The article, Apple Watch Due for a Sophomore Slump, by Lance Whitney gives a good example of the sociotechnical theory and the impacts of new technology. This year’s look for the Apple Watch will be the same as last year’s model. According to Apple Insider analyst Ming Chi Kuo, the wearable technology won’t undergo any type of major external change until 2017. A new version of the watch is coming in 2016, but the changes will mostly be internal enhancements. Kuo is expecting to see “spec improvements with limited changes to form factor design.” Sales for the watch are looking to tumble this year, however. Since the Apple Watch launched last year it became a dominant player in what seems to be a lackluster market for smartwatches. While demand for these wearable has grown over the past couple years, several people still don’t view them as must-have items.
Kuo did not reveal what specific internal enhancements would be incorporated in this year’s Apple watch. Many speculate that an improvement in battery life would be one of the enhancements. There will be a mass production of these watches to occur in the third quarter, which is likely to happen in September when the new iPhone debuts. Kuo dropped some notes of pessimism on the watch by predicting its sales would drop by 25 percent. He blamed most of that on the immaturity of the smartwatch’s market. The lack of Apple apps, limited battery life and the dependence on the iPhone for many of the watch’s features are all factors of why a slump could happen. Predictions and forecasting are both inexact science, but Kuo has a solid track record for anticipating the changes to Apple’s products.
This article impacts me because I love watches, and I can always be seen wearing one. However, I can relate to many individuals who don’t view the Apple Watch as a must-have item. The fact that it’s overly dependable on the iPhone is already a turn-off for me. I have considered buying one nonetheless, but my current finances are what hinder me from doing so. Besides, I’ve learned from my own experiences and observations to never buy a first generation Apple product. For example, when the iPad first came out in March 2010, I knew that buying it would be a waste. The fact that it did not have a front-face camera at the time is what did not interest me. Yet just like analyst Ming Chi Kuo, I predicted that the iPad 2 would have a camera and other noticeable features. You can imagine the irritation in early consumers once they found out that the new iPad would have these features.
Gabrielle Piccolo mentions that the “Sociotechnical theory questioned the overly optimistic predictions about the potential benefits of new technology and suggested that the impact of new technologies on work systems was not a direct one but depended on the interplay of technology with other aspects, or components, of the work system. While sociotechnical theory is general in nature and applicable to any work system, it has been successfully applied to IT-based information systems.” I somewhat agree with this statement because Apple is working to make this watch impactful to society to the point where everyone will view it as a must-have item. However, Kuo’s pessimistic predictions put an overcast on the theory’s “overly optimistic predictions” for potential benefits. If Apple really wants their product to make an impact, then certain changes will have to take place. People will not be drawn to watch if it’s overly reliant on the iPhone. I even read once that users would have to eventually update their watches with their iPhones at some point. This simply means that more money would be involved.
Analyst Liam Tung says, “If you spent between $300 and $17,000 on an Apple Watch, you might be intrigued to know that Apple only reckons with the device being in use for three years. That three-year figure isn't really a surprise, given people keep smartphones for about that length of time before replacing them. But it does give some credence to the argument that Apple Watch is not a watch, especially when compared with luxury timepieces that one could expect to last a lifetime.” This text impacts me because of my interest to eventually buy an Apple Watch in the future. But again, at this stage of my life I don’t see a use for this device nor do I have the sufficient funds for it. I am perfectly fine with using the $20 watch that rests on my wrist everyday.
"Apple Watch is not a watch, it is a connected device on the wrist. There is a big difference. Why? Because this one looks good." Better finishing, design. This is not an iPhone. You buy an iPhone and in three years you put it in the trash. But not a watch. You have to keep a watch," says Tag Heuer general director Guy Sémon.
Overall, my reaction to this article was both positive and thought provoking. Its amazing how willing most of us are to spend hundreds of dollars on these items, but can’t pay off our mortgages or school bills. Being that I do own a degree in journalism, I appreciate the straight forward message that this article is displaying. I would read other articles by this author because he was very informative on this subject and has the sources to back up his claims. I would recommend this author to anyone who is interested in technology, Apple products or simply likes to be up-to-date with the information systems world. Technology is constantly making an impact, and its effects are not about to end anytime soon.
