Apple Watch = no resale value after 2 years and once the battery dies... It cannot be

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by DBZmusicboy01, Nov 4, 2014.

  1. DBZmusicboy01 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    #1
    Replaced because it's size. Kinda like the Mac mini problem. All glued in and the Apple watch is a expensive piece of crap that will sell poorly and one day battery. A Rolex will last beyond a lifetime and will always have a high resale.
    Now.. If the Apple watch cost $100
    It would be a great deal. It does not have enough features for something that cost MORE than an iPod touch.
     
  2. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #2
    And your basing this on....
     
  3. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #3
    Screencapped for some fun later. :) I'm surprised with this kind of intelligence you know Mac mini and Rolex. :eek:

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #4
    You information is completely wrong. I spoke with Tim last night and he assured me the battery would only last 366 days (1 day out of warranty) and then completely die. He also promised that you would have to pay Apple $10 to dispose of giving it a negative resale value. Also Apple is NOT using glue. They are using cement. This way it adds weight and CAN'T be removed by heat.

    It's a universally known fact that watches are too small to have replaceable or serviceable parts. No one can be expected to work on anything as small as a watch. Get your facts straight before posting.
     
  5. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #5
    If this is make right, then it could be very easy to work on the device as it should be a 4 layer sandwich in the case/shell that would simply but firmly pops together.

    I can visualize this:

    Place body of watch in a special jig, and use, perhaps some suction tool to pop/pull the back off, circular panel with sensors.

    Disconnect the cable, or may not even have a cable, as it may just be touch contacts.

    You then have the back open, and there is a custom made battery, which may well just literally fall out as it has contacts on the battery surface.

    Then you are looking at the internals, which, with perhaps some screw or sliding mechanism will make the crown wheel disconnect, and the whole guts of the watch may simply pull out in it's own self contained module make from plastic/aluminium

    Then you are looking at the back of the screen in the very bottom now of the otherwise empty case/shell.

    This could then, with pressure pop out and drop down away, leaving you with the empty case/shell.

    Then, with new upgraded parts you could pop and press it all back together again.

    With the module containing all the guts in one piece already assembled, and a few clever slider/springs.

    If it's been designed very well, and I have no reason to doubt Apples design.

    This could be a no screw job, and it's simply all popped together as above.

    Of course, my above description/concept could be completely wrong, but my scenario above it certainly totally do-able.

    I suppose, this does go against Apples current policy of special screws and glue to lock hardware down, and a simply tool that strongly grips the back via suction to pull it off, and the rest then lifting/pressing out is very anti current Apple.

    But as this is a new product, AND something many think they do want up gradable, perhaps it may be made something like this.

    As I say, it could be.

    Give it another 5 months and we'll know :)
     
  6. SHNXX macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    #6
    The OP does have a good point.

    Batteries that need to be recharged die eventually, after several years of heavy daily use.
    Furthermore, processors and sensors will get outdated, unable to be updated with the latest OS.

    That means that the Apple Watch will have a shelf life, just like any other electronic device, and unlike any luxury watches.
    This severely limits the Apple Watch's appeal as a luxury watch to most people except the extremely wealthy people who are early adopters to tech products.
     
  7. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #7
    That's why it's interesting to see how they will solve this issue. And if they can't, or don't or won't, it'll be a fun time for all the haters out there.
     
  8. mercuryjones macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Location:
    College Station, TX
    #8
    Wouldn't this apply to every other wearable device on the market right now as well?
    Unless you come up with a modular device (Like Project Ara, which brings it's own set of issues), any smart device is going to have a limited shelf life.
     
  9. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #9
    I don't think so. I think :apple:Watch is the only wearable that perceptively is a luxury product. I can't think of any brands or devices that has this attribute.
     
  10. mercuryjones macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Location:
    College Station, TX
    #10
    I take it you are talking about the gold plated Apple Watch only then? Not the sports version?
     
  11. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #11
    Not sport edition. A gold version and somehow a stainless steel one which we're still waiting for final price.
     
  12. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #12
    If they can get a day out of the battery your looking at 2.5/3 years battery life before it needs service based on current technology. Apple do not charge a fortune to do a battery service in the grand scheme of things. Even if it was $100 every three years it's on par with more expensive watch batteries. Chances are it would be a device swap too so really your getting a new watch every 3 years.

