Apple Watch Gets Another Competitor in the Android-Based LG Watch Urbane

[kds1]

It's well made and attractive, but I wouldn't call it expensive. A $100,000 TV is expensive. An $80,000 Cadillac Escalade is expensive. An iPhone on contract for $199-299 or a $349.00 watch (likely by far their best seller) is not expensive. That's all I am saying. I don't fool myself when it comes to luxury. If I can afford it on my lower middle class salary it's not luxury.

I think we just define luxury a little different, but I can't say carrying my Apple stuff around with me has ever made me feel wealthy.

Apple is expensive. Even on contract, you're just paying for the full cost of the phone over time.

And we are not just talking phones here. What gave you or anyone else that perception? In my original post I mentioned all Apple hardware, including Macs. Macs are much more expensive than commodity PC's.

It's also not about whether it makes you feel rich or not.

I also said "high end". I said one "might" even say luxury (in perception). In typical MacRumors Forum style, my original post has been pared down to "Phones and Luxury", rather than the brand in general.

 

[MacModMachine]

They barely make a phone.

depends if you looking for a phone to do work with or play.

work phones , yes blackberry makes the best phone.


have fun controlling assets with apple devices.

 

[nagromme]

Are you kidding me, have you even seen one? It has the best display for a watch with deep blacks, great colours and viewing angles and it is by no means "low DPI" if you even have an idea what that means...

Not kidding at all. I HAVE seen that resolution, and pixels DO show.

LG's 245 DPI is lower res than an iPad's 264 dpi! An iPad looks fine at tablet distance, but hold it up close like a watch? Try it. Pixels and blurriness.

The Apple Watch has around 335 PPI.

Another comparison: this LG watch has 80,425 pixels (because it's round). The two Apple Watch sizes have 121,680 and 92,480 pixels (those numbers are confirmed, PPI is calculated from there).

I'm glad you like your LG watch, and if it works well in sunlight, then I hope Apple uses similar or better tech. But we KNOW they're using better resolution and greater screen area.

 

[winston1236]

The amount of anti-apple in here, lol.

It's not anti Apple. I love their computers. Its anti fanboysim, not all of us look at consumer electronics as a team sport.

 

[daveathall]

It's well made and attractive, but I wouldn't call it expensive. A $100,000 TV is expensive. An $80,000 Cadillac Escalade is expensive. An iPhone on contract for $199-299 or a $349.00 watch (likely by far their best seller) is not expensive. That's all I am saying. I don't fool myself when it comes to luxury. If I can afford it on my lower middle class salary it's not luxury.

I think we just define luxury a little different, but I can't say carrying my Apple stuff around with me has ever made me feel wealthy.

You are absolutely correct in all you have said, I agree, the only time an Apple product can be classed as luxury is if it is in a Louis Vuitton case.Try getting any luxury brand on contract, you can't, their
clientele don't pay by credit.

 

[samcraig]

They are probably excited for a product from a company with a history of great products. Reserving judgement until I actually see it myself

You're reserving judgement. Doesn't seem that way since you're already positioning Apple's product as superior.

 

[deconstruct60]

Wrong, everyone else is following Apple. WSJ announced THREE YEARS ago that Apple was working on a wearable and everyone tried to rush manufacturer their own.

There were already players 3 years ago. A couple of examples.

Pebble was in Kickstarter in April 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_(watch)#Development

Motorola Motoactv was on the market in 2011 [ Which means the R&D substantially preceded that. Recent interview with Ive suggests that Apple was just getting ready close to Jobs death mid-late 2011 ]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoactv

There are others if bother to look.


No, the technology isn't the same, but the real products were on real people's wrists was in flight long before Apple "touched" the idea.

 

[A MacBook lover]

You're reserving judgement. Doesn't seem that way since you're already positioning Apple's product as superior.

It's more of a hunch, the cards seem stacked. Apple just makes better products

 

[samcraig]

It's more of a hunch, the cards seem stacked. Apple just makes better products

Subjective. Don't you think?

ETA - besides - in this case - it doesn't really matter. You can't use Android Wear with iOS and you can't use an Apple Watch with Android. So really - they aren't even competing for which is "better"

I'm not convinced someone will buy a phone based on which watch they want.

