> Thus, Apple may say they want to sell a bajillion watches, but what they really need to do is sell enough watches and have enough credibility that if smart watches disrupt smart phones, Apple already has a seat at the table.
And that is the difference between Apple-with-Jobs and Apple-without-Jobs. Apple with Jobs didn't worry about "if smart watches disrupt..."; Apple with Jobs built products that DID disrupt.
Jobs had plenty of duds, as well. Remember the ROKR? Or the iPod Hi-Fi? If you do, then you know what I'm talking about. If you don't, well, you just proved my point.
Anyway, disruption doesn't happen in a year with the first version of a product in a brand-new market category. But when watches do become capable enough to disrupt phones, Apple is well-positioned to ride that wave.
Um, except plenty of evidence exists that Jobs was involved with the Apple Watch plans from the beginning -- supposedly all major product lines released through 2015 began under his watch (no pun intended).
And that is the difference between Apple-with-Jobs and Apple-without-Jobs. Apple with Jobs didn't worry about "if smart watches disrupt..."; Apple with Jobs built products that DID disrupt.