A small-screen iPod, an Internet Communicator and a Phone

Apple is now the biggest watchmaker in the world, overtaking Rolex during the last quarter. This achievement happened less than two and a half years after Apple entered the watch market. Rolex, on the other hand, was founded in 1905, 112 years ago at a time when watches were the avant-garde of technology. Given this revelation of sales, we can test the estimates I put forward on the Apple Watch sales, shown below:

We know that Rolex produces about 1 million watches a year and we also know that Rolex had sales of $4.7 billion in 2016. The average revenue per watch[1] was therefore about $4,700.

My estimate has been that Apple sold about 15 million Watches in the last 12 months at an average price of about $330. This puts the Apple Watch revenue run rate at $4.9 billion, indeed above Rolex.

They may be slightly high but the news makes me feel quite comfortable in my methodology. Note also that within the last quarter Apple said sales for the Watch increased by 50%. This is also reflected in my estimate of 3 million in Q2 vs. ~2 million for 2016 Q2.

Overall, about 33 million Apple Watch units have been sold since launch and they generated about $12 billion in sales. Coupled with a 95% customer satisfaction score, altogether, this has been a great success story. But only 2.5 years in, it’s still act one.

To understand the long term trajectory, it’s important to qualify this product as part of another, larger story. The Watch, even with LTE, is an accessory to the iPhone. It still cannot be activated without it. Even the coverage plan is an extension to an iPhone plan. The company is careful to address it as a companion product.

But how long will that last?

It used to be necessary to first attach an iPhone to a computer to activate it. That used to be cited as a reason for the iPhone not being a “proper computer”, diverting attention from what it would inevitably become. Those who clung to that thin wire as a reason not to face the future were deceived. The iPhone and the iPad now stand alone of any PC or Mac. Will the Watch cut these familial links and stand alone some day?

I think this too is inevitable. The technology trajectories are easy enough to plot. Apple has invested enormously in the silicon that goes inside the Watch and has taken it to new levels of connectivity with LTE, 85% faster WiFi, and a 70% faster processor; all with 50% better power efficiency.

These enable independent voice entry, Siri everywhere, Find My Friends, Maps, music streaming. These breakthroughs are only possible with a new W2 processor which is more powerful than the first iPhone processors.

This comparison is apt: the Watch is effectively stealing usage from the iPhone. At first it took alerts, timekeeping, and basic messaging away. Now it’s taking basic phone calls and music and maybe maps.

It’s fitting therefore to remember how the iPhone was launched; as a tentpole troika: A wide-screen iPod, an Internet Communicator and a Phone. Today the new Watch is a small-screen iPod, an Internet Communicator and a Phone.

So not only is the Series 3 Watch more powerful than the original iPhone but it is also poetically capable of the same tentpole jobs. But it’s not just a miniature iPhone. It has a new, completely orthogonal attack on non-consumption and market creation: fitness and health. This is a key point. The iPhone was born a phone but grew up to be something completely unprecedented, unforeseen by its creators and, frankly, undescribable in the language of 2007.

The Watch was born a timepiece but it is traversing through the early iPhone and pulling in a new direction all of its own. The fact that we are talking about “Resting Rate”, “Arrhythmia” and “Atrial fibrillation” at a timekeeping launch event indicates that new behaviors will follow and so will the language we’ll use to describe this child-like product once it grows up.

  1. Includes services such as repairs []
  • fivetonsflax

    This is the second time Apple has been first to popularize a new form factor of phone.

    • klahanas

      Can the shoe phone be far behind….?

      • lkalliance

        It’ll be ready by late 2018.


        Would you believe…2028?

      • klahanas

        Would you believe 2028 with a slight supply chain delay, a single color, and only stilettos?

      • lkalliance

        *hands klahanas a black stiletto phone, which rings*
        *he answers the phone and yells in pain as the heel punctures his eardrum*
        *he stumbles in pain over the edge ot the roof to the pavement below*

        *leans over edge of roof*

        Sorry about that chief!

      • klahanas

        Spit out my coffee!!! Well done. Sorry Max.

  • Space Gorilla

    “It used to be necessary to first attach an iPhone to a computer to activate it. That used to be cited as a reason for the iPhone not being a “proper computer”, diverting attention from what it actually it would inevitably become. Those who clung to that thin wire as a reason not to face the future were deceived.”

    Such a great thought (with a small typo I think, “what it actually it would”). People tend to think in terms of today and completely miss the future. It’s like looking at your feet instead of the road ahead. Good products don’t stand still. It is obvious the Apple Watch will be incredibly capable down the road.

  • Luis Alejandro Masanti

    Great post, thanks!
    We have to remember, when speaking of fitness, that the iPod+Nike sensor was the first Apple’s device to help heath.

    On the other hand, I think that the slow evolution has a lot to be related to telcos.
    I think that telcos are really worry about become ‘tubes.’
    Somebody, long ago, told us that Steve “wanted to get ride of the telcos.”
    Long ago, Apple began to try to introduce the eSIM.
    But SIMs are for telcos as DRM was for music labels!

    Now, the Apple Watch has an eSIM!

    In the too not long future you could decide between an iPhone (X? Y? Z?) or a combo of Apple Watch/Apple AirPods/Apple Glasses!

    • klahanas

      SIMs are not DRM as much as you make it seem, as long as they can be changed. Tying a device to an eSIM has the potential to be much worse.

      • Luis Alejandro Masanti

        You are right. But I too, in a sense.
        When music came with DRM I was ‘locked’ to what the labels let me do with it.
        With the SIM and the telco service (not the device) they keep me ‘locked’.
        I admit that the parallel is not perfect.
        But telcos get us ‘locked’ to allow the use of its tubes.
        If eSIM are wide spread, you’ll be able to change ‘in the spot’ of provider-

      • klahanas

        Provided your phone provider allows it…

        Remember when AT&T was the only “allowed ” provider for the initial iPhone? What if we had eSIM then? What if Apple institutes a blacklist, or geographic restrictions? Why even invite the possibility, of not just Apple doing so, but anyone?

      • Luis Alejandro Masanti

        I would divide the subject in ‘device’ and ‘service.’
        Before iPhones, most of the cells where given by the telco with the plan. So they locked you with then. (And that’s Apple/AT&T affair.)
        Now, you can buy your ‘unlocked’ device but still has to ‘lock’ —via SIM— to whatever provider you select.
        eSIM will allow —I think— to change providers… like when you go around the city looking for the best gasoline price.

