I Apple, but not my Apple Watch

[bjdraw]

Perhaps the biggest issues with your viewpoint is that A) you haven't defined what wearables are and B) you haven't stated what problem they solve.

Wearable are bracelets, necklaces, sunglasses, pants, coats, and of course watches with embedded technology. But what problem do these devices solve? And more importantly is that solution greater than the additional layer of complexity and of upkeep (such as charging)?

I personally don't see it.



By this definition Apple invented the wearables market over 10 years ago with the iPod.

"Wearable" is technology that you wear. the iPod doesn't fit the definition just because someone released an arm strap for it, anymore than a boombox in a backpack is a wearable.

The problem it solves is needing to access information quickly and easily. Pulling a device out of your pocket isn't as quick or easy as looking at your wrist.

 

[Docsteel]

First of all cars already have bt.

Second RFID in grocery stores. Yes it will happen. But why do I need ApplePay in my bracelet or sunglasses when I already have it in my cell phone?

Third we've had watches that track heartbeat for years now too. While I admit being able to send that info to a central database and harvest the data may be useful for insurance companies or possibly some studies, I don't see it being big enough to start an entire wearable market. Furthermore a dedicated medical device would probably function better than a jack of all traits apple watch.

Perhaps the biggest issues with your viewpoint is that A) you haven't defined what wearables are and B) you haven't stated what problem they solve.

Wearable are bracelets, necklaces, sunglasses, pants, coats, and of course watches with embedded technology. But what problem do these devices solve? And more importantly is that solution greater than the additional layer of complexity and of upkeep (such as charging)?

I personally don't see it.



By this definition Apple invented the wearables market over 10 years ago with the iPod.

My point about cars with bt isn't that they have it, its that its the start of more integration with devices, and a wearable is much easier to work with while driving, or in fact any other myriad of activities where not having to stop and pull out a phone is necessary and swipe or flick of the wrist is far quicker and more natural. I will say that voice interaction is going to be absolutely necessary to much of the utility though, and Apple and everyone in the industry has to improve it.

I understand you don't see it (yet), but it goes against the grain of the entire IT industry if that matters. Perhaps doing more reading on the very reasonable application of the Internet of Things and the proposed interactions will help?

 

[thomasfxlt58]

The Apple Watch killer app is glance-able information. It's the same killer app that has sold watches since they were invented.

I think this is true, but the real value is is simple , executable actions. Instead of a bunch of Apps on the home screen, I'd prefer One button widgets such as ; navigate home, walk to the nearest Starbucks, display mail or messages only from a certain party, find a popular pub within a certain radius, find the nearest subway entrance, get me back to where I left my car, pull up my concert tickets and give me walking directions from my present location.

Yes, you can do many of these things with Siri, but talking to your watch isn't always appropriate. Interactions with the watch for other than glances should be simple.

 

[bjdraw]

I think this is true, but the real value is is simple , executable actions. Instead of a bunch of Apps on the home screen, I'd prefer One button widgets such as ; navigate home, walk to the nearest Starbucks, display mail or messages only from a certain party, find a popular pub within a certain radius, find the nearest subway entrance, get me back to where I left my car, pull up my concert tickets and give me walking directions from my present location.

Yes, you can do many of these things with Siri, but talking to your watch isn't always appropriate. Interactions with the watch for other than glances should be simple.

Most definitely. The utility of easily bing able to glance at information is greatly amplified if you are able to just as quickly act on that information.

If every iPhone app took advantage of iOS 8's interactive notifications feature, it would greatly enhance the Apple Watch usefulness. A great example of this is Dou Security which just update it's iOS app with the ability to approve a login from an interactive notification. Now by extension, I can approve a login from my watch. This is far more convenient than seeing the notification about the login request on my Watch and then needing to go to the App on my phone to do the needful.

An app you may be interested in, that I'm thinking is worth my consideration now that I've read your comment, is "Workflow." It was featured on a Macrumors post about useful apps.

 

[TEBnewyork]

I think this is true, but the real value is is simple , executable actions. Instead of a bunch of Apps on the home screen, I'd prefer One button widgets such as ; navigate home, walk to the nearest Starbucks, display mail or messages only from a certain party, find a popular pub within a certain radius, find the nearest subway entrance, get me back to where I left my car, pull up my concert tickets and give me walking directions from my present location.

