Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Still think it looks ugly and far too thick. A watch is the one thing I do like to be as thin and light as possible.
 
The way I look at it, the Apple Watch isn't really a watch in the conventional sense like my timeless Omega Seamaster or Ebel watches are. Rather, it's a pretty computer you strap to your wrist that happens to tell you the time. Similar to the iPhone not really being a phone per se, but rather a pocket computer that includes a phone app.

If you look at the Apple Watch not as a watch but as a computer, you begin to realize how it will fare over time. Like all computers do, they become technologically out of date in 2-3 years. And if you look at the watch as a "fashion statement", it may go out of style next season!

That said, I am quite curious about it and if I can see any reasonable way it could work with my other Apple gear, I'm willing to shell out $350-500 to try it out.
 
The regular version doesn't have Sapphire and reliance on third party GPS means...it doesn't have GPS.



Soo...it does require an iPhone after all.

Nothing you've said refutes my earlier point.



Basic model uses regular glass as far as i know.

No, because your point is to deny something which you never ever saw or tried claiming that you know better than the best designers and engineers in the world that are currently at Apple still working on the watch and that have thinked about every aspect of the device every ****ing day during years of development. But no, since there is no integrated GPS and does requiere syncing with an iPhone, then it is a trash. Why you wasnt there in Apple while barin storming about the device to rise the hand and share your vision.

You know what is my point? Show some ****ing respec and trust to all these people at Apple that have showed us several time that they can give is the technology of the future in our hands and wait to see what the final device can and cant do, and where it is actually useful and where not.
 
$5,000 Dollars? I Rather buy a Rolex. I can feel confident my Rolex will hold value in say the next 5-10 years,

Well, not sure if you can get a Rolex for $5K any longer but definitely a Tag or Omega will hold value nearly as well.

Apple has really jumped the shark with this release as the $5K Apple Watch is pure status symbol. Only the uber wealthy can devote $5,000 to a device that will be obsolete in 18-24 months.
 
So though I would never plop down that kind of cash on a gold :apple:Watch I am very much interested in the stainless version. For $500 I would get one.

I wonder if these watches will be on a 1 year upgrade cycle like most other Apple products?

John Gruber speculated that the internals could be upgradeable. I think that would be awesome. So a year after release, Apple announces v2 which has the same design but more features. v1 owners can buy the "s2" chip and get most, if not all, the new features for a couple hundred dollars.

One can dream right?
 
Why would you spend so much money on a device which by then will be either dead or will only have a few hours of autonomy? If the brand new watch has around a day of autonomy, you will not even be able to go through your day after a couple of years. And after 10 years, not much will be left.
The esthetic value doesn't mean much when the electronic is outdated - would you still pay thousands for a gold iPhone 3 with a dead battery, no OS upgrade possible and inferior performances?

Bingo.
 
Isn't solid gold 24K? :)

Solid gold means simply that it's not electroplated onto another metal. Solid gold can be any level of purity, whether 10K, 14K, 18K, 22K or 24K.

above 18K it gets far too malleable to be good for daily wear, as it's so soft it'll get scratched to hell.
 
Apple has seriously lost their damn mind! I'd rather continue to buy $500 Movado's in every color, same style, than an iWatch that as soon as iWatch2 comes out I can only get $200 for my watch 1. GTH!

So Garmin, Polar, Suunto, Timex, all who make $400+ models and typically replace those models every other year and which avg. users replace every 4 years... they are nuts too? All of those watches are 100% plastic.

The Apple Watch is a hybrid sport + activity + daily use watch. It starts at $350, not $500. $500 is for the stainless model, which includes a stainless band, not a plastic one. It's the equivalent of getting the $500 metallic paint option on a luxury brand car.

I don't think most people who buy an Apple Watch are going to upgrade annually any more than they upgrade their MBA or iPad annually. Truth is most people don't even upgrade their phone annually. Tech moves fast, but not that fast. Very little difference in year over year models. It takes at least two years for it to accumulate to be noticeable.
 
What a joke ... for a deprecating piece of jewellery. I would only pay 4K for a hand made watch.



That guy must be smoking some good stuff to dream of something like that.

Good luck with that. a) there's rarely such a thing as a "hand made" watch.... yes, hand-assembled, but the parts are not machined by hand. and b) even the "mass" manufacture watches that are solid 18K, among them they start around $20k and go into the stratosphere from there....

They also only tell time, and that's pretty much it. Maybe the moon phases....
 
Will await the 2nd Gen...

I own everything Apple, but cannot wrap my mind around the concept of paying $350-$500 for a watch that is lacking some of the features I would assume would be natural. I know this is their 1st intro into this realm, BUT I think I will wait until 2nd Gen.... I jumped on the 1st Gen MBA and went all out , to find it to be one of the most problematic pieces of hardware I had ever purchased in all the years of buying Apple products.. No offense, but I might just go with the microish Band... I tried one out and for $200 Vs. $350 for a watch lacking several features I would need. Who knows, maybe I will purchase one, but for now? I would rather purchase another High End Time piece for that price....
 
Isn't solid gold 24K? :)

Well pure gold is.

You just mix it with other cheaper metals to thin it out.

Like making lemonade weaker and cheaper by adding more water to the mix.

Pure gold is soft for a metal, whilst the cheaper metals they mix it with are harder, so what you lose in Gold content you gain in strength.

18K gold is only 75% actual gold. the other 25% being cheaper metal mixed in.

9k Gold, which lots of chains are made from is 37.5% Gold and 62.5% other metals.

