Glance: A Deep Look at Apple Watch

Bernard Desarnauts had a great idea a few weeks ago: the world needs an event to discuss Apple Watch. After recovering from the shock of not thinking of it first and then from the shock that nobody else had either, I immediately agreed and along with Ben Bajarin and Farshad Nayeri, we quickly rallied to organize and anchor this event: Glance: A Deep Look at Apple Watch.

We had some big questions to answer:

  • What is the strategy for Apple Watch? Is it an object of beauty and desire, placing Apple in the “luxury sector” or is it a computer infiltrating what is otherwise a technology-free zone with utility in an asymmetric attack?
  • How can developers discover the killer jobs to be done? Beyond tentpoles what will the primary reasons people will use the watch? What does the data tell us so far? What can be observed from interviews?
  • Given the sales performance to date, what can we expect from the product? What is the addressable market? What will be the installed base? How quickly will it grow?
  • What is the platform strategy, especially with the cadence of OS releases? Is Apple treating this as a separate platform? Will it eventually become independent of the iPhone as the iPhone cast off its dependence on the Mac/PC?
  • What is the hardware strategy? What are the constraints from manufacturing, materials, battery life and screen space? What will be the replacement schedule? What is the role of modular internal designs?

We realized that we did not have the answers. So we recruited a great cast of participants to help us:

  • Bob Moesta, the founder and developer of the theory of jobs-to-be-done marketing agreed to do a live interview to understand what jobs watches, and in particular Apple Watches, are hired to do.
  • Josh Clark, the premier UX designer who wrote Designing for Touch will explore the question of user experience in glanceable space.
  • Liza Kindred is considered the top expert on fashion tech–she’s writing the book on the future of commerce–brings keen understanding of wearables.
  • Abdel Ibrahim the most prominent blogger and writer on the topic of Apple Watch. Has forgotten more about the Apple Watch than you will ever learn.
  • Carolina Milanesi one of the most respected technology market analysts, now at Kantar and often quoted on all things Apple.
  • Greg Koenig, product designer at Atomic Delights will educate us on the atoms that make up the Watch.

Investors who will participate in panel conversations:

Special guest: Jean-Louis Gassée, former head of Apple Engineering, current VC and everything in-between will have a fireside chat with Tim Bajarin Legendary technology analyst who has been around long enough to see furthest ahead.

We will explore Apple Watch as a very curious interaction between form and function, luxury and utility, exclusivity and ubiquity, tiny screens and big audiences, short attention spans, big data.

We have developers, designers, investors, marketers and analysts contributing to what could be the biggest leap in computing since the smartphone.

If you are interesting in becoming one of the innovators on this newest of platforms or planning a strategy to invest, or even (actually especially) if you are a skeptic, you can’t miss this conference.

Join us for Glance, a deep look at Apple Watch, downtown San Francisco, December 10, 2015.

Early bird pricing is $495.

If you miss early bird, and you’re an Asymco reader, there is still a 30% discount.

Why does Apple TV deserve to exist?

Since writing Peak Cable six months ago, surveys, research and analysis have contributed to the themes of unbundling the TV package. The data under scrutiny is, as usual, the data that can be gathered. Unfortunately the data that can’t be gathered is where the insight into what is happening may lie. For instance, what matters for an entertainer is not how much you’re watched but how much you’re loved. Measuring love is done poorly with data on payment for subscriptions.

A better proxy might be time. Liam Boluk makes the point in his post that “focusing on cord cutting or even cord shaving largely misses the point.” Don’t follow the dollars, he says, follow the time or engagement. “Relevance” is what matters.

His data shows how linear TV has fallen by roughly 30% among the young (12-34) in the last five years. The trouble for the TV bundle (and advertisers) is that this is the most culturally influential group. They are also the group which will grow into the highest income group over the next decade. And this group does not love TV.

We have to remember that it was the youth who drove early radio, TV and consumer electronics markets. Those young are now the old which still cling to the old media, served by companies that grew old with them. They are the “high-end” customers with which Nielsen itself has grown. They have the most money to spend and they are the targets for the ads1

Paying $150/month to watch incontinence and erectile dysfunction ads—at a time not of your choosing—is preposterous for the young. They may like the programs but not the way they are packaged, delivered or interrupted. They are not smarter than their parents. They, like their parents, took to new technology more quickly. What makes the technology new is also what lets its makers separate the content from its delivery. These new technologies allow “modularizing” or unbundling that which was was integrated/bundled and thus allow their developers to focus on the customer’s real jobs-to-be-done.

Unsurprisingly, incumbents have responded by throttling access to original programming–an asset over which they still exert influence as distributors. Netflix and Amazon are taking the path of responding with their own blockbuster productions. Although Silicon Valley has more capital to deploy than Hollywood  this battle of attrition is by no means one that incumbents will win, and generally, it’s not going to be pretty.

Tweaking the nose of the incumbent might not be the way to establish asymmetry. The better tactic may be to help the system survive but offer a “short-term alternative”. This is how iTunes took on and won Music. When Napster and file sharing created a clear and present danger to the industry, Apple’s approach of a controlled alternative allowed the industry to finally move to a digital download model.

Continue reading “Why does Apple TV deserve to exist?”

  1. no longer the Pepsi generation, they are the Depend and Viagra and pharmaceuticals generation [↩]

Ep. 27 – Horace Dediu on The Disruptive Nature of Apple TV and Apple Car by The Eric Jackson Podcast 

Eric spoke with Horace Dediu about how disruptive the new Apple TV will actually be, the nature of the media landscape, how Apple could draw viewers away over time, and the potential for live events and interactive apps. We also explore what would make a new car from Apple disruptive and why Apple didnt just buy Tesla.

 

Asymcar 25: Cars Online, The Selfie Experience with Mathew Desmond of Capgemini

Mathew Desmond of Capgemini joins us to discuss Cars Online 2015: “The Selfie Experience, The evolving power of the connected customer.”

We begin with the finding that “One-half of customers are interested in buying a car from a tech company like Apple or Google. This is true even of customers who are satisfied with their current brand and dealer experience. It is particularly true of young customers (65%) and those in growth markets (China: 74%; India: 81%).”

Backing up a bit, we discuss the automaker’s dilemma, that is the legacy manufacturing, distribution and support infrastructure and contrast that with the “clean slate” approach an entrant might enjoy.

The concept and inherent conflicts of a “Master Customer Record” fuels a deeper dive into “Continuity”, the buyer’s desire for a seamless experience.

Finally, we reflect on the perils that may lie ahead as the auto ecosystem attempts to improve the retail experience.

Listen via Asymcar.

Asymco

Asymmetric Competition

Skip to content ↓