      • klahanas

        Love the vision on the possibilities, and I would opt for “strongest signal gets the call”. But that may or may not happen.

        When looking at Apple in particular, I am, how shall I say… “cynical”. With them it’s one integrated whole, isn’t it? You will eat what is served, plain and simple. eSIM is just another potential path to device manufacturer, over carrier control. The consequences, potentially, are even less control to the user.

  • obarthelemy

    As always, it helps to look outside of the iBubble to anticipate what features&formats Apple will add their customary easy+sexy to.
    For all their UI and style faults, other smartwaches (Android, Android Wear and Samsung’s Gear, custom OSes ie Pebble etc…) have been innovative in mostly 3 ways:
    1- some run a fully independent OS. There are a few full-Android smartwatches, wristphones really.
    2- LTE connectivity has been on Gear and Android watches for 3-4 years, and Android Wear since last year IIRC.
    3- the watches are cross platform and work with both Android and iOS, though more limited w/ iOS since Apple is locking things down.
    4- Samsung initially tried a camera but that quickly disappeared, I’d guess both because it was impractical to use, technically problematic, and socially rejected (shades of gGlass ^^)

    I’m surprised Apple hasn’t made more of a move towards the Android market. They must see the watch as more of a lock-in tool than a revenue generator.

    • klahanas

      And almost paradoxicallly the iPhone is a lock out tool from getting the watch. It would cost me over $1500 if I were so inclined.

      And that’s the thing with Apple, by not playing well with others you’re either all in or, to a degree, out.

      • By that logic, the Tonino Lamborghini 88 Tauri, locks most people out of Android as well.

      • klahanas

        I assume the Lambo “requires” an iPhone? I bet yours is an automatic! 😉

      • No, it’s a $4500 Android phone making Android too expensive to use and pricing most people out of using the platform.

      • klahanas

        If you want “that” Android phone yes. Fortunately with Android you have many manufacturers. This is a Lambo problem, not an Android problem.

      • How is that any different than your ludicrous $1500 iPhone/Apple Watch costs? You seem very secure in your ideological echo chamber.

      • klahanas


        The watch requires an iPhone specifically, not some other manufacturer’s phone. My LG Urbane works with Samsung, LG, Moto, etc…, any Android phone. It doesn’t lock me into a manufacturer and I can use what I already have. A broader lock-in (all of Android) not just Apple.

        Ludicrous enough?

      • But it does NOT require the iPhone X. That is your echo chamber. Assuming you HAVE to use the most expensive option if you are using Apple products and you have no choice. (NOTE: You are not alone in the Android world having this narrow mindset)

        That is ludicrous.

      • klahanas

        I did not say iPhone X, I said iPhone. Can you use it without an iPhone? Don’t you need an iPhone to activate it? At least?

        Edit: Granted if I got an iPhone it would be the X, hence the $1500 number. Maybe I’ll wait for next year’s insanely great double notch design. :-p

      • Space Gorilla

        As far as I’m aware the Apple Watch works with the iPhone SE which is free on contract, at least where I am in Canada. Of course it isn’t really free, a bit of your monthly service fee pays for the device, but there’s no money out of your pocket initially and I got SEs for the kids on a $45 per month contract.

        I saw that other post (applecynic), looks like you have a fan. It ain’t me. Wish I’d thought of it actually, that would be funny. But I don’t post a lot anymore, better things to do. Gotta stop wasting my time. You should too, but I doubt you’ll take advice from anyone. Another bit of advice which you won’t listen to, Asymco isn’t Techpinions, it’s really not the place to pollute with your anti-Apple nonsense. Rational discussion, sure, but you’re mostly trolling, and you know that.

      • klahanas

        Glad it’s not you. You were the only person, to date, to ever make mention of it, and I take you at your word.
        Now…the SE is still an iPhone, isn’t it?
        Trolling is not just what you SG disagree with.

      • Space Gorilla

        Yes, it’s an iPhone but you said “And almost paradoxicallly the iPhone is a lock out tool from getting the watch. It would cost me over $1500 if I were so inclined.”

        And that simply isn’t true. If you wanted an Apple Watch you can get it easily by using an SE. The Apple Watch will be independent soon enough, less than five years I would guess.

        Don’t delude yourself, you’re trolling, you piss all over anything Apple does. You’re welcome to do it, but Asymco is not the place for it. You’ll find out on your own. Do whatever you like.

      • klahanas

        It would cost ME… I already said what my purchase intent would be. I don’t get the lesser models. Yes, to ME they are lesser.

    • Space Gorilla

      Just curious if you were going to list anything Apple hasn’t already been working on re: “look outside of the iBubble to anticipate what features&formats…” We know Apple is working towards the Apple Watch being independent, we knew LTE was coming, cross platform is not likely for many good reasons, and I would expect a camera at some point (Face ID). So while you did state a few obvious things Apple has already been working on, you haven’t listed any features from the Android world that would be something we could “anticipate” coming to the Apple Watch as you said.

    • BMc

      Well, you are nothing if not predictable in your ability to live in a different reality.
      1) What is innovative around having a watch run a full smartphone OS? Actually sounds the opposite of innovative. And what benefit does that have?

      2) LTE has been on other watches for awhile, and yet those units were quite large, had poor battery life, and didn’t sell in any meaningful quantity? That is your view of innovation I suppose

      3) Cross platform. Again, not sure how that is innovative. Purchasing an Apple Watch is going to cost money, so targeting the premium end seems like the correct strategy. Apple is fortunate in that they have a very large and premium smartphone user base (some estimates of hitting 800M users in the near future). This is a very large target which will sustain Apple Watch growth for years. Eventually the AW is likely to go independent from iPhone (as stated in this article). There isn’t a huge rush though.

      4) A camera example, that you then point out disappeared. Yep, innovation right there. Apple probably will put a camera on the AW in the future, but it will actually “have a purpose”.

      It must bother you that there really isn’t a “smart watch” market, but rather an Apple Watch market. Currently it is looking more like the MP3 player market than smartphones.

      • obarthelemy

        1- Well, one is being able to make calls, the other to function independently of any other device, and a third to run a much wider selection of apps, assuming they’re format-compatible. Was that so hard ?
        2- It’s not my view of innovation, it’s the dictionary’s definition. I know iFans and iAnalysts are trying to novlang that work to include commercial success, but words have definitions. Call it iNovation maybe ?
        3- Cross-platform has been innovative since PCs replaced C64 and Vaxes. Wev’e been though the lock-in dance one with Wintel and Office, some have learned their lesson.
        4- Yes, all innovation does not work out or succeed. Your point ?

