[Robo]

Link

Copy/paste from other thread:

I wouldn't be surprised to see that 1.6" touchscreen in a $99 iPod watch. I can't imagine what else it'd be for, actually.

The way I see it is this. In Apple's eyes, the iPod touch (or iPhone) is the perfect pocket-size device. The size, the shape -- everything was geared toward making it perfect for pockets and holding in one's hand. The iPod nano and iPod classic are, therefore, imperfect pocket devices, stepping stones on the way to the iPod touch -- Apple's keeping them around, because they want to have options at those price points/capacities, but they really want people to buy the iPod touch, so they can buy apps. Just look at their "free iPod" promotion for students. They promote that as "a free iPod touch," and they sort of hide the fact that you can also get a free iPod nano, even though that iPod nano costs less for them to give away. They want you to buy apps.

But the iPod touch is also the perfect $199 product, in that it embodies pretty much exactly what people expect to get for $199, due to the long tradition of $199 devices. I don't think, for the purposes of this discussion, it'll ever drop below $199.

That leaves the question of what to sell in the sub-$199 space. iPod nanos work for now, but if people are going to be carrying an iPod and putting it in their pocket, Apple would rather them put an iPod touch there. The solution, therefore, is to make a product that people don't have to carry or put in their pocket. What Apple's missing is the perfect wearable device.

The mystery of why Apple avoided selling an iPod at $99 -- a seemingly obvious price point that most would try really hard to hit -- has actually been bugging me for a really long time. But it's simple, really: It's because the iPod shuffle isn't "worth" $99, in that it doesn't embody what people expect from a $99 device, but the iPod nano is both too expensive for Apple to sell at $99 and (more importantly) "worth more" than $99. It's still a "true" iPod, in the sense that you use a clickwheel and put it in your pocket, and to your average person that's still "worth," well, $149.

It's been clear to me for a long time, therefore, that any $99 iPod would probably have to be a substantially new product -- made to that price point, just as the iPod touch and iPad are. So I thought about what an iPod between the current iPod shuffle and current iPod nano would be like.

The answer, of course, is fairly obvious. There's actually a pretty big (and growing) gap between the devices; the iPod shuffle is audio-only and has no screen for song selection. The iPod nano was the audio-focused iPod with a screen, but with features like video cameras built in, it's no longer really true to that either -- it's in that uncomfortable space between a dedicated device and an all-purpose one, like an iPod touch. So what's missing from the "modern" (non-classic) iPod line, now, is a music-focused iPod with a screen, which is...actually a pretty big oversight, don't you think?

Any new $99 iPod should also be smaller than the iPod nano but larger than the iPod shuffle in both size and capacity; that helps create an elegant line-up and makes it obvious which model is "higher-end" (i.e., "worth more") than the other. But making a device that went in your pocket but was just a bit smaller than the iPod nano wouldn't be very desireable; there's enough "pocket" iPods, especially since (as we've established) the iPod touch is the one that Apple really wants there. But a screen would make a "clip"-style iPod unwieldy. So any "new" $99 iPod couldn't really be either. It shouldn't go in your pocket, and it should have a small screen in a place that is easily visible.

Surely, you know where I'm going with this, but I want to cover one more thing. The iPod shuffle is very small and light, but it's mental baggage -- you have to think about bringing it with you. The best iPod would be mentally weightless -- one that you always had with you, and didn't have to bring.

An iPod watch is something I've thought about for years. In a sense, it's the logical endgame of both the iPod shuffle and the iPod nano, in that it combines the two into one product (always preferable) while improving upon either, even if extraneous features like the video camera fall by the wayside. I'm not saying Apple would replace both the iPod shuffle and iPod nano with the iPod watch immediately; I'm saying that such a replacement would happen fairly naturally on its own. The iPod watch would be the perfect $99 product, a completion of Apple's pricing picture, with the iPod shuffle (a "wearable" device that you still had to bring) and iPod nano (a "pocketable" device that was lesser to the iPod touch) being "in-between" products at $49 and $149.

I raised my eyebrows, then, when Apple introduced a $99 stainless steel iPod shuffle last year. It was, fairly obviously, an experiment; Apple was selling something solely on style for the first time, and they wanted to see if they could, at the same price of the watch-to-be. (Any Apple watch would obviously trade in part on Apple's stylish image.)

