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 Makes First Australian Magazine Appearance Inside 'Elle'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Having dealt with watch geeks for years, I can tell you can some men buy watches like some women buy shoesenough to compensate of all of the non-buyers. I've probably had a half-dozen watches gifted to me over the years.
Smartphone enthusiasts are oblivious to the watch market, but that doesn't mean it's not thriving.
How dare you imply I am racist!
I'm saying a mass produced item made in china, for millions of people, using every day materials, and manufactured 'by the millions, is not premium regardless of how people think of the iPhone or the watch.
And 350 dollars is the cheapest, something made of a slightly different metal can go up into the thousand area.
I don't really agree. Those who are really into fashion wear outfits once, maybe a few times. You think women who drop $1000 or more on Christian Louboutin shoes, are going to wear them for years? How about that nice Mulberry shoulder bag that costs $1500. You think they'll be using the same one in a couple of years?
Ever seen the closet of a celebrity? They have shelves of shoes, dresses and bags that they have used once or perhaps not even at all.
In any case, I really think what Apple is doing here is quite clever. By making and marketing a $10K-$17K version of their watch which is unobtainable for most, they are changing the perception of the item from a cheap smart watch, the likes of which have never really been that desirable, and they are creating a different vibe about their product.
As was also previously discussed, their brand perception also differs in different markets, in China for example Apple has a much more luxury brand image, and gold items are prized a lot more than here in the US.
I've said it before, I think Apple did their homework on this one, and the nay sayers will be proved wrong. Feel free to swing by and laugh at me in a year if I was wrong.
I am not even talking about the $10k watch. Also a celebrity isn't the average woman. And again, Louboutin shoes hold their value. You can sell them later on if you like. I don't buy Mulberry myself but I imagine similar is true because I know it is true with bags like Chanel and Hermes.
I started buying handbags when I realized I could buy something really nice, use it for a while and either sell it for about what I bought it or keep it and maybe sell it later on. In the handbag buying circles especially when bags go over a certain threshold amount, there is a lot of talk bags holding value/going up in value. But if they are trying to sell the Apple watch as fashion to women who normally buy things based on the things keeping their value, they are marketing to the wrong crew. (I'll buy one because I'm pretty wasteful and accept that about myself...
)
Maybe a professional picture of the Daytona (rather than my photo with lots of reflection) would look a little better.
Attachments
I think it's just the gold parts. But then, I'm not a watch guy so I most probably have no idea what I'm looking for or talking about.
I think it's just the gold parts. But then, I'm not a watch guy so I most probably have no idea what I'm looking for or talking about.
I'm not a big fan of gold either, I much prefer the classic Paul Newman colours.
I think it's just the gold parts. But then, I'm not a watch guy so I most probably have no idea what I'm looking for or talking about.
Don't worry. Watches are mostly jewelry. Functional jewelry.
it's all subjective. While I agree with you I think that that watch looks gaudy as heck to me, i get he likes it and if he likes it, good on him.
I still think it looks better than the Apple watch. THAT'S gaudy (to me).
Yeah it was the gold that I didn't like on it, the one you posted appeals to me more.
Yep, as long as you like the product, doesn't matter what anyone thinks. Especially if that anyone is someone clueless like me when it comes to watches haha.
The apple watch I don't think looks gaudy but I don't think it looks attractive either. But fashion is also something I'm probably not qualified to speak on!
I think Apple have played safe with the design of the Apple Watch by making it nice and simple. I don't think it's beautiful but then it's not ugly either. Even so, I think it's the best looking smartwatch I've seen so far.
I am not even talking about the $10k watch. Also a celebrity isn't the average woman. And again, Louboutin shoes hold their value. You can sell them later on if you like. I don't buy Mulberry myself but I imagine similar is true because I know it is true with bags like Chanel and Hermes.
I started buying handbags when I realized I could buy something really nice, use it for a while and either sell it for about what I bought it or keep it and maybe sell it later on. In the handbag buying circles especially when bags go over a certain threshold amount, there is a lot of talk bags holding value/going up in value. But if they are trying to sell the Apple watch as fashion to women who normally buy things based on the things keeping their value, they are marketing to the wrong crew. (I'll buy one because I'm pretty wasteful and accept that about myself...
That's a lovely story. I don't think that a woman who chooses to buy the $349 Apple Watch Sport to track her fitness goals is going to care less about if she thinks it will have residual value.
And if she can afford the more expensive stainless steel version, I also don't think twice about that either.
Companies like Gazelle will happily buy older Apple products. I've sold them old iPads and iPhones very easily, and I would be surprised if they don't start buying old Apple Watches to be reconditioned and resold.
The way I see it, if you ignore the Edition versions, the regular Apple Watches are cheap enough for many that there will be little thought to resale value. They are a lot cheaper than high dollar fashion items.