      • Except PCs were not good at cross-platform.

      • obarthelemy

        Maybe better than VAXes and C64 though ?

        As we talk, my PC is connected to a Linux server and Linux (Android) mobiles, running Windows + Linux and Android in VMs, and running mostly web apps.

    • Walt French

      1. The success stories of both iPhone and (especially!) Android have come from a robust suite of 1st and 3rd party apps. Independent OS’s mean devs have tiny markets for apps; users will depend on device-supplied apps. But while hardware keeps advancing at roughly Moore’s Law rates, all the real action is in software, which demands the largest user base possible. Unless Apple becomes interested in Fitbit-type limited cost/functionality—a wearable iPod nano?—I’d expect Apple to continue the similar paths Horace noted for the Watch & Phone—hardware tuned to apps that use the unique form & sensor mix, to create new JTBDs.

      2. ✅

      3. I haven’t done a deep dive but didn’t see a single Android Watch review that had anything good to say about their iOS connectivity. Can’t imagine there’s much market potential for non-Apple watches to connect to iPhones, and given the glitches we’ve seen regards Apple’s own products working together (e.g., the phone # handoff) I can’t imagine what incentive an Android watch maker has to butt its head against the wall of getting help from Apple.

      4. I see estimates for smartphone cameras (single-sensor, no flash) in the range of $25–$40. I can imagine a 4X3mm sensor—used in some Androids, a bit smaller than recent iPhones’) aiming 90º counter-clockwise from the watch’s crown, but it’d be useless for those who wear it on their right arm (10% of us?). Meanwhile, I can NOT imagine putting any kind of flash into a device that small. I think the camera will await a different form-factor, that it’s a mismatch with a watch.

      I recently tweeted that Apple has very little, essentially zero reason to devote talent & market position to replacing X86 in the Mac line with ARM/Apple-proprietary CPU/GPUs. The effort should go to iOS and WatchOS apps and other devices that exploit the new factors, that establish beachheads in entirely new markets. The Watch has lots of new JTBDs based on its intimate position & form-factor, that’ll expand by developers finding how to create new apps that focus on the unique hardware.

    • Shameer Mulji

      “other smartwaches (Android, Android Wear and Samsung’s Gear, custom OSes ie Pebble etc…) have been innovative in mostly 3 ways:”

      Other smartwatches haven’t been innovative at all. Period.

      • obarthelemy

        I’m curious, what feature is in the iWatch that wasn’t in another watch before it ?

      • meaning

        That’s not what innovative means. You perhaps meant “novel” or “inventive”.

      • obarthelemy

        Definition of innovation

        1 :the introduction of something new
        2 :a new idea, method, or device :novelty

        What did you think it meant ?

      • klahanas

        Why it means money, of course! /s

      • obarthelemy

        Yep. If you go by the iDefinition of iNnovation, only Apple and Samsung can innovate, axiomatically: the rest are too small.

        I’m wondering if Zoroastrianism has ceased to be a religion because of too few believers (and a painful name ^^) ?

      • klahanas

        Under the iDefinition, only Apple can innovate…
        I wish I were being sarcastic.

      • Kizedek

        “Why it means money, of course! /s

        Under the iDefinition, only Apple can innovate…”

        Apple delivers its “innovations” in such a way that users apparently find value in them. Apple seems to work hard to do so.

        Perhaps, somewhat counter-intuitively, Apple is “innovative” by not focusing on being “innovative” in the first instance.

        If you work at being the First with a feature, or jumping on the latest technology just to say you have it (like Samsung, say), then what you have delivered is a more of a novelty…unless delivered in such a way that it pans out, by being complimentary to your whole product/ecosystem, useable and useful, etc.

        If you think it through in context, you can add value. If you add value, then you get the satisfied users and money, repeatedly. It’s not rocket science.

        You and Obart insist that all these satisfied users who buy iPhones by the tens of millions, and buy them again a couple of years later, are are misguided sheep who insist on attributing some mythical sense of “innovation” to Apple.

        Instead, you are happy that Samsung and the like who jump on some feature or technology to sell a few tens or hundreds of thousands of a new model, but then move on to the next thing, with little support or continuity for their features, are the epitome of innovation.

        Perhaps Apple’s real innovation is that they are not fixated on delivering the next “innovation” (read novelty) so much as they are intent on delivering value that builds and grows over time, even for products that are already purchased.

        Whatever the definition of innovation, the implication is that it is useful and of value — it must be, because if it is “new” then that has little meaning unless it universally (for all sorts of people all over the place) could start to replace something that came before. Apple’s success and customer loyalty would indicate that its customers are satisfied that Apple continues to innovate.

        Samsung’s sales, and Android switchers, and churn on the Android side, and OEMs that barely make a profit? Not so much. Let’s jump over here to this phone because of feature-Y; I forget what last month’s feature-X was, but no worries.

        So, belittle the commercial side of “innovation” presented here, but it’s a kind of proof that Apple must be delivering something of value. Perhaps because Apple takes the time to focus on one or two innovations per iteration that actually work in the context of a well-thought out product. Versus throwing six of the latest novelties into a cobbled-together product that is not so well thought out — and which therefore doesn’t translate into commercial success: because its a bit of a meh, or the battery explodes, or something.

        One wonders if half the so-called innovations OEMs are making aren’t canceled out by their lack of care and attention to details (and customers). The question isn’t: “If a tree falls in a forest and no-one hears it, does it make a sound?” The question in this case is, “If a tree falls, does it continue to function as a tree?” If an “innovation” is generally unsupported, generally ill-thought out, generally un-useable, generally not well-incorporated into the rest of the product, generally not iterated or built upon, etc. — well, is it really an innovation?

        But, if the opposite is true — then, yes, commercial success is more likely to follow. And Apple has consistently and intentionally put a focus on care and detail into their work, processes, and products over the last 25 years — it shows, and that is why they are where they are today.

      • klahanas

        Novelty IS innovation, and is intrinsic to an idea. I don’t care at all how B-School types try to recast and redefine it.

        Does it really matter to a user, who’s not a financial stakeholder, beyond device ownership, how many devices sell? Does the intrinsic value of their device get significantly impacted by sales? Can a device not be innovative to them, disregarding sales?

        I will give you this, Apple is a serial improver, and their improvements are sometimes innovative.

        Market forces do not constitute truth, they constitute money. The best product doesn’t always win. How many times have you heard “Before it’s time”, is it not innovative?

