Why the Apple Watch will be the ultimate brand loyalty barometer

Apple are renowned for the brand they've created. The Apple brand is one envied by all other manufacturers because it is desirable and aspirational.

Simply put, Apple is the one that people will queue for. Users want Apple products, regardless of cost, but because of status.

Until now, Apple have been able to rely on the highest levels on brand loyalty when launching new items, even when the products haven't been cutting-edge or particularly innovative. They've leant on that loyalty with launches of the iPhone 4S and the 5S, alongside endless minor upgrades to the Macbook. The public still flock.

It is also true that Apple have always produced products that sit towards the top-end of the pricing spectrum, tugging on that brand loyalty to lace the pockets of the company. It's true of the iPhone, MacBook and now, the Apple Watch. Users have been able to show-off an iPhone as the same phone that the celebs use. It's been a status symbol and continues to be so. It may be the same with the Apple Watch, as Apple will be sure to intelligently seed the watch to influential figures. The key difference however, is that the iPhone and MacBook have demonstrated clear consumer purpose, so whilst they've been priced high, consumers have been happy to part with the money to ensure the seeming quality.

Everyone needs a smartphone. Apple makes them happy to part with a little bit more in order to get one.

This is not true for the Apple Watch. Apple have, alongside all other manufacturers, failed to show a purpose to owning a smartwatch - and perhaps even more concerning is a battery life that will only last 18 hours. Being priced north of £300 for the sport edition, and £450 for a fashion edition (not forgetting the watches priced at £1,000-£10,000) the price is pushing consumers to the edge of their loyalty to the Apple brand.

There's no denying that whilst Apple are continuing to post staggering profits, their brand loyalty has been shaken over the last few years. Their innovation and high-end quality have been placed under scrutiny, and the numerous competitors have had an impact.

Come April 24th, we'll be able to judge just how powerful that Apple brand loyalty really is and be in a position to see if and how that brand loyalty has been affected - using the Apple Watch as a barometer.

Thoughts welcomed.

Ignore Wearables - You don't need them

'Wearable Technology.' The buzzwords of 2014, the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2015. Tech companies are pushing 'wearables' in the direction of consumers and saying, "That'll work, they love this stuff". But do they? Do consumers really want it? The signs are suggesting no, not yet.

Firstly, I'm not including fitness bands in this. Fitness bands have a proven purpose and have sold relatively well. Other wearables, however, are still in 'geek' territory. People like me, into my tech, want wearables, simply to pick apart about how amazing some aspects of the technology are, and how woeful the rest is. Google cancelled Glass through little more important than a growing lack of interest. They felt they couldn't make it work for the moment.

Smartwatch sales are frankly, very poor. Pebble have had limited success with 1m sales in just over 2 years and so have Samsung (mainly because the watches are given away with Galaxy devices). Maybe the introduction of the Apple Watch will change that. Apple has a habit of doing making something currently available, copying it, and making it desirable.

The immediate reaction from consumers has been quite clearly - we don't really care. The intrigue isn't there, and it is just lost on the mass audience. Research by Fizz (below) shows a few problems for wearable manufacturers:

Firstly, the average price willing to be paid is far below the current price of wearable tech. Many Android Wear devices cost somewhere north of £200, and if rumours are to be believed, the iWatch could cost double that. More than half of those that responded with interest about smartwear mentioned cost would be the deciding factor which will worry manufacturers.

Finally, the purpose issue is of utmost importance. 37% of respondents pointed to a lack of necessity for the devices being the reason for lack of desire.

These items still have failed to find their place in society. There is no need for them. In response to the lack of purpose, wearables are trying to do everything. I use 1% of the Sony Smartwatch 2 capability on a day to day basis. The reviews are relatively useless, when in practice, those features just don't step into everyday life. Nothing has changed since I first wrote about the Samsung Galaxy Gear in 2013. Back then I complimented the smartwatch on its appearance and functionality. I still defend that stance with my 2013 hat on - but really, the smartwatch should have come on a lot since then. They've cracked the appearance element - now just for sorting the need.

(Huawei's new smartwatch - gorgeous)

It's a criticism I levelled at Microsoft with Windows 8 - too much, too fast. We're just reaching the point when smartphones are struggling to progress in innovation, and that needs a chance to settle and allow flagship capabilities seep through to the lower-end.

The smartwatch is an incredible feat, it really is. To cram all that technology into such a small piece of kit is astounding - but that doesn't mean it needs to be forced to consumers who are voting with their wallets.

Wearables will breathe again, but manufacturers need to find out how they can help the consumer before they'll fly off the shelves. For the moment, they might as well be ignored.

SmartWatch Evolution in Appearance - Not Purpose

It's always nice to be on the money, and thankfully, regarding smartwatches, I have been.

It wasn't long ago that I was writing about the central problem with the smartwatches on the market - was that, first and foremost, they had forgotten to be a watch. I used the first Samsung Galaxy Gear and, whilst enjoying the technology, just couldn't get past the central issue - I didn't really want it on my wrist. 

Let's be honest, the smartwatch is a novelty. It serves no important purpose. Yes, it makes checking notifications that tiny bit quicker, but making £150+ difference to a life? No chance. It's for the people with the disposable income, or want to be on the forefront of technology, or finally, for fashion. It's that last point which is where manufacturers have finally cottoned-on. Us tech geeks are not a mass-market. We're a cynical bunch who are rarely 'fashionistas' so we are able to look past the image, and more at what the thing can do.

So, using my unpenetrable testing criteria for the appearance of the watch, I tested out the Sony Smartwatch 2 through London. Overall, it's only a rare and investigative second-look look that claims the attention of the passer-by. For me, that's the way it should be. It should be a watch, first and foremost, with technology following. I chose the Sony Smartwatch 2 because it looked most like a watch, and not some space-age invention.

With the Moto 360 and Pebble Steel leading the way, manufacturers have caught up. LG G-Watch R followed, and now finally Samsung too, with the Gear S. Obviously, the iWatch too. These watches have stripped back the technology, and focused on design, with more subtle (and more practical) technology.

I use 1% of the Sony Smartwatch 2 capability on a day to day basis. The reviews are relatively useless when in practice, those features just don't step into everyday life. 

Nothing has changed since I first wrote about the Samsung Galaxy Gear in 2013. Back then I complimented the smartwatch on its appearance and functionality. I still defend that stance with my 2013 hat on - but really, the smartwatch should have come on a lot more since then.