When a small, square watch-sized Apple screen leaked this summer, I was, well, fairly convinced. (A lot of people seem to think it's going into a remote, which I don't get, but I don't get how people think the Apple TV is about ready to start running iPhone apps either.) So...there you go.

[Noel]

Originally Posted by Robo Surely, you know where I'm going with this, but I want to cover one more thing. The iPod shuffle is very small and light, but it's mental baggage -- you have to think about bringing it with you. The best iPod would be mentally weightless -- one that you always had with you, and didn't have to bring.

That's not really true, though: one has to think about bringing headphones, unless one plans on blasting the music through speakers on the iPod watch. Such a product would also necessitate some form of wireless headphones, since nobody wants a wire dangling from their ears to their wrist. Besides having to remember to bring these wireless headphones with you, it seems like they would also be terribly easy to lose — especially if Apple went with two separate wireless earbuds.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Noel Besides having to remember to bring these wireless headphones with you, it seems like they would also be terribly easy to lose — especially if Apple went with two separate wireless earbuds.

It's very unlikely that Apple would (or even could) go with two separate wireless earbuds. I don't even know how that would work (how would you get them out of your ear?).

But I actually did want to touch on the Bluetooth (the headphones would likely be A2DP) thing. The iPod shuffle is successful in part because it's almost like an iPod accessory; I know a lot of people who bought an iPod shuffle because they didn't want to take their "real" iPod or iPhone running. (In fact, I don't know a single person with an iPod shuffle as their sole iPod.) There's a bit of that in the iPod watch concept too; there's no reason, for example, that an iPod watch couldn't work with an iPhone to display the number of whoever's calling and give you the option to reject the call without getting your phone out of your pocket or purse. After all, it'd have Bluetooth anyway, for the headphones (and Nike+ or whatever). Plus, there's also the fact that it would pull double duty as a (I'm going to go out on a limb and say rather sharp-looking) watch; it would probably be much easier to get iPhone users to spring for an iPod watch as well than to get them (us?) buy an iPod nano, and the price difference is only part of that.

It goes without saying that, at $99, the iPod watch would probably not come with a leather band, but I'm sure Apple would be willing to sell you one, as well as plastic bands in bright colors (think bumpers) for obscene prices. That's the other thing I wanted to touch on; Apple's re-entry into the accessories market could also (wait for it) make this tick.

Finally, I'll cover my ass by saying that, while an iPod watch is the perfect $99 product, it might be a perfect $129 product first. Early adopter tax, plus Apple loves charging $129 for things because it more or less registers as "about $100," even though it's closer to $150. But this is The New Apple, and they're more conscious than ever of keeping their CE products accessible to the mass market and hitting the "magic" price points, so I'm sure it'll be $99 in time.

[psmith2.0]

Ooh, I like that! iPhone in my pocket, but paired with the iWatch...phone rings, I glance at my wrist and see who it is. And, I suppose, it's not too far a step from that to answer and talk to the caller, via the watch? Some yellow-trenchcoated detective was doing that in the newspaper comics decades ago, after all...

Face it...talking into your wrist/watch area couldn't possibly be (or look) any more stupid than people walking around with those Bluetooth ear things and having what looks like crazy, demented conversations with themselves (until you see they're on the phone with their jawbone thingie). At least if you've got your arm held up and talking into it, there's some sort of precedent for coolness with that (the aforementioned Dick Tracy, plus the Secret Service, Jack Bauer and others).

I'd rather do that, and have everyone around me know I'm "on a call" than to just walk through Target or the grocery store, looking like a crazy person talking into the air.

I was going to bring up the wires and how going from earbuds to your wrist would suck, but yes...going wireless would be the way to go. And maybe they go on a band that goes around the back of your head or neck (so you can still wear a hat, or they don't mess your 'do up? And if you just wanted the watch part (incoming calls, date, time, weather, etc.), you'd have that and leave the earband(!) at home?

The following will be supremely stupid, but think of how neat it would be in certain situations: with WiFi getting more and more popular and showing up in more restaurants, bookstores, cafes, pubs, parks, etc., what about a little WiFi/AirPort module embedded, and little widget-type things you could call up on the watch? Designed for that screen size, of course! Weather? Movie times? Calendar and Contacts (synced over from your iPhone, of course)? Various other watch/time functions? MultiTouch-based, naturally.

