Cupertino originally envisioned it as a health champion, but many sensors didn’t make the cut due to unreliable readings.
It’s been years since Apple reportedly kicked off “iWatch” research and development, and after such lengthy preparation, the world expected more. More than an overpriced, geeky-looking Moto 360/LG G Watch R alternative with simplified iOS software in lieu of Android.
While design may be a matter of preference, and, say, standalone functions would have drained too fast an already disappointing battery, there’s no question Apple under-delivered in the health tracking department.
Sure, the soon-to-be-released wearable can count steps, monitor your sleep, and check heart rate with presumably decent accuracy. But so can most Android-powered rivals. Where’s the innovation, the touch of originality, the standout material?
In short, it got stuck in the R&D pipeline. The blood pressure, the stress level measuring, even the skin conductivity-based HR monitor. Apple tested it all, but couldn’t guarantee for the reliability of the groundbreaking tools, so they were discarded.
For a while, it wasn’t clear what the target audience and publicity angle would look because of these pre-production setbacks. Ultimately, the Apple Watch is what it is, and no big breakthroughs happened between its introduction last fall and imminent commercial launch.
Then again, everybody knows whatever Apple touches turns to gold, and rumor is a combined five to six million “iWatch” units will be ready to ship by April. Around half of the Q1 manufacturing order is dedicated to the entry-level Sport version, tipped to be the most in-demand at first.
Meanwhile, the luxurious Apple Watch Edition should account for less than 20 percent of this opening batch. But once it takes off, it could easily hit a million copies produced every month starting in Q2. Shall we even try to tally the profits there if the $5,000 price gossip pans out? Let’s not, for the sake of Cupertino’s competitors.