        Innovation =/= Commercial Success by default.

      • Kizedek

        Great, “anything” can be an innovation.

        We can have as many innovations on anything as there are people. Broaden the concept and just about anything qualifies.

        One guy on one side of the planet can keep his sandwiches in his hat; another guy on the other side can keep his in his armpit. I’m sure one can find 70K people around the world who would say these are innovative (or as many people as buy a single Android phone, or whatever).

        So, yes, you are right, Apple is not innovative, while everyone else is. By that kind of measure, I am completely in agreement with you.

      • klahanas

        “Hey Kizzie old boy, I’ve succeed in inventing a holographic projection that can actually make physical contact and move things around as if it were a real person. I’ve never even shown it to anybody, until now, to you. I have no intention of ever marketing it.”

        Are you going to tell me that the invention dramatized above is not innovative? What does sales have to do with it? It’s intrinsic to the invention, like saying it’s red, or wet, or light.

        Now if I told someone to make such a thing without instruction, and they did, I could be a great innovator too. /s

      • Kizedek

        The reply to your claim is not, “that’s not innovative”. The reply is, “good for you”, or “so you say”, or “so what?”

        You could apply for some patents, I suppose. But then you start to sound like you have some commercial intentions.

        Yet, for a company to be considered “innovative” (and of course we mean all companies except Apple), one assumes they have some commercial intent, like it or not.

        Indeed, the context of the whole discussion has been in terms of companies and their products or services. So one assumes that these companies want to bring their “innovations” to as many of their existing and new customers as possible — for completely altruistic reasons, of course.

        One then wonders why so many of their wonderful innovations don’t make it to a majority of their user base; why the innovations don’t “trickle down” from one line of products to another as well as they might; why the innovations are not implemented in a sustainable way that build on carefully planned steps; why most of the user base is on significantly older versions of the OS; …and that type of thing?

        One then wonders if the innovative companies should not get innovative about delivering consistent value to their customers, even if that makes them look less “innovative” in the short-term.

      • klahanas

        I don’t see why companies need a modified version of the word innovation, the non-expanded, non-market speak version applies to them as much as to anyone else. The business hmmmm… “innovative” definition of innovation introduces ambiguity by moving the goalposts for the purpose of selling.

      • Kizedek

        Well, I guess we can agree that there are lots of levels or facets to both being “innovative” and creating something (a product or service), that embodies an “innovation“.

        So, it’s already ambiguous. Moreover, A) apparently Apple’s mere existence or model isn’t innovative (like a Facebook, Google, Uber, or an Amazon who can do no wrong; so as a mere computer company there is nothing exciting about Apple). And B) apparently nothing Apple does is innovative because, ho hum, someone else added a similar feature to their products long before…

        Horace is merely pointing out (article after article), that Apple is more innovative than anyone cares to admit because it combines elements of A and B and achieves a C that everyone else would die for; but this remains a complete mystery to most people because every time someone attempts to explain it, there are complaints about moving goalposts, or that Apple’s commercial success is undeserved, etc.

      • klahanas

        I already said about Apple being a serial improver, and that sometime it’s innovative. Yes, there are degrees of innovation.

        The re-definition is begging for another term because it conflates innovation with commercial success.

      • Space Gorilla

        Not quite, the deeper and more complex definition of innovation takes into account the impact of the innovation on society, as it should.

        “innovation is generally considered to be the result of a process that brings together various novel ideas in a way that they affect society.”

        A significant impact usually goes along with commercial success but the definition isn’t about commercial success, it’s about the impact on human behaviour. A significant impact could happen without commercial success, it just normally does not because as you impact more and more people it is likely there is commercial success present.

        I don’t think anyone is saying X, Y, or Z isn’t an innovation unless it sells enough (commercial success), but X, Y, or Z does require enough impact to be seen as more than novelty.

      • klahanas

        I think we can agree.

      • Space Gorilla

        Then you admit your statement “Novelty IS innovation, and is intrinsic to an idea. I don’t care at all how B-School types try to recast and redefine it” was wrong.

        Novelty is not innovation, it must affect society to some degree in order to be considered innovation. We could argue about where that line is, but some Android OEM sticking a poorly thought out feature in a device that has almost no impact cannot be considered innovation. It is novelty, and if you like keeping score you can point to it and yell “FIRST!” but the impact on society must be meaningful to take it from novelty to innovation.

        In that respect you are then also agreeing that Apple is very innovative, one of the leading innovators in fact.

        Before you backpeddle, no you cannot say that because others introduced a feature on the level of novelty which Apple then went on to implement in a different and more thoughtful way that did have a significant impact on society, that Apple was not the innovator. First has nothing to do with innovation, it is the impact on society that matters.

      • klahanas

        Not at all, the usefulness of an innovation is the extent of it’s impact. If it weren’t novel, it wouldn’t be innovative at all, just useful, you know, like a corkscrew.

      • Kizedek

        “If it weren’t novel, it wouldn’t be innovative at all, just useful, you know, like a corkscrew.”

        I don’t buy that. Because the converse of what you state is also true — something can be novel without being innovative.

        We are talking about things that are far more complex than a corkscrew. How about Vacuum Cleaners as a better example? Invented, and novel a hundred years ago. Dyson comes along 80 years later and innovates.

        Now every Tom, Dick and Harry puts a bagless “cyclone” in their vacuum cleaner, and most consumers prefers the simpler process, such is the impact.

        But every Tom, Dick and Harry (OEMs) putting a bagless cyclone in their products, PLUS something novel, like, say, putting a bluetooth controller in the handle so you can control your music: that isn’t where vacuum cleaner innovation is. Vacuum cleaner innovation is pushed, probably by Dyson still, in miniaturization, air filters, efficiency, blah, blah, blah. Improvements to be sure, but it takes real innovations to make those improvements to something that has now been around for 20 years and is no longer novel.

        Miniaturization, air filters, efficiency, etc., is where the “impact” is; not in something so “glamorous” as the novel Bluetooth Music Controller on the handle or the curved glass on LED. It doesn’t take innovation to be novel with the Bluetooth Music Controller — it just takes being willing to forego impact and value to the users for a quick buck (so, ironically, that’s the more commercially suspect approach).

        Well, similar can be said for mobile phones and computers.

