You are talking about the Sport. Throw the Stainless Steel version in there and it cost more that an unlocked iPhone yet it still needs an iPhone to work. Doesn't make any damn sense.
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 Losing Ground to 'Basic Wearables' Like Fitbit Ahead of New Models
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are talking about the Sport. Throw the Stainless Steel version in there and it cost more that an unlocked iPhone yet it still needs an iPhone to work. Doesn't make any damn sense.
I would think the reasons behind this are that the Apple Watch is not for everyone:
1) Apple Watch is more expensive. You can buy up to Fitbits for the price of the cheapest Apple Watch.
2) Apple Watch is more fragile. A Fitbit was more designed for an active lifestyle. Still if it breaks, it's not a big hurt.
3) Apple Watch requires daily charging with regular use.
1) Apple Watch is more expensive. You can buy up to Fitbits for the price of the cheapest Apple Watch.
2) Apple Watch is more fragile. A Fitbit was more designed for an active lifestyle. Still if it breaks, it's not a big hurt.
3) Apple Watch requires daily charging with regular use.
Very true. And it serves well as a notification device indeed. But the fitness aspect will improve, more so with health advancements and continue to improve the heart rate calibration, which seems to vary for everyone. The Gen One Watch almost tried to do to much, when it needs to focus on its core functions, health and notifications.
The Gen One isn't bad. Definitely find it useful and I am getting more in shape due to the fitness aspect/data. I think having built in GPS would be ideal and lowering the price point significantly would be the kickstarter for sales. I'd eliminate the aluminum sports model as that goes against Apple/Steve Jobs thought process and just sell the Stainless Steel for $299. Call it a day.
You've hit the nail on the head. With the anticipation of tomorrow's announcement of Bluetooth Earbuds and no headphone jack, I predict the absurdity level will be increased exponentially.
Agreed. I owned the Aluminum Sport model and upgraded to the Stainless model. The Aluminum model is to light for one. Also, when it scratches, it's permanent. Unlike the Stainless model, the scratches can actually be buffed out with his soft the 316 L stainless is. And the aluminum almost feels gimmicky being how light it is, when compared to the substantial weight to the stainless steel model. And the real winning feature with the stainless model is the Saphirre display.
This is simply ridiculous.
If you (and other people) think the Apple Watch is only worth $99, I can't see how can you accept the value of the iPhone or any other Apple product. You don't share the values of the brand, you don't care about the things the Apple team cares. Why are you paying $649+ for the entry phone, and not a $150 for a "good enough" phone? It baffles me.
The Apple watch is really not that expensive. The hardcore fitness trackers like the ones made by Garmin for serious endurance athletes all cost as much or more than an Apple Watch. In some cases they cost far more.
The Fitbit Blaze is one of the most popular fitness trackers. It's $175-$199 and doesn't do nearly as much an Apple Watch does. I have one of these and what it does do is it lasts several days without needing to refuel and it does mostly what I need it to do.
I'd like my Fitbit to do a little bit more and I don't need an Apple Watch that does as much as it does. If the Apple Watch is going to be bound to the iPhone I'd rather that thing be turned into nothing but sensors and a screen that lets the iPhone do all of the heavy lifting so we get more accuracy, better measurements, and better battery life.
Once an Apple Watch can go around 3 days without a charge, I'll seriously consider it. It's not the price holding it back for me or probably for anyone with one of the more expensive Fitbits.
I don't grasp the purpose of the basic Fitbit, at least not as an iPhone owner. My phone being in my pocket tracks more than it can. The more expensive fitbit can track heart rate, but then it's approaching Apple Watch Sport pricing. If I'm really a fitness lover and I wanna track workouts and the like, but I don't wanna buy an Apple Watch...why wouldnt I just carry my phone? I have all my music with me, and I could use a companion app to track my workout. Basic Fitbit would give me steps. No music, gps, or anything else. I would love to see the % that buy a Fitbit because it's cheap and they are curious, only to leave it in a drawer because it's cheap. Not trying to knock it. If it does what you need it to do and it makes you happy, then that's the product for you. Is there someone on here who has both watch and Fitbit who could explain to me why they prefer their Fitbit?
