That's What the Technology Costs

Okay, this is my last post on the Apple Watch because I have better things to do. After writing the last post, however, I continued thinking about it (I had a three hour meeting last night so I had some time to think...) and I thought that there might be one angle that I had alluded to in my very first post on the subject, but didn't mention yesterday. What if $400 is a perfectly reasonable price for the Apple Watch?

I had originally concluded that based on what it could do, $350 seemed like a reasonable price for the technology that was included in it. If a Jawbone UP 3 now costs $179, with no display and no notification system built in or no way to add apps, you can start to see how maybe $400 is worth the technology that's included, especially when you factor in a healthy profit margin which Apple most certainly did (for the rest of this post, $400 is the price point for the Apple Watch because that's the least expensive model at the size that I personally would buy.) The real challenge for me is figuring out how I could justify $400 for something that doesn't really do anything I need it to do. It really is just something that I want, because I think it's pretty cool.

So here's the thing. It is pretty cool. It's neat technology. Yes, it's going to be obsolete in a few years. That's life. But the question is, what should that neat piece of technology cost? 

My mistake was thinking that I could compare it with something else on the market, but I now think that's misguided. Should we compare it to watches? Watches are mechanical devices, at the $400 dollar range they are definitely into the "fashion" category, and you tend to keep them. The Apple Watch is something different than that. So is it a fitness tracker? Fitness trackers are relatively simplistic, largely just sensors wrapped in rubber with a battery and some LED's, and are very much single purpose. The Apple Watch is something different than that.

In the end, the Apple Watch is something completely new. And I think that the price points Apple has come up with–thinking primarily about the technology aspect and not the fashion aspect–is that this is what a piece of technology like this should actually cost, especially if the company wants to make any money. The reason I differentiate between the technology and the fashion is that the technology is the same in each of the devices. The Sport, Watch, and Edition contain exactly the same internals. It's the case and the band that are different, and that is the fashion aspect. It's the fashion that ultimately gets the price so astronomically high. But what should the technology cost for this brand new device, the likes of which really doesn't exist on the market, or if it does, is not as well made and really hasn't gotten any traction?

This is a question that played itself out in a similar way with the price points of the original iPad. One of the criticisms of the iPad, or even the Mac throughout the years, is that there is an "apple tax". People think that Apple charges higher prices for the same technology, and so they are a rip off. Increasingly, that's not the case, since Apple products have become more competitively priced, particularly as their volume has exploded. Nevertheless, you will still pay a bit more on an Apple product. And here's why: because that's what it costs for the technology in the product. Apple isn't going to make a crappy iPad. They are going to make a great iPad, and they are going to price it like it costs, with their profit margin built in. They don't make any apologies for needing to make money as a company. That's their job. They are a business. So they aren't going to sacrifice profits for the sake of sales. When the iPad was released, you could get one for $499. Because that's what it cost for that type of technology.

Compare that with an Amazon Kindle Fire, for example. People look at it and say, "see, I can get a good tablet for almost half the price of an iPad. Apple is too expensive." Except they aren't. Apple isn't overpricing; Amazon is shooting themselves in the foot with a ridiculous business model. Apple makes a great device and says, "here is what it costs." The device is going to work, Apple will make money, and you will be pleased, because they are going to sell you a device that works at a price that makes sense. The Kindle Fire might work pretty well (not as well as an iPad), but Amazon isn't making any money off of it at all. They have sacrificed build quality to get it at the price point they wanted (something Apple won't do) and then they basically forego any profits in order to keep it as cheap as possible.

Again, Amazon will orego profits on it's product in order to sell their devices. That truly is a ludicrous business plan, but it's the business plan that most of the tech industry operates under. It's the reason that year after year, Apple takes some ridiculous percentage of the total profits of all tech companies combined. They are the only ones that are selling the device for what it actually costs. 

What that means for the consumer is that even though you are going to be paying a little bit more for the product, you can know at least two things. One, the transaction Apple is making with you is one in which they have put together what they consider to be a great product, and they are giving it to you for what it costs, so that they can continue doing what they do. The only way that system works is if, when you buy that product, it actually is better than some other product you could buy, either because of build quality, technology, or customer support. Apple does well on all three. Two, because of the nature of the transaction, where Apple is simply telling you what it costs and what they need to make on the product (the profit margin) to continue to do business, when you buy it, you have an implicit understanding that because they have gotten all the profits they need from the consumer, they don't need to go searching elsewhere for more income. Practically speaking, they don't need to sell your data. They don't need to serve up ads. They don't need to commoditize you. They already had a profitable transaction with their consumer, and everyone can be happy.