        And of course relatively few people buy the bluetooth models of the vacuum cleaners because they don’t see the value; and thus behavior isn’t impacted, and people don’t recommend them to their friends, etc., etc., — so, the lack of the commercial success that was sought and expected proves that innovation defined primarily by “novelty” is nonsense. It’s a “good for you, so?” It’s a thing the manufacturers should have said “no” to, because as we know, focus is about saying no (now I wonder where I’ve heard that before).

      • klahanas

        Yes, Dyson did innovate. It still sucks by differential pressure. We don’t credit him with inventing the vacuum cleaner, just his vision of the vacuum cleaner. A bagless one, with ergonomic innovations, that breaks within the first three months… (I know, I’ve had 4).

        Closer to home, I don’t thing putting old features “on a mobile device” as a particularly novel as a concept either. The means and the engineering, yes, the feature is neither new nor novel though, and stands “on the shoulder of giants” before them.

        Apple added the Files App, it allows me to access my Onedrive. So does the Onedrive App….

      • Kizedek

        Ha. I don’t think Apple’s innovation here is a File Manager. That definitely is an improvement, for some people like you and I that like them.

        I think Apple’s innovation was a simplified OS back in 2007. It’s ironic that you mention OneDrive and MS. In my experience, most PC users didn’t know what to do with their files, where they went, or what was where. They dumped everything in the “C:” directory, and thought of that as their “Home” folder instead of as the computer’s main hard drive — something not lost on Apple users because the whole desktop metaphor was abundantly clear.

        For a new generation of users, that isn’t a big deal.

        So, Apple continues to give Apple customers the best of both worlds; and MS continues to muddle stuff in the middle with a Windows Everywhere approach on everything all the time.

      • Kizedek

        “Apple added the Files App, it allows me to access my Onedrive. So does the Onedrive App….”

        Are you implying that the Files App is supposed to be an Apple innovation according to Apple or Apple users?

        That’s an improvement for those of us who really like File Management. Obviously, Apple has long allowed developers to access the iOS file structure — I’ve been using several apps that do this for years.

        Actually, the innovation would be a new mobile OS back in 2007 (iOS). I would say MS hasn’t been particularly successful in that space, and has in fact given up. You’ve gotta love Windows everywhere, which is now a fraction of MS’ Business as they try to put their services on every platform they can without a viable mobile OS of their own.

        And whether or not us old, savvy computer users like a more exposed File Management capability or not, there is a whole generation of new computer users young and old (like my mother) who are getting on great without it.

        In my experience, many PC users struggled with file management anyway: they didn’t really know where their files were, or where they went; they just shoved all their files in the root of “C:” directory. Probably because the MS implementation of the desktop metaphor was ambiguous; while it was abundantly clear on the Mac OS side to even the most basic users (Computer/Harddrive/UserSpace-Home/Documents Folder and other folders, including Desktop Folder). The things that were in the Desktop Folder appeared on the Desktop.

      • klahanas

        None of that supports that file management should be accessible to those that know how. Your mother (and my wife) should not be holding us back.

      • Space Gorilla

        Now you’re trying to muddy the waters because you realize you’ve contradicted yourself.

        You’ve agreed with the definition I put forth: “innovation is generally considered to be the result of a process that brings together various novel ideas in a way that they affect society.”

        And that is the widely accepted definition once we get beyond the high school/dictionary definition of innovation.

        You don’t get to have it both ways. Once you agreed with me that meant you agreed Apple is innovative.

        Now, you can still stomp your feet and yell “No fair!” about Apple not being first. That’s your right. It’s a childish point of view but you are certainly allowed to take that view.

      • klahanas

        Nonsense. Stop putting words in my mouth. I stand by my statement. I did prematurely agree “as a definition”. My mistake. The importance of an innovation as impact on society, yes.

      • Space Gorilla

        It’s not a BS business term. When we talk of innovation at a level beyond high school, we are talking about the impact on society. In that context novelty is not innovation, it is simply a point on the path towards innovation.

        The only reason you won’t accept the true definition of innovation is because you don’t want to admit that Apple is actually a very good innovator.

        If you think your agenda isn’t transparent you’re fooling yourself.

      • klahanas

        “Not even wrong…!” -W. Pauli
        and not even high school level. It’s called re-defining to fit some arbitrary purpose (sales theories?).
        I already said Apple innovates (mostly in improving), sorry if that wasn’t “gushing” enough praise for your tastes.

      • Space Gorilla

        Well, that’s progress at least, certainly an improvement from your earlier Apple bashfest on this very thread with your leader/mentor obarthelemy.

        I’ll also give you this, you’ve done some innovating, when you agreed with me, then realized that agreement meant you were wrong, then you backtracked that by saying “I did prematurely agree”. That’s some innovation right there, no no I wasn’t wrong, I just prematurely agreed.

      • klahanas

        Look in the mirror. The screen is the computer.

      • Kizedek

        Well, it’s not so much “degrees” (though I mentioned levels and facets) so much as trying to say innovation could occur at different levels in a process (a design or production process for example). And that occurrence may be hidden or obvious to observers, like you inventing something for yourself alone.

        According to you, something is either “innovative” or it isn’t. Like being “red”. That doesn’t really allow for degrees.

        Rather, in your effort not to conflate innovation with commercial success, you are showing that you are willing to redefine words or stretch their meanings in other directions.

        So, now Apple is a “serial improver” and only sometimes is it innovative. When? It really begs the question. Only when it’s a big fat visible item on a spec list that got in before someone else’s; only when it is not to do with efficiencies of scale and other mundane things?

        But what about when it’s not so visible? For example, how about when it’s designing your own chips with a variety of specialized processors that work in harmony and improve efficiency? Oh, yeah, there’s that word “improve” — guess it can’t be innovative then.

        Yet, not only is that performance well ahead of Android performance, but it seems to be putting Apple in a place to launch some real AR from, for one thing — but anyone’d think it’s Google and Samsung that are doing all the innovation there…

        In reality Google is probably giving up on getting it done on the device, and is just throwing brute force of cloud at it; so, in the end, where is the real innovation in the AR space happening? Who knows (Why don’t we know? Because Apple doesn’t actually hype stuff in advance like others we could name; instead they wait to show videos with details later, and get accused of pretending they invented something — when of course it has been in development for longer than a comparable thing from others).

      • Space Gorilla

        We could use a more focused and deeper explanation:

        “While a novel device is often described as an innovation, in economics, management science, and other fields of practice and analysis, innovation is generally considered to be the result of a process that brings together various novel ideas in a way that they affect society.”

