri, music and Web surfing.
And of course it would keep time.
Paired with iPhones, iPads or iPod Touches, it could do much more.
It all depends not so much on the technology of the device, but of the capability of Apple to offer a new range of hard-to-deliver supports for personal security.
Now, who wouldn’t buy a life-saver?
@Richard – ive modified your post a bit:
.
“there is not one single example of a successful [TABLET]: Microsoft and [HP] tried it many years ago, some smaller companies have tried it, the concept has never taken off.”
.
…and then apple made it work.
I would buy an iWatch from Apple in an instant because I would think it could be a gateway to all kinds of quick access services such as notifications, voice and video calls, and especially a GREAT remote control for the Apple TV. We’re constantly losing those little silver controls inside the couch in our living room. Imagine if it was strapped to my wrist and could control the entire home theatre system. That would be fantastic. I would also love to replace the Nike Fuelband with an iWatch. Imagine adding blood pressure, heart rate, and other health tracking information collection capabilities to your watch which seamlessly syncs with the iPhone in your pocket. When a call or text comes in, you just look at your watch to see who it is without having to pull your phone out of your pocket. When you’re driving, a quick glance at your hand without taking your eyes off the road to look down at your iPhone would be very convenient and safer. I’m sure there are 1000 more uses for it than I could possibly imagine. It would certainly open up a whole new world of technology to people. I know not many people wear watches these days since you can easily get the time from your phone, but I can see a lot more people wearing a multi-functional iWatch than just some fashion statement. Of course it has to look cool and I think Apple would do a tremendous job on making sure it’s something you want to be seen wearing and not just some geeky piece of junk.
iPod was “iTunes to go,” iPhone/iPad are “the other iApps to go.” All I want from an Apple watch is “Notification Center to go.”
@richard wrote, “Not too many people are willing to wear a large piece of hardware on their wrist, unless it’s a social marker (big clunky Rolex).”
.
I think that’s almost the ONLY reason people wear watches any more: as jewelry—adornment. Apple would be trying to inject some form of utilitarianism into jewelry, and I personally don’t see it ending well. While their designs are often very elegant, Apple is in the business of helping people leverage their abilities/connectivity/etc thru tech. Cook recently explicitly disclaimed interest in Apple-branded products for image alone.
@SockRolid, you’re identifying a quandary, right?
Jobs intro’d the iPhone as a 3-in-one gadget, choosing to brand it as a “phone” rather than an enhanced iPod or “revolutionary internet communicator” because nobody shelled out $600 for a music player than can kinda sorta make phone calls, and likewise, nobody would’ve known why they needed a computer with them all the time. (Especially as the predecessors were so impossible to use.)
So maybe “iWatch” is the obstacle here: people may want a more always-available interface for notices and whatnot, but that’s not a watch.
I am like Brendan, Claude… I would not hesitate to open my heart to Apple, trust it with personal information, in order to access to a new set of apps to adivse me on how to exercise better, when to go to doctors or hospital, eat healthier.. At least where I leave in Europe doctors and medical teams have been loyal Apple customers, even during the darker days.. AA could leverage their trust
@Walt: part of the motivation for calling the iPhone a “phone” is that it avoids a psychological barrier to adoption. Calling it what it is truly is would confuse people (it’s a mobile personal computer that, among other things, makes phone calls). Why would I want a mobile PC? But calling it a “phone” means people get it, and hey! it also does all these other things. Also remember that the iPhone launched with nothing but a handful of built-in apps. The SDK and App Store didn’t come along until nearly a year later. It was baby steps to get people to adopt it, and you start by giving the thing a familiar name for a familiar function.
A blog post here that offers some perspective. http://wp.me/pCQwR-tb One argument: an iWatch is something that could lend itself to multiple sales to a single individual. Not everyone is going to buy more than one, but there are plenty of people that want different models for different purposes, because it is as much fashion accessory as it is a tool.