What exactly are the values of the Apple brand, Zirel? Attractive and thoughtfully designed products, sold at the highest prices the market will accept, made by people severely underpaid, with profits routed through unique accounting methods to reduce company tax to an effective 0.0005%. Is this a good summary of the values?
$99 is a no brainer considering the watch device is tied to the phone device.
Beyond Apple Watch's and other smart wearables high price I think this is also mainly due to most people not needing more than basic features like tracking your activity (steps and sleep), receiving some notifications/alarms/messages and perhaps a smart alarm.
If you can't do/receive calls like in most of this devices, most of the time you'll also have your smartphone close to you which is a lot more easy and efficient for using apps, answer to messages and so on...
If you can't do/receive calls like in most of this devices, most of the time you'll also have your smartphone close to you which is a lot more easy and efficient for using apps, answer to messages and so on...
The prices are only close if you're talking about the higher end Fitbits. I have a Fitbit Blaze, which isn't cheap. For another $100, I could have bought an Apple Watch. Cost wasn't the issue. I chose the Fitbit because it was the better device for me and there was one feature that sealed the deal... battery life. I don't have a very regular schedule so I need extended battery life if I want to track my activity. If the battery only lasts 18 hours, I'm going to be running out of juice a lot.
In the end I wanted an activity tracker more than a smart watch. As an activity tracker, the Fitbit is the superior device for what I need it for. I was VERY tempted to get an Apple Watch and believe me, it killed me that I could have acquired a huge functionality leap for another $100, but in the end if I get a device that's superior in the ways that I don't need it, but inferior in what I need, it's not a good tradeoff.
So it was a Fitbit for me and maybe an Apple Watch in the next few years.
Disappointed at all the negativity but not surprised. I personally rate my Apple Watch as an integral part of my life. Whether it's sending my husband my heartbeat a few times a day to checking in at the EV charger, I use mine constantly. It makes Apple Pay very convenient and garners gasps of wonderment from cashiers.
I love the notifications at a glance. I don't really like my iPhone, to be honest. I only got one so I could use the Watch. If I could just have the Watch and my iPad Pro, I'd be extremely happy.
Also don't get the hate on its appearance. My mother has a FitBit and I think that thing is bland and utilitarian. No beautiful butterflies when she looks at the time. I also enjoy being able to customize the band to suit your mood and style.
I understand why a person wouldn't want any wearable, but singling the Watch out like it's worthless is a mystery to me. To each his own, I guess.
I love the notifications at a glance. I don't really like my iPhone, to be honest. I only got one so I could use the Watch. If I could just have the Watch and my iPad Pro, I'd be extremely happy.
Also don't get the hate on its appearance. My mother has a FitBit and I think that thing is bland and utilitarian. No beautiful butterflies when she looks at the time. I also enjoy being able to customize the band to suit your mood and style.
I understand why a person wouldn't want any wearable, but singling the Watch out like it's worthless is a mystery to me. To each his own, I guess.
If that's what you think, then you're in the wrong place.
Don't talk to me, I don't have time for haters, go to daily mail comments
Zirel, you contacted me, and I'm not a hater. A dose of reality might do some good around here.
a pretty useless watch in my opinion
[doublepost=1473250003][/doublepost]
you forgot that other $200 fitness watch last like 5 times or more the battery life too of a useless apple watch.
[doublepost=1473250422][/doublepost]
for me, still not worth upgrading from a 4s. before 4s i had a flip phone and yet i still find the flip phone more useful in my opinion. apple watch totally useless
For me it’s a balance between cost and value of usage. The AW is quite expensive and I cannot justify to myself anything that I need from it for the cost. I am quite happy with my $80 Skagen traditional watch and the use of the Fitbit when I'm exercising. If the AW were considerably less expensive, I'd possibly consider buying one. So for me, it's about the value the device could or couldn't bring to me.
In some ways the Watch is too much. They could probably make it cheaper and more value oriented by stripping out everything but the core functions. I have never used anything but the fitness, activity, weather, and messages app. I did send someone a drawing the first day I had it and never again (does anyone even remember you can do that?). They over designed what is needed on your wrist. Add GPS, strip it down to core useful functions and drop price. The sensors are the useful part - the processing for apps is useless.