Martin:

Apple built a generic, almost foolproof device-level identity security system around TouchID, Secure Enclave, and custom secure element hardware at the lowest level of iOS that can be opened up to pretty much anyone Apple wants to let in. This is unique, and I don't see anyone else who can replicate this. Apple is merely renting this security service out to the banks for the price of a percentage of the transaction. They don't need to build a proprietary payment network, or even be a link in the payment chain.

And this system can work equally as well for health providers securing user identity to exchange HIPAA covered health data for Healthkit (for a modest fee, naturally). They can rent it to employers to secure their employee identity - not just for getting into corporate applications but add HomeKit into the mix and a company can put an NFC lock on a door, issue tokens to the iPhones of the 10 employees allowed into that room, and that gives them the ability to unlock the door with their iPhone following a positive fingerprint check. The employer can remotely revoke those tokens as needed.

This is effectively a way to replace username and passwords for anything from your iPhone or Apple Watch, if Apple builds it out to its full potential. It relieves the burden of choosing good passwords, remembering them, securing them, and puts all of the control on the agency that needs to control the security, rather than on the one being secured.

The recent partnership with IBM might make more sense now.

Shout-out to the people who said TouchID is boring, not innovative, and no different than any other fingerprint scanner out there.

MG Siegler:

I like that Apple is seemingly being thoughtful, measured, and realistic in this roll out. This SDK makes it clear that Apple will not be promising the world with the v1 of Apple Watch. Instead, we’re likely to get something much more akin to the first version of the iPhone. As you’ll recall, that initial device, while magical, only ran apps produced by Apple. Third party developers were required to use the web to reach users on the device. Apple is clearly being more lenient here — but not that much more lenient. The only apps that will run natively on Apple Watch to start will be made by Apple.

Slow and steady is the way to go. We've seen Apple do this time and time again, with the iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

In a decade we'll see the Apple Watch will grow into the most important device for mainstream consumers, akin to what the smartphone is for people today. Until then, Apple will take their time to do it right, adding the right features as the necessary technology becomes technically and financially feasible.

In the meantime, Samsung has rushed out their sixth version of their smartwatch line in one year, all of which have been flops. Because apparently, at Samsung, quantity and doing things first is more important than doing it right.

I've already said my piece about how much I hate the 16GB model of the iPhone from the user experience perspective. But here's a great look at what keeping this model does for Apple's bottom line.

Bank Innovation:

Sources tell Bank Innovation that it will probably utilize Apple’s iBeacon program, which is why Apple started selling — and possibly giving away free to select merchants — the iBeacons a while ago. It can also pass richer data than an NFC connection, according to experts who asked to remain anonymous due to the secrecy of the development behind Apple Pay.

Here’s how a source described it back in August 2014:

One way they’ve [Apple] thought up is, say you’re in a Duane Reade, hypothetically. You get a push notification from Pepsi that they’ve worked out a deal with Duane Reade that you can get a free case of Pepsi. Just pick it up and use Apple Pay at the counter.

This is plausible and could be great for bringing consumers and retailers together. It will drive user adoption to Apple Pay while also paving the way for other NFC-based solutions, like Google Wallet. (Sources say that Apple initially pitched a BLE-based solution, but financial institutions shut that down quickly because it wasn’t precise or ubiquitous enough.)

2011: Bluetooth LE = "Bluetooth? That's nothing new."
2012: Passbook = "wtf is this?"
2013: TouchID, iBeacons = "A fingerprint scanner? Whoopty fucking doo."
2014: Apple Pay = “Kinda cool but it won't catch on.”
2015: Apple Pay Loyalty Programs = $$$$$$$ = "Yeah well, Google Wallet was first..."

Jan Dawson:

Apple is entirely capable of pursuing this kind of model itself. This could be either the carrier financing model, with the cost of a phone spread over a 12-24 month period, or an “iPhone for life” program under which a customer pays a fee each month to always have the latest iPhone model. Under the latter model, the older device would be handed back to be refurbed and resold when the customer gets a new phone. Apple has the deep pockets to fund such a model, and it would help to smooth out its revenues across the year too even as most of the upgrades continue to happen in the third and fourth quarters.