So back to the Watch. Apple has not asked, "what are people willing to pay for this type of technology?" They have built a product and asked, "what does this type of technology cost?" Whether or not people are willing to pay it is yet to be seen. My guess is that for those who are willing to spend the money for that particular technology, what will disappoint them is not the technology per se, but their experience of the technology. It won't be the question of whether that piece of technology should cost $400 (it should), but whether or not the benefit to their life was worth the $400 (or more) that they spent. Again, I think that's the experience of the iPad. I don't think you can walk out with a $500 iPad and think to yourself, "I overpaid", as you hold a piece of glass in your hands that is more powerful than most of the laptops I've recently owned. I think discouragement that you spent $500 creeps in when you realize that you don't really have a need for the iPad, or you don't use it as often as you thought you would. (For the record, I've never felt that way about either of my iPads. Every time I've used it, I've felt like I got a great deal for what the thing can do, and it meets my needs perfectly.)

Will people feel that way about the Watch? I don't know. What I think I can be certain of is that the technology costs $400. And if you want that type of technology, then that's what you'll need to pay, no apologies. And not only are there no apologies this year, but there won't be any apologies two years from now when you'll need to spend another $400 for newer technology. That's just what this type of technology costs.

The unanswered question is whether or not people are willing to pay that type of money for this type of technology. It's not a watch. It's not a fitness tracker. It's something totally different. It's a computer on your wrist.

Some people will definitely buy it. I think the first generation will probably be a mild success. Good by Apple's expectations, bad by analysts. I think the real indication, however, will happen overtime, as people wrap their heads around the cost of this particular type of technology. Eventually, when we think of wrist-computers, we'll probably just think to ourselves, "wrist-computers cost $400", just like we might think that "phones cost $200" (they don't, by the way) or "tablets costs $500" or "laptops cost around $1000".

From there, we'll decide, "do I really want a wrist computer?" And if we decide we do, then we'll happily go out and spend $400 on one. Because that's what this type of technology actually costs.

Apple Watch, Post-Keynote Reflections

Prior to the keynote on the Apple Watch this past Monday, I wrote a post outlining my opinion on the product and some of what I thought might be announced. My predictions were mostly wrong, with the exception of the observation that the product is almost solely influenced by fashion rather than technology. As a result, my opinion on the product also holds up fairly well, even post-keynote. I've been asked a few times what I thought, so I figured I'd turn those opinions into a post, and here it goes.

Who is the target audience?

The first thing that I can't wrap my head around is who, exactly, the target audience is for this device, other than "folks-who-have-money-to-burn". In contract, the iPhone was targeted at phone users: it was going to replace at least one device that you already had with you, and probably more than one if you had a cell phone, an iPod, and a Palm Pilot (and ultimately, if you had a GPS as well, although no one carried a GPS in their pocket...or did they?) The iPad was a little less focused, and was pitched as a third device. It might ultimately replace a laptop for a certain crowd, and time has shown that it has indeed done that for a particular crowd of people, but when it first came out there wasn't an obvious, "this is what it's used for". That was the chief criticism, and over time, I think that what has developed is sort of an idea that there isn't a universal, specific use case for an iPad, but you might have a specific use case that you use it for and therefore find it to be irreplaceable in your workflow. I use my iPad as my primary reading device, and I use it to view my manuscript when I'm speaking or preaching. I can imagine a scenario where I no longer have an iPad, but I don't want to. It's a part of my workflow and far from using it less and less (as some people say they do) I actually try to use it more and more. But I digress.

The point is that the iPad was less focused than the iPhone, and sales have followed accordingly, so that while Apple are still selling a boatload of tablets, it's not as much as it once was. First, people may or may not find them a compelling, necessary product, and second, people keep them longer because they are more expensive, and just tend to keep on working. Case in point, my original iPad still works and as I watched my son play a game on it this morning, I couldn't help but think about how well it continued to work. New games don't work, but the old games and Netflix still work great.