Yes, you can do many of these things with Siri, but talking to your watch isn't always appropriate. Interactions with the watch for other than glances should be simple.

I agree with all you say here. Glances are the killer app. and these simple interactions would all be quite useful.

I've seriously limited my notifications. There are things I don't mind getting on my desktop or even phone that I absolutely don't want on my watch. I've barely downloaded any apps.

On the flip side most of my texts are now done from the watch. I love apple pay on watch. Great to quickly see I don't need to deal with an email. Surprising how many times I've gotten a call and it is easier to just answer it quickly on the watch than grab my phone.

I hadn't worn a watch for 10 years. After a couple weeks with Watch I'm pretty hooked. Without the additional functionality it gives I would never go back to just wearing a basic watch.

I tried the original pebble through Kickstarter, hard to read, too many notifications, clunky, slow that turned me off wearable until this came along.

 

[ipride362]

The original iPhone was full of compromises, but the features that existed were extremely polished and intuitive (please take a look at the 2007 keynote, where Steve Jobs demoes conference call merging and music resuming after the call ends, these are an excellent example of a great attention to detail that he and his team had).

Totally agree.
Cook has not delivered as consistently.
Look at the first product release he commanded: 3gs.
The UI began to bloat during this time period.
Luckily the 4 came back with the folders, etc.

However, I think that's the point of the Watch.
It is an iPhone on your wrist, which makes no sense.

I am with you on this.
They are stuck in two eras.
One in which the Watch is an extension of the Phone, and the other where the Watch is its own Device and not Robin to the iPhone's Batman.

They need to do everything the iPhone does but smaller. Strip all the great things of iPhone and make it better.
Stop trying to put games and gimmicks.

Give me a watch that just follows my to dos, banking, health, emails, texts, and phones calls.
I don't need farmville or angry birds or a bunch of silly gimmicks.


Remember the presentation Steve gave when he came back to Apple. We have four areas of business: Enterprise and consumer. Portable and Desktop.
Stop trying to do everything ok and do a FEW things EXTREMELY WELL.

 

[TEBnewyork]

Totally agree.

However, I think that's the point of the Watch.
It is an iPhone on your wrist, which makes no sense.

I am with you on this.
They are stuck in two eras.
One in which the Watch is an extension of the Phone, and the other where the Watch is its own Device and not Robin to the iPhone's Batman.

They need to do everything the iPhone does but smaller. Strip all the great things of iPhone and make it better.
Stop trying to put games and gimmicks.

Give me a watch that just follows my to dos, banking, health, emails, texts, and phones calls.
I don't need farmville or angry birds or a bunch of silly gimmicks.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Make it an iPhone or your wrist or not.

I don't want an iPhone on my wrist at all. I don't want a firehose of info going to my wrist. I want it to tell me important stuff only. What I deem important you may not. That means we decide what is important.

So far I've been able to set up the watch to my satisfaction. Can more be streamlined, yes there is room to improve and grow. But I clearly don't see anyone from Apple advocating or making games and activities like that as tentpoles of the watch experience.

 

[ipride362]

I think they are stuck in finding the design.

I want it to be a simple extension of the phone, not a repository for everything on the phone.

Think of it like the phone is for everything else except:
-pocketbook or wallet
-calendar and to do
-quick answer IMPORTANT text messages, not from my entire rolodex
-track my health.

Who knows, maybe I am wrong on this and it will change. I am growing to love it, it's just sometimes the digital crown is not as easy to move around when I am walking or hanging out with people. You have to focus on the watch for more than 10 seconds. I just want to zip from one thing to the other and task switcher with the button works but after a while you just pull out your phone anyways.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

"Wearable" is technology that you wear. the iPod doesn't fit the definition just because someone released an arm strap for it, anymore than a boombox in a backpack is a wearable.

The problem it solves is needing to access information quickly and easily. Pulling a device out of your pocket isn't as quick or easy as looking at your wrist.

Except the Apple Watch does neither of those things.

It's quicker to unlock the iPhone than stream the data to the Watch.
The UI on the Apple Watch isn't easy to use or intuitive at all.

So far the Apple Watch (and every other smartwatch) is just an expensive notification device.

If wearables are technology you wear than the iPod is definitely a wearable and so is a pacemaker and even a tradition mechanical watch.

