Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Announces Apple Watch, Available in Early 2015 From $349

Status
Not open for further replies.
joejoejoe said:
No I want a beautiful display with a UI designed to fit in a circle.

It should have been round.
Click to expand...

Why?

The only reason that watches are round is that a circle is an ideal choice for displaying time in a standardized way. While the Apple watch of course displays the time, this IMHO is not the primary use case for the device. There are many other important use cases for which a square makes much more sense.

If the primary reason you want to wear something on your wrist is to see the time then I suggest buying a traditional watch...
 
Bevz said:
This really is a big issue.. I'd be fascinated to know more about the "You need an iPhone" bit... I doesn't make sense for the watch to be always near your iPhone. I can maybe understand if it needs to be authorised on your iPhone initially, then it can be taken off on it's own, and then sync back to iPhone when it's back in range... But i'd like to have that confirmed by apple.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I think it will work fine for a lot of things without being near your phone, but the key for me was when they said it used the GPS in your phone when they were demoing Maps. That means if you use it for Running (without also carrying an iPHONE) it will track your steps but not your distance (accurately), or the map of where you went. That is something I use a lot with the Nike+ app on my phone and a killer-app for me would've been not having to carry my phone on my runs...and also not buy an ugly Garmin sports watch with GPS :mad:
 
bigsteve said:
Why?

The only reason that watches are round is that a circle is an ideal choice for displaying time in a standardized way. While the Apple watch of course displays the time, this IMHO is not the primary use case for the device. There are many other important use cases for which a square makes much more sense.

If the primary reason you want to wear something on your wrist is to see the time then I suggest buying a traditional watch...
Click to expand...

Well...it also seems more elegant. I never liked square watches.
 
My biggest worry with this and all the other smart watches is the life-span, due to the battery, and the technology refresh - particularly for a 'luxury' versions.

I bought a mid-range rolex, not even a gold one, and it cost $8000 - but I expect it to last a LIFETIME. In fact, I'll be pretty pissed (posthumously) if one of my grand-kid's grand-kids isn't wearing it in the next century.

I think people are drastically underestimating the price of the 18K gold version. That is a chunky old case, I would not be surprised if the 48mm gold version came in at over $5000. Take a Rolex Daytona for example, the price premium from a stainless steel version to a gold version is at least $6000 - same design, same movement, it's all in the material. Gold costs a lot.

Now if I spend $5000 on a gold Apple watch, how long will it last?

Ok, in 2 years, the battery will be showing signs of wear. Apple will probably offer a replacement service. Lets say thats costs $250 every two years. That's not actually a big deal. Looking after a luxury watch requires servicing and cleaning that would cost about that much too.

But what happens after 5 years, when Apple announce the iPhone 11 is no longer backward compatible with Watch version 1? Now I have a useless lump of gold on my wrist.

Well I suppose... at least it IS gold and still actually worth it's weight in gold... It will actually be the guys with the $349 stainless steel version who will be holding something worthless :p
 
seb101 said:
My biggest worry with this and all the other smart watches is the life-span, due to the battery, and the technology refresh - particularly for a 'luxury' versions.

I bought a mid-range rolex, not even a gold one, and it cost $8000 - but I expect it to last a LIFETIME. In fact, I'll be pretty pissed (posthumously) if one of my grand-kid's grand-kids isn't wearing it in the next century.

I think people are drastically underestimating the price of the 18K gold version. That is a chunky old case, I would not be surprised if the 48mm gold version came in at over $5000. Take a Rolex Daytona for example, the price premium from a stainless steel version to a gold version is at least $6000 - same design, same movement, it's all in the material. Gold costs a lot.

Now if I spend $5000 on a gold Apple watch, how long will it last?

Ok, in 2 years, the battery will be showing signs of wear. Apple will probably offer a replacement service. Lets say thats costs $250 every two years. That's not actually a big deal. Looking after a luxury watch requires servicing and cleaning that would cost about that much too.

But what happens after 5 years, when Apple announce the iPhone 11 is no longer backward compatible with Watch version 1? Now I have a useless lump of gold on my wrist.

Well I suppose... at least it IS gold and still actually worth it's weight in gold... It will actually be the guys with the $349 stainless steel version who will be holding something worthless :p
Click to expand...

my gut is that it's good plated... not solid like a Rolex.
 
hackjo said:
2001 - "the iPod is a complete fail. You have to have a Mac to use it, it's really bulky and you have to use iTunes. Nobody will buy that."