Back to the Watch. Who needs one? What will it do for you that you can't do already, or find another product to do that is significantly less expensive? Let's say that the target audience is "watch wearers". That audience has shrunk significantly, as a result of having a phone in our pockets at all times. Clearly there are still profits to be made there and watch manufacturers appear to be doing okay (as far as I can tell). My speculation here is that in the watch industry, the watch makers who are doing okay and are making a profit tend to sell watches that cost $350 or more. In other words, if the target audience is "watch wearers", then what we're really talking about is "watch wearers who will spend more than $350". That may be out of necessity; my guess is it's really the only thriving part of the watch market that still exists.

The problem is that if it is targeted to watch wearers, I still cannot fathom someone being willing to spend that much money on a watch that is clearly less convenient than a mechanical watch. Setting aside the fact that it does significantly more than a mechanical watch, it has two very real drawbacks. First, that you have to charge it. Second, that it is definitely and clearly going to be obsolete at some point. How long will that be? I'm not sure that anyone knows. My original iPhone was obsolete a lot quicker than my iPhone 5, which still runs great and which they are still selling new, although branded as the 5C. Nevertheless, the mechanical watch essentially never becomes obsolete, unless it breaks. It's possible that the fashion of a mechanical watch is outdated within a few years, but that is ultimately subjective and wouldn't demand an upgrade. The march of technology as it is means that it's entirely possible that the first generation of Apple Watch might not work at all in a couple of years. Not only will it be outdated, it will functionally become a paperweight.

A second target audience might be "fitness trackers". That is, the group of people who have been buying Jawbone UP's, Fitbit's, and any other number of typical fitness trackers. There is clearly a growing "wearables" market, primarily dominated by fitness type accessories that track steps and any other number of metrics. I know for certain that I would not be included in the "watch wearer" category, but I'd consider myself part o the "fitness trackers" category. I've owned more than one, and used them extensively until they broke. (That "until they broke" part reveals that there is a lot of work to be done in this market.)

The problem is that if this is the target market, I can't help but think that the Apple Watch is over-priced and underperforming for what it does, particularly since at this point it needs to be paired with an iPhone to fully function anyway. For example, the fact that it counts your steps, adjusts accordingly, and gives you a reminder to stand up are all the same things that my Jawbone UP did. It would give me fitness targets, remind me when to move, etc. The band would vibrate on my arm, but the accompanying app on my iPhone would also alert me. In other words, to be fully functional, the Jawbone required an iPhone (or Android). The chief difference between the Watch and the UP in this particular regard is that the Watch can show me the information on it's display that the UP required me to take my phone out to see. That is an added convenience, but is it worth the $250 price premium over the year-and-a-half ago price of the UP? Furthermore, the Watch requires a daily charge; the UP could charge once a week–and for only an hour or two, at that.

So maybe the target audience is "Watch wearers (willing to spend $350+) who also wear fitness trackers". The Apple Watch would thus consolidate two devices into one, the way that the first iPhone did. If the focus is that specific, however, then so must the target audience be relatively small.

I return to where I started: who is the target audience? And I'm just not sure. If it's the fitness crowd, I think it's too expensive. If it's the watch crowd, I think it's too replaceable. If it's anyone else...well, I'm not sure there is anyone else.

My guess is that right now, it's generally aimed at anyone who has $350 to spend on an accessory for their iPhone and, like the iPad, it will be up to the consumer to determine what they "need" it for. My gut tells me that there isn't a compelling need or desire at that price. I'll say again what I said in my first post on the Watch–at 200 dollars, I'd be lined up at the store. And in a couple of years, I fully expect that it will cost around 200 dollars. In that sense, Apple is perhaps too far ahead of the technology curve. They can build the watch now, but they can't sell it at a price that the majority of consumers will buy it at. I think that's why they are billing it as a "luxury fashion" item rather than a piece of technology. There is room for these prices in the luxury fashion market; the downside is that there aren't that many people shopping in that market, but the upside is that there is profit to be made, which is generally Apple's chief metric.

I'll admit that I'm disappointed at what Apple is offering with the Watch, partly because I can't afford it, and partly because I feel like the reason I can't afford it isn't because they just couldn't make something at the price point I could afford, but because they decided to make a product that intentionally left me out. (I realize that sounds incredibly self-focused as if all Apple products should revolve around my wants and needs...hear me out.) What I mean is that they opted for fashion, and beauty, and uber-technology over creating a product that "just worked". Rather than designing a product that showed restraint but met the general needs of the majority of people, it seems like they made a product that does far more than you can think of and definitely far more than you need.

