Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You could have achieved all of that without the Apple Watch also.
Anyone thanking the AW or any other device for health improvements seriously needs to take a look at their self-motivational issues.

I could also heat my house by building a fire in a metal trash can every night in the family room, but I chose to purchase a furnace.

Clearly, I seriously need to take a look at my self-motivational issues.
 
For everything it does, it’s worth it. Considering even if you own it for 3 years before upgrading, that’s $11.91 a month. I piss away that much or more in stupid **** a month, and don’t nearly get the satisfaction I get from my Apple Watch.
 
I could also heat my house by building a fire in a metal trash can every night in the family room, but I chose to purchase a furnace.

Clearly, I seriously need to take a look at my self-motivational issues.

Perceived value on something is all about how the user the achieves what they want from it. The Apple Watch does so many different type of things, it pays for itself long term. Especially if it benefits your health.
 
  • Like
Reactions: justiny
You could have achieved all of that without the Apple Watch also.
Anyone thanking the AW or any other device for health improvements seriously needs to take a look at their self-motivational issues.
Do you set an alarm to get up in the morning? If so, you might want to look at your motivational issues.

Just because you use a map to help you stay the course, that doesn't necessarily mean you have motivational issues.
 
I'm okay with the $400. It's charging the battery every day that keeps me from buying.


I charge mine when I shower in the morning, and for about 1/2 after work in the evening. I've never seen it below 50%. Charging is not an issue.
[doublepost=1520639807][/doublepost]I'm very happy with the value of my watch. The cost isn't an issue at all.
 
My response to people I know who are contemplating buying an Apple Watch and really seem to be struggling with it, is: “Don’t overthink it. It’s a watch. Get it with that mindset and you’ll be happy with it. Get the cheapest one and cheapest band. Amazon sells bands for cheap if you want something different.” People I’ve told that to soon after get one. Then their wives get one. Their sisters get one. They’re happy and they love it. If you don’t have the money to spend and it’s a matter of this or that, get what you really need instead, or put the money in savings.
 
My response to people I know who are contemplating buying an Apple Watch and really seem to be struggling with it, is: “Don’t overthink it. It’s a watch. Get it with that mindset and you’ll be happy with it. Get the cheapest one and cheapest band. Amazon sells bands for cheap if you want something different.” People I’ve told that to soon after get one. Then their wives get one. Their sisters get one. They’re happy and they love it. If you don’t have the money to spend and it’s a matter of this or that, get what you really need instead, or put the money in savings.
For a forum newbie, you made a very good post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
I suspect the OP isn't expecting to have a 4 year old Watch to still run the lastest Os and all its features.

But rather just having able to do the basics like built in fitness/health and notifications.

One reason some in my running community that have opted to go with Garmin is fear Apple will kill support for older Watch models.
 
To me the AW is a cool piece of technology that also keeps time more than it is "a watch". I hope it lasts longer than a couple of years but if it didn't I can't complain too much. I don't keep my phones for 4 years and they are considerably more expensive than an AW.
 
To me the AW is a cool piece of technology that also keeps time more than it is "a watch". I hope it lasts longer than a couple of years but if it didn't I can't complain too much. I don't keep my phones for 4 years and they are considerably more expensive than an AW.

Figuratively speaking, you should be able achieve at least three years of watchOS support, The first generation Apple Watch is approaching its three-year mark in April. It Will be interesting to see if it sees support for watchOS 5, which would give it four years of support. For a piece of tech that has a replaceable battery, that’s a decent life span.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huffboys1
You could have achieved all of that without the Apple Watch also.
Anyone thanking the AW or any other device for health improvements seriously needs to take a look at their self-motivational issues.

Actually, I don’t think that’s fair. Different people are motivated in different ways. I lost about 30lbs after getting a FitBit in 2014. I just found having the goal of 10k steps, and having access to all the data, and seeing graphs of the weight come down really motivational for me. Certainly compared to just going to the gym.

But back on the value for money of the watch... I’ve just caved and bought one after a third FitBit strap wore out in four years. The Charge HR2 is £140. I went for an LTE Series 3, so about 3x the price. But the difference in build quality is night and day, plus the convenience of Apple Pay, directions on my wrist, and access to my music from my wrist make a big difference for me.

Is it totally necessary when I have my phone? Probably not.

Is it a bit of an extravagance? Probably.