The phone could stay in your pocket, and you could almost control much of it from the watch. Click it, say "Call Mom, mobile" and it calls. No Safari or anything (nobody's going to surf or e-mail on such a screen), but if you could just have handy, useful info in the form of 5-10 homegrown Apple widgets?

And, like the iPhone, the screen could become/adapt to whatever the function was at any moment? Regular watch, stopwatch, kitchen timer, weather forecast widget (highs, lows, conditions for 5-7 days using the same feed as the iPhone and OS X Dashboard widget, of course), etc.

It could be a standalone device (iPod), or bought by iPhone users and paired with it to be a nice little accessory.

Dang, I'd actually wear a watch (I currently don't, and haven't in over 10 years).

And, again, because it's an iPhone-like screen (big "blank canvas") Apple could include 3-5 default watch styles/looks for you to choose? Modern/high-tech, old world "compass-y" looking design, retro 70's digital, classic businessman's watch, etc.

$99? Hell, I'd buy one if it did the above stuff. You bet!

And, yeah...the fact that it's "always with you" (there's a reason most of my iPhone library consists of pics taken with my iPhone vs. my standalone Canon, regardless of the quality), that's the best kind of iPod. All you'd have to remember is to grab your little earband thingie (set it next to your car keys?) and that's it. The music is right there, on your wrist, every time you leave the house.

[Satchmo]

Not just a walkie-talkie Dick Tracy style, but FaceTime video!

[psmith2.0]

Even better!

I want one of these things, and I never really thought about its existence until just a couple of hours ago when I read that post by Robo in the other thread.

But I've been sitting here the past 20 minutes or so, thinking about all the neat things it could do, actually given current, existing technology, and/or stuff Apple is already doing (and doing well).

[Robo]

As always, immediately after writing a novel of a post, I figure out how to put it much more simply. Of course.

Apple is very conscious about making sure all of their products are of their own kind; that is, they tend to avoid making products that are merely lesser versions of other Apple products. (This is more true of their consumer electronics than of their computers, but even then, note how Apple puts a unique "spin" on each of their desktops. They're each the best at something. A midrange headless desktop wouldn't have any such "angle," it'd just be there, a lesser Mac Pro.) This is sort of what designery types like Jony Ive talk about making products that are "true" to their "essence," and this is why I'm not convinced Apple is about to make a lesser iPad.

The iPod nano is increasingly looking like a lesser pocket iPod. What I think Apple is looking for is a lower-end product that is more it's own species. I'm not saying that I'm convinced Apple will announce an iPod watch in a few weeks, or even ever, but I'm fairly confident that they've at least explored it and built some prototypes, and I can't imagine that touchscreen (even if it was just a prototype) having been for anything else.

[FFL]

Very interesting link from the comments section of the Engadget posting:

New Images and Video of iWatch Concept

[evan]

Originally Posted by FFL Very interesting link from the comments section of the Engadget posting: New Images and Video of iWatch Concept

is that the same guy that did those (in my opinion really dumb) best buy-iphone commercials? Not sure where the decision to use the computer voice came from but I'm not a fan...


that being said, cool concept.

[psmith2.0]

That's what was weird about the voiceover! I couldn't place it, but it's that text-to-speak stuff from OS X. I thought it sounded a bit artificial and lifeless. Plus, I think is pronounced "weather" as "weether".

I just thought it was someone who couldn't speak well, and I wasn't going to say anything. But it's that OS X voice (the one I make say cuss words).

[Matsu]

I don't think this is a bad idea at all. I always wanted a Dick Tracey Watch when I was a kid, and I'm not even that old... It has a definite Casio Calculator Watch nerdiness about it though. But, on the opposite end of the spectrum, it could be huge for the fitness market: add a pedometer, heart rate monitor, gps, and tunes... and you're good.

[psmith2.0]

Totally.

[Eugene]

Doubting this for the simple fact that anyone under 20 doesn't wear a watch, and most people around 25-30 probably only wear watches to impress their bosses. An iWatch won't impress like an Omega or Breitling.