 

[Docsteel]

I think they are stuck in finding the design

I think this is correct in the sense that they are designing for what's available today, which amounts to their apps and a few first round 3rd party ones. All the significant applications in time will then allow them to extend the design. What we have today is early-adopter technology with a niche that it serves well (fitness/notifications), then in time the usefulness and increase in UI functions will increase as applications which can leverage wearables arrives.

Imagine how the Watch would feel if today, you could use it to pay virtually everywhere (without using a PIN, just a swipe), give voice commands to start your car remotely, turn on lights, or notify you as you walk in a store that an item you buy frequently is on sale. How about notifying to let you know of key changes for your route to work, or changes to a flight schedule. Some of these are done currently, to one degree or another and are very handy, or could be implemented easily enough. What I see as two big areas that a wearable (and phones) will leverage is in integration with systems such cars, medical, buildings, security access, and with proactive logic utilizing a cloud technology back-end that learns and uses the watch to integrate with information tailored to your lifestyle and patterns. Like baseball? Maybe your watch proactively tells you about a game being scheduled in your area. These are the kind of things wearables (and I am pretty sure the Apple Watch will be there still) for in just a few short years.

Can they all be done with a smart phone? Mostly, but it will seem far clumsier and not as smooth an interaction with a hand-held device, but a wearable.

 

[bjdraw]

Except the Apple Watch does neither of those things.

It's quicker to unlock the iPhone than stream the data to the Watch.
The UI on the Apple Watch isn't easy to use or intuitive at all.

It's much quicker and easier to determine what time it is, the date, see my next appointment, and the outside temperate; by raising my wrist, than it is to pull my phone out of my pocket, press and hold the touch ID button, launch the calendar, go back home and then launch the weather app.

It isn't even close. If the iPhone look screen had "complications" like the watch, then your argument would at least be a little valid.

And this one use case is the most basic of Apple Watch's function. Add in how much easier and quicker it is to see and respond to some notifications, there is no comparison for many tasks.

 

[adammull]

Except the Apple Watch does neither of those things.

It's quicker to unlock the iPhone than stream the data to the Watch.
The UI on the Apple Watch isn't easy to use or intuitive at all.

So far the Apple Watch (and every other smartwatch) is just an expensive notification device.

If wearables are technology you wear than the iPod is definitely a wearable and so is a pacemaker and even a tradition mechanical watch.

Well there are hundreds of us on the forums that disagree with you. So what does that mean?

I find my iPhone far more of a pain to use. So who is right?

 

[JPLC]

So.

Let me get this straight.

You have a feeling that some guy you've never met wouldn't have released this watch. Not only have you never met him, but you think you know him well enough to draw assumptions regarding his thoughts about the watch.

Sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here, while waiting for Space Black.

No need to know Jobs in person to judge his level of QC and way of leading projects to a final product that makes a different. When people say that Jobs would never approved something like this, they can reference to the feel and exceptions an Apple product should represent.

I would never say that Steve would do things different. But one thing is for sure. Beta bugs are now reality in def versions of Apple software. Thats something new. Sure, bugs always been out there. But now, the way I have to work around the bugs on my AppleTV, iPhone and iMac is really frustrating.

And also, the level of user experience seems to be a lot lower. Anoying stuff like an Airplay panel in iOS that has room for just one AppleTV or Siri that needs mobile internet when I ask to make a phonecall. That's not what I experience as logic, smart or user friendly.

 

[bluecow]

6. The watch constantly reminds me to stand up when I'm walking or to meet the fitness goal when I'm driving and this is both a new unnecessary distraction and poor software QA on Apple's side.
.

You know you can change the settings for this right? Those reminders are based on time, not based on activity.

 

[mightyjabba]

It's much quicker and easier to determine what time it is, the date, see my next appointment, and the outside temperate; by raising my wrist, than it is to pull my phone out of my pocket, press and hold the touch ID button, launch the calendar, go back home and then launch the weather app.

Agreed. For me the Modular watch face is hugely valuable because of the large number of complications. I consider this part of its functionality as a "watch." And I think this kind of thing is what the watch is good at -- not fiddling around with an app on your wrist.

It isn't even close. If the iPhone look screen had "complications" like the watch, then your argument would at least be a little valid.

They really should add complications (or whatever you want to call them) to the iPhone lock screen. I've felt this for years.

You know you can change the settings for this right? Those reminders are based on time, not based on activity.

