Apple Tested Ceramic Apple Watch Edition Two Years Before It Launched

[calzon65]

Have you never listened to Jony Ive? There's hardly a thing made by Apple where they haven't spent millions of hours for every small detail.

I fully understand the total time it takes to initially create a new product like the Apple watch, but I am talking about over 1,000 hours PER WATCH ... not the total time to initially create a new product. There is now way in hell it takes Apple 1,000 hours to create one Apple watch, but some of the world's finest handmade mechanical (self winding) watches take over 1,000 hours to create a single watch ... something that can't be replicated with technology.

 

[jhollington]

I expect that reason can be explained with two words: Jony Ives.

I would not be surprised if he wanted the gold to be the only launch Edition model and a "cheap" (at a tenth the price) ceramic model would be seem as "devaluing the brand".

It wasn't just Jony Ive, however... While I'm sure he had something to do with it, let's not forget that ex-Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts was SVP of Retail at the time, and Apple was hiring luxury fashion designers left and right back then.

However, I also remain convinced that Apple never intended to keep the gold Edition model in the lineup long-term. It was basically something shiny to wave in front of the fashion industry so Apple could prove that it should be taken seriously as a brand that could play in the same sandbox as Rolex, Breguet, and Patek Philippe.

Once that mission had been accomplished, there was no need to keep selling the silly thing. We'll probably never know whether the ceramic simply wasn't ready or whether it was sidelined to make the Edition shine more brightly — not to mention avoid cluttering the lineup. After all, I think the Apple Watch Series 5 is the only time there have been more than three finishes available, since that was the year they introduced titanium and brought back ceramic.

 

[Neodym]

I've only ever bought the Sport Aluminum ones. The "Premium" ones aren't worth the price.

With the sapphire crystal display glass and the DLC coating of the stainless steel body, you can ding that Watch so many times and still have it looking like new. The aluminum will show wear over time, even if you baby it.

Now whether that’s worth a premium, is very individual. You may not be willing to pay for these devices, but others - me included - certainly are.

 

[The_Martini_Cat]

Agreed, a long lasting case does not make sense on an electronic product unless update ability is built in (it’s not). But the level of craft in the watch, both hardware and software, is heirloom-worthy. I’m wearing a luxury device for sure. 🍸😺

On another note, sorry to see someone unhappy with the physical manifestation of their Apple Card. A reminder: It IS optional to take delivery of the physical card🍸😺

 

[Apple_Robert]

I like the look and durability. However, the price is just ridiculous.

 

[jigzaw]

I've owned 3 Apple Watches... the first was the gen 0 stainless steel and, as pretty as it was, I returned it at after almost two weeks because I just couldn't wrap my head around that price for what the watch did. It was poor judgement on my part - I should've already known that was more money than seemed reasonable, but the problem was I thought the aluminum versions just looked cheap and didn't appeal to me.

A few months later, I picked up an open-box silver aluminum gen 0 from Best Buy and wore it happily because I decided to just get over my slight dislike of the casing's matte look because I wanted the cool things the watch does. Then when Gen 4 came out, I grabbed the space gray aluminum and have been happy with it... that said I'm still haunted by the stainless steel and promised myself that I'd own one someday once the watch is advanced enough for me to think it'll be good to go for at least 4-5 years. Since my 4 has lasted 3 years and is still perfectly great, I think they've hit that point and I'll consider going stainless steel for my next one either this year or next.

I will say, though, to each their own, but I never understood the appeal of the ceramic edition as the PREMIUM version. I mean it looks perfectly nice, but it's just a white case that looks like plastic similar to that used for the iPhone SE to my eye. If you love it, great, I just don't understand what's luxurious about white ceramic. Is there a history of ceramic watches that I'm just unaware of?

 

[_Spinn_]

Not surprised. I’m sure Apple is developing and testing products multiple years in advance.

 

[SuperCachetes]

I love the Apple watch, especially for how much technology has been compressed into such a small space, but I don't think of luxury when I think of the Apple watch or any of the other similar watches (i.e., wrist computers). For luxury watches, I think of Rolex or Patek Philippe. Not because the exorbitant price, but for the intricate workings and finishes of those watches, which in some cases requires over 1,000 hours to create.

Agree. Lockdown and working from home in 2020 basically killed my "need" to wear my Seiko, which I loved. Not that Seiko is on the same level as Rolex et al, but none of those analog watches need software updates or get many new features over time. They have limited capabilities, but they don't become obsolete... Watches with operating systems and non-user-replaceable batteries are almost disposable in comparison. That said, at $400+, I'm hoping to get several years out of my series 6 before I have to upgrade it.

