How do you think the competiton will respond & Has Apple's pricing made it easier ?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Piggie, Mar 11, 2015.

  1. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #1
    Just wondering what your thoughts are now, as to how the competition will respond to the apple watch.

    And, more significantly, has the higher than expected pricing, on some models, made it easier for them?

    If Apple had waded in with cut throat pricing, they would have no chance, but perhaps now, they see where the bar had been set, for anything other than Aluminium, they will feel able to offer higher end models themselves and not cross Apple's price line.
     
  2. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #2
    The only other smartwatch that works with iOS now is the Pebble watch and it is no where near the Apple watch in features and build quality.

    When Android wear watches start working with iOS they still will not get the advantage of native iOS integration.
     
  3. Piggie thread starter macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #3
    Oh I'm not speaking of iOS Integration, I mean as devices in their own right.
    Needing to work with another device, I'm sure is just a current limitation that will become less and less as the years and models from all brands go by.
     
  4. Dave245 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    #4
    The thing that bothers me most is the life cycle, will the Apple Watch be able to last years? I think this is going to be the thinking of many people, watches are not upgraded every year by most people they are held onto for years. I think competition will respond by waiting to see how successful the Apple Watch is and then act accordingly, maybe by releasing a similar product.
     
  5. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #5
    I'll try and make myself more clear.

    In order for any smart watch to work with the iPhone a companion app needs to be running on the phone itself. Since the Apple watch app is baked into iOS it has certain system level privileges that no other 3rd party watch app will have access to.

    For example I have a Pebble watch right now that depends on the pebble watch app on my phone. The Pebble watch app requires background app refresh to be on in order to try and prevent the app from being closed by iOS to free up memory if it's idle too long. (closed app on phone = no more notifications on watch).

    This will be the same with any other 3rd party watch app. Natively, iOS will give the apple watch app the same system priority that it does to the phone, messages and mail app. None of those apps get closed by iOS and if you manually close them they will relaunch.
     
  6. Piggie thread starter macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #6
    Well....

    A few weeks ago, when some here were coming out with remarks and thoughts about:

    "oh the Apple watch won't be upgraded for years"

    My instant, and still current view on that thinking is:

    "Well what do you think the competition are going to be doing during this time then?"

    If Apple sat on it's backside and did not improve the watch in terms of hardware, you can sure bet the rest of the industry will be hard at work on their models.

    Like the iPhone and iPad. If Apple has just sat on those for years, they'd be destroyed now by the competition. They are not going to hang around whilst apple just sits there feeling smug.

    As I said in my original post.
    The competition were probably scared to hell that Apple was going to come out with some very aggressive pricing on the steel model.

    As that has not happened, the bar is now set higher than expected, and others are going to have more "wiggle room" to bring out, newer designs, and "NOW" not look terribly expensive, as they will all be compared to apple's watch price wise.

    ----------

    Thanks for the info.
    Sorry, I'm obviously not making myself clear to you :)

    I don't care in any way, shape of form about any smart watch being compatible with any Apple product whatsoever.

    (And I mean that with the greatest respect)

    There are vastly, and I mean VASTLY more people all over the world that don't have iPhone, than do.

    I'm speaking more generally about other brands bringing out new, interesting and exciting watch products, irrespective of any iOS integration.

    As I did say last. I'd be happy if a watch was it's own thing, didn't need a phone, and perhaps just was able to connect to a proper computer to transfer data over.

    I'm personally not interested in a mobile phone accessory product.
     
  7. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #7
    Almost all smart watches right now work exclusively with an Android phone or iPhone with the exception of the Pebble which works with both.

    If you own an iPhone the only other option you have other than the Apple watch is a Pebble Watch.

    If you own an Android phone you have more choices.

    Until someone develops a stand alone independant smart watch that does not need a phone to tether with there really is no competition for Apple. (The Pebble is an option and nowhere near competition imo).

    Would you sell your iPhone and buy an Android phone just to get an Android watch you like a lot? I wouldn't.
     
  8. Dave245 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    #8
    As long as Apple continue to support the older watches like they do with the older phones I'm sure people will be ok with that, it's only of they pull a iPad 4 and update 6 months later. Buying the Stainless Steel version with a leather band is suppose to be an investment (or at least I think) because these leather bands are built to last (they should be going by straps on other normal watches).
     
  9. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #9
    I don't think the price of the steel watch matters that much in terms of giving the competition more "wiggle room."

