I 'm getting kinda frustrated

[G+_George Kozi]

I'm getting kinda frustrated. I watched the introduction of the new Samsung watch and I keep hearing "oh, this is nothing compared to what Apple will do"

 

Well ladies and Gentlemen pundits, so far, nothing is exactly what Apple did . It may be a very elegant, premium, and well designed nothing, but nothing it is. So why are you comparing something to nothing?

 

Why do you keep deferring to Apple? Let them prove themselves every time, as they should. Is there no willingness to keep a critical eye on the clothes of the Holy Empress?

 

  Mike Elgan Leo Laporte 

[G+_Jim Kopps]

Whatever Apple releases will be security compromised. That is what they do best.

[G+_Elizabeth Whitmire]

Their comparisons aren't to an Apple watch but to how Apple does its presentations.

[G+_Damian Mongru]

I kind of tuned in and out of the special. Was the problem because they didn't like the idea of Samsung's smart watch, or the size of it. In a typical Samsung way, the smart watch seemed to do everything. Untypically, it did not arrive in range of sizes, I assume to do with technology issues, but this would help alleviate the problem of the watch looking to large on your wrist.

 

As to your main point, everything seems to be portrayed as a response to Apple, even if we have no idea what Apple are up to - how's that Apple television coming along? As for their presentations, they seem a little too formulaic at the moment, for my tastes.

[G+_Mike Elgan]

George Kozi I'm writing a column on that very topic, George. If you took away from our presentation this week that I said "this is nothing compared to what Apple will do," then I have been unclear. 

 

Samsung makes great technology and great products. But they aim them exclusively as tiny subsets of the market. Their giant watch announced this week -- eliminate 99% of all women -- it's way to big for women. Now eliminate the 99% of the people who carry smartphones. Now eliminate the majority who can't or won't pay $300 or $400 or whatever for a gadget like this. You're down to a few thousand people. 

 

Now name any major category of Apple product -- computer, phone, tablet -- that's not aimed at the whole market (other than people who cannot afford). Women, grandmas, novices, experts -- everyone. 

 

The iWatch is very likely to be aimed at a vastly broader section of the market. 

 

If I'm wrong about this, you can tell me Tuesday that I'm wrong. But I don't think I'll be wrong. 

[G+_George Kozi]

Mike Elgan what worries me a bit is that when it comes to Apple, there is a kind of low intensity cult developing around the company. And that's not good for anybody, including the object of the mass adoration.

 

Yes they make good stuff, yes they have pulled everybody over some thresholds, and it is understandable that people were in awe.

 

But the thing about the awe is that it is supposed to fade away... because if it doesn't, we have the brand equivalent of the cult of personality.

 

 

[G+_George Kozi]

Mike Elgan Afterthought: do you remember how for a few years now, everybody was saying "we are in the post PC era", "the desktop is kaput, finito, dead" ? 

 

Then, last year Apple comes out with that cylinder shaped machine, and everybody is like "o.m.g., look what wonderful thing Apple made". Well, that wonderful machine Apple made, is a desktop PC.

 

There is some sort of warped double standard hiding intere somewhere, and it bugs me when I notice it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want Apple to do very well, because if they do, it will keep the rest of the tech world on its toes.

 

I don't even mind if things are put on a pedestal, but I do think that every so often, a couple of inches should be shaved off of it.

[G+_Damian Mongru]

George Kozi  We've had this discussion quite a lot, but I don't think Post-PC means no-PC. Also, there was quite a lot of questions asked about the Mac Pro e.g. the difficulty in rack-mounting and generally mounting more than one of these devices together, as well as it's lack of upgradeability. Although you are right, Apple says one thing (e.g. no-one reads) and then very transparently does the opposite (iBooks), although I'm pretty sure Mike Elgan said this during the Samsung event.

 

I think the implicit bias is more due to the people writing the reviews/blogosphere etc seem to use Apple products and are more familiar with them.

[G+_Mike Elgan]

George Kozi Two things. First, I do understand that many people don't like to hear what I said about Samsung. It's exactly like what happened with the Palm Pre. The geeks loved it, expected it to clobber the iPhone. And, in fact, it was great. But I said it would tank. I got a lot of hate mail for that. And, of course, I was completely right about it. 

http://www.datamation.com/columns/executive_tech/article.php/3822361/Why-the-Palm-Pre-Will-Fail.htm

 

So even though many people don't like to hear my views on the Gear S smartwatch and don't want to hear my predictions on the iWatch, can we all acknowledge in six months that I was right in my analysis if in fact I turn out to be right? In exchange, I will acknowledge that I was wrong if I turn out to have been wrong. 

 

Regarding the Mac Pro, I can't speak for what other people have said. I'm not part of some group of Apple fans, or whatever, speaking in unison. My views on the Gear S are pure market analysis -- namely, that it's aimed at a very small one. It has nothing to do with Apple fandom. 

[G+_George Kozi]

I don't think the gear is perfect by any means. To me it looks a bit thick. I don't mind the size of the screen. I would even want them to try to use a bigger screen that doesn't go across the wrist, but along it. Why make a device like this into something it isn't ? Why pretend it is a watch?

 

These are early tryouts anyways.

[G+_Mike Elgan]

George Kozi Again, my comments were about mainstream appeal or size of market, and had nothing to do with either how "good" the watch is or how Samsung might make it good in the future. They're about market size. 

 

Think of it like language. As a thought experiment, imagine if Samsung had made the perfect watch (OR VR goggles) but that only people who speak Japanese could use it. 

 

And then imagine that Apple came out with a watch, and people who spoke Mandarin, Spanish, English, Hindi and Arabic could use it. 

 

In terms of sales or market share, it wouldn't matter if the Japanese watch was "better." It wouldn't sell well and couldn't sell well. 

 

That's the problem with the Samsung watch announced this week. The number of people this watch appeals to is miniscule. 

[G+_Damian Mongru]

Samsung are a unique case. They are usually described as a 'throw it against the wall and see what sticks' company. They throw it against the wall, and then keeping throwing it against the wall. For example, they made phones in all conceivable screen sizes, and they still do. They have refined their flagships phones to the point that they are nice pieces of kit, they just need better judgment (I guess it's just Steve Jobs' advice to Phil Knight). 

 

Samsung have a lot of good ideas: the Knox personal and work areas on a phone, or going big with health a few years ago e.g. S-Health. They needed to refine and promote these ideas more.

 

As for the watch, one of the questions asked about smart watches were 'why do we need a watch for notifications if I still need a phone?' They seemed to solve this problem, and included a lot of nice apps and features - I think they mentioned an enhanced Nike+ app, as well as a lot of partnerships. As to my comment, above, is it a terrible idea (as everyone has a smartphone) or was it that the device was, at times in the video, comically large. You can imagine it being a lot more compact in revision two or three.

 

We're in a weird world now. Apple may not always have marketshare (e.g. with computers) but the apple user always claimed Macs were the best. Judge the device on whether it is good or not. I've always felt for a review, this is the main thing. The comments seem to be, why even bother with this device as it won't sell. I feel it would be better to examine What are the ideas behind this device and does it achieve them successfully? (It's why I sometimes despair at advertising and marketing, where they move away from the 'thing' and try to add emotion and aspiration. It moves away from whether the thing is good or bad, and is all about how we can sell it to you.)

 

I appreciate that Mike Elgan 's comments were specifically about whether the watch would sell, and why. I also understand that this is legitimate commentary - why does the device exist in the first place and who do they expect will buy one?