 

[Wanted797]

I've only ever bought the Sport Aluminum ones. The "Premium" ones aren't worth the price.

To you.

I had a stainless serious 0 and it lasted 5 years and held up fantastic to scratch’s. The display still looks amazing today. I bought a sport model 2 years ago I have heaps of micro scratches on the display.

I won’t buy sport again. And if I had the spare cash I’d definitely buy ceramic.

 

[alexjholland]

Nike watch faces are 100 x more modern and slick than Apple's watch faces.

Unfortunately, the fancy case designs are therefore an overall style downgrade in my eyes.

 

[brofkand]

I fully understand the total time it takes to initially create a new product like the Apple watch, but I am talking about over 1,000 hours PER WATCH ... not the total time to initially create a new product. There is now way in hell it takes Apple 1,000 hours to create one Apple watch, but some of the world's finest handmade mechanical (self winding) watches take over 1,000 hours to create a single watch ... something that can't be replicated with technology.

the handiwork of those timepieces is there to justify the price. It’s certainly possible to automate the entire production line of them, but then the timepieces would be commodity and would not have the cachet.

 

[kahkityoong]

I’ve never understood the idea behind a $1200+ ceramic or $18,000+ gold Apple Watch. It’s not like these are classic time pieces. They are obsolete with in 8-9 years, and they will not retrofit new internals inside of the old enclosure. Unless you are trying to flaunt your wealth or are insanely rich, it seems like a poor way to spend money.

Flaunting wealth with a $1200 watch? Get a grip.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

I've only ever bought the Sport Aluminum ones. The "Premium" ones aren't worth the price.

The sapphire screens on the higher end models are far more durable. Aluminum model screens will display scratches quite easily. The polish on the steel ones are also noticeably...nicer.

Those two things for me are "worth the price."

 

[IllinoisCorn]

I fully understand the total time it takes to initially create a new product like the Apple watch, but I am talking about over 1,000 hours PER WATCH ... not the total time to initially create a new product. There is now way in hell it takes Apple 1,000 hours to create one Apple watch, but some of the world's finest handmade mechanical (self winding) watches take over 1,000 hours to create a single watch ... something that can't be replicated with technology.

Are you trying to riff on which is a better watch based on manufacture time? Because this is an apples and oranges situation.

I am thinking it took many, many hours to hand copy the Bible.

Then the printing press came along and nobody needed to handprint Bibles.

Individual watches might take over 1,000 hours to make, but they process of automation and technological increases, the watch made by Apple or whoever takes a small fraction of the time to make and the timekeeping is just as accurate (perhaps more so).

Does an Apple Watch "self wind?" No. It doesn't need to.

If you want to spend lots of $$$ on a 1,000 hour novelty, that's certainly your pejorative, just like people who want to buy an AMG as opposed to a regular Merc, but if we're talking novelties, the Apple Watch and your self winding whatever are not in competition.

 

[DanTSX]

The Safire used Apple Watch is not pure enough to be as scratch resistant as Safire in "real" watches.

I've bought stainless steel this year and sapphire display already picked up a scratch, and I only bought it because I hate scratched AW displays. Facepalm Apple.

That is a scratch in the anti-reflective coating, not the sapphire itself. Very unlikely to scratch sapphire front glass.

 

[DanTSX]

How long did they test Apple Card?
View attachment 1802380

That is a problem with your wallet, not the card.

 

[dannys1]

I've only ever bought the Sport Aluminum ones. The "Premium" ones aren't worth the price.

Disagree, having owned both they are - the sports glass scratched on my first watch, the sapphire glass I've had for three years now smashed against brick walls, worn all day every day, and it's as good as the first day it arrived - the expensive straps are also a lot lot better than sports bands which I couldn't wear all day.

 

[DanTSX]

I’ve never understood the idea behind a $1200+ ceramic or $18,000+ gold Apple Watch. It’s not like these are classic time pieces. They are obsolete with in 8-9 years, and they will not retrofit new internals inside of the old enclosure. Unless you are trying to flaunt your wealth or are insanely rich, it seems like a poor way to spend money.

I believe that the Gold original AW's were mainly PR Department gifts to contemporary "influencers", so that they could be seen wearing it, and prevent any notion that a wrist-computer was anything but a dorky indulgence. With the objective being that it would get people to view the AW as cool, and buy the stainless/Ti/Ceramic instead of the base model.