@GK. I agree with your observation as to why Steve called it a “phone”, but not just for consumers. The industries were also fooled. How does a small computor manufacturer think they will compete with the big boys in the phone business? The pc guys are assuming apple is flailing and trying a new folly.
Simply by calling their new pocket computer a phone, everybody was fooled by hiding it in plain sight – till it was too late. Except for that thief Eric Schmidt who did seem to know what was going on and quickly had some junky java plastered on a stolen OS because he saw how far behind they were and that it could kill their cash cow.
Whats up! I just wish to give a huge thumbs up for the great data you will have here on this post.
I will likely be coming again to your blog for
extra soon.
thank you for share!
80 Trackbacks
[...] The Next Apple TV: iWatch — Rumors don’t actual Apple products make, see the perennial Apple TV — and the latest iWatch rumors. This is an opportunity to step back, look at Apple’s one and only love -personal computers — and use this thought to sift through rumors. [...]
[...] The Next Apple TV: iWatch | Monday Note Tagged with: Apple, iWatch, Rumor [...]
[...] TV, this detail is even more relevant. Prominent ex-Appler and commentator Jean-Louis Gassée has a new note that questions Apple TV’s future, but we’ve long suspected adding iOS apps to the TV [...]
[...] this detail is even more relevant. Prominent ex-Appler and commentator Jean-Louis Gassée has a new note that questions Apple TV’s future, but we’ve long suspected adding iOS apps to the [...]
[...] detail is even more relevant. Prominent ex-Appler and commentator Jean-Louis Gassée has a new note that questions Apple TV’s future, but we’ve long suspected adding iOS apps to the TV [...]
[...] Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] setzt der ehemalige Apple-Angestellte Jean-Louis Gassée an. In seiner wöchentlichen und frischen Kolumne, “Mondays Note” genannt, wirft er die Frage auf: Und wenn die iWatch der angebliche [...]
[...] Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] on MacRumors: Mac News and Rumors – All Stories. Former Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] as an ‘Even More Personal Personal Computer’ Former Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] February 18, 2013 SP1RACY APPLE NEWS No comments Former Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] Jean-Louis Gassée’s Monday Note on the rumored Apple iWatch: [...]
[...] Gassée added his voice to the already much-hyped iWatch rumours, showing a way to see “through the dust” when [...]
[...] Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] Jean-Louis Gassée’s Monday Note on the rumored Apple iWatch: [...]
[...] Jean-Louis Gassée’s Monday Note on the rumored Apple iWatch: [...]
[...] Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] Jean-Louis Gassée’s Monday Note on the rumored Apple iWatch: [...]
[...] Via: Monday Note [...]
[...] former executive who worked at Apple during the 90s has analyzed how an iWatch fits into Apple’s core business [...]
[...] gewöhnungsbedürftig. Und gerade bei einer Armbanduhr ist das ein entscheidendes Kriterium. Auf MondayNote lässt sich mehr über Gassées Äußerungen [...]
[...] da tasca, l’iWatch potrebbe essere un vero e proprio computer da polso, come sostiene Jean-Louis Gassée, ex dirigente Apple: Apple sta lavorando su un iWatch che può essere considerato come un Personal [...]
[...] Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] former executive who worked at Apple during the 90s has analyzed how an iWatch fits into Apple’s core business model: It’s hard to imagine that Apple would [...]
[...] Via: Monday Note [...]
[...] former executive who worked at Apple during the 90s has analyzed how an iWatch fits into Apple’s core business model: It’s hard to imagine that Apple would [...]
[...] [...]
[...] Via: Monday Note [...]
[...] da tasca, l’iWatch potrebbe essere un vero e proprio computer da polso, come sostiene Jean-Louis Gassée, ex dirigente Apple: Apple sta lavorando su un iWatch che può essere considerato come un Personal [...]
[...] former executive who worked at Apple during the 90s has analyzed how an iWatch fits into Apple’s core business model: It’s hard to imagine that Apple would [...]