Not true. Well, not entirely true. They're based on time in the sense that it reminds you if you've been sitting for around an hour, but it isn't just a dumb timed reminder. If you move around a lot, you won't get the reminder at all. For me, the reminder works as intended most of the time, although it's not perfect.

 

[za9ra22]

It's quicker to unlock the iPhone than stream the data to the Watch.

That rather depends on the individual and where their iPhone is at any given time. It also depends on how quickly the watch gets its data updates, which seems rather variable. One way or another however, while pulling an iPhone out of your pocket or a slip case on your desk may be faster than glancing at the watch and waiting the second or two it usually takes (in my experience) for data to update, if you have to retrieve your iPhone from a bag, a desk drawer or even a holster with a retraining strap, the watch is likely to be much faster.

The UI on the Apple Watch isn't easy to use or intuitive at all.

Accepting the fact that some find the UI as you describe, I think it is very easy and remarkably intuitive after a few minutes of use.

So far the Apple Watch (and every other smartwatch) is just an expensive notification device.

Don't forget calendars and reminders, timers, activity tracking, exercise monitoring, weather station, remote control, payment center, location and direction finder, message reader, text terminal, photo display, news reader.... and that's just the start. Oh, and as you say, notifications too of course.

If wearables are technology you wear than the iPod is definitely a wearable and so is a pacemaker and even a tradition mechanical watch.

The industry as a whole has a broad understanding of what 'wearables' means, regardless of any individual's definitions - even assuming a definition is necessary.

 

[jonnyb098]

I agree with you, but I also don't believe it matters. The Apple Watch is a niche product and more of an accessory than a device, itself. I realized that literally a day after I put it on. It doesn't do anything much better than the iPhone, and while it does make checking messages and emails easier, the Watch itself does nothing significantly better than an iPhone, which you will always have when using the watch.

I wanted to like it, I really did. At the end of the day, it's not just missing a "killer app", it is missing a global purpose.

Well considering the accessory is more than the iphone, its kinda sad. For comparison, I thought the iPad was stupid and pointless. Then I used one on launch day and have used it every day since April 2010. I felt no such feeling when I tried on the watch.....it was , meh.

 

[applezulu]

The original iPhone was full of compromises, but the features that existed were extremely polished and intuitive (please take a look at the 2007 keynote, where Steve Jobs demoes conference call merging and music resuming after the call ends, these are an excellent example of a great attention to detail that he and his team had).

Attention to detail, yes. Polished, no. The New York Times later detailed the back story to the iPhone's legendary unveiling, and while they managed to make it look polished, they were constantly skirting the edge of disaster. That unveiling was a miracle of stagecraft, but was not, in reality, an example of refinement and calm perfection.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/and-then-steve-said-let-there-be-an-iphone.html?_r=0

The original iPhone didn't even have the app store. When the 3G came out including the app store, there was a prevalence of novelty apps that made fart noises, because software developers hadn't figured out yet the many things they could do with a device in lots of people's pockets that had WiFi, Bluetooth, cellular, and GPS antennas in it, along with a host of sensors.

The watch is a first generation item. While software developers have had the developer kit for a while, even they haven't had a watch in their hands for very long. If a first generation item and experience isn't for you, you shouldn't have bought the watch. You can probably still go ahead and return it.

For me, I bought the thing specifically because, while it's just a novel toy at this point, I think it will be fun and interesting to go along on the ride as the thing increases in capability and utility. If your expectation is something that functions like a second or third generation device, you probably should've waited and checked back in 2016 or 17.

 

[Bargle]

I look at my phone 1000x per day. If the watch weans me off of habitually looking at my phone, then it is a success (for me).

 

[Psyfuzz]

Ultimately I think Apple's a victim of it's own success in revolutionising tech.

It's nothing personal against the Apple Watch, but I'm yet to see a use for Smart watches in general - be in the Moto watch, android wear etc. I'm yet to see a compelling argument that means these watches are a must own.

When the baton was passed to Apple people were expecting this 'must have' USP to arrive and for Apple to pull out it's magic again - truth is I just can't see any feature that the Watch could have that would make it must have device. Apple had to rely on it's design strengths but fundamentally at the core this entire range of devices is yet to prove itself.