    There is always the sports watch, so anybody comparing prices between Apple watch and another smartwatch will always look at the sport watch first. Yes, if someone has their heart set on a steel watch, they will have to pay more for the Apple watch. But I think anyone comparing smartwatches will first of all be looking at what features each has -- comparison of the material the watch is made of is likely to be of secondary concern.

    If anything, the presence of the aluminum sport watch might give Apple an advantage. For instance, I think the Pebble is interesting, but have no interest in getting a plastic watch. So I look at Pebble Time Steel, and it is $300. I think, "So for $50 more, I can get the Apple sport watch, and it has many more features."
     
  10. Piggie thread starter macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #10
    Yes I agree. The base model with a similar strap as the competition will probably be the instant comparison point.

    My problem is, I'd like a smart watch, but I don't want to have to use it with a smart phone. :)

    I really just want one, with nice faces I can customise myself, some handy gadgets and I can get contacts ect on it.

    I'm not going to admit to wanting it to be able to act like a phone, as I know that causes trouble saying that on these forums! :D
     
  11. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #11
    Which models, other than the Edition, had higher than expected pricing? If anything, the stainless steel models were a lot cheaper than I expected. The stainless steel Apple Watch is first and foremost a high quality watch that has advanced functionality. These aren't equivalent to the Fossil- or Swatch-branded watches you'll find at J.C. Penney.

    Don't expect anyone else to be able to significantly undercut Apple on products of similar quality unless they want to lose money or barely break even like they do on phones. Maybe they can go a little cheaper, but anyone who thinks the kitschy looking gold-colored Moto 360 with the steel strap for $329 is equivalent to the $649 Apple Watch with Milanese Loop band is kidding themselves. Apple has its own stores and can also get their watches into jewelers and high-end department stores if it wants to. Do you think Samsung, LG, and Motorola will be able to do so? I'm skeptical, and the Best Buy crowd isn't going to be amenable to a hypothetical $550-$700 "high-end" Moto 360 or LG Watch Urbane made from premium materials.
     
  12. Michael CM1 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #13
    Apple is about making money, not market share. These watches are definitely a cut above at least in terms of design and materials compared to the rest of the crop. I mean nobody is going to confuse a Pebble with an Apple Watch. I think that's good for everyone. If you want to get in low, go with a Pebble or something similar. If you just need a fitness tracker, go with FitBit or Jawbone. If you want the Lexus, go with an Apple Watch.

    I'm waiting to get one until a combination of discovering enough useful features and getting some sort of price cut. If Target sells them, I at least know I'll be able to get 10 percent off after I fill five prescriptions there, meaning it would start at $315 for me. Otherwise, I have seen PLENTY of sales on the iPhone 6 models and newest iPads. Once the initial buying surge wears off, people might start discounting them a little to move a few more units. That might be when I get one.

    But also I get to see what other people think first. I still want something that will help me with fitness goals, which maybe I can work toward after I get some really fancy shoe inserts to help with some foot problems next week. FitBit was really great at tracking every tiny step you took, but I had that problem with a rash with the band. So I've been apprehensive about using it again. So I'd like to see how that works with launch software and with any third-party stuff that comes up.
     
  13. BvizioN Suspended

    BvizioN

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #14
    I think Piggie is talking about a smartwatch that does not rely on any smartphone (have it's own sim,gps, ect) In a way, he is talking about mini smart phone on a wrist.
     
  14. matrix07, Mar 12, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2015

    matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #15
    I think the usual suspects will response the same way as they're doing now. Concentrating on making its watch imitating the traditional round watch and compete on price and more features (sensors).
    I don't think this segment will create a problem for Apple, if we assume the Apple Watch is successful.
    What more interesting is someone outside of usual tech companies, namely traditional watch makers and/or upmarket fashion brands (like Guess, or even Issey Miyake perhaps). What if these guys, which already has more expertise in marketing watches/fashion products, try to compete with Apple Watch with Android Wear?
    I don't think they will move now but if the category is established, then perhaps we will see this fight.

    But there's one market that Apple has left wide open for competitors to own it. Cheap fitness band. If Google's smart, just have Tony Fadell concentrates on this segment and it will be theirs in no time.

    Absolutely. If the base model is $299 and SS is around $400 Apple will waltz through the market, but looks like they're not quite sure themselves yet that the Watch will sell hence the higher than usual price.
     