 

[rjlawrencejr]

You are absolutely correct in all you have said, I agree, the only time an Apple product can be classed as luxury is if it is in a Louis Vuitton case.Try getting any luxury brand on contract, you can't, their
clientele don't pay by credit.

I think it depends on the item. People finance luxury cars all the time. But I understand the point you're trying to make.

 

[kds1]

You are absolutely correct in all you have said, I agree, the only time an Apple product can be classed as luxury is if it is in a Louis Vuitton case.Try getting any luxury brand on contract, you can't, their
clientele don't pay by credit.

Sure they do. They use their Black Card. Let's not be flippant.

 

[deputy_doofy]

Everyone else rushed out half-baked "F1RST" smart watch attempts after Apple's smart watch plans leaked as rumors. They failed to deliver much, while Apple's head start is about to release a more powerful and well-planned package.

It depends what you find to be the most useful and meaningful definition of "following."

Sales numbers and comparative reviews will be interesting.

This. Watch rumors were flying for a while, so Samsung did their "ME FIRST!!!1111" That surely doesn't make Apple the follower. Doesn't necessarily make them the leader, either.

Argument aside, we'll let the sales numbers do the talking for success or failure.

I never get tired of pointing out Apple fanatics and critics alike with this old post. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-new-thing-ipod.500/

 

[DakotaGuy]

Apple is expensive. Even on contract, you're just paying for the full cost of the phone over time.

And we are not just talking phones here. What gave you or anyone else that perception? In my original post I mentioned all Apple hardware, including Macs. Macs are much more expensive than commodity PC's.

It's also not about whether it makes you feel rich or not.

I also said "high end". I said one "might" even say luxury (in perception). In typical MacRumors Forum style, my original post has been pared down to "Phones and Luxury", rather than the brand in general.

Funny thing is the retail price of the iPhone was about the same as my LG G3 at the time. So I guess if iPhones are "expensive" so are all of the Android flagships.

It is a true statement that Macs are "more expensive" then a budget commodity PC, but once again it's still not a luxury item. I know many people that own Macs and they are far from wealthy.

All I am saying is that most Apple products are affordable for most people. If they were not do you honestly think Apple would be selling this stuff by the millions and millions? I'm not sure if your wealthy or not, but I see all sorts of people owning Apple stuff when they could not afford true luxury items.

Like I said before, if you feel Apple is truly high end "luxury" and the thought of that makes you happy then by all means your free to that opinion. I know you keep saying it's not about that, but you argue your point so hard that I can't see how this isn't a personal belief of yours.

 

[amro]

There were already players 3 years ago. A couple of examples.

Pebble was in Kickstarter in April 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_(watch)#Development

Motorola Motoactv was on the market in 2011 [ Which means the R&D substantially preceded that. Recent interview with Ive suggests that Apple was just getting ready close to Jobs death mid-late 2011 ]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoactv

There are others if bother to look.


No, the technology isn't the same, but the real products were on real people's wrists was in flight long before Apple "touched" the idea.

You're both wrong:

 

[StyxMaker]

Here's an Apple Kool-Aid test. Can you admit that this looks more attractive than the Apple Watch? No? You're an Apple Kool-Aid drinker!

'Attractive' is extremely subjective. For that reason your claim to it being a test is ridicules.

----------

What you wear communicates something about yourself to the world. In the middle class you get to choose many aspects of what you wear, so it's even more revealing. Choosing a large, ugly smart watch built to a feature list says something about it wearer.



Now, I might wear such a watch anyway because I really want some feature, like notifications, etc. But I'd be a little embarrassed about some of what it communicates to people about me.



I'd have to see this watch in real life -- some of these look a lot worse on a wrist than they do in person, but I don't think I'd object to what wearing this watch would communicate about myself.

You're far too worried about what other people think of your watches.

 

[deputy_doofy]

Apple is expensive. Even on contract, you're just paying for the full cost of the phone over time.

And we are not just talking phones here. What gave you or anyone else that perception? In my original post I mentioned all Apple hardware, including Macs. Macs are much more expensive than commodity PC's.

It's also not about whether it makes you feel rich or not.

I also said "high end". I said one "might" even say luxury (in perception). In typical MacRumors Forum style, my original post has been pared down to "Phones and Luxury", rather than the brand in general.