[psmith2.0]

True. But maybe the 20-somethings just don't see anything they like? Nobody carried around personal digital music players in any significant way until Apple stepped in and offered a product. And I never saw non-geeks clamoring for a "smart phone" until a couple of years ago. Apple has a pretty decent track record with creating new categories or movements, and/or taking something that already exists and make it worth pursuing or enjoying (a powerful, Internet-capable phone that anyone can use without touching the manual).

And the 25-30 thing (impressing their bosses) might be true in some ways, you still can't make such hard-edged blanket statements and "limiting" it to "nobody under 20" and "25-30 only wear on to...".

Apple probably won't do such a thing, of course (it's hard to imagine; but it's fun to think about). But those aren't reasons why because some people do wear watches, and a ton more are fortunate enough to work in jobs where "impressing the boss with outward, surface stuff (like the kind of watch they wear)" doesn't factor in one bit (thank God...I wouldn't work for a place that put such emphasis on such meaningless, superficial stuff..."My watch? A Target Timex...$17.99. Suck it! You paid five figures for yours? Who's the idiot?"). I've never run in those particular circles, and it's probably best for everyone involved. I don't know how many different ways I could phrase "you're a friggin' idiot of a douchenozzle, and part of the problem!", five days a week.

Not everyone is in those downtown Charlie Sheen/Michael Douglas jobs, after all (and those types have all lost their soul anyway, a long time ago, so nothing Apple makes is ever going to register with, or impress, them).

Apple, more than anyone else, could make watches "cool" for a certain age bracket. As for 40-somethings like me who own an iPhone and a Mac, but don't wear a watch (not because of any boss or social reasons, I just haven't owned on in a long time), I could certainly be persuaded, should a cool, functional one that tied in to the other devices I use every day, ever popped up. Provided it wasn't outright ugly or something (and that's rarely an issue with Apple).

Never say never. I've learned that, if nothing else. Just market it as the ultimate hoodie accessory...

[Eugene]

We pay extra for our computers and OS when there are clearly many things broken about it. It took Valve releasing Steam for the Mac, and then poking them on the shoulder for Apple to realize how shitty it's video drivers were. Paying for a nice watch vs. a Timex or Casio seems like something a Mac user is more likely to do than a PC user at least.

I don't wear a watch because I don't like the feel/weight of it on my wrist. I also already have a timepiece on me at all times so a watch is mostly a fashion accessory. An iWatch becomes a redundant piece of hardware if you're going to use it as a second display/interface for the iPhone in your pocket. I would more likely treat it as a replacement for one in general. The only problem with that would be the wireless earpiece/mic requirement.

So the device is redundant if you always carry an iPhone with you and it's also incomplete without one. This itself is enough for me to shrug it off as a solution in search of a problem.

[psmith2.0]

Fair enough. Good points. I just assume Apple could sprinkle their special iDust on it and make it something neater, and more useful, than we've imagined so far. I'll give them that leeway and benefit of the doubt. They've certainly earned it!

The last watch I had was the mid-90's, a ~$20 brown leather/weathered bronze thing from Target (might've been a Coleman). But the battery conked out at some point, and I just took it off and haven't worn one since. It's still in a box in my closet somewhere, with old trinkets and gizmos from my SoCal days...

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Eugene So the device is redundant if you always carry an iPhone with you and it's also incomplete without one. This itself is enough for me to shrug it off as a solution in search of a problem.

No offense, but I think you're sort of missing the point. It'd be an iPod first. You know. Music player thing.

Then a watch. And then -- for a tertiary audience -- an iPhone accessory, maybe.

It's not without reason that I referred to it as an "iPod watch." Not "iWatch," which implies a major do-it-all product category, like iPad. (I don't see it as being a "Dick Tracy" watch with an iSight, sorry pscates.)

Hell, you can think of it as the new iPod nano if you want; it's entirely possible Apple would use the watch as a successor and keep the name.

[psmith2.0]

To be fair, I never said it would have an iSight or do the FaceTime thing. I only talked about it pairing with an iPhone and, instead of always having to get the phone out of your pocket, you'd see, on the watch, who's calling. And if you wanted to answer it that way, you could (no different or more elaborate than a Bluetooth earpiece at that point). But no iSight, video chat, etc. Just voice, if you were somewhere where "talking on your wrist" would work (not a lot of background noise, something you know is going to be a quick 20-second conversation, etc.).

