Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Hands-On With the Apple Watch: A Developer's Experience at Apple's WatchKit Labs

Pilgrim1099 said:
Even if you're not impressed by the Swiss made watches, you certainly won't be able to hand down your smart watches to your children or grand children as heirlooms.
Click to expand...

The thing is, for a generation/group who wouldn't be doing this anyway, it's not a problem. Lots of us don't wear watches at all - and most people I know who do did not buy them intending them to be heirlooms.

I won't be able to pass my laptop or phone onto my son, and not doing this with a computer that happens to be worn on the wrist like a watch doesn't phase me much either.

I don't think Apple is selling a product to those who own a mechanical watch, but to those who have decided they don't need a watch, because their iPhone tells them the time. Those customers aren't going to be fussed about passing a watch along to their children and grandchildren, or about it lasting a lifetime, or about it needing to be charged daily.

Pilgrim1099 said:
There's no point in turning smart watches into fashion items that become digitally obsolete in less than a couple years which is what Apple is doing. Once a product becomes a piece of electronic technology, it deprecates in value.
Click to expand...

There is no difference in function between Apple Watch Sport and Apple Watch Edition, so if all you're buying into is the technical side of things, you can spend a much smaller amount of money.

If you want to spend $10,000 on the Edition because it's made of solid gold, that won't become "obsolete" in a year. It will still be made of gold then, and look the same, and function the same.

The newer Apple Watch will have newer features, sure, but that isn't a problem in the mechanical watch world. They only tell time. Newer watches don't come with newer features.

Apple Watch has to reflect fashion because it's being worn.
 
Last edited:
goobot said:
My point is that Gen one of each product was flawed and if they would have stayed the same course they wouldn't be the products they are today. Same will most likely go for :apple:watch. It is overpriced and lacks features. That's not to say future gens won't be super popular for fixing these flaws.
Click to expand...

It is overpriced based on what? Your definition of what the acceptable price for this product should be?
 
goobot said:
Based on the fact you can buy a watch at the same price that won't loose it value a year later. You know, the most basic of watch things.
Click to expand...

pricing is set to maximize revenues, not maximize sales--and certainly not on any estimated of intrinsic worth or longevity.
 
Avatar74 said:
But people can't get into internet arguments to win internet points if they did that!
Click to expand...

Good point.

THE GOLD WATCH IS POINTLESS!!!!!!! IT'S THE SAME AS THE $349 MODEL!!!!!! JUST LIKE A $5 WATCH HAS THE SAME FUNCTIONALITY AS A $5,000 WATCH!! THEY BOTH TELL TIME!!!!

I KNOW ONE IS MADE OF GOLD AND THE OTHER IS NOT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!!
 
MH01 said:
Has Apple ever sold you an identical ipod, iPhone, iPad etc for say some 2700% more?

Is it so hard to grasp why some people are becoming worried about what impact this might have on the future of Apple products?

It's a hypothetical question , relax we don't have an answer, thoguh something up for debate.
Click to expand...
The impact is predictable. Most Apple customers will shrug at the exclusively priced versions and opt for the mainstream versions.

Apple can afford to fail with the luxury tier since it builds on a solid foundation of more mass market tiers. That wasn't the case when I paid $3600 for my Mac SE back in 1986, which was nearly twice cost of an IBM PC. That price was all-or-nothing; you couldn't get a "cheap version" (just an Apple IIe). Apple was rapidly pricing itself out of the market back then in a potentially irreversible way. The Watch Edition, by comparison, is a low risk trial balloon.
 
It is foolish to debate the need and price of the Edition watch. It is targeted at a small segment of the market. It will only have appeal to those who wish to have a smart watch but want something far more elegant to wear on their wrist as a fashion accessory. This price will be chump change to the type of wealthy individual who will purchase one.
As for the "craftsmanship" of a Rolex watch, few people care. It's a fashion statement, status symbol or birthright. It doesn't keep better time. BTW, modern cars use quite a bit of computer technology to operate and provide real time diagnostics to the driver. No one decries the erosion of craftsmanship in newer cars compared to say, a classic Porsche.
Lastly, fewer folks wear watches today, particularly in the younger demographic. Why? Because the wrist watch that only tells time is anachronistic and not necessary. Perhaps the Apple Watch will give folks a reason to wear an expanded feature watch.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
The first iPod sold very well for the market it was available too -- Mac owners, which at the time was 2% of the PC market. To even further reduce the market, you had to have a Mac with a firewire port. But even at launch PC owners were begging for a Windows version. For the iPod's tiny market it received a tremendous amount of media coverage and became as well known as the Mac itself.