Conceptually Apple's biggest successes have always been solid at the core: iPod = the Walkman of the digital age, the iPhone combined phones with the internet and the iPod etc. At the very core of the Watch there's not yet a solid reason why this device needs to exist. A lot of people are mentioning convenience as a big plus, but for the price tag the Watches have there needs to be more. There's no way the general market is going to find the price tag a worthy trade off so they don't have to pull their phone out any longer.

I'm sure in time there will be a breakthrough moment, but for my money that moment will come when the Watch steps out from the iPhone's shadow and stops becoming an accompanying device.

 

[bjdraw]

Ultimately I think Apple's a victim of it's own success in revolutionising tech.

It's nothing personal against the Apple Watch, but I'm yet to see a use for Smart watches in general - be in the Moto watch, android wear etc. I'm yet to see a compelling argument that means these watches are a must own.

When the baton was passed to Apple people were expecting this 'must have' USP to arrive and for Apple to pull out it's magic again - truth is I just can't see any feature that the Watch could have that would make it must have device. Apple had to rely on it's design strengths but fundamentally at the core this entire range of devices is yet to prove itself.

Conceptually Apple's biggest successes have always been solid at the core: iPod = the Walkman of the digital age, the iPhone combined phones with the internet and the iPod etc. At the very core of the Watch there's not yet a solid reason why this device needs to exist. A lot of people are mentioning convenience as a big plus, but for the price tag the Watches have there needs to be more. There's no way the general market is going to find the price tag a worthy trade off so they don't have to pull their phone out any longer.

I'm sure in time there will be a breakthrough moment, but for my money that moment will come when the Watch steps out from the iPhone's shadow and stops becoming an accompanying device.

I need a bit of perspective, what is the most you've ever paid for a watch?

I suspect the answer isn't more than $100, if you've ever bought one. I don't mean that in a demeaning way, I just think that it explains your perspective. I think you'll find most of the people who are excited about the Apple Watch have paid around that much for a watch in the past, and it probably only displayed the time and maybe the date.

Regardless, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Swiss Watch industry sells more than 29 million watches a year at an average price of $739.

Apple is not trying to introduce a completely new product here, as much as it is trying to apply technology to a tried and true one. But there is no question that there is a market for a $600+ watch.

 

[Psyfuzz]

I need a bit of perspective, what is the most you've ever paid for a watch?

I suspect the answer isn't more than $100, if you've ever bought one. I don't mean that in a demeaning way, I just think that it explains your perspective. I think you'll find most of the people who are excited about the Apple Watch have paid around that much for a watch in the past, and it probably only displayed the time and maybe the date.

Regardless, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Swiss Watch industry sells more than 29 million watches a year at an average price of $739.

Apple is not trying to introduce a completely new product here, as much as it is trying to apply technology to a tried and true one. But there is no question that there is a market for a $600+ watch.

For sure, but again - people expect more from Apple for better or worse. People expect waves when Apple enters a product market and respectively the AW has made relatively few so disappointment is understandable for individuals - whether that's their fault for expecting too much is debatable.

Irrespective of the high-end watch market this product is ultimately a different piece of technology that'll become outdated within years as the tech improves - something you won't suffer with a 'traditional' high end watch which will retain it's value and 'age' in a different manner. Likewise the 'traditional' watch is it's own device, the AW is an accompanying device - you don't have to own an iPhone to wear a swiss watch.

This is trying to hit a different market to just 'high end watch buyers' you've linked - I can't think of many people that'd be looking at an expensive Rolex watch (or any other Swiss watch) etc then get pulled away and buy an Apple Watch instead. It's too tech-y and lacking in brand-strength (compared to other established watch brands) to hit the high-end watch market whilst too niche (given the combined price of an iOS device and the Watch itself) to hit the lower-range mass market.

I can only speak for myself, but if I was set on getting an expensive Swiss watch I wouldn't be looking at the Apple Watch, it's just a different product and just because they're 'watches' doesn't mean they're aimed at the same market - it's not a case of price.

Until Apple lowers the entry point (whether that's cutting it's reliance on other devices) or expanding it's compatibility to other devices/OS (which would never happen) I just can't see the AW hitting huge success - going to my local Apple store there's not even much interest around the demo models compared to the iPhones etc.

Comparatively it's like Samsung releasing a Ring that you connect to your phone and it vibrates every time you get a text and selling it for $400 (I'm oversimplifying it), then pointing to the high-end markets and saying because people are willing to spend a lot of money on branded rings like Bvlgari etc that Samsung has as strong a case in that market - when simply put then don't.