I get several phone calls a day (or week) that are my Mom or a buddy just wanting a quick answer about dinner or something. I wouldn't mind leaving the phone in the pocket for those and just saying a couple of sentences into a watch, if I had the option.

Don't have me saying crazy, nutball stuff I never did (I do that well enough on my own, already).

BTW, not being all that hip to the metric system, I had three centimeters imagined as much smaller than it really is. It's basically about 1 3/16", correct? Not quite 1.25", but more than 1.125". Dashboard Conversion widget shows it as 1.1811024 (call it 1.18).

That's about twice the size I'd imagined it being, and...well, quite "watch-y".

[Robo]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Don't have me saying crazy, nutball stuff I never did (I do that well enough on my own, already).

I didn't mean to suggest that you said it, just that you might be disappointed.

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 BTW, not being all that hip to the metric system, I had three centimeters imagined as much smaller than it really is. It's basically about 1 3/16", correct? Not quite 1.25", but more than 1.125". Dashboard Conversion widget shows it as 1.1811024 (call it 1.18). That's about twice the size I'd imagined it being, and...well, quite "watch-y".

Yup. It's a square, so it's about 1.6" diagonally (thank you Pythagorus!). Apple's sold iPods with screens about that size before -- the 1.67" iPod mini and the 1.5" iPod nano (pre-video). It's small, but not too small to be usable, and a square screen is just perfect for displaying album art, don'cha think?

[Matsu]

I see fitness exploding in the next couple of years, and not just because the wife and I (mostly I, who needs it more) have been hitting the gym regulary for about half a year now.

It seems every other runner I see has an iPod or BB on an arm band, and certainly that's the case in our gym as well, where even the treadmills have iPod functionality built-in along with a bunch of other stuff I can't use or set-up properly.

Currently I use a BB in an arm band because that's what I have, and it really only has a collection of douche-y dance music and rock tunes to match my heart rate. She's got a walkman phone (free with a promo), but it's awkward and has been failing, so I'm thinking of an iPod for her.

I know that if it had a heart-rate monitor, timer, and all the other neat cardio freak functions to go with her music, that's the one she'd go for...

[bassplayinMacFiend]

That's what I was thinking, especially with Apple's recent heart rate monitor patent application. Have GPS, HRM, music and exercise track info loaded and go for a run/hike/bike/jog/rafting/etc.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Robo No offense, but I think you're sort of missing the point. It'd be an iPod first. You know. Music player thing. Then a watch. And then -- for a tertiary audience -- an iPhone accessory, maybe. It's not without reason that I referred to it as an "iPod watch." Not "iWatch," which implies a major do-it-all product category, like iPad. (I don't see it as being a "Dick Tracy" watch with an iSight, sorry pscates.) Hell, you can think of it as the new iPod nano if you want; it's entirely possible Apple would use the watch as a successor and keep the name.

No offense, but you're missing my point. Would it only use wireless headphones, or would it be cumbersome enough to have a 1/8" minijack on it? Is the device supposed to be a replacement for your current music player? I do have an older shuffle for working out, but that's the thing, it's completely out of the way and I can clip it anywhere.

Reducing a touch interface to something that fits on your wrist is also unlikely. The iPhone touchscreen interpolates the invisible cursor location based on an area the size of your fingertip. The smaller the screen, the less precision you get.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Robo Hell, you can think of it as the new iPod nano if you want; it's entirely possible Apple would use the watch as a successor and keep the name.

Here's the first leaked cases for the iPod 4 (with the requisite camera/flash hole) and the "iPod nano 6"...which uses a small square touchscreen.

[ezkcdude]

Will it be iPod Nano Touch?

[Bryson]

It's only a small step to make a case that turns that into a watch....

[psmith2.0]

$5 says the shuffle goes bye-bye, and the classic might just have one model (which I wish they'd take back to white, for its last hurrah).