The kind of woman who can spend money on the brands you mention like Hermes or Chanel, shouldn't have a problem with the non-Edition price points of the Apple Watch.
When you make a comment that besmirches an entire countries production, it is kind of racist. Your comment basically implied that anything mass produced by the billion or so Chinese people is garbage and not on par with what certain European countries can produce.
If I gave you a year, and all the raw materials to produce an iPhone 6, I doubt you could do it. Just because Apple have figured out how to produce an iPhone in crazy numbers does not reflect on the quality of the item. You should watch a video on how they produce the thing. Even to the point of using special cameras and robots to ensure a perfect fit between glass and metal. It's pretty damn astonishing, yet people like you take it for granted because it's 'just' a phone.
Er, it's gold. That's like saying that a diamond has a 'slightly different' chemical composition to a lump of coal.
And if you're talking about stainless steel, in the 316L format, it's not just your every day run of the mill material either. It's not the same as the steel you'd find in a $100 Casio.
The $1000 Apple Watch includes a bracelet that is made up of over 100 components that takes over nine man hours to produce. They sell it for $449.
By comparison a new bracelet for my watch costs $900, so it doesn't seem like Apple have charged something outrageous here. Plus they have been so innovative that links can be removed without a tool and the band can also be removed without tools, something I've never seen in a high end Swiss watch costing thousands.
lol
The watch does everything the phone does? You must barely be able to afford this watch because you have over-rationalized this purchase beyond belief.
wow....
The phone answers calls, sends and receives text messages ( plus other ways of communication) and tells time, and plays music.
What else does a phone do that the watch won't?!?!
Oh, take pictures? buy a gear if you want to look like a dufus taking pictures with a watch.
Oh yea, I forgot, it surfs the net.......Really though??......you want to browse the web on a watch?!?!
Like I said, the watch does everything the watch does and more.
Really
everything that needs to be done and can be done on a watch. i imagine standalone features will come when apple can figure it out. but right now you can talk on the watch, send messages, and listen to music, and voice messaging. there you go. those features alone are what makes the watch worth buying.
The naysayers are so disgruntled because the watch can't do these things on their own and it will have to be charged everyday like its really going to make a difference. We have been charging our phones everyday since mobile phones existed. And as far as the phone being a stand alone device, YOU ALWAYS HAVE YOUR PHONE WITH YOU ANYWAY.
The naysayers are truly underestimating how cumbersome it is to pull your phone out of your pocket, purse, gym bag, or just find where you last had it in the house. The watch is going to save us a lot of that trouble.
If you can't see that, you're blind. Now of course that might not be enough cause for you to spend 400 dollars on the watch and thats fine. But don't say the watch is a waste of money and won't be useful because thats just rediculous.
I don't pretend I know fashion as much as a fashionist, but your opinion, in my humble opinion, comes across as ignorance.
----------
Ha. Exactly.
And for those that don't wear watches anymore, myself included, we simply haven't had a compelling reason to do so. And now we do.
Exactly. I am NOT a watch person, I don't wear watch anywhere, but Apple might change that. I think it's genius that the first wearable that Apple design is a watch. Now I feel compel to wear (Apple) Watch everyday. I am not going to lie that any watch will do, it must be only Apple Watch.
Most women (I am one) have a purse. The only other independent option, is a twice as big gear watch that would look like a techno-monstrosity with any dress; so. When not having a regular purse, a women would have a clutch to carry their phones.
But, there are other options too.
Blue tooth LE has a decent range (more than 100m in theory) (that's why bluetooth speakers exist after all). So, if your phone is within that range, it can be paired with bluetooth with it.
But even if your phone is not in bluetooth range, if the watch is on the same WIFI network, your watch can be paired with it.... This was confirmed at the march event...
http://bgr.com/2015/03/16/apple-watch-release-specs-android-wear/
With WIFI extenders, you could thus cover a very wide area where your phone is also in, without needing the phone nearby. An hotel with WIFI for example would fit the bill.
So, at home, people will not need to carry their phones around as much. That's a relief to me who somehow doesn't know where I put in when the call comes in
I am looking forward to not missing phone calls when I'm in the basement or back yard and my phone is in the living room where i can't hear it ring. Not to be morbid, but for older people it's practically like having a life alert that you can make an emergency call on if you fall and can't get to where your phone is. I live alone and have crappy knees so I occasionally wonder what could happen to me if I fell down the stairs or slipped in the driveway in the winter.
As zoomed out as all these shots are, you can barely tell that's an Apple Watch at all. It could be any rectangular watch with a white band. The cynic in me says that's because they think it's not a very good looking product and they want to avoid closeups. You could also argue that in order to show the clothes, you have to show long shots, but it's still weird that there's not at least one closeup to show what the product actually looks like.
Well said. There'd be a lot of interest in the watch generated by it's placement in the magazine.