There is no reason on earth why Apple could not make a 9 Carat Gold Version and price it half as much so perhaps twice as many people could own the gold one.

The fact they are not probably tells us a lot about how they are trying to position this model.

It would of course, cause problems for those with money to have a watch that's gold and twice the price over a gold watch of a lower carat that looks exactly the same, and it still gold, just 9k and not 18k
 
Isn't solid gold 24K? :)

I think you are mistaking solid and pure.

Pure gold is 24k but would be too soft to use for a watch and would damage easily. 18k is an alloy of 75% gold with other metals to make it more durable and give it the different colours (yellow and rose in this case).

The Apple Watch Edition has a solid 18k gold case. :)
 
I stopped wearing a watch as soon as cell phones replaced them.

Maybe I'll get an Apple Watch for fitness activities, but other than that I don't see a compelling reason to buy one.
 
Yes, it will be expensive

I have a Tag watch I bought 5-6 years ago for around $2500. If I sold it, I could probably get roughly $1500 for it now as its in near mint condition. An Apple watch with a degenerating battery that will be obsolete within 2 years will lose 95% of its value in 5 years.

I seriously don't understand the purpose of the Apple Watch...and I've owned 6 Macs, 4 Apple TVs, 7 iPhones, 5 iPods and 5 iPads.

I've always worn a watch, probably for the last 60 years. Yet, I've never felt comfortable paying more then $500 for one. I currently have a Citizen Eco-Drive I paid about $400 for about 5 years ago. I'm sure I couldn't get more than a few dollars for it if I sold it today, but I love it none the less.

Don't short change the resale value of the :apple:Watch.Apple products usually hold decent value over time. I just got $200 for a iPhone 4s, and $200 for an iPad 2. I have an original 128k Macintosh that someone offered me $1000 for about a month ago. It's in mint condition and still works perfectly. I wouldn't be surprised if the :apple:Watch, especially the high-end models, held a decent value five or ten years down the road.

With that said, I agree with you, I simply don't see the purpose of the :apple:Watch. If I have an iPhone why would I want one, and if I don't have an iPhone it's worthless. So what's the point. Of course I thought QuickTime was silly and worthless too. :(
 
Crazy. I'll be amazed if the Apple Watch is a success. It seems ridiculously overpriced, even at the entry level. I feel like the Apple Watch is more about Apple proving that it can "innovate" post Jobs than actually creating a product people want. I think Tim and Jony might be drinking their own Kool Aid these days. $4K for a watch that will be "obsolete" in 1-2 years. Yeah, sure.

And meanwhile they ignore the obvious and refuse to beef up Apple TV with gaming, an App Store, and game rentals. That's a product people would actually want to buy. Don't get me wrong. I love Apple. I've been a loyal customer for 32 years. But I don't think the Apple Watch will be a success for them.
 
Totally not surprising, and it make sense given the true gold use and not a coloring.

A gold smartwatch is hardly considered a handheld tech device, which prices seem to bottom-out at 500 dollars. This is something else entirely, a luxury device that exists only as a fashion piece that goes alongside contemporary watchmakers.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's dumb, but it makes sense and isn't at all surprising. The "sport" model is more of a consumer-entry level product while the top-tier products cater towards a luxury crowd.

I'm not a "watch" person, but I might be intrigued by a smartwatch, depending on how Apple goes with it. I probably won't buy into it until the second generation, though.
 
So Garmin, Polar, Suunto, Timex, all who make $400+ models and typically replace those models every other year and which avg. users replace every 4 years... they are nuts too? All of those watches are 100% plastic.

The Apple Watch is a hybrid sport + activity + daily use watch. It starts at $350, not $500. $500 is for the stainless model, which includes a stainless band, not a plastic one. It's the equivalent of getting the $500 metallic paint option on a luxury brand car.

I don't think most people who buy an Apple Watch are going to upgrade annually any more than they upgrade their MBA or iPad annually. Truth is most people don't even upgrade their phone annually. Tech moves fast, but not that fast. Very little difference in year over year models. It takes at least two years for it to accumulate to be noticeable.

I would agree with your views, but I would ask you to remember one thing regards what you said.

Products start out, develop fast as things are learned, then over time reach a certain level of maturity and the development curve starts to flatten off.

Cars, iMacs, iPhone, Macbooks, even iPads etc, are well well along this curve, and whilst still improving the curve is a lot flatter than at the start.

The Watch is, or will be at ground zero.
It's not a mature product that has had the bugs and kinks of years and millions of users ironed out of it.

If the watch was on version, 4, 5 or 6 then perhaps I'd say yes, the current v5 watch it probably good for some time, the early issues were corrected, the battery life is better, the screens been improved, the sensors are more accurate etc etc...

But we are at the very start of version 1.

So I'm not sure you can yet, at this point draw any comparisons from how long many keep other Apple products that have gone thru many years of improvements.
 
Well in fairness, mechanical watches have not changed a lot in the last 60 years.

Well that's just not true. There has been enormous innovation in the mechanical watch market. The mistake that you make is that you apparently view the fact that watches stay mechanical as no change, when in fact the traditional watch space has seen incredible development. Just because they still exist and for the most part have not transitioned to electronic versions, doesn't mean there has been no change.
 
Last edited:
Whew! Those are some high prices. I'm thinking, at this point, that I'll be skipping a purchase of any Apple Watch. I just can't justify the cost for me and my budget for what I'd gain with it.

It's nice though and I like it.
 
Maybe they read it wrong and the gold watch really just has a 4K display...

Humor me because that sounds a lot less ridiculous than asking someone to pay $4,000 for a watch that will be obsolete in 2 years.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.