3 ms·
> Thus, Apple may say they want to sell a bajillion watches, but what they really need to do is sell enough watches and have enough credibility that if smart wa
by beambot 11y ago
> Thus, Apple may say they want to sell a bajillion watches, but what they really need to do is sell enough watches and have enough credibility that if smart watches disrupt smart phones, Apple already has a seat at the table.
And that is the difference between Apple-with-Jobs and Apple-without-Jobs. Apple with Jobs didn't worry about "if smart watches disrupt..."; Apple with Jobs built products that DID disrupt.
- hellofunk 11y agoUm, except plenty of evidence exists that Jobs was involved with the Apple Watch plans from the beginning -- supposedly all major product lines released through 2015 began under his watch (no pun intended).
- beambot 11y agoBig difference between a project beginning (experimentation) and going all the way to launching...
- skywhopper 11y agoJobs had plenty of duds, as well. Remember the ROKR? Or the iPod Hi-Fi? If you do, then you know what I'm talking about. If you don't, well, you just proved my point. Anyway, disruption doesn't happen in a year with the first version of a product in a brand-new market category. But when watches do become capable enough to disrupt phones, Apple is well-positioned to ride that wave.
- jasonlotito 11y agoOr... DID EVENTUALLY disrupt. Or DID get killed and forgotten when it didn't disrupt. Apple has had it's share of failures.