Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I just don't get the Apple Watch. My wife has one and she likes it for fitness stuff and notifications, but I just don't see the point. My phone is either in my pocket, a mere second or two away from being seen at any time, or when I'm at work it's on my desk in view at all times.

Maybe if it wasn't so ugly I might find it more attractive simply as an object, but to my eyes it's a fat, bloated, ugly rectangle devoid of class or design.
I fully agree. When I see posted photos of the space grey (or silver) on a fabric band....wow...it looks like a piece of oversized plastic sitting awkwardly on a bad strap. Looks terrible. Even if it does a few interesting things, it looks like hell. Others of course will disagree :rolleyes:
 
This is a really weird comment. You really like the device but are worried about trade in values? When the watch was first released lots of people balked at the price, not so much in 2019 when they start at $200. Heck, you can get a S4 for $329 currently at Best Buy which is essentially the S5 minus AOD and compass.
[automerge]1573227066[/automerge]

It is pretty well documented what the watch does. If you don't see any utility in your life that's perfectly fine.
How weird? The Apple trade in value gives you an idea how much on true cost to them.
 
I fully agree. When I see posted photos of the space grey (or silver) on a fabric band....wow...it looks like a piece of oversized plastic sitting awkwardly on a bad strap. Looks terrible. Even if it does a few interesting things, it looks like hell. Others of course will disagree :rolleyes:

Certainly do disagree. I like the look of it, but more importantly I love the functionality. Regardless......it is available in a number of different styles and bands. I don't like the fabric bands either so......I didn't buy an Apple Watch with a fabric band. But hey.....if it "looks like hell" to you then I guess there isn't much for you to talk about on the subject other than that, huh?
 
The Apple trade in value gives you an idea how much on true cost to them.

So you’re saying you _don’t_ understand the difference between trade-in value versus resale value. Of course trade-in value will always will be far less they what somebody could sell their Apple Watch for in person with cash in hand. Trade in value doesn’t apply just to Apple, that applies to any retailer that will always give you less versus what it’s worth if you sell out right.
 
For me my phone does everything I need whilst I'm out of the house. Isn't the watch just a phone with a tiny screen, no keyboard, and few apps? What am I missing?
For me the AW does everything I need whilst I’m out of the house. Because it is a phone with a tiny screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeteS1963
For me the AW does everything I need whilst I’m out of the house. Because it is a phone with a tiny screen.
Until the watch does everything without you having to also own a fairly current iPhone, you are being taken to the cleaners by Apple by purchasing two items.
 
Until the watch does everything without you having to also own a fairly current iPhone, you are being taken to the cleaners by Apple by purchasing two items.
I had a 6s until last night, an S0 then my current S3.What do you mean a fairly current iPhone?
 
I had a 6s until last night, an S0 then my current S3.What do you mean a fairly current iPhone?
You must have both products: an iPhone and an Apple Watch. Apple forces you to own both for the watch to be useful.
 
Putting cellular on the AW was a game changer. Being able to leave your iPhone at home while jogging is great! Its also one of the more reasonably priced Apple product.
 
You must have both products: an iPhone and an Apple Watch. Apple forces you to own both for the watch to be useful.

Even worse they force you to use the same carrier on your watch as your phone.

So assuming you don't want the abysmal aluminium finish and go for stainless steel you also have to pay for LTE hardware which your phone carrier might not even support.

And of course it's all worthless when roaming anyway.
 
You must have both products: an iPhone and an Apple Watch. Apple forces you to own both for the watch to be useful.

Think of the AW as an iPhone accessory. Also, there are literally millions upon millions of iPhone users out there, it catering to them, not non iPhone owners.
 
You must have both products: an iPhone and an Apple Watch. Apple forces you to own both for the watch to be useful.

Hint... a lot of people already have iPhones! There are 900 million iPhones in people's pockets right now. And a certain number of people will decide to buy an Apple Watch to pair with it. iPhone ---> Apple Watch.

It probably doesn't work the other way, though.

I can't imagine many people say "I want an Apple Watch... but damn I gotta buy an iPhone too?"

I know there's this idea that someday the Apple Watch will be completely standalone and not require an iPhone. But what would be the point, exactly?

An Apple Watch that doesn't do any Apple/iPhone things... is that still an Apple Watch?