    Let's see where this goes. I've never been unhappy with apples customer service.
     
  13. SHNXX macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    #13
    they don't have to for the $500 stainless steel or the base model.

    whether they have to for the gold depends on how many they sell.
    I don't think they will sell a lot of the gold model, especially if the price is $5000, as it has been claimed in the rumor mill.
    So whatever injustice it may be, there will be too few inconvenienced by it.
     
  14. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #14
    My wife's iPhone 4 battery's still going strong after 4 full years.
     
  15. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #15
    I have to admit, if the Aluminium one was 350, the steel 450 and the gold 550, which the latter two won't be.

    I'd still buy the 350 one as the other two are no better and don't do anything, have better screens, better battery, faster, slimmer or anything else.

    They are heavier, and a different color.

    I would not pay $100 let alone $200 for exactly the same thing only worse 'Heavier' and a different color.

    I would not buy tech for jewelry reasons as it's not jewelry, it's just some electronics in a little case.

    My home PC could be in a wooden crate if it was the fastest PC ever :D
     
  16. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #16
    Just a gigantic FUD thread that totally discounts science. In general lit-ion batteries will provide about 50% discharge life after 1500 cycles. For the aWatch lets estimate about ¾ cycle per day then you would still have 50% battery life after 5 years of daily use.
     
  17. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #17
    My 4s was the same


    4s

    CycleCount: 638
    DesignCapacity: 1430
    FullChargeCapacity: 1234
    Status: Success
    BatteryCurrentCapacity: 36
    BatteryIsCharging: true
    ExternalChargeCapable: true
    ExternalConnected: true
    FullyCharged: false
    GasGaugeCapability: true

    That was November 2013. I kept the phone till January adding another 100 charge cycles before I upgraded. It's still going strong today without an issue
     
  18. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #18
    Ignore the OP. He's known to pull things out of his bottom, as anyone who has visited the iPhone forum would know.
     
  19. aristobrat macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #19
    What product does Apple make that uses a battery that is user-serviceable?

    iPods? No
    iPhones? No
    iPads? No
    Notebooks? No

    AFAIK, every product with a battery that Apple currently sells is designed so that you take it back to Apple when it needs a new battery.

    At one point, with iPods and some earlier generation iPads, they wouldn't even change the battery in your device -- they'd just keep your old device and give you a warranty replacement device. So for $49-$79, you walk out with essentially a brand-new looking device, with a brand new battery, when all you wanted was the battery changed.

    I don't see why Apple Watch would be any different?
     
  20. SHNXX macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    #20

    It won't be any different probably.
    Many will not like the fact that their 5000 dollar watch is dead weight either due to battery being dead or because their hardware won't receive the latest OS update.

    I guess it will be sort of like the Vertu phones.
     
  21. mercuryjones macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Location:
    College Station, TX
    #21
    Smart watches are in the infancy. Do you think that people that switched from dumb phones to smartphones back in 2007 and 2008 are still using the exact same phone, cursing all the companies for obsoleting their purchases?
    Or, did they simply sell the device and use the money made to pay for the upgrade?
    I see the exact same thing happening here, except if you are paying $5k for a watch, pretty sure you aren't all that concerned about the usage aspect. As long as it still works and tells time, you'll be happy.
     
  22. SHNXX macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    #22

    I will be buying the 500 dollar stainless steel version so I won't complain when my watch becomes dead weight due to obsolescence.

    But it seems that many around here are rather offended by the idea that their watch will become obsolete unlike their (insert their favorite watch here).
     
  23. chabig macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #23
    1. The Apple Watch is not a luxury watch. It's a wearable computer.
    2. Luxury watches have shelf lives too. You only think they don't because they don't have any fancy features. But I assure you that the cell phone built into your Rolex is definitely out of date, along with the GPS, the barometer, the compass, the three axis gyro...
     
  24. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #24
    Realistically, $5k is for the high end, solid 18K gold. Most :apple:Watch models will be priced no differently from, say, an iPod or iPhone, and yes, you'll be able to offload for much of the original value if you'd like to upgrade to the newest model after a year.
     
  25. SHNXX macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    #25

    The 5000 dollar gold apple watch is being sold as a luxury accessory so it unfortunately does compete with watches that are 10k plus.

    Of course as you mention, mechanical watches have not changed much since 20th century, but that's part of their appeal.
     

Share This Page