[FussyZeus]

The thing is, that would be an investment that would ultimately cost Apple business (or at least has the potential to) so I don't see it happening.

They'd effectively be expending resources to make it possible for people who want a Watch to not use an iPhone. Doesn't add up in my head why they'd do that (though I'm with you, I'd much rather just have my iPad).

[tinus_hn]

Apple has never shied away from creating a product that cannibalizes another of their products market, because they know if they don't someone else will and they will be left with nothing.

The reason probably is that it wouldn't be a good product.

[FussyZeus]

The current Watch offering certainly wouldn't, as I've said elsewhere all the guidelines on how we developers build things for the Watch is a strict "anything that can be done on the phone, should be done on the phone" policy, meaning without the phone the Watch becomes pretty useless.

That could change though, it would make sense if they manage to pack in enough guts while preserving the battery to make the Watch more stand-alone, no reason it couldn't happen.

[fgonzag]

Same logic could be applied to the iphone vs the ipod, people who wanted an iphone but not an ipod.

The reality of the market is that either you kill your cash cow (with a hopefully bigger cash cow) or someone else will do it for you.

[FussyZeus]

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it applies in the same way. The market demand for a Watch that acts independently of an iPhone entirely isn't even remotely close to the one that killed the iPod. Sure, I want one, but I know I'm part of a very small minority, I think the majority of owners by a huge margin who feel that way are going to get a Cellular Series 3 and be completely satisfied.