[...] трудятся, так считает Bloomberg. Бывший сотрудник Apple настроен более скептически, но саму идею не отрицает. Ну и, [...]
[...] Computer’February 18, 2013 Filed in: Apple | iOSFormer Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] einen “Personal Computer” noch persönlicher zu machen. Nachdem sich Gassée gegenüber mondaynote zum iTunes Store und Apple TV geäußert hat, spricht er über die [...]
[...] former executive who worked at Apple during the 90s has analyzed how an iWatch fits into Apple’s core business model: It’s hard to imagine that Apple would [...]
[...] Jean-Louis Gassée in a post entitled “The Next Apple TV: iWatch” jQuery(function($){ var [...]
[...] Jean-Louis Gassée in a post entitled “The Next Apple TV: [...]
[...] Jean-Louis Gassée in a post entitled “The Next Apple TV: [...]
[...] entlassen. Nun meldet sich der ehemalige Apple Mitarbeiter erneut mit einem interessanten Blogbeitrag zu Wort. Die iWatch ist seines Erachtens nach der nächste logische Apple Schritt noch vor einem [...]
[...] Gassée added his voice to the already much-hyped iWatch rumours, showing a way to see “through the dust” when [...]
[...] former executive who worked at Apple during the 90s has analyzed how an iWatch fits into Apple’s core business model: It’s hard to imagine that Apple would [...]
[...] ehemaliger Entwickler von Apple seine Gedanken zu Apple’s neuer Smartwatch geäußert hat, folgen jetzt die Worte eines weiteren ehemaligen Apple Mitarbeiters, der in der neuen Smartwatch vor allem einen Vorstoß Apple’s sieht, einen mobilen [...]
[...] Of the two, former Apple exec Jean Louisse Gassée, now a VC, says its more likely the company will make a smartwatch or “iWatch.” [...]
[...] Of the two, former Apple exec Jean Louis Gassée, now a VC, says its more likely the company will make a smartwatch or “iWatch.” [...]
[...] Of the two, former Apple exec Jean Louis Gassée, now a VC, says its more likely the company will make a smartwatch or “iWatch.” [...]
[...] Of the two, former Apple exec Jean Louis Gassée, now a VC, says its more likely the company will make a smartwatch or “iWatch.” [...]
[...] Jean-Louis Gassée in a post entitled “The Next Apple TV: [...]
[...] Jean-Louis Gassée, ancien directeur de R&D chez Apple jusqu’en 1990, la iWatch est un projet plus [...]
[...] und brodelnde Gerüchteküche um eine Apple iWatch ein. Jean-Louis Gassée teilte in einer Online-Kolumne seine Ansichten zu dieser “iWatch”, die sich in erster Linie auf den Aspekt fokussiert, [...]
[...] sarebbe stata una buona idea… e potenzialmente non va neanche completamente contro le dichiarazioni di [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that can’t [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that can’t [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] now demeanour during Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in income per block feet — double their closest sell counterpart, Tiffany Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that can’t be a [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that can’t [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that can’t [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that can’t [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that can’t [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $ 6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] Gassée, a former Apple executive and founder of the now defunct BeOS, has chimed in on the rumors regarding Apple’s plans for an “iWatch”. Mainly he suggests that it [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that can’t be the [...]
[...] companies now look at Apple Stores with their mouths agape. $6000 in revenue per square foot — double their closest retail counterpart, Tiffany & Co (motherfuckin’ Tiffanys!). But that [...]
[...] Personal Computer. Everything else is an ingredient, a booster, a means to the noblest end”, zegt Jean-Louis Gassée, een voormalige executive die bij Apple werkte tijdens de jaren ’90. De iWatch heeft de [...]
[...] Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée shares his perspective on Apple’s rumored “iWatch”, noting that the company likely has very ambitious [...]
[...] alla perennemente attesa e futura televisione di Apple” è questo il parere di Jean Luis Gassée, ex dirigente di alto livello di Cupertino, ora consulente investitore oltre che attento [...]