This is a fallacy.
iPhones range from $0 on up.
Android phones range from $0 on up.

The $0 iPhone will get you the latest OS (even if some bells or whistles are missing). And you'll get OS updates while the hardware can handle it.
The $0 Android phone may get you Android 4.x. Maybe. Or 3.x. Or 2.x. Possibly 5.x, but it probably can't even remotely handle it. It might get updates, but probably not. Most likely not. Unless you know how to root. Or know what a root is. Or know somebody who knows where to find some roots. "Who needs updates, anyway, you Apple iSheep?!"

The top tier iPhone will get you the latest OS and, of course, many updates.
The top tier Android phone may get you Android 4.x. Maybe. Or 3.x. Or 2.x. Possibly 5.x. It might get updates, but probably not. Most likely not. Unless you know how to root. Or know what a root is. Or know somebody who knows where to find some roots. "Who needs updates, anyway, you Apple iSheep?!"

No cost benefit to Android phones AT ALL, and you suffer the probability of not getting updates.

As for Macs, well, you will pay a bit more up front. But not really that much more, especially mid-tier. My son's MBA 1.4GHz i5 spanks the crap out of every cheap laptop out there. Quad-core Pentiums, Core i3s, and quad-core AMD whatevers... all feel like sluggish nonsense compared to the MBA. Yeah, the MBA ran me $800 (on sale), but I'd rather get it at full price than a cheap $200 - $400 Windows box that just can't remotely keep up.

The "Apple is expensive" argument is really a holdover from the 1990s. Next you'll tell me that Macs have no right click and there's no software to be found.

 

[kds1]

This is a fallacy.
iPhones range from $0 on up.
Android phones range from $0 on up.

The $0 iPhone will get you the latest OS (even if some bells or whistles are missing). And you'll get OS updates while the hardware can handle it.
The $0 Android phone may get you Android 4.x. Maybe. Or 3.x. Or 2.x. Possibly 5.x, but it probably can't even remotely handle it. It might get updates, but probably not. Most likely not. Unless you know how to root. Or know what a root is. Or know somebody who knows where to find some roots. "Who needs updates, anyway, you Apple iSheep?!"

The top tier iPhone will get you the latest OS and, of course, many updates.
The top tier Android phone may get you Android 4.x. Maybe. Or 3.x. Or 2.x. Possibly 5.x. It might get updates, but probably not. Most likely not. Unless you know how to root. Or know what a root is. Or know somebody who knows where to find some roots. "Who needs updates, anyway, you Apple iSheep?!"

No cost benefit to Android phones AT ALL, and you suffer the probability of not getting updates.

As for Macs, well, you will pay a bit more up front. But not really that much more, especially mid-tier. My son's MBA 1.4GHz i5 spanks the crap out of every cheap laptop out there. Quad-core Pentiums, Core i3s, and quad-core AMD whatevers... all feel like sluggish nonsense compared to the MBA. Yeah, the MBA ran me $800 (on sale), but I'd rather get it at full price than a cheap $200 - $400 Windows box that just can't remotely keep up.

The "Apple is expensive" argument is really a holdover from the 1990s. Next you'll tell me that Macs have no right click and there's no software to be found.

Yes, Macs are expensive. And what is the full retail price of an iPhone if you buy it outright up front, with no contract? Expensive. I'm not denigrating Macs for being expensive. You get what you pay for. But, the fact is, not fallacy, that Macs are more expensive vis-a-vis PC's.

----------

Funny thing is the retail price of the iPhone was about the same as my LG G3 at the time. So I guess if iPhones are "expensive" so are all of the Android flagships.

It is a true statement that Macs are "more expensive" then a budget commodity PC, but once again it's still not a luxury item. I know many people that own Macs and they are far from wealthy.

All I am saying is that most Apple products are affordable for most people. If they were not do you honestly think Apple would be selling this stuff by the millions and millions? I'm not sure if your wealthy or not, but I see all sorts of people owning Apple stuff when they could not afford true luxury items.

Like I said before, if you feel Apple is truly high end "luxury" and the thought of that makes you happy then by all means your free to that opinion. I know you keep saying it's not about that, but you argue your point so hard that I can't see how this isn't a personal belief of yours.