Aren't there a million smartwatches like that already? FitBit? Galaxy Gear? Android Wear?

People love the Apple Watch because it's an extension of their iPhone. You can also use it to unlock your Mac. And use it for Apple Pay. Lots of Apple things.

So I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why you'd want an Apple Watch if you didn't use any other Apple products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fauxtog
A Rolex keeps its functionality and value for decades. An Apple Watch for months.

They compete for space on your wrist, but one is an investment and the other is disposable.

One is jewelry/status show piece and one is technology. If I wanted an "old school" watch and want to look like ai think I'm something special, then I'd get a rolex, baum mercier, etc. I wanted an "old school" watch that is truly accurate, then I'd buy a Seiko, Citizen.

Have not worn a watch in many, many years. Got the AW as a progression from fit bits, don't really use it for telling time more than tech apps...
 
Even worse they force you to use the same carrier on your watch as your phone.

So assuming you don't want the abysmal aluminium finish and go for stainless steel you also have to pay for LTE hardware which your phone carrier might not even support.

And of course it's all worthless when roaming anyway.
It’s so abysmal the segment generated 6.5B dollars. And that’s when it’s worthless with roaming. Can you imagine the revenue when this is addressed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abazigal and name99
Apple will very likely dominate the wearables market the same way it dominated music players, but on a much larger scale. Other companies can try to compete, but I doubt engineering-led companies can even identify the factors critical for success in wearables.

I mean, Apple is now a trillion-dollar company, and I can count the number of times I see design being acknowledged as the main reason for success in one hand.

Nor will most tech companies have the culture necessary to make wearables work (they need to be willing to give power to designers at the expense of engineering).

Basically, the irony here is that everything the critics claimed would doom Apple has been instrumental to making the Apple Watch as successful as it has.

I look forward to the day when there is no longer a smartwatch market, only the Apple Watch market. First pebble, now Fitbit, maybe the Swiss watch industry next, perhaps the smartwatch and even tablet market in the future? By the time the Apple watch’s strategic advantage becomes clear, it will be too late for companies to catch up.

Design is, of course, important, but so is being willing to undertake a LONG-term plan.

DED's current series on the design of the first Apple SoCs ( https://roughlydrafted.de ) is a reminder of what Apple was doing in the years just before 2010, compared to what other companies (Samsung "who needs a fast GPU?", Qualcomm "who needs 64 bit?") were doing at the time. The core that went into the Apple Watch probably started its design at the same time as the original Apple Watch Series 0 was being shipped.

And Apple's supposed observers mostly STILL don't get it. Apple did everything the could to tell us this year (as opposed to previous years) that they had dramatically changed the circuit design methodology for their SoCs (perhaps for the first time since the A6?) The focus this year was not on performance but all about just how dramatically they've restructured everything for power; and if you compare the numbers they gave (number of separate clock domains, number of power isolation transistors) to, say, Intel, you'll see how dramatic this is.
This is all hard boring work that doesn't even have an immediate payoff -- this year's core is nicely faster and nicely lower power than last year's, but doesn't seem to be THAT different. But creating a solid foundation means they now have something they can build upon aggressively for the next five years...

Same thing at the OS level. Apple has been making changes for years to the lowest levels of the OS to increase modularization. Changes to scheduling, XPC (ie changes to IPC), this years drivers moved into user-mode. What's the point of all this? To me it looks like a long slow effort to undo all the most problematic parts of UNIX (and thus FINALLY realize the true promise of Mach). Some of this improves security (by not having everything in the kernel), some improves robustness (by not having a fault in the kernel, caused by a driver or bad IO, collapse the entire world), some improves utilization of cores, so that the OS (OS proper AND frameworks and user apps) operates better on many many cores.
But again it's unexciting work that isn't understood or appreciated by outsiders (though my guess is that MS gets it --- much of this work parallels what MS has also been doing).
[automerge]1573250402[/automerge]
A Rolex keeps its functionality and value for decades. An Apple Watch for months.

They compete for space on your wrist, but one is an investment and the other is disposable.

The desire to show off never goes away.
BUT the way people show off changes every decade. You do realize there's a reason that computer billionaires don't wear suits? And it's not because they can't afford them...