Or I'll say it another way. The iPhone and the iPad felt like magic. They felt like a device that was almost impossible, and yet here it was, in my hand. A full computer, in my hand. And not only that, but a full computer I could get for $200 (on contract), or for just over $500 for a book-sized screen that I could touch and hold in my hand and surf the internet and check messages and any other of tasks that felt sort of mundane on a computer, but now felt personal and alive. Apple had taken advanced technology and made it accessible to me, a mere, normal human with an average income. The Watch feels more like advanced technology that's only accessible to the elite; and I'm afraid that Apple is marketing it exactly like that. Advanced technology that is exclusive, elite, luxurious. The iPad and the iPhone felt like luxurious items that were available to the everyday person! The Watch feels like a luxurious item that is only available to the wealthy. That feels wrong to me.

As disappointed as I am, however, I have to remind myself that people have been saying that there is "no need" for every product that Apple has released, and they've been wrong. So maybe I'm the one who is going to look like a fool when these things sell like hotcakes and I have one on my wrist six months or a year from now. Unless someone gives me a gift, though, I can't imagine it will be on my wrist in exchange for $400.

The Apple Watch

In my free time (by which I mean "when I'm using the facilities") I follow several apple blogs. I've been interested in technology ever since I started using the Apple IIe in the computer lab in my middle school. My family got our first desktop, an Apple Performa LC575, and for a while as a teenager it was housed in my room. I had a series of PC desktop and laptops over a period of years, but about eight years ago got my first Macbook Pro and I've been a fan of Apple ever since.

In any event, the big news out of Cupertino is the upcoming release of the Apple Watch, and whenever these big releases come up it ends up occupying a decent amount of brain-space and I find myself theorizing over certain matters that I may or not see being discussed. For example, that the high-end Apple Watch, the "Edition" model, is going to cost $10,000+. That's definitely out of my price range. But then, so is the Sport model at $349. In fact, when the Apple Watch was announced around six months ago, my thought was, "eh". It looked cool, but I didn't own a watch now, had basically made the assumption that I'd never wear a watch again, and even if I did buy a watch I wouldn't spend $349 dollars on it. The most expensive watch I owned was probably a $75.00 Fossil watch. I wasn't sure why I'd spend more than that on a watch.

Where I did see value was in the fitness tracking. I've had two UP bands. The first one was the first generation that was plagued with problems and ultimately recalled by Jawbone. A friend of mine had it, got it refunded, got to keep the band but since he didn't use it, gave it to me. I used it for a little while and enjoyed it immensely until it busted. When the UP24 came out and it had wireless bluetooth syncing, I was excited, and requested one for Christmas. At $150, it seemed a little pricey for what it was, but I got it and was even more pleased with it. Until it died less than three months later, and thanks to Jawbone's incredibly crappy customer support who just made me go around in circles for several months even though I new the daggum thing was busted, I ended up with a nice looking Jawbone UP24 in my sock drawer, aka the place where electronics go to die. I vowed that I wasn't going to get another fitness tracker until Apple released whatever it had up it's sleeve.

When the Apple Watch was announced, I viewed it primarily through that fitness tracking lens. I watched the Keynote and figured that the fitness tracking capabilities plus the added features were worth about $200 to me. That was the price point that would convince me that this was something I should go out and get. To be clear, my financial situation is such that it would not be a wise move on my part to go out and blow 200 beans. Five kids means 200 bucks is the equivalent of feeding them for a week. Until I get a week off of that racket, I'm not just going to go buy the watch. My point is that $200 is a price that I could at least convince/justify myself to go stand in line for. At least that was my initial thinking when it was first announced.

After considering it a bit more, however, I came to the conclusion that for the technology, $349 seems like a very reasonable price. If my UP24 was $150, and this Apple Watch not only did more of the same (meaning the fitness tracking), but additionally included advanced notification, an exceptional screen, on-board apps, communication tools, and much, much more, then surely $349 was a reasonable price. That still didn't mean I was going to buy it. It's a sweet piece of gear, but was I really going to use it? Again, the value to me was as a fitness tracker. That's something I don't have the ability to do right now. I can already take phone calls, send messages, send pictures, view pictures, and all that other neat stuff that was actually a bit silly and more inconvenient 95% of the time using a Watch. $349 for a fitness tracker still seemed steep.