2007 - "the iPhone is crippled from day 1. You have to sync to iTunes! No flash on the camera? No front camera? It can't do video? No 3G. Total fail."

2010 - "I don't see the point of the iPad - what's it for? It's just a big iPod Touch. It'll never sell. No USB port or card slot, can't run a full OS on it. Total fail."

Funny how history repeats. :)
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the first iPhone also didn't have GPS.
Same for this first appleWatch....hoping they fix that on the appleWatch 2.
 
Gold plating is pretty cheap isn't it?

You don't think they are going to actually make a solid gold case do you?

You can basically make the gold plating to be as expensive and durable as you like, from a few dollars to a few 100.
 
Wiesenlooser said:
Well...it also seems more elegant. I never liked square watches.
Click to expand...

I think part of the problem is that people are stuck on the idea that this device is a watch. Obviously the name isn't as sexy as Apple Watch, but it is more of a wrist computer.

Same with the iPhone, who actually buys the iPhone just for the phone functionality? It's really a pocket computer.
 
The Bogeyman said:
...UK and I know that we will (as every other single company in the world does) be ripped off when it comes to pricing here.

So what the US will buy for $349 or around £217, we will end up paying an extra third or so, making it around £300.

Pity because I really, really, really want one.
Click to expand...

You do understand that almost no American will get the watch for $349, right? Our system applies a sales tax at the point of sale to the advertised prices. So add from $20 to $50 in tax to that price to get the final "out of pocket" cost. Europeans pay the actual advertised price. If the ad says £300 or €300 then you pay that amount, there is no government markup at checkout. Any other differences in pricing I'll leave for someone else to explain.
 
seb101 said:
Its very deep, even for diving. But unfortunately, the combination of loose marketing claims and lack of real standards means that the generally agreed 'exchange rate' is that 50m resistant watches are just about good enough for surface water sports. Unless it is a specifically certified divers watch.

Check the Wiki article on 'Water Resistant Mark'
Click to expand...

No you are incorrect apparently you have never dived. 50m is just enough for snorkeling and doing like you said "surface water sports". The pressure exerted on the watch from all directions is not linear. You may bump into something which will exert a force much greater than what the watch can permit. Every movement you make against the force of the water adds pressure to the watch. So a watch that says 50m doesn't mean it can be used for diving at 50m. It just means that in a closed environment the seals withstood the water pressure that 50m of water exerted upon it. Get it????
 
bigsteve said:
The only reason that watches are round is that a circle is an ideal choice for displaying time in a standardized way.
Click to expand...

Yea but there were plenty squared watches that never took off. Thats my only concern that people cant get used to a "not round" object on their hand. Just not natural. That said, I am buying an iWatch :)
 
Piggie said:
Gold plating is pretty cheap isn't it?

You don't think they are going to actually make a solid gold case do you?

You can basically make the gold plating to be as expensive and durable as you like, from a few dollars to a few 100.
Click to expand...

agreed... we should not be comparing this to a high end Swiss piece
 
seb101 said:
My biggest worry with this and all the other smart watches is the life-span, due to the battery, and the technology refresh - particularly for a 'luxury' versions.

I bought a mid-range rolex, not even a gold one, and it cost $8000 - but I expect it to last a LIFETIME. In fact, I'll be pretty pissed (posthumously) if one of my grand-kid's grand-kids isn't wearing it in the next century.

I think people are drastically underestimating the price of the 18K gold version. That is a chunky old case, I would not be surprised if the 48mm gold version came in at over $5000. Take a Rolex Daytona for example, the price premium from a stainless steel version to a gold version is at least $6000 - same design, same movement, it's all in the material. Gold costs a lot.

Now if I spend $5000 on a gold Apple watch, how long will it last?

Ok, in 2 years, the battery will be showing signs of wear. Apple will probably offer a replacement service. Lets say thats costs $250 every two years. That's not actually a big deal. Looking after a luxury watch requires servicing and cleaning that would cost about that much too.

But what happens after 5 years, when Apple announce the iPhone 11 is no longer backward compatible with Watch version 1? Now I have a useless lump of gold on my wrist.