In short, the Apple SIM is a step in the direction of a new relationship between Apple customers, Apple and the carriers. But in order to reach its full potential in the iPhone context, Apple needs to make another significant change: allowing customers to spread the cost of owning an iPhone over a longer period. Only if it does that will the Apple SIM be truly disruptive.

Fascinating idea that I think would be a tremendous success. Imagine the possibilities for developers knowing that most iPhone users out there were using the latest and greatest hardware.

Jony Ive:

Many years ago, we made prototypes of phones with bigger screens. We made notebooks with bigger screens; it was a concept that we were familiar with. There were interesting features having a bigger screen, but the end result was a really lousy product because they were big and clunky like lots of the competitive phones are still…And we thought there is a danger you are seduced by a feature at the expense of making a great product. And so years ago we realized well this is going to be important that we have larger screens, but we needed to do a lot of things to make that larger screen yield a really competitive product.

It was very important to making [a phone with bigger screen] comfortable and actually feeling less wide than in reality it was.

AppleInsider:

Despite Apple's A8 being run at a slower clock speed, and being dual core rather than quad core as many high end Android are, the new iPhone 6 beats the fastest phablets and flagships from LG, Motorola and Samsung. It's not only faster, it's more efficient, running longer on a slimmer battery.

Dave Wiskus

Give credit where credit is due, at least in spirit. The real crime is taking an idea without also taking the time to think "Why?" Every artist borrows. Great artists understand what they are stealing.

FastCompany:

But after two years on the market, Google Wallet has made little to no progress in replacing paper cash, plastic cards, and leather wallets. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, the Wallet app has seen a paltry amount of downloads for a company of Google's scale, and Bedier has since left the company. Bloomberg Businessweek recently reported that Google Wallet is "leaking money" and that "it’s reconsidering or has abandoned projects designed to broaden Wallet’s appeal." What went wrong? Jonathan Wall, the founding engineer of Google Wallet, puts it bluntly: "With Google Wallet, we had one point of failure--the carriers." [...]

"Ultimately, the carriers perceived this to be their opportunity and use the necessity of hardware to really block the product." Sprint remains the only major U.S. carrier to support the service; AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon have instead decided to support Isis, a competing mobile payments service, effectively denying their customers access to Google Wallet (or vice versa).

Android did NFC payments first and failed. Let's wait and see how NFC payments pan out with Apple Pay and its partnerships with major credit cards, banks, and merchants.

Techinch, March 2011:

Looking just at the specs, a microwave didn't make sense to many. So manufacturers bundled them with cookbooks that detailed the many things you could cook in a microwave. Look, you can make this great Chinese dish in a microwave! Our microwave lets you bake a cake! Need a hot cup of this complicated spiced cider? It'll only take 15 steps in our microwave! They thought the microwave needed to be a full oven, and more.

But, wonder of all wonders, people started buying microwaves and using them regularly. In the store, a microwave didn't seem like a must-have item to many, but once you incorporated it into your daily life, it was irreplaceable. [...]

The microwave isn't easier for every cooking task, and perhaps it takes longer to prepare a complicated meal in a microwave. Perhaps no award winning meal will be created in one, unless it's a special contest for microwave cooking. But it simplified simple cooking, and consumers around the world saw it as a necessary piece of equipment within in years of it becoming popular. It didn't need to be an oven, and didn't need to be better than an oven. It just needed to be the best for some certain cooking scenarios, and that was enough to win the hearts and minds of people around the world.

Last year, Apple introduced the iPad, a computing device many have struggled to classify. It's bigger than a smartphone or iPod, smaller than a computer, but can do some things you'd otherwise do on both of these. You can type a document in Pages or find your way with GPS and Google Maps. So what makes it so special? From a specs perspective, tablets don't make sense. It cost just under $500, but if you've already invested in a computer and a smartphone, it's just another expense. Plus, netbooks only cost $300, right?

In 10 years, young adults will look at the tablet the same way we look at microwaves.