        Or we could stick to your high school level understanding of innovation. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

      • meaning

        You’re on a business analysis blog, not doing primary school vocabulary. You can be expected to use words accurately.

        “Innovation is often also viewed as the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, unarticulated needs, or existing market needs.[1] This is accomplished through more-effective products, processes, services, technologies, or business models that are readily available to markets, governments and society. The term “innovation” can be defined as something original and more effective and, as a consequence, new, that “breaks into” the market or society.[2] It is related to, but not the same as, invention.[3]”

      • obarthelemy

        Well, being in business analysis does not excuse failing at primary school vocabulary.
        Also, even you secondary definition does not include “high sales” or “market success”, merely “readily available”.

      • meaning

        I didn’t say either of those phrases. Can you please make coherent replies and not waste everyone’s time? Thank you.

      • obarthelemy

        Do you have a point then ? What’s the problem with the cannon definition of innovation ?

      • klahanas

        It doesn’t fit the B-School narrative.

      • handleym

        Uh, obarthelemy, we are adults here, not children.
        Meaning that we use words in an adult way, ie taking into account context and nuance, and assuming that those we are talking to are not idiots.

        Here’s how people who actually CARE about this stuff (as opposed to children) think of these words. To quote Peter Drucker:
        An innovation is a stimulus that causes a novel and stable pattern of human behavior to emerge.

      • obarthelemy

        It’s children who change the meaning of words to suit what they want ^^

        But that definition, and the article, are thought-provoking, thank you. Could not find any attribution to Peter Drucker ?

        I do find the definition rather vague though. “stimulus” makes global warming an innovation, “durable” and “human” are also fluffy. Is dabbing an innovation ? Are dual-lens cams, they don’t really change behaviour compared to single-lens, unless you’re really fixated on bokeh / fixed 2x zoom / wide angle / B&W (depending on what the 2nd lens is ^^)

      • Easier use. Better connectivity to the host platform. Better defined use cases. Size. Android Wear is still trying to figure out what it wants to be.

    • I’m surprised Apple hasn’t made more of a move towards the Android market.

      Obviously, among Apple’s obsessions is the customer experience. Isn’t energy store*, or battery life, is the bottleneck for power-hungry feature additions in Apple’s current methodology.

      This limitation happens to fall in perfect lockstep with Apple’s historical iterative process. There are benefits to Apple and the consumer both in releasing incremental improvements. Genius, imho.

      *I wonder if something like the automatic mechanical movement will eventually have a place in the Apple Watch. Gears and mainsprings are inelegant in this context, but….

    • Did you even read the article?

      “They must see the watch as more of a lock-in tool than a revenue generator.”

      I don’t think you really understand business or tech based on your comments.

  • handleym

    Just a technical correction, Horace.
    The W2 is Apple’s wireless chip (wifi and bluetooth).
    The processor is not named, but the package it lives on is called the S3. So more accurate to talk about “new S3 processor which is more powerful than the first iPhone processors”.

    Remarkably (as far as we know) this still uses just a single core type. I expect next year we’ll be seeing heterogeneous cores (either in Fusion flavor or in Bionic flavor — ie either very tightly tied together, or somewhat independent) but point is allowing for high performance snappiness along with very low power handling of all the background activity. Presumably this transition is waiting till the watch goes 64-bit and Apple can more easily just adapt and transfer tech from its pool of pre-existing cores?

    • cm3392 notes that Apple Watch 3 uses S3 dual core processor.

      • handleym

        The S3 is the PACKAGE. It consists of a large number of chips connected together. (~30 in the S1, likely more in the S2 and S3).
        The package is the significant, named, item, because it is difficult to duplicate (ie the part worth being proud of).

        One of the pieces on the package is the SoC (system on chip). This houses the CPU and GPU (and likely various other pieces that are designed by Apple, like the flash controller). This has not been given a public name by Apple.

        Finally there are the CPU and GPU on the SoC. The CPU on the S1 is an Apple design of an ARMv7 (ie 32-bit) core, named APL0778, with no known code name. The GPU on the S1 is a PowerVR GPU.

        Even less is known about the S2. The CPU appears to be the same CPU, only clocked higher (~750 MHz rather than 500) and there are, of course, now two of them. GPU is presumably still PowerVR, supposedly twice as fast but who knows how that was achieved (add a second GPU core? switch to a Rogue GPU rather than a series 5 GPU?).

        Then S3. Maybe we’ll learn something, but the 70% higher speed suggests that this time we have a new Apple core, not just a frequency boost.

        The imperfect analogue of the S3 is the A11. The S3 was the ENTIRE package. The A11 is just the SoC (ie the most important computational parts, all on a single chip). The A11 has 6 CPUs on it, two called Monsoon (big CPUs), four called Mistral (little CPUs). It also has a GPU (designed by Apple, three cores, nothing else known) and an NPU (designed by Apple, nothing else known).

        These terms are not random, they have a meaning. The S3 is a package. It is not a SoC, it is not a CPU. Apple does not claim that it is a CPU. They say that the watch contains an S3, and that it contains a dual-core processor. Both correct statements, but not saying the same thing.
        Apple are not in the business of making precise engineering distinctions for the public, especially in their marketing material. But there is no honor in being willfully ignorant after someone has explained an issue to you.

      • cm3392

        Apple uses the “System in Package” (SiP) description.

      • brucehoult

        Hey Maynard, long time no chat.

        “Then S3. Maybe we’ll learn something, but the 70% higher speed suggests that this time we have a new Apple core, not just a frequency boost.”

        Ever since Apple required watchOS apps to be uploaded in bitcode I’ve been suspecting the reason is not just to allow a transition from 32 bit ARM to 64 bit ARM, but to enable Apple to use another ISA entirely.

        That could save some licensing money, but I think there’s a more compelling reason.

        Apple’s ARM architecture license allows them to innovate in microarchitecture, but I believe it does NOT allow them to change the ISA even one iota.

        Would Apple love to be able to add tensor or other ML functional units into a standard CPU core, and instructions to match? I bet they would. And other things too.

        They can’t do that with ARM.

        They could do it by designing their own ISA, along with a complete toolchain: binutils, gcc/llvm, gdb/lldb, glibc/newlib, emulators. A lot of work. Not more than Apple is capable of, but maybe more than they’d want to do.

        Or, they could use RISCV. No licenses, no fees, no need to even tell anyone you’re using it. The toolchain support already exists. The 32 bit RISCV ISA is just as good (including just as compact) as Thumb2. The 64 bit RISCV ISA is about as good as Aarch64 — but with the added bonus of retaining the compact code size of Thumb2, which ARM unaccountably abandoned when they went 64 bit. You can add any function units you want, and there is a ton of available opcode space to put the needed instructions in.

