Announcement to Announcement, or Launch to Launch

[slvrscoobie]

So, how PO'ed are we all going to be if in September, they announce an apple watch 2. For Spring 2016 delivery? It would be 12 months AtA or LtL, but Launch to Announcement of less than 12 months, would you be upset?
Especially if you didnt get your watch till may/june?

 

[Patriot24]

If they do go with a yearly cycle, the second gen won't come until this time next year.

 

[Technodynamic]

So, how PO'ed are we all going to be if in September, they announce an apple watch 2. For Spring 2016 delivery? It would be 12 months AtA or LtL, but Launch to Announcement of less than 12 months, would you be upset?
Especially if you didnt get your watch till may/june?

that would be a great way to halt sales of the current watch and pretty damn dumb to do. I give that a 0.0 chance of happening.

 

[slvrscoobie]

If they do go with a yearly cycle, the second gen won't come until this time next year.

Right, but what im saying is what if they announce it ~6 months before hand like this one was. Which means in like 5-6 months from now.

 

[/dev/toaster]

If they do go with a yearly cycle, the second gen won't come until this time next year.

Why wouldn't they do a yearly release.

 

[Patriot24]

Right, but what im saying is what if they announce it ~6 months before hand like this one was. Which means in like 5-6 months from now.

The only reason to pre-announce it so far in advance was to avoid leaks and stifle competition during the run-up. I suspect they will fall back into the typical pattern of announcing the device a few weeks prior to availability on the next gen.

 

[avalys]

I seriously doubt they will announce another one before January 2016. That would absolutely kill sales for the holiday season. The Apple Watch is a perfect gift item, since no one really needs one and it isn't tied to a cell phone contract like the iPhone. No way they are going to miss out on holiday sales of version 1.

They may announce a new version in March 2016, and ship it in April. No need to pre-announce months ahead of time when version 1 is already on the market. Future releases will be more like the iPhone - the announcement will be separated from the shipping date by just a few weeks, not 8 months.

 

[Patriot24]

Why wouldn't they do a yearly release.

Maybe next year's model comes in the Summer or Fall rather than Spring? Who knows where it will go from here.

 

[Mascots]

The only reason to pre-announce it so far in advance was to avoid leaks and stifle competition during the run-up. I suspect they will fall back into the typical pattern of announcing the device a few weeks prior to availability on the next gen.

I agree; there won't be a six month gap for successive updates. It follows the same pattern, would prevent a massive dampening of sales of the current model, and would be a waste of resources and money that they're invested to ship now.

If we do hear anything this year, it would be able incremental updates, like a new finish.

 

[KPOM]

This is the Apple Watch for 2015. Might we get some new band options this Fall? I think so. Product Red leather and sport bands come to mind. Additional colors in the Classic and Modern buckle, do so, as well. Eventually they may align Watch releases with the iPhone, but since this launch was so delayed, I think they'll wait until early 2016 to announce the next revision, and it will go on sale quickly after that. It may just be minor improvements such as a power-sipping S2 chip that lets it last a bit longer between charging and gets somewhat better performance. I don't see the Watch as something that people will replace annually.

 

[/dev/toaster]

Maybe next year's model comes in the Summer or Fall rather than Spring? Who knows where it will go from here.

I suspect it would be 1 year from launch ... but ya, without a doubt I think they will do yearly releases. There is way too much money in it not to.

 

[SixtyK]

Why wouldn't they do a yearly release.

Because unlike phones, people don't tend to replace their watches every year or two.

 

[derekshank]

Because unlike phones, people don't tend to replace their watches every year or two.

On the other hand, there is a significant portion of the population that flat out refuses to buy 1st generation devices.

If they wait two years to upgrade the watch, that'll be two years that they aren't selling it to a decent percentage of people who are using us to work out the kinks.

 

[/dev/toaster]

Because unlike phones, people don't tend to replace their watches every year or two.

Smart watches will be different than normal watches. Old school watches don't really offer new features, only looks.

 

[adammull]

Depends on if they decide about swapping guts or buying a whole new watch.

I've heard they haven't ruled out a guts swap. There is absolutely no reason the watch cannot stay exactly the same size for at least the next 10 years. Rolex doesn't change size. If anything the tech components will get smaller enabling them to get more into the guts which go into your old body and use your old bands.

 

[slvrscoobie]

Depends on if they decide about swapping guts or buying a whole new watch.

I've heard they haven't ruled out a guts swap. There is absolutely no reason the watch cannot stay exactly the same size for at least the next 10 years. Rolex doesn't change size. If anything the tech components will get smaller enabling them to get more into the guts which go into your old body and use your old bands.

This would CERTAINLY be a HUGE benefit to those who buy the SS/Edition models. We'll upgrade your watch, keep the high end case/band you already have. No swapping up each time. But I think the marketing machine would have seen that as a huge push for people to buy the more expensive ones up front. And they didnt. but it could be like the blood oxygenation. Just have that option available for later.