Is it value for money compared to others smart watches? For me, absolutely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
Is it just me or is there something fundamentally wrong with buying a watch that cost over $400 that will undoubtedly be obsolete in 3-4 years? I keep thinking I want an Apple Watch but every watch I have spent that amount of money on I have been able to keep for at least 10 years or more and know that it is of relatively good quality. Any smart watch for that matter will be obsolete in a matter of years. I guess if the price point was around $150-$200 I could stomach the price more.

It's just you. ;) If you want to think about it as you think about other watches, that's fine. But I would suggest that you think about it more like a phone. Let's face it - tech becomes obsolete over a fairly short period if you want the current feature set. You would never expect to keep a cellphone for ten years. Most people don't even keep TVs for ten years (I am perhaps an exception - I just replaced a TV that I bought in 2006, although even then it really just got repurposed).

Or to think about it another way, if the features and functions don't sell themselves to you at the asking price, you've really made the decision that for you it's not worth $400, which is a totally reasonable decision.

I will say that I had felt the same way but tried a Series 3 almost on a bet with myself, expecting to return it. It took me less than two days to decide that I absolutely loved the thing and that it was completely worth the price. YMMV, though.
[doublepost=1520720302][/doublepost]
You could have achieved all of that without the Apple Watch also.
Anyone thanking the AW or any other device for health improvements seriously needs to take a look at their self-motivational issues.

So, working with coaches and trainers should also prompt people to take a look at "their self-motivational issues"?
 
Is it just me or is there something fundamentally wrong with buying a watch that cost over $400 that will undoubtedly be obsolete in 3-4 years? I keep thinking I want an Apple Watch but every watch I have spent that amount of money on I have been able to keep for at least 10 years or more and know that it is of relatively good quality. Any smart watch for that matter will be obsolete in a matter of years. I guess if the price point was around $150-$200 I could stomach the price more.

It may just be you, judging by the responses. ;-)

Seriously, you can ask this question about nearly any product in today's manufactured world. Why spend $1,000 extra to have a sunroof in your car, or the premium sound system, or a towing package that you may use once a year, or 4WD when you never leave city streets and live in a snow-free zone? Yet some people do clearly get utility and/or enjoyment from those expenditures and believe them to be worthwhile. But to me? My typical car trip lasts 10 minutes, I can get by without an audiophile extravaganza.

Now, if it was just a matter of having the time of day on my wrist, I wouldn't pay a penny - I'd just pull my cell phone out of my pocket. I stopped wearing wrist watches when I got my first cell phone. I wear my Watch because of what it does beyond traditional wrist watch functionality. Most are not big things individually, but it manages to add up. The dozens of times daily that I do not have to remove my iPhone from my pocket are a nice convenience, though not a necessity. At about 25 cents/day, it's hardly an extravagance.

I certainly wouldn't spend $10,000 on a gold Rolex, which, using the $400 for 3-4 years ($100/year) example... damn, I'd better get 100 years of use from that Rolex! The thing is, the way my watches get scratched up (the metal case and band, not just the crystal), my hypothetical gold Rolex would have very little resale value. My heirs would likely only want it for its sentimental value. I don't dress to impress...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plett
Is it just me or is there something fundamentally wrong with buying a watch that cost over $400 that will undoubtedly be obsolete in 3-4 years? I keep thinking I want an Apple Watch but every watch I have spent that amount of money on I have been able to keep for at least 10 years or more and know that it is of relatively good quality. Any smart watch for that matter will be obsolete in a matter of years. I guess if the price point was around $150-$200 I could stomach the price more.

It's probably just you that thinks it's 'fundamentally wrong' to do so. Lots of people here think the Apple Watch is over-priced & not worth if for what you're buying. And for them (and yourself it sounds like), it isn't worth it. It's pretty easy to understand what the watch is good for (for the most part). If that doesn't sound like something that would be worth $400 to you, then the watch isn't worth it. I use mine every day & would buy another one, even if it only did run tracking, played music & did Apple Pay. It's certainly worth $400 to me & I probably won't get 4 years of use out of mine before I upgrade. But that's me.
[doublepost=1520724312][/doublepost]
You could have achieved all of that without the Apple Watch also.
Anyone thanking the AW or any other device for health improvements seriously needs to take a look at their self-motivational issues.
I don't understand the need to post snarky, negative comments when someone shares how they've made positive changes in their lives. There's enough bad in the world without having to belittle people who share their positive experiences. Could (s)he have 'achieved all of that without the Apple Watch'? Possibly, but the point is they didn't, or hadn't. But once they got the watch, it was enough to help them make positive changes in their lives. Who knows what's going on in their lives or what type of things motivate them. If having a watch that gamifies fitness was enough to get them to improve their fitness, then that's fantastic. The same thing happened with me back when they introduced the Nike+ iPod system. The setup offered enough external motivation to help me push through mid-winter runs when I normally would have stayed indoors.
 