The iPhone sold 300K it's first weekend. That was for a $500 unsubsidized phone. No other unsubsidized phone that expensive ever sold as many in that short span. Ultimately, the high price did put a damper on sales which is when Apple changed the pricing model with ATT to a traditional subsidized model.

Regardless though, your point has nothing to do with the complaints people made of each of these products prior to release. The point is they laughed at the Gen 1 model and yet each of these products went on to become industry legends.
Click to expand...

The question is what happens if the Apple Watch sells 300k in the first weekend, like no other smart watch has done before? Would this mean it is a success or a failure?
 
the8thark said:
If I was to get an watch, it'd have to be a 38mm as none of the 42mm watch bands till fit my wrist. It's too small.
Click to expand...

Wow. I'm glad I read your post. I hadn't looked carefully enough at how small the 42mm bands would go. I have 130mm wrists, but I had almost talked myself into getting the 42mm watch due to the larger screen size. After a closer look, I see you are correct. None of the 42mm bands will fit my wrist.
 
goobot said:
Based on the fact you can buy a watch at the same price that won't loose it value a year later. You know, the most basic of watch things.
Click to expand...

I don't know if your argument is willfully misleading or what. I think we can all agree that the Apple Watch is not really just a watch. No smart watch is really just a watch, any more than my dive computer is a watch because it happens to display the time and I wear it on my wrist when I dive.
 
GrimmsGirl said:
I don't know if your argument is willfully misleading or what. I think we can all agree that the Apple Watch is not really just a watch. No smart watch is really just a watch, any more than my dive computer is a watch because it happens to display the time and I wear it on my wrist when I dive.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, the suggestion that an equally priced, conventional timepiece wouldn't loose [sic] it's value. Does a < $400 low end Citizen, really sustain (or even appreciate vs.) it's original purchase price? Was that only in the context of the Edition Watch? (I have no idea, their argument is all over the map...)
 
Pilgrim1099 said:
Even if you're not impressed by the Swiss made watches, you certainly won't be able to hand down your smart watches to your children or grand children as heirlooms.

There's no point in turning smart watches into fashion items that become digitally obsolete in less than a couple years which is what Apple is doing. Once a product becomes a piece of electronic technology, it deprecates in value.
Click to expand...

Why would I want to hand any watch to my children or grand children as heirlooms? Its just a material watch, no matter if its a mechanical, or smart watch. Funny old world thinking you have going on there.

----------
Batman89 said:
Good point.

THE GOLD WATCH IS POINTLESS!!!!!!! IT'S THE SAME AS THE $349 MODEL!!!!!! JUST LIKE A $5 WATCH HAS THE SAME FUNCTIONALITY AS A $5,000 WATCH!! THEY BOTH TELL TIME!!!!

I KNOW ONE IS MADE OF GOLD AND THE OTHER IS NOT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!!
Click to expand...

You might be correct because you were typing in ALL CAPS, but, have you ever thought that still, to a lot of people, $20K worth less to them than $350 to us? I see that all around in the malls these days.

Point being: If you can't afford it, move on, some people won't even bat an eye at the price.
 
HenryDJP said:
Sure they can. Apple's customers buy $2500 Macs on the norm. Not only that, since when is $13k a boat load of cash? Maybe it seems that way for a computer but people on average buy $20k cars. Sure you might say, "Well that's a CAR", but you simply asked if Apple's customers could afford a $13k computer. Sure they can.
Click to expand...

People on average buy 20k cars over 3-5 years. I would say 13k is a chunk of
of cash to any single making less than $250k. A computer might amortize over 4years. the watch is more like two.