As purely a fitness tracker, it also looks like it's going to fall short of some of the others on the market, primarily because right now the assumption is that battery life is going to be somewhat of a drag. There's nothing definitive on that right now, but the rumor floating is maybe a full day charge. One of the reasons I enjoyed my UP24 was because of the sleep tracking, which is essentially nullified on the Watch if you have to take it off and plug it in all night if you want to use it the next day.

This led me to a few thoughts which I figured I'd share here. I really have no idea whether the Apple Watch is a great idea or a terrible idea, whether it's something Apple hopes will be game/life-changing for the consumer market or something they just think they can make a reasonable amount of profit in and figure, why not? And by the way, I do think it's one of those two reasons, if not both. As far as I can tell these are essentially the two questions Apple asks: can we make it better, and can we make money doing it? Or, "is it better for the consumer?" and "are there profits here?" In cases where they excel, the answer to both of those questions is clearly yes (in their mind–you may disagree with whether or not their products are better.) With a new product, my guess is that they think the answer to the first one is "yes" and the answer to the second will be "yes" as a result. Will it be a game-changer like the iPhone or iPad? I don't think anyone is willing to give a definitive answer, unless they work at Apple and they have to say that for marketing reasons, or because they've used it and genuinely believe it will be a game-changer. Whether it's a hit or not, I'm sure Apple is poised to make significant profit, because that's how they operate.

In any case, whether it will be a game-changing hit or not, here are a few thoughts in no particular order.

The Tech in the Watch Costs $349

Basically, I think that at the base end, the Sport model, what you are paying for is the tech. I think that $349 is the cost of the technology in the watch, whether you are getting the Sport, the Watch, or the Edition.

For those people who are like me, who really don't care about watches, but do care about fitness trackers, this is the reason that Apple is selling the "Sport" edition. It's a fitness tracker that's going to cost you $349. They have done their research, crunched the numbers, and decided that this is a reasonable price that people might pay for a premium tracker, and that's basically all that they are paying for. The "case" and the "band" (more on that later) are essentially just required components necessary for holding the fitness tracker in place. Granted, the Apple Watch is much more than a fitness tracker, but it's not less. $349 is the "no-less-than" price. In other words, Apple can't sell the technology in this watch for less than $349 and still make a comfortable profit. So if the tech is all you want, that's what you are going to pay.

But that leads to the second point about the whole Apple Watch branding and strategy.

The Watch is more of a Fashion Accessory than a Tech Gadget

Or, perhaps a better way to say it is that Apple is selling their technology wrapped in a fashion accessory. In other words, what you are buying is the fashion accessory. That is where the money is at. Will Apple make money on the technology? Of course. Whatever the profit is on the $349 technology will be the same across the board. Profits will increase, however, as the costs of the particular model goes up, because what you are really buying is not the technology, you are buying the fashion. In this case, the fashion consists of two elements: the case and the band.

Here's the thing. Historically, If you buy a watch, you keep the watch. If Apple is entering into the fashion arena, which clearly they are, I think there has to be something that you keep. I don't think that the assumption here is that the paradigm for fashion is suddenly going to change, and watches will suddenly become something you turn in and replace every two years. In the case of the Apple Watch, the thing that you will keep is not the technology–technology will get old and will need to be replaced in order to have the latest and greatest functionality–but you will keep the fashion, or the case and the band.

Here is how this plays out in real life:

Sport model? Replace it. All you bought was the tech wrapped in some rubber. You really didn't buy into the fashion aspect of it. What you wanted was the tech, and Apple made it possible for you to get into the game, knowing full well that the technology will be essentially obsolete in two-three years. When that time comes, you can upgrade with the same mentality you upgrade all your other tech. You knew it was depreciating the moment you bought it. This is the "watch equivalent" of the digital watch you bought at CVS when you were 12. Lifespan? About two years.

