Apple Watch 2 Not Likely to See March Debut [Updated]

[Gregintosh]

At $299 or less for the entry model there really isn't much excuse for anyone to wait for gen 2 if they like the concept/idea. Its not a big amount of money and will have some resale value anyway.

My advice: if you like the apple watch, just buy it. Or buy in a month or two so if the event comes out you can return it. And if the event has no new watches, you can enjoy it for at least 6-8 months as the new thing.

 

[sracer]

At $299 or less for the entry model there really isn't much excuse for anyone to wait for gen 2 if they like the concept/idea. Its not a big amount of money and will have some resale value anyway.

My advice: if you like the apple watch, just buy it. Or buy in a month or two so if the event comes out you can return it. And if the event has no new watches, you can enjoy it for at least 6-8 months as the new thing.

I like the concept of the Apple Watch, but not the execution of that concept. That is reason or "excuse" enough for me to pass on the current model. The price (for what it does that I want it to do) is not worth it to me.

 

[nicho]

I like the concept of the Apple Watch, but not the execution of that concept. That is reason or "excuse" enough for me to pass on the current model. The price (for what it does that I want it to do) is not worth it to me.

I'm intrigued. What do you want it to do?

 

[Steve121178]

I really saddens me that Apple thinks someone would buy a new watch every year. They've updated the Thunderbolt display with variants without calling it Thunderbolt display 2, 3, 4, etc. Why can't they do the same for the Apple Watch.

They will not be trying to sell the Apple Watch version 2 to Apple Watch version 1 owners, they will be trying to market and sell to those who don't own an Apple Watch, which is the vast majority of people.

I personally hope they give up on this vanity project it as it's a waste of time (see what I did there?) and invest the money in their core business areas as moving forward they need the iPhone, iPad & Macs to be far more than an incremental update if they hope to keep the momentum going.

I've still yet to see anyone wearing an Apple Watch so it's clearly a product that is serving and interesting a very limited number of people.

 

[sracer]

I'm intrigued. What do you want it to do?

I won't bore the watchers of this thread with the details. Suffice it so say that I'm looking for the Apple Watch to be more of a standalone iOS device than an accessory/extension of an iPhone, or even the other way around... that the iPhone/iPad/iPod are an extension of the Watch.

 

[3lionsbecks]

I just picked up an apple watch with the intent of trying it out for a week to decide if I want to keep it or not. Having it for one day I have to say I am not really impressed so far.

I was hoping to use it for fitness tracking and at the gym. The built in activity app is very inaccurate and limited in info. also, having to lug around my iPhone 6+ with me in the gym and apparently out for a run? (yeah right) its very inconvenient. I feel like I can get better (or at least equal) functionality for activity tracking with a fitbit or other device.

I also have not found the function of the watch to be nearly as intuitive as other apple products. I am really not sold so far on this device. I feel like I'll be returning it on friday and be hoping for some major announcements of improvement for March.

This was going to be my 40th birthday present to myself but now I think I need to find something else to do the job.

 

[Rogifan]

They will not be trying to sell the Apple Watch version 2 to Apple Watch version 1 owners, they will be trying to market and sell to those who don't own an Apple Watch, which is the vast majority of people.

I personally hope they give up on this vanity project it as it's a waste of time (see what I did there?) and invest the money in their core business areas as moving forward they need the iPhone, iPad & Macs to be far more than an incremental update if they hope to keep the momentum going.

I've still yet to see anyone wearing an Apple Watch so it's clearly a product that is serving and interesting a very limited number of people.

Right because if you have t seen someone wearing one than that means hardly anyone is buying them.

Personally if I were Apple I would be back at the drawing board and figuring out why Apple Watch was one of the worst rolled out iDevices in over a decade rather than trying to do an incremental 12 month upgrade of a failed product.

Also Apple has to understand they are the new Timex, not the new Rolex. There is a reason why Timex doesn't offer a $10,000 gold Ironman model because it is stupid to invest that kind of money into something that is easily and needing to be replaced by the next year's model.

I'm always amused when people present their personal opinion as objective fact.

 

[OllyW]

Right because if you have t seen someone wearing one than that means hardly anyone is buying them.

He's correct in saying the vast majority of people don't own one though.

 

[Mac 128]

I'm always amused when people present their personal opinion as objective fact.

