That class of "wannabe" might not want to be seen with a watch that "only" costs $17k. OTOH, in Silicon Valley, billionaires have been seen driving non-extraordinary Toyota/Ford/Mercedes sedans. They likely have lots of options that are more far more expensive, but don't need to be seen with such.
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 Watch Beats Original iPhone and iPad in Customer Satisfaction Among Early Adopters
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That class of "wannabe" might not want to be seen with a watch that "only" costs $17k. OTOH, in Silicon Valley, billionaires have been seen driving non-extraordinary Toyota/Ford/Mercedes sedans. They likely have lots of options that are more far more expensive, but don't need to be seen with such.
This survey is pretty funny. They've equated "somewhat satisfied" to "satisfied", when in fact it also means "somewhat unsatisfied" by definition. I wonder why they felt compelled to do this, and what other liberties they took in this small survey.
By the way, apparently they have a job opening for a "co-founder": https://angel.co/wristly
This article should have been titled: Some guy incorporates, manipulates metrics to show extreme user satisfaction of a product that has otherwise been lukewarm at best.
By the way, apparently they have a job opening for a "co-founder": https://angel.co/wristly
This article should have been titled: Some guy incorporates, manipulates metrics to show extreme user satisfaction of a product that has otherwise been lukewarm at best.
It would make more sense if they just compared the very satisfied/delighted boxes for each product. Since when is 'somewhat satisfied' a good review for such an expensive product?
I find it hilarious that the New York Times is using Facebook as the barometer of success for the Watch. And of course because it's the New York Times every other click bait website out there is running with it. So this week for the concern trolls the meme is the Watch has an app problem because Facebook and Instagram aren't on ir. The same Facebook that took forever to bring a universal app to iOS, still doesn't support continuity or native share sheets. The same Facebook that once said iPad wasn't considered mobile. The same Facebook that can't even be bothered to release an Instagram app for iPad. Yep they're the ones that define whether the Watch is a success or not (at least this week anyway).
I'm waiting for the real numbers. The revenue and the actual sales numbers. If folk buy it and it has real value, they keep it and recommend it. If it has little value, it doesn't get used, it doesn't get recommended and very soon, they are available all over eBay et al.
Well he certainly didn't say that when the iMac came out. I think he called both the mouse and keyboard the best designed ever.
There is a keynote when after a year he was making fun of the mouse and is when he mentioned the new optical mouse (usb) would be standard in every mac.
I knew the bored idiots/haters had to go somewhere when The Verge closed the article comments section. Browsing this thread, I know where they went. I think I need to take a long break from the macrumors forums.
Had mine for 3 days and am loving it . . . one has to "dig into" the apps and really become familiar with its uses . . . kind of like the first iPhone. I pull my iPhone out of my "holster" MUCH less than before and I am still in the beginning/exploratory stage. Do I "need" it? No. Is its useful, does it save time, etc.? Absolutely . . . yes! That being said, as the current iteration of the watch is a complement to and dependent on the iPhone, not sure about the actual validity of the study, i.e. whether the responses are heavily influenced by the respondents' "like" for the iPhone itself.
It's pretty obvious why, people who bought into it are Apple fans and have lots of disposable income. They knew what they were getting and are satisfied with what the Watch does, it's basically fashion.
The iPad and iPhone have a much broader appeal, everyone has a mobile and since they're subsidized everyone most likely bought an iPhone on contract. The first gen iPhone was crap, there were way better devices out there and it wasn't until the iPhone 4 that the iPhone really took off. The iPad however was seen as this Laptop replacement and they could be subsidized too, I know lots of normal people who just got one and were disappointed when they realised that the iPad is just a bigger iPhone.
So the Watch stands a better chance of being more well received as it's appeal is only to people who know what they're getting and are Apple fans.
The iPad and iPhone have a much broader appeal, everyone has a mobile and since they're subsidized everyone most likely bought an iPhone on contract. The first gen iPhone was crap, there were way better devices out there and it wasn't until the iPhone 4 that the iPhone really took off. The iPad however was seen as this Laptop replacement and they could be subsidized too, I know lots of normal people who just got one and were disappointed when they realised that the iPad is just a bigger iPhone.
So the Watch stands a better chance of being more well received as it's appeal is only to people who know what they're getting and are Apple fans.
Good grief. How embarrassing for the Times. Stories like that make me go, Why don't these people just sit down and THINK?
If the Apple Watch is doomed to failure it'll because, as the iPad is just a big iPod touch, the watch is just a small iPod touch. Top of that, the watch does what my phone already can do, as does the iPad already does what my phone and netbook can do. These are the metrics that the watch should be measured by.
But most sales are driven by people who have found a product that fulfills their needs and desires. Apple never expected the watch to have the appeal of over products. It's a very successful product.
When you can take calls, listen to music, buy things, and have text conversations via your non-smart watch, you can compare them. Right now you just sound clueless.
Last edited:
That's not true. I know that because my husband bought me one at launch and I didn't own a Mac until 3 years ago.
I did provide that link, and an excerpt from that interview, in the same post you quoted and bolded.
The First iPod 'effectively' did. While not a Mac per se, it required Firewire connectivity. It wasn't until the 3rd generation iPod I believe that USB was an option.
I'm not sure that's true either. I don't recall my Dell desktop having FireWire... Either way, a Mac was neither required nor "effectively" required to use the first iPod.
Than you likely had a newer iPod than you're referencing:
its a matter of history here. The first Generation iPod did not support USB. it was not till the 3rd generation did Apple include USB support.
now, you might have been lucky and had a non-apple computer that had a firewire port. There were a few, and Dell DID make some (I had one too).
However, Standard PC hardware, did not include firewire by default. It was not an exclusivity to Apple thing, However, Firewire did not see mass adoption in the computer industry. Many computers that did end up with Firewire, had them in the way of Add-on PCI boards.
This.
I cannot stress this point enough with anyone about anything.
99% of the opinions we read are dedicated tech users. 99% of the people actually USING the product aren't.
This applies to everything tech, not just Apple.
Um, no, I DID have the very first iPod, purchased at launch, and I used it with a Dell desktop for the entirety of the time I owned it, which was quite a while, because I hated iTunes so I never bought a later model (the first iPod did not require iTunes - I don't think iTunes existed when it launched - it synced with Musicmatch). I'd bet it's around here somewhere; maybe later I'll post a picture if I can find it.
It's possible my Dell had FireWire, or that I bought a card for it. Like I said, I don't recall. But like I said repeatedly, it did not require a Mac. So you can stop claiming your statement was correct any time now, since you have "effectively" already admitted you were wrong.
Last edited:
Where are you getting this???
The original iPod DEFINITELY started out Mac only. This is common knowledge. There's even a well known story of it being shown to Bill Gates in prototype form, him marveling over it, & then being told: "it requires a Mac".
iTunes soon after came out for PC, but on launch... iPod was Mac only.