You're not seeing beyond your own tunnel vision. Take the blinders off. Apple is perceived as "High End". I used the phrase "High End", and said one "might" say luxury. Perhaps I should have worded it as "some" instead of "one". I never said I see Apple as "luxury". I do see Apple as "high end" regardless of if everyone and their dog has one, and it has nothing to do with "making myself feel better". That's the way it is. The market sees it the same way. If you don't want to believe that, that's your issue.

P.S. I argue the point "hard" (by which I think you mean I am persistent) because I believe you are wrong and I am refuting you.

 

[kdarling]

Just like early Android was trying to make a pocket version of the PC, they're trying too hard to make a computer based old fashioned watch while missing the whole point.

You have that exactly backwards.

It's Apple that's building a do-it-all computer watch, with app icons once again front and center.

Android Wear went the other route and concentrates on Google Now / Glass like intelligent notifications, with apps a very secondary thought.

IMHO, a mixture would be nice.

Android competitors seem to be missing this point and so design smart watches to look like, well... watches. I predict that after the Apple Watch is released, Android wear watches are going to stop looking so much like old fashioned watches and more like Apple Watches.

If anything, I'd say the opposite. Apple aleady tried to invoke the look of an old rectangular watch, down to the crown.

He is not kidding. Apple started the watch project years ago when these companies where trying to hard to catch up with the iPhone.

The serious iWatch rumors started with articles like this one in early 2013.

We know that Apple began their watch project in 2012. Google had already been working on their Glass project for a year by then, and was also buying smartwatch companies like WiMM.

Companies like Fossil, LG, Sony and Samsung had been SELLING smartwatches before any of that. E.g.




But the public and technology wasn't quite ready yet.

I think the success of the Pebble in early 2012 woke everyone up again.

As for fashion, the first modern smartwatch available in real gold ($5K to $20K if you add diamonds), and sold as a fashion accessory, is the 2012 I'M Watch from Italy.



The Apple Watch brings nothing radically new to the market, except Apple's marketing power.

 

[mikezmac]

this is ugly as sin on a woman

"Luxury" watch at the gym... No

This looks like a rushed attempt to grab sales away from the apple watch before it comes out.

Pass

 

[samcraig]

this is ugly as sin on a woman

"Luxury" watch at the gym... No

This looks like a rushed attempt to grab sales away from the apple watch before it comes out.

Pass

How can it steal Apple sales if iOS can't run Android Wear watches. Do tell.

 

[deputy_doofy]

Yes, Macs are expensive. And what is the full retail price of an iPhone if you buy it outright up front, with no contract? Expensive. I'm not denigrating Macs for being expensive. You get what you pay for. But, the fact is, not fallacy, that Macs are more expensive vis-a-vis PC's.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2484&cmp[]=2238
This link shows that a $399 15" Dell does not quite do as well as the MBA. Dual core i3 at slightly faster (base) clock speed and still loses. Yes, I know the old argument. If they're only using it for email and web, what's the big deal?

The big deal is that it will be sluggish. I've never used a speedy Core i3 or anything under (Pentium, Celeron, AMD).
Contrast to the MBA at 1.4GHz, where sluggishness begins at video compression on Handbrake. Otherwise, it's a fast machine with no lag.

Or... look here. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2238&cmp[]=2484&cmp[]=2467
For a $799 laptop from Dell, you can get the gem which should be .1GHz faster, but benchmarks worse.

http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/laptops.aspx#!facets=226292~0~20557048,55846~0~5930680,55846~0~14739528&p=1

I fail to see the Macs are more expensive argument when we talk about equal playing field in the mid-tier market (where a useful CPU is involved).

At the low end, yes, every other maker wins. For price. But not decent, usable, non-laggy machines.

 

[DakotaGuy]

You're not seeing beyond your own tunnel vision. Take the blinders off. Apple is perceived as "High End".

You're not seeing beyond your own tunnel vision either. Take the blinders off.

It's funny that you won't address the fact that the retail price of my LG G3 was about the same as an iPhone. In fact, most Android flagships have about the same retail price. There are quite a few phones that have a $500-700 retail price on them. This is much cheaper then an iPhone?

Apple is a mass market brand. It's basically taken the Bose model of luxury appearance and corporate set prices yet it can still be purchased by Joe Six Pack.

