Mikey Campbell
Industry consensus holds that Apple's so-called "iWatch" will see manufacture in September ahead of wide distribution in December, but one well-connected analyst believes mass production is to be pushed back to November, meaning only small quantities will be available at launch.
Kuo estimates Apple will push back mass production to mid- or late-November, one month later than previous models claiming large-scale manufacturing would start in late-September. With only a few supplier ramping up ahead of an anticipated October release, supplies of the wearable will be constrained and are unlikely to meet market expectations of 10 million shipped units by the end of 2014. Instead, Kuo says about 3 million iWatches will be in the wild by year's end.
On the hardware side of things, the analyst notes Apple is deviating from its normal component cache to more advanced — and difficult to manufacture — parts and materials.
For example, the iWatch is thought to sport a flexible AMOLED display complete with sapphire cover glass. Apple has never deployed an OLED display in a consumer product, nor has the company fielded a product with such a large sapphire glass installation. So far, the largest sapphire part in any iOS device has been the protective Touch ID covering seen on the iPhone 5s. Recent rumors claim the iWatch will use a "slightly rectangular" 2.5-inch display.
In addition, new system-in-package (SiP) processes will be used to shrink down operational circuitry to wristwatch sizes, which complicates matters since Apple is looking to meet high waterproofing standards. Not mentioned in the report are other rumored features like wireless charging that could add to the device's already complicated build.
As for software, Kuo believes the main challenge is redesigning iOS to fit on a smaller screen while maintaining interoperability with larger devices like the iPhone and iPad. Apple is well known for its stellar hardware and software vertical, though iWatch UI refinement could present a problem as the form factor is completely new and doesn't have the benefit of being on the market for years.
Update: An earlier version of this report incorrectly stated Apple's iWatch would debut in October, not the actual estimation of December. The article has been updated to reflect the correct information.
-m.jpg)
Charles Martin
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Andrew Orr
William Gallagher
Sponsored Content
63 Comments
Kuo's comment about iOS UI rings especially hollow.
A year and a half ago tCook was talking like iWatch could have a mid year debut. They're walking the razor' sedge on this. I don't fault them a bit. Make it great. I'd be disappointed, but I'd wait another year or two if I had to to get the device that's being rumored. Another few weeks is nothing.
So, the unannounced imaginary product also had an imaginary ship date that Apple can't hit? Well, excuse me while I have an imaginary fit over it... !
So does he have insider information he is basing this on or is he just guessing?
It is unlikely Kuo has access to insider information since he is often wrong. He is merely speculating, working off of supply chain rumors (which is a risky platform from which to base predictions).
By contrast, it appears that writer Jim Dalrymple is being fed information from Apple PR, but only extremely sanitized and trivial bits, things like the dates of upcoming announcements, but not actual product specifications. Note that Jim doesn't really make any prognostications, he mostly replies "yup" or "nope" to highly specific, very narrow questions from others. Jim does not pre-offer his "special" insight.
It would be highly unlikely that Apple would feed any analyst pre-release information. Any analyst getting real insider information would have highly suspicious investment behavior and an inexplicably great ROI, something that would attract the attention of the SEC for the analyst in question as well as Apple itself.
There is no third-party Apple-related information source that stands head-and-shoulders above his/her peers. Again, that would be highly suspicious. By in large, everyone has middling to poor prediction track records.
What we do know is that some analysts definitely do not have any insight whatsoever: Munster, Wu, Huberty are three analysts who come into mind. Also Gartner, IDG, and good ol' Enderle. They are so frequently completely off base that one can pretty much bet the opposite of what they say will end up being true.
Same goes with tech media: Digitimes has shown stunning inaccuracy in their Apple predictions. BGR and 9to5Mac also have laughably bad track records.