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.