Well I suppose... at least it IS gold and still actually worth it's weight in gold... It will actually be the guys with the $349 stainless steel version who will be holding something worthless :p
Click to expand...
TBH I don't think the gold version is for people looking to invest in a life long relationship with a timepiece like you would a Rolex. I think it's for filthy rich money-is-no-object people who simply want to flaunt it. It's for Kanye, who will buy ten of them and run over nine with his car just to show everyone who's boss. Then he'll buy another ten when the 2nd gen comes out and do the same thing.
 
harley3k said:
Don't get me wrong - I think it will work fine for a lot of things without being near your phone, but the key for me was when they said it used the GPS in your phone when they were demoing Maps. That means if you use it for Running (without also carrying an iPHONE) it will track your steps but not your distance (accurately), or the map of where you went. That is something I use a lot with the Nike+ app on my phone and a killer-app for me would've been not having to carry my phone on my runs...and also not buy an ugly Garmin sports watch with GPS :mad:
Click to expand...

Yeah good point. If they were serious about fitness they should have allowed you to just go off running with the watch and it sync back to the iPhone later. That would include GPS.
 
Square makes sense

genovelle said:
Round is dumb for a devicd showing lots of data. Even their demo was panned because the OS was designed for square devices and some text and objects get cut off. Yeah that's just a great idea. The other option is to shrink the text even further to stay within the circle
Click to expand...

You are correct. Early televisions did have round screens, in that case because it was easier to make a round tube. But it really doesn't make sense to chop of the corners of the display. That would be complete form over function.

1950-Zenith-H2438.JPG
 
chinesedemo said:
No you are incorrect apparently you have never dived. 50m is just enough for snorkeling and doing like you said "surface water sports". The pressure exerted on the watch from all directions is not linear. You may bump into something which will exert a force much greater than what the watch can permit. Every movement you make against the force of the water adds pressure to the watch. So a watch that says 50m doesn't mean it can be used for diving at 50m. It just means that in a closed environment the seals withstood the water pressure that 50m of water exerted upon it. Get it????
Click to expand...

I think we were making the same point? I said a 50 meter certified watch was "just about good enough for surface water sports". And you said "50m is just enough for snorkelling and doing like you said"

So, in your own post, you proved that I do "get it".
 
I really like it. Personally i think it looks really nice compared to the other smart watches that look pretty dorky. The UI is much nicer than android wear too in my opinion! Of course some people are going to hate it, some people are going to love it, and some people won't care. If I can come up with the money by early 2015 (#collegestudent+musician...) I will definitely consider getting it.
 
Anuba said:
TBH I don't think the gold version is for people looking to invest in a life long relationship with a timepiece like you would a Rolex. I think it's for filthy rich money-is-no-object people who simply want to flaunt it. It's for Kanye, who will buy ten of them and run over nine with his car just to show everyone who's boss. Then he'll buy another ten when the 2nd gen comes out and do the same thing.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt you are 100% correct. But the sentiment of longevity applies across the price range. Watches are mostly considered to be 'long term' investments, whether you spend $300 or $1500. Turning that into something that has a finite life-span is actually a little bit perverse.

I suspect Apple shareholders are secretly rubbing their hands greedily at the thought of thousands of Gen1 watches ending up in land-fill and their ex-owners queue up to buy the Gen2. But at what cost to the environment?
 
MacFather said:
Jony Ive + Steve Jobs = best design duo

Jony Ive = mediocre designer
Click to expand...

With the iPhone, they redefined what a phone was. Yes, they took ideas and design elements from different places, in addition to new ones, but the final product they came up with was something new and genre-defining. They designed a new type of product.

When I saw the picture of the :apple: Watch this afternoon, it reminded me of this picture:

iphone-se.png


Haven't had a chance to watch (no pun intended) the Keynote yet, but just looking at the photos of Apple's new watch, there isn't the same "wow" factor that there was with the iPhone.

Maybe it will be better than other smart watches, but it doesn't look like a new thing that will redefine what a watch is. The design looks like smartphone stuff squeezed into a watch. It looks like a watch that will do some neat stuff. It pretty much looks like what you would expect, not a whole new type of product that will revolutionize things.

With so many people out ahead of Apple on this, maybe that wasn't possible for them to do. But it's kind of what I was hoping for.
 
hackjo said:
2001 - "the iPod is a complete fail. You have to have a Mac to use it, it's really bulky and you have to use iTunes. Nobody will buy that."

2007 - "the iPhone is crippled from day 1. You have to sync to iTunes! No flash on the camera? No front camera? It can't do video? No 3G. Total fail."

2010 - "I don't see the point of the iPad - what's it for? It's just a big iPod Touch. It'll never sell. No USB port or card slot, can't run a full OS on it. Total fail."

Funny how history repeats. :)
Click to expand...
You really think we all should wait for 2nd gen like with all devices before this?

Btw,
Do anybody have any real info or reliable estimations on weight of all these different models? How about real specs about water and dust proof?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back