- Apple releases product updates that are deemed "boring"
- People say that Apple's ads are terrible
- Apple is the most profitable company in the world
- People say Apple just has good marketing
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Shares New Ads Promoting Apple Watch Series 2 as a Holiday Gift [Update]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
isnt that what most ads are for?Apple Watch ads only exist for one thing....
[doublepost=1481319162][/doublepost]
I guess we've never met. What are you up to this weekend?
News for you: it's illegal to report false numbers in a public company.
More news: just because you don't see Apple Watches in the wild, what do you say to the people who do? Are we hallucinating? Year one, I was the only person I knew who had an Apple Watch. Very much like the first iPhone. Year 2, I'm seeing them on wrists everywhere which happens to coincide with the sales reports.
The iPhone only really took off with iPhone 3GS. Until then, it was panned by many who are of course now eating their words and deleting their blog posts.
I also see plenty of the apple watch in Philadelphia. it's a watch...plus provides other useful things, such as notifications. To be open, I wear one as well. it's better and offers more than the watch and/or the fitbit I had worn before.
Color me old fashioned, I'd rather a well made timepiece that holds its value over adding another device that requires an iPhone and doesn't hold its value. Apple would have been smarter to produce a wearable independent of an iPhone first yet this is about selling more products and less about innovating or waiting for the tech to mature before venturing into a new market.
That may be good investment advice, but for aesthetics and function, the Rolex is not even in the ball park...
Man these Apple ads are rubbish these days. I miss the days when it was 'WHAT IS THAT TRACK???' on them.
There are many investment timepieces with aesthetics that blow the Apple Watch out of the water. To suggest otherwise is contrary to a well established industry and the craftsman and artists whose expertise was sought directly by Apple during production of the Apple Watch.
As for function, I have an iPhone and a smaller wearable with more function and performance in certain tasks than the current Apple Watch. Some don't need alerts and messaging on their wrist when their iPhone is on their person and many don't want a device that requires another device for full functionality. In essence, it's not a "truly" independent product and has been difficult to market.
Last edited:
I don't know. Taste is subjective. I personally don't like the look of Rolex watches, but I can't say they're ugly since beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I personally love the appearance of the Apple Watch, and it's the only Watch I've ever purchased or considered purchasing. If taste wasn't subjective, we wouldn't see the variety on everyone's wrist that we have for years.
I didn't originally have any desire for an Apple Watch because I found (and still find) traditional watches pointless, but my dad (who is an avid traditional watch wearer) kept mentioning it since he was convinced he was going to switch and I eventually started seriously looking at them and fell in love. I never thought I'd be wearing a Watch in my lifetime.
To say one is hideous is a personal opinion and of course those opinions will vary wildly. Buy what you want and love what you wear. Don't care what other people think, and just enjoy life how you want to.
. We are all so different, and that's what makes our society great. [/cheesy comment that wasn't meant to sound cheesy]
Last edited:
My taste is different from yours perhaps, but to me, the only thing the appearance of a Rolex has going for it is that it is recognized as expensive, and therefore its owner is recognized as having access to wealth. To consider its clunky appearance to be objectively appealing beyond that is not believable to me.
As such, an object does not have to be particularly appealing to blow the Rolex out of the water.
I don't know. Taste is subjective. I personally don't like the look of Rolex watches, but I can't say they're ugly since beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I personally love the appearance of the Apple Watch, and it's the only Watch I've ever purchased or considered purchasing. If taste wasn't subjective, we wouldn't see the variety on everyone's wrist that we have for years.
I didn't originally have any desire for an Apple Watch because I found (and still find) traditional watches pointless, but my dad (who is an avid traditional watch wearer) kept mentioning it since he was convinced he was going to switch and I eventually started seriously looking at them and fell in love. I never thought I'd be wearing a Watch in my lifetime.
To say one is hideous is a personal opinion and of course those opinions will vary wildly. Buy what you want and love what you wear. Don't care what other people think, and just enjoy life how you want to.
The Apple watch is a rectangular box. Might be a well made box but it's still just a box. On it's own you might consider it to be ok looking but, obviously in my opinion, it's ugly and large when worn. Prefer Omega to Rolex but they're all in a different league to the Apple watch.
[doublepost=1481327228][/doublepost]
Yet the Apple watch can't even manage that.
Different category. I wouldn't say different league is the right term.
It's definitely a different category though, since it's a simple timepiece and the Apple Watch focuses on being an extension of our digital life. I think Rolex and other traditional brands tried to create a smart watch, so it's important to note we are focusing on comparing two distinct categories.
That may be, but the Rolex isn't one of them, in my opinion.
But I didn't suggest otherwise. And I don't deny the craft and art involved in the legacy watch industry.
When a comment about aesthetics is made, it is automatically subjective. And the aesthetics of the Rolex depicted on this page is, in my opinion, not in the same ballpark as the Apple Watch. Your mileage obviously varies.
Well, I wasn't comparing the Apple Watch to your iPhone and a smaller wearable, though, was I? I compared it to the Rolex. None of the 7 functions I listed earlier that I love about the Apple Watch can be performed by a Rolex. So, between that Rolex and the Apple Watch, on the questions of aesthetics and function, my comment stands: The Rolex is not in the ball park.
Apart disliking the looks the main thing for me it just doesn't do enough over the phone I have in my hand/pocket. It's not accurate as a fitness device (not that any really are) don't want to try and run apps on it so may as well stick with a quality traditional watch that will still be going when the Apple watch is a distant memory.
As you know, in my opinion (the only one that matters in my selection of a time piece), it does manage that, and so much more...
Fair enough. For me it does much more than I even need it for and it's absolutely a time saver and keeps me well connected. I love being able to flip through songs by raising my wrist, quickly checking a text without pulling my phone out of my pocket, open my garage door with Siri just by raising my wrist, and so much more.
Different strokes for different folks. Apple Watch will still (for the time being) be the only Watch my family wears.
Don't care about the fitness stuff. But my phone is in my pocket most of the time, and checking brief texts that require nothing more than an OK if anything, paying for coffee at a drive-thru, rewinding an audiobook because a jet flew over, or pausing it if you meet someone, and even checking the outside temperature, without having to dig the phone out is -- what did you call it -- a *thing* for me. Plus I always notice the wrist vibration, whereas, buzzing in my vest pocket is often missed. So, I never have to put the sound on.
Then you don't know about timepieces and are making assumptions based out of ignorance. I own a few Rolex's as well as Jaeger LeCoultre's, Bremont, etc. The Rolex you suggest as purely a flash of social status is a limited production GMT-Master II Oyster with the first bi-color ceramic bezel. It's a collectors piece, not "clunky" and "objectively appealing". It will hold its value and then some.
I would suggest becoming more informed on this subject before claiming your opinion as fact.
[doublepost=1481328797][/doublepost]
As you were stating...
Last edited:
What I said was that *to me* the only thing the *appearance* has going for it is the recognition of wealth. That does not deny its value as a collector's piece or as an investment, which I had already conceded earlier.
*To me* its appearance *is* clunky. That is a fact. And dropping jargon about oyster this and bi-color ceramic that doesn't change that.
And, frankly, although I can't rule it out, I don't find it believable that the appearance is appealing to others either. That is, if someone made something that was indistinguishable out of cheap material, in a world where watches were not known, people would not consider it appealing, as they might a rose, or a fractal pattern, for example. The thing that gives it appeal is what you display here. It takes wealth and "being informed" and knowing the obscure details that make it expensive to create, to recognize the value of such collector's items.
It's information I don't happen to be interested in. And yet I am free to have an opinion on the object's aesthetic appeal.