'Apple Watch 2016' Listed on Apple Store?

[cambookpro]

Hi,

Sorry if this has been posted already, or it's been like it for a while, I can't say I've checked before. However when browsing Apple Watch models on Apple's website, a few seem to be listed as 'Apple Watch 2016'. They seem to be one which are bundled with bands announced at the March event this year, so maybe it is just in reference to that, but in any case I thought it was interesting as have never seen Apple refer to it as that before.

May mean we don't see an 'AW2' Wednesday, but a more subtle differentiation between the naming of models?

Again, it may have been like that already, so apologies if so, just struck me as odd.

 

[Brookzy]

Wow. Same thing shows here. But only on that white Leather Loop model. I'm surprised this isn't on the front page...

Entirely feasible that on Wednesday we could see a new Apple Watch that will be released next year, and have "Apple Watch 2016" and "Apple Watch 2017".

 

[cambookpro]

Wow. Same thing shows here. But only on that white Leather Loop model. I'm surprised this isn't on the front page...

Entirely feasible that on Wednesday we could see a new Apple Watch that will be released next year, and have "Apple Watch 2016" and "Apple Watch 2017".

A couple of Edition watches show 'Apple Watch 2015', too. It's not on every model so it's either something that's slipped through the net or something completely unrelated.

 

[NauCayuti]

In the German Apple Store, I see that not only for the White Leather Loop model but a couple of the SS models denoted as "New" (e.g. the 38mm Marigold Modern Buckle).

May mean we don't see an 'AW2' Wednesday, but a more subtle differentiation between the naming of models?

I don't see how this "2016" label could be more than an inconsistent designation for the models introduced in March.

Wow. Same thing shows here. But only on that white Leather Loop model. I'm surprised this isn't on the front page...

Entirely feasible that on Wednesday we could see a new Apple Watch that will be released next year, and have "Apple Watch 2016" and "Apple Watch 2017".

That strikes as a very inelegant way to refer to the models, and very untypical for Apple.

Announcing the AW1 half a year before the release could be pulled of because of the hype and novelty. The incremental update that the leaks indicate wouldn't really be fit for that, don't you think?

 

[0003462]

In the German Apple Store, I see that not only for the White Leather Loop model but a couple of the SS models denoted as "New" (e.g. the 38mm Marigold Modern Buckle).



I don't see how this "2016" label could be more than an inconsistent designation for the models introduced in March.



That strikes as a very inelegant way to refer to the models, and very untypical for Apple.

Announcing the AW1 half a year before the release could be pulled of because of the hype and novelty. The incremental update that the leaks indicate wouldn't really be fit for that, don't you think?

Inelegant or fashionable?

I've been surprised Apple hasn't highlighted/branded new band colours as Spring and Winter etc collections. Putting the year in there seems appropriate for the Watch.

I also notice they're keeping away from putting the '3' after watchOS on the preview pages. They don't want this to be seen as a wrist computer so much.

 

[NauCayuti]

I've been surprised Apple hasn't highlighted/branded new band colours as Spring and Winter etc collections. Putting the year in there seems appropriate for the Watch.

For new band collections it seems very appropriate, that's true. What I replied to was the idea that new AW themselves would be referred to by the year, as Brookzy suggested.

 

[Thai]

For new band collections it seems very appropriate, that's true. What I replied to was the idea that new AW themselves would be referred to by the year, as Brookzy suggested.

Don't they do that with Macs?

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

They seem to be one which are bundled with bands announced at the March event this year, so maybe it is just in reference to that, but in any case I thought it was interesting as have never seen Apple refer to it as that before.

So this suggests that they're the AW1 models introduced in March 2016 (as the AW1 collection was refreshed twice already) rather than a reference to the potential naming system we'll get with the updated AW2 body.

 

[44267547]

Interesting. Definitely leaning towards a new Apple Watch being released.

 

[Arran]

I've been wondering if Apple's intent is to have the old models come to be thought of as desirable as opposed to disposable. History, heritage, durability and all that stuff that fuels the traditional watch industry.

So in the year 2030, it will be regarded as uber-cool to have a working 2016 model in your collection. Just like vintage watches now.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I've been wondering if Apple's intent is to have the old models come to be thought of as desirable as opposed to disposable. History, heritage, durability and all that stuff that fuels the traditional watch industry.

So in the year 2030, it will be regarded as uber-cool to have a working 2016 model in your collection. Just like vintage watches now.

It wouldn't be any different from Macs, which are numbered the same way (by year). All tech items are pretty much disposable so we're most certainly not going to have a working vintage AW in the same sense as a working vintage mechanical watch. If anything, they'd be like working vintage Macs.

 

[Arran]

It wouldn't be any different from Macs, which are numbered the same way (by year). All tech items are pretty much disposable so we're most certainly not going to have a working vintage AW in the same sense as a working vintage mechanical watch. If anything, they'd be like working vintage Macs.

I'm not so sure. It'll cost a lot of money to proudly wear a working 2014 watch in the year 2030. And (rightly or wrongly) hasn't that been a major factor in driving the traditional high-end watch market? Exclusivity (or "snob-appeal" if you want to be brutally frank about it)

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I'm not so sure. It'll cost a lot of money to proudly wear a working 2014 watch in the year 2030. And (rightly or wrongly) hasn't that been a major factor in driving the traditional high-end watch market? Exclusivity (or "snob-appeal" if you want to be brutally frank about it)

You mean mechanicals? The AW wouldn't be any different from the iPhone, and it'd be useless as I'm sure it won't be compatible with a 2030 iPhone, if there will be such a thing.

 

[Arran]

You mean mechanicals? The AW wouldn't be any different from the iPhone, and it'd be useless as I'm sure it won't be compatible with a 2030 iPhone, if there will be such a thing.

I don't see why it should be useless.

Vinyl made a comeback despite it's inferiority. Valve amplifiers made a very high-end comeback despite the obvious challenges. 35mm celluloid film still has its adherents and new disciples.

It's almost like the harder it is to have something, the more desirable it becomes. Again, exclusivity.

High-end watches, - like many things you wear - have always been emotional purchases. If we were all being purely rational about it, we'd all be wearing $5 Casios.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I don't see why it should be useless.

Vinyl made a comeback despite it's inferiority. Valve amplifiers made a very high-end comeback despite the obvious challenges. 35mm celluloid film still has its adherents and new disciples.

It's almost like the harder it is to have something, the more desirable it becomes. Again, exclusivity.

High-end watches, - like many things you wear - have always been emotional purchases. If we were all being purely rational about it, we'd all be wearing $5 Casios.

Like I said, it'd be as useful as a vintage Mac, which means useless if you wanted to do anything (e.g., get any work done) by 2030's standard. You'd also need a working vintage iPhone to do anything with it in the year 2030. Otherwise, it becomes nothing more than a dumbwatch.