Tech is relative, jewellery is time-less - a Rolex will be amazing in 10 years, a smartwatch will be outdated in 1.

 

[thomasfxlt58]

Tech is relative, jewellery is time-less - a Rolex will be amazing in 10 years, a smartwatch will be outdated in 1.

So true, but the collectors of "timeless things" are a very small group. Fashionable technology is a new category and I expect at $400-$1000 people will be happy to accept their 70% drop in value to replace it every few years if they feel they need to. I suspect that average Watch owner will keep it for 2-1/2 to 3 years. Maybe a bit shorter through the first few versions as it gets it more refined. A Rolex will always be a Rolex. An entry price point of $350 for Watch is pretty fair considering.

I want to add that I may wear a Movado or Hublot as an accessory in the future but 99% of the time the Watch will be on my wrist.

 

[applezulu]

This is really entertaining. Folks really do seem to be setting their expectations based on what the iPhone has become, rather than how it started out.

Check out this CNET review of the first generation iPhone.

http://www.cnet.com/products/apple-iphone/

The Apple Watch is not everything it's going to be by version 2 or version 3. It's not even everything it's going to be with the current hardware and updates to the iOS. Plus, 3rd party app developers have only even had the watch itself in hand for about 2 weeks, so we're only at the starting gates with regard to what apps will be able to do.

As for pricing, the thing is a wrist-borne computer, not a watch, so it's priced like a computer, not a watch. People pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for a Swiss mechanical watch because it's a fine machine that will last a lifetime. Anyone who pays more than $30 for a quartz watch is buying a brand name, because the guts in any of them are, for the most part, identical.

In either case, it's missing the point to make comparisons of those things with the Apple watch. If you want a fine time-piece, buy a watch. If you want a computer on your wrist, buy an Apple watch. If you can't handle the initial limitations of a first-generation computer, then wait a year or two. Will the Apple watch be another revolutionary device that eventually becomes ubiquitous? Who knows? It would be incorrect, however, to suggest that its beginnings are somehow below the standards of previous Apple device launches. This is how these things start out.

 

[bjdraw]

Irrespective of the high-end watch market this product is ultimately a different piece of technology that'll become outdated within years as the tech improves - something you won't suffer with a 'traditional' high end watch which will retain it's value and 'age' in a different manner. Likewise the 'traditional' watch is it's own device, the AW is an accompanying device - you don't have to own an iPhone to wear a swiss watch.

This is trying to hit a different market to just 'high end watch buyers' you've linked - I can't think of many people that'd be looking at an expensive Rolex watch (or any other Swiss watch) etc then get pulled away and buy an Apple Watch instead. It's too tech-y and lacking in brand-strength (compared to other established watch brands) to hit the high-end watch market whilst too niche (given the combined price of an iOS device and the Watch itself) to hit the lower-range mass market.

I can only speak for myself, but if I was set on getting an expensive Swiss watch I wouldn't be looking at the Apple Watch, it's just a different product and just because they're 'watches' doesn't mean they're aimed at the same market - it's not a case of price.

I took off a TAG when I received my Apple Watch, both watches are stainless steel with a sapphire crystal. Both sell for around the same price. I'd say those are good indicators that they are competing in the same space.

It remains to be seen how timeless an Apple Watch will be, but while most of the features do require an iPhone, the watch does as much, if not more, than most watches even without an iPhone (alarms, timers, stop watch).

Until Apple lowers the entry point (whether that's cutting it's reliance on other devices) or expanding it's compatibility to other devices/OS (which would never happen) I just can't see the AW hitting huge success - going to my local Apple store there's not even much interest around the demo models compared to the iPhones etc.

I do expect the Apple Watch to do more without an iPhone (either through updates, or future versions), but I do not see them cutting the price. They may build value by offering an upgrade path by at least supporting bands for multiple generations or by offering an upgrade program (pay $500 to have your gold edition watch updated to the latest screen/chip/battery).

I'm interested in what you deem a huge success. I love my Apple Watch and already couldn't imagine going back to a time without it, so that is a huge success in my book. I noticed the same interest in the watch the last time I went to the Apple store and assume it's because you can't even buy them in the store yet. To me, the only way that Apple Watch will be a failure, is if Apple stops making it. Because then I'll eventually have to go without as a future phone won't support it.