Hacker News Reader

Comment by apendleton | Hacker News Reader

To be fair to the person you're responding to, the goalposts look to have been "disrupt a large existing industry." "Large" is obviously subjective, but if the example of the disrupted industry is the watch industry, "the watch industry isn't large so it doesn't count" is a reasonable response within the constraints of the original goalposts.

View on HN

Except it did by creating a larger market. Some of that was flashy at the start like the gold watches but ultimately created a new market. Personally I quit wearing a watch sometime around 2010 when I found I was checking my phone and didn't need a watch. Now I am checking my watch for time and weather and not pulling my phone out.

I suppose so, but who was saying this in 2014 and 2015 when the other smart watches were out and Apple's offering was only a rumour? Back then the consensus was the watch would be a watershed test of whether the team at Apple had it in them. Now that they've conclusively nailed it, we discover it didn't count after all.

Of course the expectation was that the Apple Watch should be just as popular as the iPhone and transcend the watch industry completely. Wearables would be the next utterly indispensable technology, maybe even threatening the phone itself. In comparison, 'merely' dominating the existing watch industry and gobbling large chunks of the fitness tracker market seems underwhelming.

> who was saying this in 2014 and 2015 when the other smart watches were out and Apple's offering was only a rumour?

I was and still am. As I said, most people I know don't wear a watch, myself included. It was the same in 2014 and 2015.

But it clearly isn’t a small industry, and wearables are now responsible for c$40bn annual revenue at Apple (includes AirPods now though, also invented after jobs), so dismissing it does seem to be changing the goalposts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com