I just got a Garmin 645M (replacing a 3 year old garmin 220) which cost $450. The Apple Watch itself didn’t quite do it for me, but not because of the cost. My primary issues were battery (the new Garmin is at 60 hours on time and 56%) and a couple other things (the garmin just fits my needs a lot better), but it’s a fair price for the technology.
 
Is it just me or is there something fundamentally wrong with buying a watch that cost over $400 that will undoubtedly be obsolete in 3-4 years? I keep thinking I want an Apple Watch but every watch I have spent that amount of money on I have been able to keep for at least 10 years or more and know that it is of relatively good quality. Any smart watch for that matter will be obsolete in a matter of years. I guess if the price point was around $150-$200 I could stomach the price more.

Those watches would likely not be able to do as much as the Apple Watch either way.

Here's what I am currently doing on my Apple Watch.

1) Apple Pay.

2) Interacting with notifications. I love being able to triage incoming email and dictate short replies to messages from my wrist, especially when my phone is not on me.

3) Siri on the wrist can be handy. I am using it to calculate discounted prices of products in shopping malls (e.g. "What is 70% of $139”)

4) Use the workout app to track my runs. Loving the heart rate sensor as well (not sure how accurate it is though).

5) Have apps like 1Password and Authy saved to my dock. I can now retrieve passwords and 2FA codes directly from my wrist.

6) It's just an nice watch all round (albeit one I have to charge every 1-2 days).

An Apple Watch likely does more for me in 2-3 years than a normal watch ever will in 20.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple_Robert
Hmm... on the other hand, I somehow feel that spending three-figure or more money on a device that just tells time would have been fundamentally wrong in an era where time-telling has become so ubiquitous. And that’s precisely why the watchmakers have taken the fashion accessory / family heirloom angle. It just wouldn’t make any sense otherwise.

Likewise, I do think spending 400 bucks on Apple Watch would be fundamentally wrong if one were to just use it to tell time. Luckily, it’s got a lot of features that can augment or complement one’s daily life, which I do not need to bother repeating as many others have already pointed out.
 
Likewise, I do think spending 400 bucks on Apple Watch would be fundamentally wrong if one were to just use it to tell time. Luckily, it’s got a lot of features that can augment or complement one’s daily life, which I do not need to bother repeating as many others have already pointed out.

I dobut there are very many who purchase the Apple Watch strictly for telling time. But given the Apple Watch is more a multi tool that has an exuberant amount of functions, it really does pay for itself in the sense how it can convenience somebody in terms of fitness, alarms, Apple Pay, notifications, controlling music, etc. As Smart watches continually grow and expand on an annual basis, the major benefits will be health oriented features in the future.
 
Hmm... on the other hand, I somehow feel that spending three-figure or more money on a device that just tells time would have been fundamentally wrong in an era where time-telling has become so ubiquitous. And that’s precisely why the watchmakers have taken the fashion accessory / family heirloom angle. It just wouldn’t make any sense otherwise.

Luxury watchmakers (most obviously Rolex) took the fashion accessory/family heirloom angle to stave off the “quartz crisis” of the 1970s. Suddenly, it didn’t take a big chunk of money to get a durable watch which also was accurate, and that’s what a lot of people wanted.

Don’t forget that you can buy perfectly handsome watches today in the two-figure range that’ll outperform any mechanical watch. And they’re still more convenient than having to pull a phone out of your pocket (which is why wristwatches took over from pocket watches in the first place).
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaladinGuy
Worth every penny for me. For something you use everyday you get what you spent for it imo

I use it daily for fitness so it has many benefits
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaladinGuy
I'm okay with the $400. It's charging the battery every day that keeps me from buying.

Charging while I take a shower gets me through. It's really not as big a deal as people think. No different than charging your phone except you don't have to do it for as long or as often.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.