Well you would know. ;-)

 

[ackmondual]

It needs a lot of improvement before they can take my money. Lets start with the design, price and shape...

I'm fine with the shape and design. The price is what's getting to me. At least 1 MR user has said something to the effect of "I'm glad they kept premium components and kept it at that price!". Good for them. It feels like they add a bit of chrome and metal features, and that justifies adding an extra $100 or so to the price.

The real issue for me, and this is thee double whammy is I'm still using an Ipod Touch. I'll have to wait a few years before an Iph that can pari with an iWatch is cheap enough. Right now, I'm all tech-ed out.

 

[nicho]

I'm fine with the shape and design. The price is what's getting to me. At least 1 MR user has said something to the effect of "I'm glad they kept premium components and kept it at that price!". Good for them. It feels like they add a bit of chrome and metal features, and that justifies adding an extra $100 or so to the price.

The real issue for me, and this is thee double whammy is I'm still using an Ipod Touch. I'll have to wait a few years before an Iph that can pari with an iWatch is cheap enough. Right now, I'm all tech-ed out.

an iphone that can pair with an apple watch is already cheaper than the watch itself...

 

[Mac 128]

I'm fine with the shape and design. The price is what's getting to me. At least 1 MR user has said something to the effect of "I'm glad they kept premium components and kept it at that price!". Good for them. It feels like they add a bit of chrome and metal features, and that justifies adding an extra $100 or so to the price.

The real issue for me, and this is thee double whammy is I'm still using an Ipod Touch. I'll have to wait a few years before an Iph that can pari with an iWatch is cheap enough. Right now, I'm all tech-ed out.

Actually this reasoning is exactly why I expect Apple will continue to offer the 1st Gen watch alongside the 2nd Gen, so they can drop the price in relation to the Gen 2, and why the latter will be packed with new features.

nicho is absolutely right, the 5S retails for $450 from Apple (and refurbished models are available for as little as $200). A 42mm Sport costs $400 (add one watch band and you're at $450), and the least expensive stainless is $549 (as much as a an iPhone 6). The watch should probably not cost more than the phone, unless it's made out of a precious metal. Certainly an aluminum watch probably shouldn't cost as much as an aluminum iPhone. As it stands, even a 38mm stainless costs as much as an iPhone 6S. The 42mm costs $50 more!

I hadn't really thought about it in those terms, but for a device that requires a phone, that's a ratio that's a little out of whack.

As for the iPod Touch, it's hard for me to imagine that Apple will keep it going much longer. However, since the Watch doesn't require Touch ID, of NFC, there's absolutely no reason the Touch couldn't be software upgraded to pair with the Watch. I imagine the only reason the Touch, and iPads were not enabled from the beginning, is because the Watch essentially shipped with beta software that barely supported the iPhone pairing. For all intents and purposes, the watch is virtually autonomous now without the iPhone, i.e. relying on wifi to communicate with the paired device, or functioning without the paired device. An Watch with GPS eliminates almost all dependance on the phone except for use in areas where there is no wifi network. If the 2G watch is able to operate this way flawlessly, then there's truly no reason not to allow it to be paired to iPads and the Touch, which in turn expands the market to those using non-Apple handsets but otherwise own an iPad or a Mac. With that said, the cheapest iPad is $269, and the cheapest iPod Touch is $199. If those prices remain constant, then that suggests to me the least expensive watch should be priced no more than the least expensive device it can connect to. So a 38mm Sport should probably cost no more than $199, or $249 if they eliminate the 16GB option. And $249 is right about where they're going to probably offer the 1G as soon as the 2G is introduced.

 

[inpinotveritas]

It'll be interesting to see what kind of product cycle Apple demonstrates for the Apple Watch as well as the evolution of the design.

 

[Keirasplace]

I just picked up an apple watch with the intent of trying it out for a week to decide if I want to keep it or not. Having it for one day I have to say I am not really impressed so far.

I was hoping to use it for fitness tracking and at the gym. The built in activity app is very inaccurate and limited in info. also, having to lug around my iPhone 6+ with me in the gym and apparently out for a run? (yeah right) its very inconvenient. I feel like I can get better (or at least equal) functionality for activity tracking with a fitbit or other device.

I also have not found the function of the watch to be nearly as intuitive as other apple products. I am really not sold so far on this device. I feel like I'll be returning it on friday and be hoping for some major announcements of improvement for March.

