Skip to comments.
Apple Watch may not be ticking with customers (APPLE Watch Sales Plunge 90%)
Market Watch ^
| 07/07/15
| Brett Arends
Posted on 07/07/2015 8:25:40 AM PDT by Enlightened1
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
To: Enlightened1
well duh... how many people do they expect to buy them- a million every day?
2
posted on
07/07/2015 8:27:28 AM PDT
by
Mr. K
(Palin/Cruz - to defeat HilLIARy/Warren)
To: Enlightened1
There are plenty of other smartwatches on the market for far less money. A couple of my students, professors of electronic engineering, wear, I believe, Samsung smartwatches, and they love ‘em.
3
posted on
07/07/2015 8:28:36 AM PDT
by
AnAmericanAbroad
(It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
To: Enlightened1
Apple also unveiled a gold Edition model priced at $10,000 or more. So far fewer than 2,000 of them have sold in the U.S., Slice contends.Two thousand people bought a gold toy? Wow.
4
posted on
07/07/2015 8:30:18 AM PDT
by
Obadiah
(This is Bravo-6, we have Zips in the wire! I repeat, Zips in the wire.)
To: Enlightened1
A $10,000 iWatch will be just as obsolete in 3-4 years as a $300 model.
Whereas a three year old Rolex or a Breitling will be every bit as functional as a new one, and hold a high percentage of its value.
Yes, there are some stupid rich people, but not that many.
To: Enlightened1
I believe Apple was committing fraud by selling their $10k gold watches as 22 carat. Its not 22 carat in the traditional sense but Apple’s own 22 carat alloy, which could mean that there’s not much gold in it at all
6
posted on
07/07/2015 8:33:30 AM PDT
by
4rcane
To: Enlightened1
Why Apple thought a wrist-borne I/O device for an iPhone would be a big seller is beyond me. A wrist-borne stand-along computer with a touch-screen interface might be a fun product that lots of technophiles would have wanted and could have generated significant sales, but the iWatch isn’t it.
7
posted on
07/07/2015 8:33:35 AM PDT
by
The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
To: The_Reader_David
Make that stand-alone, rather than “stand-along”.
(But FReepers know I’m a lousy proofreader.)
8
posted on
07/07/2015 8:35:04 AM PDT
by
The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
To: Eric Pode of Croydon
9
posted on
07/07/2015 8:36:39 AM PDT
by
Army Air Corps
(Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
To: Enlightened1
Instead of being useful to the buyers they are finding it only useful to Apple.
To: Eric Pode of Croydon
Just how much gram of gold is in those watches? $100? Selling them at $10k is a rip off
11
posted on
07/07/2015 8:37:34 AM PDT
by
4rcane
To: The_Reader_David
Steve Jobs was against the idea. The Gay Boy Wonder wanted to make is mark.
To: Enlightened1
Does not surprise me. I recently talked with an Apple employee (a former intern of mine) who is quite tech savvy as many of her generation are. She has one but has no real clue what to do with it. To her it’s an accessory and a really expensive calendaring system that beeps at her when a meeting is coming up.
13
posted on
07/07/2015 8:39:51 AM PDT
by
NohSpinZone
(First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers)
To: Enlightened1
I got rid of my watch a couple of decades ago. I use my hand-me down smart phones for internet radio and very occasional surfing. A tablet screen is the minimum useful size for me. In 1992 I had a 1024x768 24 bit color 15" monitor and now use a 1920x1080 ~25" on the desktop.
There's no way I'd get a computer wrist watch. Useless.
14
posted on
07/07/2015 8:45:01 AM PDT
by
Paladin2
(Ive given up on aphostrophys and spell chek on my current device...)
To: Eric Pode of Croydon
Quote:
“Whereas a three year old Rolex or a Breitling will be every bit as functional as a new one, and hold a high percentage of its value.”
I have some pretty good watches (at least I think), and
one of them is a 1943 Rolex.
It keeps time better than all the others I have.
15
posted on
07/07/2015 8:54:00 AM PDT
by
Verbosus
(/* No Comment */)
To: Enlightened1
At this rate, they’ll hit zero in August. That’s about the value of the company without Steve Jobs.
16
posted on
07/07/2015 8:56:33 AM PDT
by
norwaypinesavage
(The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones)
To: NohSpinZone
To her its an accessory and a really expensive calendaring system that beeps at her when a meeting is coming up.
Dang! I still have a Casio Databank watch from the late 1980s that can do that.
17
posted on
07/07/2015 8:58:02 AM PDT
by
Army Air Corps
(Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
To: 4rcane
There actually is less gold in it. Apple uses a new alloy that achieves 22 carat but with molecular structure containing more empty space, resulting in a lighter yet stronger alloy. This is not a secret; there’s some good articles out there about it.
18
posted on
07/07/2015 8:58:14 AM PDT
by
ctdonath2
(The world map will be quite different come 20 January 2017.)
To: Verbosus
And it will continue working long after the iWatch is but a faint memory.
19
posted on
07/07/2015 9:01:03 AM PDT
by
Army Air Corps
(Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
To: Enlightened1
Well, Apple has never said the Apple Watch would be a big moneymaker. Apple’s truly big moneymaker is the iPhone—and iPhone sales continue to be strong.
20
posted on
07/07/2015 9:05:22 AM PDT
by
RayChuang88
(FairTax: America's economic cure)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson