Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think everyone that really wanted a Watch, got theirs and won't enter a yearly upgrade cycle like many do (me included) with the iPhone.
That's it, and I don't think Apple is making the apple watch 2 for us. They're (just speculating here) trying to create a product in the second iteration to entice even more people to buy it, those that turned their noses up at the first version.
 
Not only does the Apple Watch lack "killer" features, it also lacks "killer" apps. Developers have to strip their apps way down for the interface and the specs of the watch, so what you're left with is a tiny subset of otherwise great applications. I see the Apple Watch as having the same problem as the Apple TV - some things just don't translate well to a watch or television set.
 
They're (just speculating here) trying to create a product in the second iteration to entice even more people to buy it, those that turned their noses up at the first version.
That's me then. ;)

The iPhone and iPad both only really took off once their second generation models were released so I'm hoping the 2nd gen Watch brings big improvements.
 
I understand the bands are "super high quality" and maybe worth it to some people I feel that Apple stepped a little bit above their target customers on some of these bands. Look at Amazon and how many bands they are selling at $30-$80. I feel that price point makes more sense. Also Apple should release a statement saying for the next five years or so all bands you buy will work. (That won't happen)

Yes, and there is a big difference between Apple Watch and "normal" watch brands.

With a normal watch you don't have to worry about the cost as much since the watch will probably be used for 5-25 years..

Very few will have the gen1 apple watch going in 2035..
For most people it´s probably dead in 2017..
Is it a $500/year cost for nice AW-bands or will they continue to fit future models?

Is it $500 or $5000 for 10 years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
I know one person with an Apple Watch so far. I'm watching him closely and asking him about it, but it's not seeming particularly useful to me.

I know many with the watch, including myself. All are very happy with it, wear it daily, and find it very useful.

BTW, how are you watching your person with the watch closely and what are you asking him about it? I mean, is this a daily or weekly event/task that you participate in? Seems odd to me.
 
I know apple has been quiet with the numbers which some people are concluding that the numbers are not as stellar as Apple had hoped for. Yet with that said, they have eaten up a large portion of the marketshare.

I suspect (my totally uneducated and unscientific opinion) that apple might have misjudged the market for smart watches, and partly caused expectations to be out of line to what was actually delivered.

I'm happy with my apple watch, but I can't see buying another one for a while. Its a nice luxury item, but unlike a phone or a computer, it cannot be construed as a must have device.

On the contrary. Apple absolutely knew it was going into relatively unchartered waters and is why from the start it announced it would tippy toed in on financial reporting. It's why they remain coy about sales and never announced sales expectations, actual sales numbers, and bundled revenue with accessories in an "other" category. My guess is that sales have met unambitious expectations, but too tiny a number for Apple to broadcast. When TC says Apple won't announce sales numbers for "competitive reasons," its that such numbers would freak out the stock market and stock options is one of the key baits used to gain and keep talent.

As for marketshare, even if we knew how sales among all companies stacked up, it's really a meaningless # at this point because the category is still finding itself. For example what is a smartwatch? Does it include stand-alone fitness trackers? Sports watches that have apps and smartphone connectivity? Or is it something distinct from those products because they are more broad featured? And if Fitbit is a smartwatch maker, it beat sales last Q, so the AW has not stolen their marketshare at least.
 
Not only does the Apple Watch lack "killer" features, it also lacks "killer" apps. Developers have to strip their apps way down for the interface and the specs of the watch, so what you're left with is a tiny subset of otherwise great applications. I see the Apple Watch as having the same problem as the Apple TV - some things just don't translate well to a watch or television set.

A Watch app should do one thing. The Uber app hails a car to your current location. That's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: centauratlas
A Watch app should do one thing. The Uber app hails a car to your current location. That's it.
I agree. Why would I want to spend minutes or hours staring at my wrist? Surely that's what the phone is for?

The watch always needed to be used for quick interactions that you want to do without pulling the phone out.

A couple of features I feel are missing from the watch are the ability to see your phone battery and phone signal (and data connection)

I know you can get your phone battery through TP apps but phone signal doesn't seem to be available anywhere.

I would find the signal really useful especially on the commute to work and wondering why my music stops streaming (is it signal or something else) or even just checking to see if there enough signal to iMessage the wife.
 
Great article on the Apple Watch for all the doomsayers:
http://qz.com/602038/watching-apples-first-quarter-what-products-still-have-room-to-grow/

According to reliable estimates, Apple has sold about 12 million watches since the device started shipping in late March 2015. That’s $6 billion in six months, compared to the $20 billion of the entire Swiss industry in eleven.

Another comparison point is iPhone revenue in its early years.

In fiscal 2007, when it had been shipping for only three months, the new phone scored a barely significant $123 million in revenue. For its first full year (fiscal 2008), iPhone revenue rose to $1.8 billion, and then on to $6.75 billion in fiscal 2009. Looking at the estimated $3 billion for the first quarter of fiscal 2016, the Apple Watch could double the iPhone’s 2009 number.
 
Will we finally see a decent smart watch that has a round case without the "flat tire" nonsense?

The most disappointing smart watch thus far has to be the Moto 360. Such a gorgeous looking smart watch, only to be ruined by limited features and its horrible looking flat tire screen.

The Apple Watch is so ugly that I can't even bring myself to care about it yet.

In all honesty, I don't understand why people are buying these things already. Smart watches just aren't worth their $300+ price tag yet.

Thankfully, I do not rely on you for advice on aesthetics or value. I'm sure we're gratified to know that the Apple Watch does not meet your impeccable taste or price point, but I must beg to differ.
[doublepost=1453834783][/doublepost]
Apple Watch is not a bad watch, as far as first generation products go, but Apple have generally failed to persuade the market that this product is comparable to high-priced jewellery. As a result, the outrageous price of Apple Watch bands is not sustainable.

And just how big is the market for high-priced jewelry?

You seem to be lumping the Sport version in with high-end Apple Watch edition. Same internals, same software, the only difference is ... high-priced jewelry.
 
Two updates in a single year? That doesn't seem like a great plan...

People were already worried about how the Watches would quickly lose their status as latest and greatest when they thought updates would only come once a year. Updating twice a year will only make people more hesitant to ever buy a non-Sport model, I think.

I know one person with an Apple Watch so far. I'm watching him closely and asking him about it, but it's not seeming particularly useful to me.

The Apple Watch was released in stores on April 2015. That's not twice in a single year.

We've also seen slightly shortened release cycles with some other Apple products from the first release to second, before falling into a more normal release schedule.
[doublepost=1453835138][/doublepost]
I understand the bands are "super high quality" and maybe worth it to some people I feel that Apple stepped a little bit above their target customers on some of these bands. Look at Amazon and how many bands they are selling at $30-$80. I feel that price point makes more sense. Also Apple should release a statement saying for the next five years or so all bands you buy will work. (That won't happen)

You obviously have never looked at the watch market. Their bands are on-par with all the other bands out there.

Yes Amazon offers sub-$100 bands. Look at the reviews. They generally fall apart after a month or two, aren't nearly the same quality (lots of cheap leather and cheap metals), and the kit isn't nearly as good. Most of the positive reviews are from those that have had the product less than a week and haven't seen much wear on it.

I wish the knockoff bands were the same quality as the Apple offering. I'd buy them in a heartbeat. You get what you pay for, and that's a problem.
 
The Link Bracelet is in a different league to the Hugo Boss one that broke. If Boss can charge £150 for their average stainless steel bracelet. Apple can charge more - £379 still seems steep but in the watch market it's about par for what you're getting.

Basically pricing in the entire watch market is ludicrous... which is probably why Apple (not to mention other tech companies) was so interested in the space.

One can legitimately argue that Apple is offering more value than most other premium watch brands without contradicting the basic idea that premium watches as a whole are overpriced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Except they can, and do.

And when as much care and attention is put into the design, materials & production, as Apple have done with Apple Watch, there's no difference between them - in this respect - and an established "fashion brand".

And plenty of their customers by a base mode, and ignore their expensive add ons. Personally, my Apple Watch strap, which was a stainless steel link bracelet cost $35, but there was no way I was going to pay MORE than the cost of a second watch for the Apple version of the same thing.
[doublepost=1453836421][/doublepost]
I wish the knockoff bands were the same quality as the Apple offering. I'd buy them in a heartbeat. You get what you pay for, and that's a problem.
I bought one of these "knockoff bands" as you call them, it cost $35, and the quality was superb. I've never had any problems with it at all, and it's been on the watch almost non-stop since I first bought it.
 
The Apple Watch was released in stores on April 2015. That's not twice in a single year.

We've also seen slightly shortened release cycles with some other Apple products from the first release to second, before falling into a more normal release schedule.

He was referring to the original article where it said:
Recent rumors point to the possibility of an interim update for the Apple Watch in March, including only one or two new features (like a FaceTime camera), and with a proper full 2.0 model released later in the year.
 
Why take longer and longer to make the Apple Watch 2? Apple might be better off with a full fledged update that is out earlier.
 
He was referring to the original article where it said:
Recent rumors point to the possibility of an interim update for the Apple Watch in March, including only one or two new features (like a FaceTime camera), and with a proper full 2.0 model released later in the year.
That's doubtful. They might come out with new bands, or perhaps a partnership (similar to the Hermes deal).
 
That's doubtful. They might come out with new bands, or perhaps a partnership (similar to the Hermes deal).

I agree, but was pointing out to the guy who said "The Apple Watch was released in stores on April 2015. That's not twice in a single year" what the MacRumors article stated at the bottom of the article.
 
I know many with the watch, including myself. All are very happy with it, wear it daily, and find it very useful.

BTW, how are you watching your person with the watch closely and what are you asking him about it? I mean, is this a daily or weekly event/task that you participate in? Seems odd to me.

He's a coworker. We sit together for lunch most days. I watch him use it during lunch + sometimes in his cubical. I ask him about it, IE, whether he likes it, if he finds it indispensable, useful, etc. Basically what I hear for answers are "It's a watch. I was given it as a gift. I wouldn't buy a replacement myself, but I'll go through the effort of putting it on each day. I like the passive fitness tracking."

I have next to no interest in the fitness aspect. Given he wouldn't buy himself one, even now that he has it, I'm really not thinking this is a particularly useful product.

Maybe generation 2 or 3 will be worth getting, but it doesn't seem like this one is.
[doublepost=1453840772][/doublepost]
The Apple Watch was released in stores on April 2015. That's not twice in a single year.

I've quoted the article below for you, since you seem incapable of reading it for yourself.

Recent rumors point to the possibility of an interim update for the Apple Watch in March, including only one or two new features (like a FaceTime camera), and with a proper full 2.0 model released later in the year.

Before the end of the year, we'll have seen 3 models released over the course of just 20, maybe fewer, months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
He was referring to the original article where it said:
Recent rumors point to the possibility of an interim update for the Apple Watch in March, including only one or two new features (like a FaceTime camera), and with a proper full 2.0 model released later in the year.
oh wow was that always in the article??? Totally missed that. No way could I ever see that happening. Maybe new bands/colors in the spring, but no real update (unless that is the only update in the year).
 
I beg to differ. What exactly does a QUARTZ Cartier watch (or any designer watch) that costs thousands of dollars have over an Apple watch. Branding? Well, I hold Apple in higher regard than any quartz watch. And there is a significant amount of engineering that makes the bands easy to remove and change. Something no other watch maker has done in the past with the exception of Panerai and you still need a tool. Lastly, check out eBay - Omega and Rolex bands go for $500 and up.

It seems Apple's marketing and pricing genii are finally waking up to the fact that people still do possess common sense.

The watch itself is way overpriced. Especially the two higher editions. Then it's the bracelets: You can't release a $450 link bracelet. $450!!! You're not Cartier, mate, or another well-established fashion brand. It's electronics you sell. That's sheer theft, when a decent third-party equivalent (from a respected vendor) costs $50-60. Or you can't charge $150-250 for the other "premium" bracelets.

Hopefully this year Apple will:
- apply a more reasonable pricing model to the Watch and its bracelets
- give it a much needed battery boost. Other smartwear can last two days or more, which a) makes them practical for sleep tracking and most importantly, b) makes them forgiving in case you forget to charge them overnight. Not so the  Watch. You forgot to charge it overnight, it very likely stays at home for the day.
 
I'd be more interested if it were a little more independent from the iPhone, like able to text/call on its own, but I'm guessing it's not possible or they make more money this way.

I still don't get the point of having something that does half of what a smartphone does and still requires me to have my phone in my pocket, and is kind of odd to wear on top of that. I know some people think watches are status/fashions symbols, but I can honestly say it's probably been ten years since I've seen someone my age or younger wearing a watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
That's it, and I don't think Apple is making the apple watch 2 for us. They're (just speculating here) trying to create a product in the second iteration to entice even more people to buy it, those that turned their noses up at the first version.

Bingo. I don't know what would entice me to buy a new Watch in 2016. Camera and less need for the iPhone doesn't do it for me.

I love my Watch, but it'd have to be a huge change for me to even consider it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.