In ten years the people who aggressively insists on showing off wealth via wearing an old-style watch rather than a smart device aren't going to be someone we're all jealous of, they're going to be the subject of "Old man yells at cloud" meme's and jokes. Like the way normal people roll their eyes when someone starts ranting about how their ancestors came over on the Mayflower.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
Until the watch does everything without you having to also own a fairly current iPhone, you are being taken to the cleaners by Apple by purchasing two items.
I don't know your definition of 'fairly current' but WatchOS 6 works with any iOS 13 compatible iPhone meaning an iPhone 6s or even SE will do.

Most people will need a full sized phone for various reasons anyway, so having to own both products is hardly a deal breaker.
 
How weird? The Apple trade in value gives you an idea how much on true cost to them.
No it doesn't. It is based on what the parts/device can be sold/reused for.
[automerge]1573254070[/automerge]
Until the watch does everything without you having to also own a fairly current iPhone, you are being taken to the cleaners by Apple by purchasing two items.
Orrrr people see utility/value in the watch, I know I do. I don't think anyone with an Apple Watch feels they were "taken to the cleaners".
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopherMan12
I fully agree. When I see posted photos of the space grey (or silver) on a fabric band....wow...it looks like a piece of oversized plastic sitting awkwardly on a bad strap. Looks terrible. Even if it does a few interesting things, it looks like hell. Others of course will disagree :rolleyes:

Evidently, enough people disagreed with you to make the Apple Watch as financially successfully as it is.

Make of it what you will. Suffice to say - all these talk of Apple watches not retaining any resale value or lacking the “soul” of mechanical watches or whatever reason for not wanting one, they don’t seem to matter in the greater scheme of things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
Hint... a lot of people already have iPhones! There are 900 million iPhones in people's pockets right now. And a certain number of people will decide to buy an Apple Watch to pair with it. iPhone ---> Apple Watch.

It probably doesn't work the other way, though.

I can't imagine many people say "I want an Apple Watch... but damn I gotta buy an iPhone too?"

I know there's this idea that someday the Apple Watch will be completely standalone and not require an iPhone. But what would be the point, exactly?

An Apple Watch that doesn't do any Apple/iPhone things... is that still an Apple Watch?

Aren't there a million smartwatches like that already? FitBit? Galaxy Gear? Android Wear?

People love the Apple Watch because it's an extension of their iPhone. You can also use it to unlock your Mac. And use it for Apple Pay. Lots of Apple things.

So I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why you'd want an Apple Watch if you didn't use any other Apple products.

I’m not so sure.

There has been an evolution of AW, including cellular and WiFi interface, 32 GB memory now in S5...a move in the direction of a standalone device. AW instructions now include very long list of things you can do without the iPhone. Standalone, and via cellular and/or WiFI.

Sure the number of iPhone owners is large. But the market for those without an iPhone is much larger. And the potential market for those that want a cool watch that does what the AW does, and does it great, but don’t want their watch to be tied to any phone, is gigantic. Such a watch, after they experience it, might well attract some to consider other Apple devices, like iPhone!
 
I’m not so sure.

There has been an evolution of AW, including cellular and WiFi interface, 32 GB memory now in S5...a move in the direction of a standalone device. AW instructions now include very long list of things you can do without the iPhone. Standalone, and via cellular and/or WiFI.

Sure the number of iPhone owners is large. But the market for those without an iPhone is much larger. And the potential market for those that want a cool watch that does what the AW does, and does it great, but don’t want their watch to be tied to any phone, is gigantic. Such a watch, after they experience it, might well attract some to consider other Apple devices, like iPhone!

I dunno... perhaps Google should finally get serious and make THE smartwatch for the Android people. Or somebody.

It's not Apple's responsibility to make smartwatches for the Android masses. Nor do I think they'd want to go down that road. Too much nonsense to deal with... someone else's OS, various carriers, etc.

As much as we think an Apple Watch could operate TOTALLY independently from another Apple device... I don't think Apple would ever allow it.

The Apple Watch is the shuttlecraft to the spaceship. It's not supposed to be the spaceship. :p
 
A Rolex keeps its functionality and value for decades. An Apple Watch for months.

They compete for space on your wrist, but one is an investment and the other is disposable.

Don’t some expensive watches need to be sent in for servicing every couple of years? The price of that alone can get you an Apple Watch, so it feels like this would more or less cancel out in the long run.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.