This was going to be my 40th birthday present to myself but now I think I need to find something else to do the job.

You don't have to lug it around at the gym, it can connect with the phone by WIFI if WIFI is available at the gym (which is often the case). The phone could be in your gym bag (close to you) connected by BT or in your locker (connected by WIFI).
As for inaccurate, all reviews says different; it is as accurate as the best out there... So, Hey.
And couldn't you read about what info it collects before buying it? It's straight on the web site.

 

[Mac 128]

I've never read a single person on this forum or others that said they plan on purchasing 2 AW's. Not saying nobody has or will do this but I seriously don't see this as something that will be a common occurrence. Pairing a second Watch is still a time consuming event. Even if Apple makes this easier down the road, I don't see that as a indication that people will start purchasing 2 AW's at a time.

You might wanna follow this thread:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/multipe-watches-paired-to-one-iphone.1950877/

 

[nicho]

nicho is absolutely right, the 5S retails for $450 from Apple (and refurbished models are available for as little as $200). A 42mm Sport costs $400 (add one watch band and you're at $450), and the least expensive stainless is $549 (as much as a an iPhone 6). The watch should probably not cost more than the phone, unless it's made out of a precious metal. Certainly an aluminum watch probably shouldn't cost as much as an aluminum iPhone. As it stands, even a 38mm stainless costs as much as an iPhone 6S. The 42mm costs $50 more!

I hadn't really thought about it in those terms, but for a device that requires a phone, that's a ratio that's a little out of whack.

My argument was actually the other way, given the availability of a 5 or 5c refurbished for that price it's hardly a barrier to entry. But you do make a good point.

 

[SHNXX]

people often seem to complain about 1) lack of connectivity options and GPS or 2) poor battery life.

do these people realize that to implement GPS and a cell connection you'd get even less battery life?
do these people realize that apple is not a battery company and they can't do anything about the battery technology being what it is?
this is like complaining about dell computers being slow because they are not quantum computers.
dell doesn't make the CPUs and cannot be expected to advance CPU technology.

 

[sracer]

people often seem to complain about 1) lack of connectivity options and GPS or 2) poor battery life.

do these people realize that to implement GPS and a cell connection you'd get even less battery life?
do these people realize that apple is not a battery company and they can't do anything about the battery technology being what it is?
this is like complaining about dell computers being slow because they are not quantum computers.
dell doesn't make the CPUs and cannot be expected to advance CPU technology.

The people complaining about the lack of GPS are not the same who are complaining about battery life. But if it helps you to combine them, then go for it.

 

[BarracksSi]

The people complaining about the lack of GPS are not the same who are complaining about battery life. But if it helps you to combine them, then go for it.

I can go through the AW2 Wish List thread over in the AW subforum and give you plenty of posts where people wish for GPS, cell connectivity, and more battery life. Some of them want an always-on display, too (why? I dunno, maybe they want the floor to see the time).

[edit] Like SNHXX, I feel these features are impossible to combine with current battery tech, at least enough to make a watch that'll run for more than an hour or two.

I also think it's fruitless to ask such a tiny interface to do a lot of things. I can do quite a bit with my AW, yes, but some things (like typing on a forum) just ain't gonna happen.

 

[SHNXX]

The people complaining about the lack of GPS are not the same who are complaining about battery life. But if it helps you to combine them, then go for it.

that may be true for the most part, although i'd contend that there is probably significant overlap among the two groups.
there is also another group, who wants a thinner watch, which again goes against the wishes of the two groups above.

so in the end, there is no product that can satisfy all three contingents and if one were to sacrifice one of the above, there are existing non-apple watches out there (e.g. thin, no features - quartz; thick, with 3G/GPS, short battery life- last gen samsung; thick, with GPS, a little longer battery life- garmins).

 

[OllyW]

that may be true for the most part, although i'd contend that there is probably significant overlap among the two groups.
there is also another group, who wants a thinner watch, which again goes against the wishes of the two groups above.

so in the end, there is no product that can satisfy all three contingents and if one were to sacrifice one of the above, there are existing non-apple watches out there (e.g. thin, no features - quartz; thick, with 3G/GPS, short battery life- last gen samsung; thick, with GPS, a little longer battery life- garmins).

