Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is my point actually. None of that is unique, and none of it is compelling for the price.

Pretty much every smart watch available does those things, often for less money (Pebble/Moto360), or n addition to filling a genuine need (Garmin Vivoactive/920XT/fenix3/Epix).
But Apple has managed to sell a good # iphones despite not being that much different from the competition. I guess the smart watch market just isn't really "there".

Apple has said that the least expensive model will be $350.
Oh... that's set? I hope carriers are willing to subsidize this too. :eek:
 
But Apple has managed to sell a good # iphones despite not being that much different from the competition. I guess the smart watch market just isn't really "there".

When the iPhone was released, while it wasn't feature complete (no GPS, no 3G), it still showed what a smartphone should be. The browser, iPod, and touchscreen were 3 killer features no one was able to match for years. The :apple:Watch has no feature like that.
 
downside?

A watch that will need *AppleCare* - which doesn't cover accidental, while such a watch IMO is an accident waiting to happen.
 
A watch that is not waterproof and needs charging daily is a problem. Technology keeps changing at a fairly rapid rate. We update our phones because our phone contracts expire. So it is very little money to update to the newest phone. So why would we update our watch every two years at full cost?

It is a very safe bet that Apple will release a version 2 of the watch 12 months later with features they have found needed to be in the first watch.

I need a phone, tablet and computer for my work. I love gadgets but do I 'need' a smart watch? When I see all the features then that question is answered. Though I don't think I need the fist generation watch.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.