----------
D.T. said:
Not to mention, the suggestion that an equally priced, conventional timepiece wouldn't loose [sic] it's value. Does a < $400 low end Citizen, really sustain (or even appreciate vs.) it's original purchase price? Was that only in the context of the Edition Watch? (I have no idea, their argument is all over the map...)
Click to expand...

Just out of curiousity--what percent of the population owns watches costing more than $500?
 
Neepman said:
I can't imagine the 349 one being anything but the least successful of the least successful. That garbage plastic band and the easily damaged aluminum body sort of screams Cheap watch = loser at the top of one's lungs.
Click to expand...

Yes, the more expensive items are for people who need a watch (a mostly useless item nowadays) to make a fashion statement. But I don't really understand why they would need an Apple Watch for that, they would make more of a statement with a Rolex.
The 349 watch is for people who actually need a small computer on their wrist that happens to take the form factor of a watch. I don't really care about fashion, the Apple Watch is quite ugly anyway, and the yellow gold versions adds bad taste to ugly.
Since I need a computer, I will take the 399 version. I don't see the point in spending more since the internals are exactly the same and it's the internals that matter. And I don't really care if it gets scratched, it's a computer, it will be obsolete in a couple of years anyway and then I will buy a new one...
 
goobot said:
Based on the fact you can buy a watch at the same price that won't loose it value a year later. You know, the most basic of watch things.
Click to expand...

Except that a smartwatch is no more a watch than a smartphone is merely a phone... A watch tells time and a phone lets you call people. Yet, calling people is a fringe use case with the iPhone and all the other smartphones. Likewise, telling time will be a fringe use case with the Apple Watch.
I haven't used a watch for more than 20 years. Simply because having the time on my wrist is pointless, I have plenty other ways to tell time without burdening my wrist with a chunk of metal. But I will buy an Apple Watch, because I can see many use cases for having a computer on my wrist.

Moreover, the Apple Watch will be bought by individuals, not business. The concept of "losing value" is pointless for individuals. They're not in the business of reselling used watches. They're in the business of using them. For an end-user, an items loses its value when it's either broken or cease to allow them to perform useful tasks with it. The watch will not stop working after a year. It will not stop performing tasks either. So it will be still have its full value.
 
goobot said:
Based on the fact you can buy a watch at the same price that won't loose it value a year later. You know, the most basic of watch things.
Click to expand...

Your comparison is pointless, because the most basic thing of a Smartwatch is being SMART, and not being a watch that doesn't lose it's value over time.

A dumb watch will only tell you the time, ever! It doesn't matter if it's a cheap one or a expensive Rolex, they only tell the time. So it doesn't make sense to compare it with a Smartwatch with much more functionality.

Especially if you consider how often you actually use the main functionality of a watch over the day - looking for the time - it's absolutely ridiculous to wear such a device on your wrist the whole day.
 
Pilgrim1099 said:
Even if you're not impressed by the Swiss made watches, you certainly won't be able to hand down your smart watches to your children or grand children as heirlooms.

There's no point in turning smart watches into fashion items that become digitally obsolete in less than a couple years which is what Apple is doing. Once a product becomes a piece of electronic technology, it deprecates in value.
Click to expand...

Why would I ever even DREAM of handing down a watch to my grand children? The THOUGHT of that never even crossed my mind - EVER.

Maybe I should have kept my old rotary phone, so I could have passed that on to my grand children?
 
GrimmsGirl said:
Wow. I'm glad I read your post. I hadn't looked carefully enough at how small the 42mm bands would go. I have 130mm wrists, but I had almost talked myself into getting the 42mm watch due to the larger screen size. After a closer look, I see you are correct. None of the 42mm bands will fit my wrist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, best to go order it instore and make sure you get a band that will fit your wrist. Sure you can't buy it instore but for $500+ waiting a few days or a week but ensuring the one you get fits perfectly is certainly the best way to go in my opinion.
 
rebe1 said:
You might be correct because you were typing in ALL CAPS, but, have you ever thought that still, to a lot of people, $20K worth less to them than $350 to us? I see that all around in the malls these days.

Point being: If you can't afford it, move on, some people won't even bat an eye at the price.
Click to expand...
Your point is excellent, if somewhat undercut by you making it at someone that agrees with you and was making a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back