Apple Watch? Keep the band, replace the tech. I still have two $75 Fossil watches, one I bought for myself and one that someone gave me. I could replace the battery and they'd work as good as the day that I bought them. It's not like that cheap drug-store watch, but it's also not a family heirloom. It's a decent watch that ought to last me for a significant period of time and isn't something you just throw away. Of course, I'm pretty cheap and I'm not a watch guy, so maybe most people wouldn't keep a $75 watch. I'm told that even casual watch guys, however, will typically buy a watch that costs several hundred dollars. This is the target market for the Apple Watch.  

I'm seeing that the Apple Watch will sell for a minimum of $749. If that's true, that means that the case and the band cost $400. In other words, you've essentially bought yourself a $400 watch. That's why I think that unless the watch buying paradigm where you keep something of the watch dramatically changes (and I don't think it will), there has to be something that you keep on the Apple Watch, and in this case, I think what you are keeping is the case and the band. It cost you $400. It's not depreciable. In fact, good fashion in this category seems to me to be appreciable, meaning that it increases in value over time. Maybe that's not entirely the case for even a $400 watch, but I still think that at very least, a $400 watch is something you intend on keeping for a significant period of time, and certainly longer than the two-three year window at which point the technology within the watch becomes obsolete.

And then, of course, the Edition, where this is an especially poignant point. The suggested starting point I'm seeing is a minimum of $5,000, with a realistic starting point of somewhere north of $10,000. Now, I've seen it said that people who can afford a $10,000 dollar watch can also afford it every few years if they really want it. Maybe that's true. I just can't imagine (and again, I am not in the fashion industry, but from what I've read) that if you buy a $10,000 watch, you expect it to be worth anything less than $10,000 five, ten, or twenty years from now. Anything in this price range is in the family heirloom category. If you are spending that much on a watch, I have to believe that not only is the craftsmanship so superior to other watches that it is worth the premium, but also that when you buy it, you fully expect that it will hold it's value over time and you will expect that you can pass it on to a loved one at some point in the future. Applied to the Apple Watch, this means that the 10,000 dollar watch that you bought on day one will still be worth 10,000 dollars five years from now, and probably much longer.

The technology, however, won't. It will be obsolete in three years and worthless in five. This is the major difference between the Apple Watch and some other luxury watch. Everything about the luxury watch should hold it's value down the line. The internals and the externals. Not so in the Apple Watch. In the case of the Apple Watch, only the case and the band will hold their value. 

Which leads me to the third point...

The tech will be replaceable in the Apple Watch.

I haven't seen this officially written down as a prediction, but it's what I'm thinking right now and I figured I'd throw it out there just to see if it sticks. Given everything I've read about how this is really a Fashion accessory, what I've learned about the watch industry as a result, and what my common sense tells me, I think this is the plan.

My premise is that what you really bought when you bought the Apple Watch was a $349 computer wrapped in a Rubber Band, a $400 Watch, or a $10,000 Watch. If all you want is the tech, it's going to cost you $349 and you can expect to replace it every two-three years with a similarly priced computer.

If, on the other hand, you want a piece of fashionable jewelry for your wrist-computer, that's going to cost you extra, but the good news is that Apple has studied the fashion industry and what they are making is on par or better than whatever else is out there. Were you thinking of getting a 10,000 watch? Why not buy the Apple Watch, which does far more than those watches, but carries the same prestige and luxury? Even better, it will always be up to date.

I think this is why on every image of the Apple Watch, the different levels are called "cases". My iPhone is simply an iPhone. The case is something I buy after the fact that I put around my iPhone. Now, maybe in the watch world a "case" is the word that's used for the entirety of the timepiece, excluding the band. To me, though, it makes me think, again, that you are buying a $349 computer, but to carry it, you can buy a variety of different cases ranging from the low-end Sport Watch all the way up to the Solid-Gold Edition.

Once again, two (or three) things you can select with the watch.

Tech: Two sizes, $349

Case & Band: Three levels, with corresponding bands, $0, $400+, $10,000+

The tech will need to be replaced every two to three years. The Case & Band are what you are really investing in, if you want to do that.

Will it be life-changing? Who knows. 

Will Apple make money? Of course they will, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten into the category. Worst case scenario, they make whatever profit they can make off the mini-computer. Best case, they make the money from the mini-computer and a King's ransom off of the fashion, which typically carries a significant mark-up.

Of course, at the end of the day, I'm not a watch guy, and if I end up with an Apple Watch, it's going to be the Sport. Which is a big "if". I'll have to wait and see what next weeks Keynote brings.