So I assume you feel that Apple is the only brand of premium electronics? Everything else is just junk for the poor? I'd say a person has blinders when you can't acknowledge other nice products like this LG watch just because it doesn't have the right brand name on it. To some people the brand name matters most and Apple has done well capitalizing on that.

 

[pgiguere1]

You do realise that if you change the watch face it would obviously look different, right?

Here's a picture of my watch if you don't believe it can look like the press photo one. Cheers!

My comment wasn't regarding the watch face, it was regarding the bulkiness.

And no, your watch doesn't look compact like the one in the press photo. It looks bulky which is exactly the perception LG wanted to avoid when they Photoshopped their press images.

I love Apple but some of you are being ridiculous acting like the Apple Watch is something special, while great smart watches have existed for a while now.

Well the compactness of the Apple Watch is pretty special IMO.

That's what makes it look classy IRL. Most other smartwatches look good in press images either because you have no size reference or because they photoshopped them, but as soon as you see them IRL their bulkiness make them look like toys.

It's fine if you're into watches that look like that, it's all subjective and there's clearly a market for that (see sales of Casio G-shocks), but please don't deny there's a difference. Apple is trying to go for the high-end market, people who normally wear fancy Swiss watches and would never wear a G-shock.

 

[mikezmac]

How can it steal Apple sales if iOS can't run Android Wear watches. Do tell.

Simple, if I fork out the cash for this I'm not likely to buy another watch in April. (unless of course you wear two watches)

In marketing timing when you release a product for sale can be critical.

 

[kds1]

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2484&cmp[]=2238
This link shows that a $399 15" Dell does not quite do as well as the MBA. Dual core i3 at slightly faster (base) clock speed and still loses. Yes, I know the old argument. If they're only using it for email and web, what's the big deal?

The big deal is that it will be sluggish. I've never used a speedy Core i3 or anything under (Pentium, Celeron, AMD).
Contrast to the MBA at 1.4GHz, where sluggishness begins at video compression on Handbrake. Otherwise, it's a fast machine with no lag.

Or... look here. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2238&cmp[]=2484&cmp[]=2467
For a $799 laptop from Dell, you can get the gem which should be .1GHz faster, but benchmarks worse.

http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/laptops.aspx#!facets=226292~0~20557048,55846~0~5930680,55846~0~14739528&p=1

I fail to see the Macs are more expensive argument when we talk about equal playing field in the mid-tier market (where a useful CPU is involved).

At the low end, yes, every other maker wins. For price. But not decent, usable, non-laggy machines.

I understand what you're saying, and I used to argue the same things. But when an average consumer can walk into Best Buy, or Costco and get a cheap laptop for a couple or a few hundred bucks, Apple is expensive. Where can you get Apple machines for the same price? You can't. People don't look at the specs, and analyze it the way you or even I do.

----------

You're not seeing beyond your own tunnel vision either. Take the blinders off.

It's funny that you won't address the fact that the retail price of my LG G3 was about the same as an iPhone. In fact, most Android flagships have about the same retail price. There are quite a few phones that have a $500-700 retail price on them. This is much cheaper then an iPhone?

Apple is a mass market brand. It's basically taken the Bose model of luxury appearance and corporate set prices yet it can still be purchased by Joe Six Pack.

So I assume you feel that Apple is the only brand of premium electronics? Everything else is just junk for the poor? I'd say a person has blinders when you can't acknowledge other nice products like this LG watch just because it doesn't have the right brand name on it. To some people the brand name matters most and Apple has done well capitalizing on that.

Herein lies the crux of the problem. What you really want is respect for LG. You keep bringing up this argument that your LG phone was the same cost. but IT DOES NOT MATTER. I have stated to you over and over, that price does not matter. I even gave the example of LG has a $100,000 dollar TV, but that doesn't make them "high end" in the eyes of the market. The phones could cost the same, but Apple is still seen by the market as High End, based on the superior software, ease of use, and the fit and finish of the product. And no, this LG watch is not in the same league as the AppleWatch. People will not want it they way they will want the the Apple watch (relatively speaking). No one, will see it as high end vis-a-vis Apple.

P.S. And if you need further proof, just look at the name LG chose to give it. The "Urbane". Trying to attach an aura of "sophistication" to their product. Why don't they just call it the "LG Watch"?