Interesting article, but ...
Why are we going on about Apple's 'wearable strategy' when they don't even have a device out there? I noticed during I/O that some 'prominent' people were discussing the 'iWatch' like it's already in stores. Why are we even entertaining such detailed assumptions about things that we don't yet know of?
I still don't feel that Apple's next big move will be wearables. I think it's going to be something you can use in your living room, likely with games. Maybe iOS devices as game controllers.<p>Why is everyone so certain the iWatch is happening? Maybe I've been out of the loop but I haven't seen a confirmed, legitimate statement from Apple about it and I really don't see why Apple would release one. Watches aren't as common, the screen size leaves little utility and you've probably got your phone nearby anyways.<p>Happy to be totally wrong but I think a living room play makes more sense than a wrist play.
The article is a little behind the curve, particularly with Google already releasing wearables.<p>Take what he says about Disneyland / Starbucks and apply it <i>everywhere</i>. That's what Google is already doing with Android. The wearable isn't the monitor, simply because 99.999999% of current wearable users will already have device with Google ID & location tracking (Google Maps).<p>(Curious how Maps tracking will play out on iOS...)
It make sense bur requires a lot of 3rd party devices to support those ”iWatches”. And in general it's not about personal smart watches but about smart houses. And this is a huge (potential) market with major player like google interested in.<p>So if author is right, a new marketing war is coming.