        I reckon there’s a non-zero chance the S3 has RISCV in it.

        I also predict we’ll soon hear that bitcode upload for iOS will change from default to compulsory.

      • handleym

        Well, Bruce, that’s something reasonable folk can disagree about…
        Personally I think RISC-V, as an ISA, is garbage. Well, not exactly garbage, but below mediocre. It’s just the absolute bare minimum with not a single flash of genius in it; whereas ARMv8 is riddled with genius. RISC-V solves the problem of the early 80s — how can we decode an instruction in as few transistors as possible — a problem with zero relevance to today. ARMv8 on the other hand does an amazing job of creating an instruction set that is dense but easy ENOUGH to decode (given modern transistor budgets and the clock length you’re going to have to make available for the rest of your wide OoO CPU anyway), with touch like load/store pair that are just genius.

        I think legal restrictions on how Apple can augment ARM are utterly irrelevant. You seriously think ARM and Apple can’t make a deal? The main thing I hope the legal restrictions would do is allow time for negotiation and re-appraisal between Apple and ARM before just blindly adding new instructions. Designing instructions (let alone a whole ISA) is not easy — witness RISC-V (and MIPS) at the lousy end, but plenty of flaws in Alpha, quite a few flaws in POWER (including some ideas that were great for ten years or so, till they weren’t), and has Intel ever created an ISA that wasn’t terrible in every way possible?

        Honestly if Apple were to use RISC-V anywhere, I’d expect to see it more in their throughput processor (“GPU”). (Here’s one quick writeup of what I had in mind:
        ) For such a system (unlike the CPU of a watch) each lane is light enough weight that there is real value in a totally stripped down ISA. But I suspect even in that case, the most you’d want is an ISA that started with the simplicity of RISC-V, then added a bunch of target-specific stuff (load-store instructions for the various different caches, texture instruction, sync/barrier/ordering instructions).

        My expectation is that the S3 CPU is something of a Swift derivative (maybe pruned down to two-wide), and that the future [maybe as early as next year. when they make the 64-bit transition] will look something like using a Mistral core (speculative, two-wide in-order, but clocked high) as the performance core along with an ultra-low power companion core (non-speculative, one-wide in-order, lower clock). Now that the OS work has been done, such a design just make sense given the ample amount of small back-ground work that goes on in a watch.

      • brucehoult

        I don’t disagree that Aarch64 has some clever bits. It gets a lot of useful ops out of conditional select with 2nd arg mods, bitfield move (with arbitrary zext and sext among the non-obvious uses), the funky patterns in immediate boolean operations. That helps it to get the best density of any fixed length 32 bit ISA, and even a few wins with needing fewer instructions. But it can’t come close to competing with a mixed 16-bit and 32-bit instruction set like RISCV or Thumb2. That’s important not only in tiny microcontrollers, but also in making the best use of L1 instruction cache in servers, where power and latency vs cache size are huge issues. I think ARM has made a *huge* mistake there.

        Load/store pair isn’t so clever. It makes the best of only having 32 bit instructions. But it’s totally not needed when you have 16 bit loads and stores available, so a pair of them fit into 32 bits anyway. Medium to high end RISCVs can trivially fuse adjacent 16 bit loads or stores into a single 32 bit load/store pair pseudo-instruction if they choose to. And low end Aarch64 implementations might well split load/store pair into two uOps. Same same.

        What you’re completely missing is that RISC-V isn’t intended to be a technical pioneer — it’s a business model pioneer. It’s a very nice consolidation of everything that proved to be a good idea and that is out of patent protection. It’s the ISA equivalent of Linux, which started small, but dominates many fields now.

        It’s true that RISCV is very easy to decode — but that’s far from the only thing it does well.

        I have no idea why you’d think it’s garbage, unless you either haven’t taken a close look, or else haven’t updated your knowledge of it since 2010 or 2011. That was the equivalent of 1991 for Linux. We’re in the equivalent of about 1995 Linux now. In my carefully considered opinion.

      • handleym

        I understand the claims of RISC-V establishing a new business model; I’m just not sure they’re correct. It remains to be seen the extent to which one can usefully swap pre-designed pieces from one CPU into another CPU and simply “recompile” the whole system to work. This likely is true for some things like branch predictors or prefetch algorithms (though even then, the best of these may require the collection of non-obvious information from other parts of the CPU), but it’s likely to be very hard going when it comes to adding on things like clustering or long-term-parking.
        Hell even in the easier space of CPU simulators (which exist by means of this sort of open model) it’s not like we’re rolling in quality.

        And I understand the appeal of thinking that the open source thing is about to take off. I lived through plenty of “Years of Linux on the Desktop”. But I suspect we’ll see the same thing with RISC-V that we did with Linux — some specialized use that no-one cares about (very low volume parts, or commodity parts) followed EVENTUALLY (many many years from now) by some company using it as the basis for the equivalent of Android — along with all the open source guys screaming and ranting that RISC-V has thereby been ruined, is no longer something they want to be part of, blah blah.

        Technologies change, but human beings remain the same.

      • handleym

        Oh, also compulsory bitcode for iOS I personally would not take as indicating a change in ISA. I’d see it simply as part of on-going optimization. Once an app presents as bitcode, it’s subject to ongoing compiler improvements every year, and, just as significantly, it allows Apple to make micro-architecture changes that could have nasty performance implications for non-recompiled code.

        [I’ve suggested elsewhere that there’s scope for very interesting work in architecture amplification if you’re willing to compiler schedule appropriately. The sorts of things I have in mind are back-to-back (rather than separate) dependent instructions which can be fused and treated as braids, or back-to-back loads or stores to successive addresses (which can be slotted into a single wider load/store queue entry).]

      • Shawn Dehkhodaei

        Wow, that’s interesting. I never entertained the idea that Apple might want their own ISA. Can you explain how much of a benefit it would provide, compared to sticking with ARM an exhausting it for a few more years? Are we talking orders of magnitude in performance difference in RISCV vs. Thumb2?