People on here are used to the iPhone, a mature product which has been carefully perfected over the years so it is loaded with features, powerful, thin and still able to pack decent battery life. the Apple Watch is still at the infant stage and will take years of development until it is finely honed into a product which ticks off more of the boxes on their wish lists.

 

[SHNXX]

People on here are used to the iPhone, a mature product which has been carefully perfected over the years so it is loaded with features, powerful, thin and still able to pack decent battery life. the Apple Watch is still at the infant stage and will take years of development until it is finely honed into a product which ticks off more of the boxes on their wish lists.

yeah and the iphone is also physically much bigger.
apple and any other decent electronics company could make a smart "watch" that is 4x2 inches with all the features that those people ask for, but that wouldn't look good on a wrist.

people have to be more realistic with their wishes and not wish for something that laws of physics and chemistry prevent (current battery technology, size).

 

[Mac 128]

yeah and the iphone is also physically much bigger.
apple and any other decent electronics company could make a smart "watch" that is 4x2 inches with all the features that those people ask for, but that wouldn't look good on a wrist.

people have to be more realistic with their wishes and not wish for something that laws of physics and chemistry prevent (current battery technology, size).

Or Apple could be more realistic and offer more than a one-size-fits all approach to a mass produced product that by even conservative estimations has sold over 8 million watches. Traditional watchmakers do pretty well selling different models with different features to different customers without coming close to those sales numbers. For instance, Apple could offer a true "Sports" model, rather than just appropriating a the term as a euphemism for 'cheap', and include GPS, and an IPX8 water resistance rating. It might actually cost more than the stainless. It might be thicker too. And then offer a thinner watch style with less battery life. The 38mm already has less battery life than the 42mm, so this would be no different. And give the customer the ability to have an always on face, despite what it does to battery life. Just own up to the trade offs between the features. Jony Ive has already aknowledged that once people wear something they have the expectation of choice. So give it to them. Now that Apple has enabled multiple watch pairing to one device, the opportunity exists to sell multiple models to one customer, so now it's easy to have the right watch for the right activity.

 

[BarracksSi]

For instance, Apple could offer a true "Sports" model, rather than just appropriating a the term as a euphemism for 'cheap', and include GPS, and an IPX8 water resistance rating. It might actually cost more than the stainless.

IPX8 would be cool, but I don't like the idea of having GPS only in one model. It'd be more of a headache for developers, and I think owners of non-GPS models would get annoyed, too.

I already feel wary of 3D Touch in the new iPhones. It's the biggest hardware-enabled UI change in years (I'd argue that it's the biggest change since the original iPhone), and I like it, but I also wonder if devs are still figuring out what to enable without leaving previous hardware in the dust.

 

[SHNXX]

Or Apple could be more realistic and offer more than a one-size-fits all approach to a mass produced product that by even conservative estimations has sold over 8 million watches. Traditional watchmakers do pretty well selling different models with different features to different customers without coming close to those sales numbers. For instance, Apple could offer a true "Sports" model, rather than just appropriating a the term as a euphemism for 'cheap', and include GPS, and an IPX8 water resistance rating. It might actually cost more than the stainless. It might be thicker too. And then offer a thinner watch style with less battery life. The 38mm already has less battery life than the 42mm, so this would be no different. And give the customer the ability to have an always on face, despite what it does to battery life. Just own up to the trade offs between the features. Jony Ive has already aknowledged that once people wear something they have the expectation of choice. So give it to them. Now that Apple has enabled multiple watch pairing to one device, the opportunity exists to sell multiple models to one customer, so now it's easy to have the right watch for the right activity.

Apple already has a pretty wide product lineup so I'm not sure if further diversification will help the company. It's reminiscent of how Apple's product lineup looked before Jobs returned.
I suppose things are completely different now, because Apple is the world's biggest company, so perhaps a diversified product lineup is appropriate, but I still think a "true" sports watch that sports GPS and another one that doesn't would be confusing.
Furthermore, while sports uses do perhaps appeal to the general public, GPS function inside of the sport watch is probably a niche market.
What percentage of people in America want to jog outside? I would guess that, compared to the percentage of people who do some form of exercise, this is probably a very small number (would love to know what the trueh number is though).
Apple being the behemoth of a company it is, probably isn't interested in a separate category for such a niche market, unless that niche market sets an aspirational tone for the brand, as the Apple Watch Edition does.