  15. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #16
    There are four types of competitors...

    1. Traditional watch makers trying to make their stand-alone traditional watches "Smarter"... TAG, Citizen, Tissot, etc. while they may be good differentiating features among traditional watches, these products will fail to materially compete with Apple because they can only do so much in a traditional watch without pairing it to a phone. They won't be in the same class of device (which goes both ways). Traditional watch fans will remain loyal but how many of those really are there?

    2. Same traditional watch makers as above but offering a smart watch as an iPhone accessory alternative. They will fail because they won't be able to compete on price (sub $1000) and they can't possibly deliver the same functionality... Apple will always have an integration advantage with its own ecosystem and its App Store will quickly build to a point where the barrier to entry is incredible (it's probably already there). And no one in the watch industry has a hope of building computing devices combining hardware and software as well as Apple.

    3. Smart watch companies like Pebble who offer cheap less capable alternatives may survive as niche players but will never make much money. Most people will choose Apple over Pebble even at twice the price for the ecosystem integration benefits.

    4. Android wearables will compete to the same extent that Android phones compete with iPhones... Lots of low end market share but little profit. No one here is likely interested in this option.

    So the bottom line is, that none of these competitors will have a material impact on Apple Watch sales or success nor get any appreciable profit share from this new market segment.

    Game. Set. Match. Apple.

    BTW, There's a watch store at the mall near my office that sells brands like Guess, Diesel, Nixon and a variety of others in the $100-$800 price range... How long until they're out of business?
     
  16. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #17
    Yeah, I know I get that but he keeps mentioning "the competition". Stand alone smart watches don't exist so not sure how they are competition? Unless he is implying that another company other than Apple making a stand alone Smartwatch.
     
  17. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #18
    I think that Apple, by marketing this as a status symbol, rather than as a geek's watch, has pretty much guaranteed that at least for the first couple of years they will have the market to themselves. The Apple watch is likely to be seen as trendy, whereas everything else will still be struggling with the geek image they have today.

    Eventually Apple will help make these so ubiquitous that the market will open up, and at that point the same thing will happen as has happened in the phone market - the wide selection of much cheaper devices will take the biggest part of the market share, while Apple continues to make all the money.
     
  18. camtechman56 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Location:
    Warren, pa.
    #19
    Everyone here doesn't seem to be comparing smart watches, they are comparing if they will work with other Apple products. Android smart watches work with Android phones, and the apple watch works with ios devices and isn't a stand alone watch like the gear S is. the gear S can work with the phone or you can use a sim card and it works as a stand alone watch phone.

    I am going to buy an Apple watch, but I realize there are features some android smart watches have that the apple watch doesn't, and may never have, but I want one so I will buy one.
     
  19. bbeagle macrumors 68040

    bbeagle

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #20
    The Gear S is NOT a stand-alone watch! You NEED a Samsung phone.

    Yes, it can work out in the wild without a Samsung phone, but you STILL NEED a Samsung phone to download the apps and update the apps.

    If the Samsung phone would allow a Mac or PC to download and update the apps, then it would truly be standalone. But right now, it's not. The barrier to entry for an iPhone user is too high.
     
  20. Lloydbm41 macrumors 68040

    Lloydbm41

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Location:
    Central California
    #21
    Incorrect. The Martian Notifier works perfectly fine with an iPhone and does not need the app running in the background to receive notifications. It is BT dependent.
     
  21. camtechman56 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Location:
    Warren, pa.
    #22
    Ok, you are right, but it is more stand alone than an apple watch. I like apple, and plan to buy the watch. My point was that people are not comparing smart watches but are comparing ability to work with IOS devices.
     
  22. briankeith513 macrumors 6502a

    briankeith513

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #23
    Samsung will respond as they always do..............
     
  23. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #24
    the Martian who?
     
  24. Lloydbm41 macrumors 68040

    Lloydbm41

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Location:
    Central California
    #25
    Apple is marketing this to the fashion crowd (aka 90% female crowd). All you have to do is look at how and where Apple has been advertising and you can see that they are catering to this specific demographic. (In fact, I don't think I have seen a single Apple advert with an Apple Watch on a guy?)

    And the LG Urbane and Moto 360 are widely considered the best looking watches in the smartwatch market. The Apple Watch is completely polarized with people either calling it a toy looking, ugly watch or beautiful. Doesn't seem to be much in between.
     

Share This Page