      • brucehoult

        Oh, certainly not ten times faster for ordinary program code! There might be a small advantage due to having less accumulated baggage than ARM. SiFive’s FE310 chip runs at 320 MHz when made in a 180 nm process. The fastest ARM with comparable microarchitecture runs at about 180 MHz in the same process. I don’t know if that’s a true reflection. Certainly that’s at the limit of what I’d believe as an inherent advantage. The big advantage would come from effectively owning the whole thing, having the freedom to innovate quickly without asking or even telling anyone. Apple likes that sort of thing. It would enable adding instructions and functional units for ML or — as Maynard suggests, graphics — right into the main CPU instead of having to farm them off to a separate coprocessor. For some things that might make a big difference.

      • Shawn Dehkhodaei

        Please accept my apology as my knowledge of hardware design and CPU internals is rudimentary at best. You and Maynard have made some interesting points. My guess would be that Apple might “extend” the ARM ISA in their next few attempts, if they decide to do something of the sort. Apple and ARM have a very lengthy history; in some ways ARM exists because of Apple (this goes back to the early 90’s). Apple has always been an early investor, and I think they still own shares in ARM. But the thought of “messing” with any ISA is interesting when put in the context of Apple …. who would have expected that 10 years ago. And when you think about it, they’ve always hated intel’s ISA, and liked intel’s fabrication prowess. For the longest time, I’ve surmised that intel should stop their foundry business and just get into the fabrication business entirely. That’s the only thing they’re good at, and if they lost the distraction that is the x86 ISA, they could do even better in fabrication. And who knows, they may still end up keeping Apple as a customer in the next decade.

  • berult

    I would characterize Apple’s mobile-tech philosophy as ‘sound surround’, ‘no strings attached’, …and trust thy encompassed hearts to beat bold. berult.

  • tmay

    Not for nothing did Apple spend its time developing Face ID. When, not if, Apple scales Face ID to fit the Apple Watch is the remaining question.

    Coupled with AirPod’s, and AR glasses of some sort, Apple will be able to deliver its ecosystem in an even more granular way for a better fit to lifestyles and workflows.

    • Curmudgeon

      Maybe Apple’s take on the components to a modular phone might be AirPods/hearing aids, Apple Watch/other wearable sensors, HomePod/other home sensors, CarPlay/other transportation with sensors, AppleTV, future eyewear, entertainment subscriptions, storage subscriptions.

    • Shameer Mulji

      I agree Apple didn’t develop FaceID for nothing but not to scale it down to the Watch but to bring it to the Mac.

      • It’s logical that Face ID will move to the Mac.

        Eventually, perhaps it’ll even be able to recognize different users and automate access to specific User Accounts.

    • Nitpicking here, but security functionality like Face ID might actually take a backseat to battery life when it comes to Apple’s ability (and willingness) to entirely untether Watch.

      I’d also toss out the idea that way down the road AR contact lenses might be considered as an alternative to AR glasses to achieve Apple’s ultimate goals for Watch.

      Surely most people will simply refuse to wear something on their face if they don’t have impaired vision to begin with.

      • Greg Lomow

        Remember that there are millions (or billions) of people who wear sunglasses; so I think we have evidence that people will wear something on their face if there are enough benefits.

  • Philippe MÉDA

    Can’t check it right now but wonder what is the screen resolution of the current watch vs original iPhone. Bet the watch IS on par if not >.

    • Walt French

      Pretty close. I see 340X272, about 80% of the original iPhone’s 320X480.

      • 程肯

        and a little over half the size of an original Mac.

  • Seems like, at least for now, the new features in S3 are affecting the iPhone’s form factor. New iPhones can be bigger because, for more and more tasks, there’s an even smaller screen that obviates the need to pull out your iPhone.

    I was hoping that the new edge-to-edge iPhone would be *smaller* than the 7, but in fact they went slightly larger while also introducing LTE on the Watch. I still hold out hope for a smaller iPhone (a one-handed one), but I recognize that the Watch is at least Apple’s answer to the problem.

    • Shawn Dehkhodaei

      I would also like to see and edge-to-edge 5.0″ iPhone, which is the same physical size as the SE. I love the SE size because of one-handed use.

      • lkalliance

        I just like the SE size period, even though I have very rarely used any of my phones one-handed. Fits nicely in the pocket, feels just the right size to me in the hand.

      • Shawn Dehkhodaei

        I’ve liked it for the same reasons, but I do use it one-handed all the time. In addition I like the design better …. it feels substantial and hefty I’m the hand, and I like the straight edges. The new phones with rounded edges are way too slippery. I think the 5S/SE was the true embodiment of a mobile phone in terms of ergonomics … not too big, not too small, just the right size.

      • Mike

        Agree with all you’ve said.
        Now, I just can’t wait for that screen to go fully edge to edge.

      • Shawn Dehkhodaei

        Indeed. If it does, in the same frame, it’ll become the “Jesus Phone” in the 5.0” category

  • Abhi Beckert

    I’d argue the watch doesn’t (yet) deserve to be named an “internet communicator”.

    I can’t write this post on my watch for example, but I could on the original iPhone.

    It’s like a car that can only be used on a small selection of roads. To me that means it’s not a “real” car.

    I love my Apple Watch far more than my smartphone and look forward to a day when I don’t own a phone, but it’s still a long way off. We need better battery life and more reliable voice recognition.

    • EVula

      Whether or not you can write a comment on a blog post is a ludicrous guideline to use for defining something as an internet communicator or not. I can receive texts on my Watch and respond by either dictation, a pre-made list of replies, sketch letters with my finger, or use emoji; I can place and receive phone calls; I can send and receive emails. All of those uses say “internet communicator” to me.

      Is the Watch as universally useful as the iPhone? No. But to argue against an otherwise apt descriptor based on a single (relatively minor) use case is weak.

  • Abhi Beckert

    > The average revenue per watch[1] (for Rolex) was therefore about $4,700.
    > [1] Includes services such as repairs

    I wonder how much Apple’s service policies impact the customer satisfaction number? I got my first watch by purchasing an old secondhand series 0 after someone else updated to the series 2.

    My watch broke after just 2 weeks… however Apple replaced it for free with a brand new watch even though I wasn’t the original purchaser and it was well and truly outside the warranty.

  • radoslavstankov

    People often forget that till iOS 5 in 2011, the phone needed iTunes. Watch is still on its watchOS 3.

  • Speednet21

    I wonder how many of those watches are still being used.

    • Mike

      Yeah right.
      Millions of people buying $500 watches, and then just throwing them in a drawer.

  • I knew it that this is gonna be happen Apple is one favorite brand and Apple watch 3 is obviously

  • art hackett

    When will iGlasses as a display for the iWatch replace most of the function of the phone, turning it, into the Truck?