Truthfully, based on these photos and just thinking about the four current lines, here's what I think:

- shuffle goes away
- iPod nano goes small and square and somehow becomes a mixture of the shuffle and current iPod nano...but it'll become more music-centric, perhaps even losing a few features and capabilities? But it'll be cheaper and more affordable...truly a runner's device (small, light, clip-able, but, unlike the shuffle, more storage and a usable display. Still shows photos. I do expect a new navigation/UI design. MultiTouch, of course.
- iPod touch, then, becomes the flagship, Cadillac "does everything" iPod...music, video, cameras, FaceTime, apps and App Store, WiFi, etc.
- iPod classic either goes away completely or paired down to a single large-ish offering for those who still insist on toting 10,000+ songs around

I think the nano and touch are where it's at. Both MultiTouch-based, but far enough apart in size, capability, features and price to offer serious, clear-cut choice (think of the nano as "improving on the shuffle" vs. "dumbing down/stripping the nano" ).

A year from now, these will be the only two iPods that exist, I'm sure. And it's really all that needs to be. Small, light, basic and cheap...or large, feature-packed, powerful and does everything (and costs a hundred or two more).

Originally Posted by Bryson It's only a small step to make a case that turns that into a watch....

Yep. Strap a band to it and boom...

[Robo]

Originally Posted by ezkcdude Will it be iPod Nano Touch?

I seriously, seriously hope not. I think it will be just "iPod nano," paving the way for the iPod touch to be just "iPod" (or "iPod 4," as the case may be).

The more I think about it, the more likely I think any tiny touchscreen product is going to keep the "iPod nano" name, and not be a new "in-between" product. This is because I think it will have to be closer to the iPod nano's price range -- $129 and up, not $99. And also because I really doubt people are going to miss the iPod nano as we know it if this new thing has the same capacity. Sure, it wouldn't have a video camera, but that was sort of an odd feature anyway (and now the iPod 4 will have one).

Also, "iPod nano" is more rhythmically pleasant than "iPod watch." All iPods have been named in trochaic dimeter — iPod mini, iPod nano, iPod photo, iPod shuffle — up until the ungainly iPod touch. "iPod watch" would at least match that, but if they're getting rid of the "iPod touch" name...

pscates might get his $129, only-comes-in-silver iPod nano after all.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I think the nano and touch are where it's at. Both MultiTouch-based, but far enough apart in size, capability, features and price to offer serious, clear-cut choice

That was one of the things that bothered me for a long time. It was obvious to me that Apple didn't want the iPod touch to be some special touchscreen "side model," they wanted it to be the new iPod, which (to me) would mean eventually modernizing the iPod nano around touch — right now, it's like a smaller iPod classic, rather than a smaller iPod touch. If the iPod touch is "the real iPod," then the smaller version — the iPod nano — should be based on touch.

But the thing is, the iPod touch is already pretty small, so just taking the current iPod nano and throwing a touchscreen on it wouldn't work. There's not enough differentiation. I mistakenly thought that Apple should up the size of the iPod touch screen (to 4.5") to "make room" for an iPod nano with a 3.5" touch screen, but that's still not enough differentiation, we would still have two very similar iPods. (To my credit, I thought Apple should do this instead of selling two very similar iPod touches, as they do now. At least then they'd be branded differently.)

But this watch-sized screen thing is a perfect answer. It keeps the "iPod nano touch" from being "another touchscreen pocket iPod," because it's small enough to be wearable — if it doesn't come with a band, I'm sure Apple will sell their own (they'll do that instead of having it come in colors, it'll be just like the bumper thing); there's a reason the screen is square and not a more traditional rectangle and that's to make it wearable.

[psmith2.0]

I doubt it. But it would be a lot simpler to manufacture and ship/store, than keeping up with all these colors. Just ship a silver iPod and let all the third-party case makers provide the color and "pop". Doesn't do much good to choose your favorite color - orange, green, whatever... - and then put a little case or carrying clip on it, and cover it up.

You could have far more options and styles available (patterns, textures, multi-colors, etc.) than Apple could ever do from their end. So I don't think offering a single, simple and affordable nano is going to wreck anyone's world.

Also, this might still have a camera on it. Those little square cases have a long, rectangular cutout on the back. That has to be for something...camera lens? Not sure why it's so long, but it's there...

Looking at those leaked case pics, I still detect a bit of rounding/football shape (when viewed from above) to the nano. It's just whacked in half, basically.

[ezkcdude]

I would LOVE an iPod watch with GPS and a heart rate monitor. That would be killer for running, biking, hiking, etc.