 

[DanTSX]

I fully understand the total time it takes to initially create a new product like the Apple watch, but I am talking about over 1,000 hours PER WATCH ... not the total time to initially create a new product. There is now way in hell it takes Apple 1,000 hours to create one Apple watch, but some of the world's finest handmade mechanical (self winding) watches take over 1,000 hours to create a single watch ... something that can't be replicated with technology.

There isn't 1000 hours in any normal PP, and certainly not any Rolex.

 

[DanTSX]

The sapphire screens on the higher end models are far more durable. Aluminum model screens will display scratches quite easily. The polish on the steel ones are also noticeably...nicer.

Those two things for me are "worth the price."

Honestly, they shouldn't even be selling the aluminum or plastic ones. They should had always have been a premium product, with stainless being the entry point. The aluminum ones are sold at Walmart.

Ceramic is an interesting material. And while it works out well for a decent anniversary gift watch like Rado, it is not a good fit for AW. They definitely do chip and crack. The materials should be steel, Ti (surface hardened), and then precious metals. Also, they should finely brush the metals and not do this ridiculous cheap looking polish job on all of them.

 

[Blackstick]

My issue with the ceramic/titanium case treatments is that the Apple Watch is obsoleted too quickly to make the financial case for their upfront premium price. Due to the quick advances in the watch area, they’re replaced faster than an iPhone; far faster than an iPad or Mac. It’s obviously my own frugality but it seems like such a poor use of money.

The Omega my dad bought me after graduating in 2006 retains all its (admittedly limited compared to an AW) functionality today, and thus the $4000 feels like a better investment because it’d retain a lot of its value.

 

[CWallace]

Honestly, they shouldn't even be selling the aluminum or plastic ones. They should had always have been a premium product, with stainless being the entry point. The aluminum ones are sold at Walmart.

I believe that at launch, the Apple Watch was meant to be different things to different people, though "fashion accessory" was clearly the initial focus, hence the "Edition" being offered in 18K gold and the "standard" model being offered in Stainless Steel.

The "Sport" model was designed to be the inexpensive one and used aluminum and Ion X glass instead of the more durable Sapphire glass of the "standard" model. It clearly became the most popular model and with the launch of the Series 2, dropped the "Sport" name because it was not more the "standard" model than the Stainless Steel one, which became just a material option.

 

[CWallace]

My issue with the ceramic/titanium case treatments is that the Apple Watch is obsoleted too quickly to make the financial case for their upfront premium price. Due to the quick advances in the watch area, they’re replaced faster than an iPhone; far faster than an iPad or Mac. It’s obviously my own frugality but it seems like such a poor use of money.

For myself, the durability of the Stainless Steel model made it the more "frugal" choice as I use the watch pretty much to tell time and track my health so currently I am replacing every three to four generations, I started with a Series 0 Stainless, then purchased a Series 4 Space Black Stainless. I will likely skip Series 7 based on what I am hearing about it so far, so it will at least be the Series 8 before I consider upgrading and I intend to go Stainless or Titanium for that one.

 

[nicho]

I expect that reason can be explained with two words: Jony Ives.

I would not be surprised if he wanted the gold to be the only launch Edition model and a "cheap" (at a tenth the price) ceramic model would be seem as "devaluing the brand".

I believe that's the real case. I believe there was an article that mentioned Ives' actual preference for the Apple Watch to be a really luxury watch, and pushed for the gold version.

Jony Ives no doubt.

One wonders how the case shown was damaged [crack plus a piece missing near the knob]. Perhaps this was a test model to gauge the extent of stress that it would not take. IMHO, a ceramic watch case is a incredibly stupid idea since sintered ceramic is nothing more than a form of Corning Ware®, and thus shatterable. A hard wood case [like pipe-quality burl] would have a lot made more sense and would be far stronger and substantially more beautiful. Jony Ives' "hobby ideas" must have cost Apple a ton of treasure.

Who is this Jony Ives chap? Did he work for Tim Cooks or was he there during the Steve Job era?

Britannica Money

Jony Ive is a British industrial designer who led the design of iconic Apple products including the iMac, iPod, and iPhone, and later founded LoveFrom and IO.

www.britannica.com

 

[nicho]

For myself, the durability of the Stainless Steel model made it the more "frugal" choice as I use the watch pretty much to tell time and track my health so currently I am replacing every three to four generations, I started with a Series 0 Stainless, then purchased a Series 4 Space Black Stainless. I will likely skip Series 7 based on what I am hearing about it so far, so it will at least be the Series 8 before I consider upgrading and I intend to go Stainless or Titanium for that one.

How does your battery do in those last years? Do you get a mid-life replacement?