Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by H3rman, Jun 12, 2015.
When he said, "I thought the packaging would be a little more impressive" when talking about the shipping box, and then followed that up with, "I have no desire to wear this watch, so this is purely for the edification of the audience and then we're sending this back to Apple" I stopped watching. What an idiot.
Perhaps Mr. McScruffybeard is a great and knowledgable guy, but I guess I'll never know.
I can't believe the guy ordered a $10k+ watch and first thing he said in the unboxing is that he has no intentions of keeping it. Such abuse of the return policy. He should be charged a restocking fee.
Just watched the vid and the watch expert was actually fairly complementary about the watch. He thought it was very well engineered and the gold was finished spot-on. What he didn't like was that it was, in his professional opinion, unserviceable. You would damage it in some way if you opened it to replace the battery.
Ultimately, he still preferred the idea of a mechanical watch as it was a more longevitous item.
Interesting video. Expert was clearly prepared to hate the Apple Watch, but actually couldn't, because it's so well made. Also, this is the first video I've seen that really shows the beauty of the gold Apple Watch. It looks stunning.
I've pretty much got no issue with anything mentioned in this video. Well made but temporary. Can't really argue with that.....The battery will eventually die and it just won't work!
It hurts a bit thinking your grand or so you spend on the watch will be nothing in 2 years. I really wanted the SS, and got it. I really love watches, but it kind of made me question why I got it. Spending that kind of money on a watch that will not be anything in 5 years.
Hopefully the bands will be swappable. You should just be able to buy the cheapest stainless steel and sell your old watch with that band. You might end up being around £200 out of pocket depending on when you upgrade which you may or may not think is reasonable. But it's very clear that the watches are intended to be temporary items.
Yeah let's just hope the bands are usable with next watch.
You will be able to get a new battery installed by Apple for a very long time. Just up to you if the new features of an eventual Watch 2/3/4 will make you want to upgrade.
If anything, IMO the Watch will be longer up to date than an iPhone; and many people don't seem to have a problem buying a new one of those every two years.
The difference between the watch and iPhone is that most people buy a phone subsidised by their contract. Relatively few people lay down the full price when they get a new handset. So maybe £200 per year over the life of a 2 year contract.
With a £1000 watch you would want a lifetime of 5 years to get a similar price point. The £600 watches only need to last 3 years to reach a similar spend profile. So, people with link bands probably want to get a battery upgrade after 2-3 years to keep it going for a full 5 years, with less expensive watches just upgrade when you feel like it.
I still think that new hardware will be a 2-3 year cycle for the watch, with more radical hardware changes reserved for every other upgrade. Bear in mind that the watch is not intended as a processing powerhouse like a phone or iPad. It it intended to be a second screen showing you details from your phone (even when we get native apps) so even the Gen 1 hardware should have a healthy usable life.
Wow. F iFixit man. That's just straight up abuse of Apple's return policy. I hope someone saves and forwards this to Apple.
Do they do this with all the products they test?
BTW, I tried out some of their Pentalobe P2 drivers, and they fit like crap.
The watchman said it all...
It doesn't make sense in a finance point of view
"It won't be worth anything in a couple of years. It will be outdated."
This is coming from people wearing a piece of metal on their wrist with two or three little hands pointing in a general direction in a circle. I bought my nephew a piece of plastic that does the same thing for $10 and has a Superman logo on it.
Yeah, I get it that a Rolex is made of better material by far and has a better look than said $10 watch. It also won't require new batteries. But acting as if it's some smart move to spend $10,000 on a watch period because "you can hand it down to your kids" is kind of laughable. You know how many steel watches you can buy that'll last for 10 years and do the same exact thing? Then your kids can buy their own that may have LED-lighted rings or some stuff, and they're still nowhere near dropping $10,000 on a watch.
I honestly respect the guy's opinion as a watch repairman since he knew that gold wouldn't tarnish. I don't think I knew that, but it shows he has some useful knowledge. But aside from that, what is he supposed to think about a tiny computer that replicates an intricate set of mechanical gears? This is like getting someone who has experience repairing telephones and telephone lines to take a look at an iPhone. It's called a watch because people are familiar with watches and at least then know where it goes and one basic function it has.
Near the end he's trying to figure out how to open the watch. I don't know why. There will be no gears inside. And when trying to open the watch, the iFixit dude apparently has no clue or doesn't bother to mention that THE BAND COMES OFF. I'm not sure if that's how you access it, but you think he might clue his friend in on that part. I've got remote controls that won't open unless you take the battery cover off and remove a screw.
And yeah, I agree with the poster who said this is quite the abuse of the Apple return policy. Apple probably could've lent them a demo model that wouldn't cost the company a few hundred or thousand bucks since now it's not a new watch. Honestly if I were Apple and saw someone do this knowing they were sending it right back, I'd never let anything get shipped to anybody I could identify from iFixit again.
Yeah yeah yeah, I know it'll date quickly. We all know that! As for it not making financial sense, well only the purchaser can decide on that count. It's subjective. £600 for a year's worth of apple watch fun makes perfect sense to me.
Honestly no watch makes financial sense today if you carry a phone around with you. You have a watch. But a watch is a jewelry piece to some people and is now becoming a much more functional computer for others. As I said before, I wouldn't pay $10,000 for either. Unless you have servants do everything for you, you're going to clang into stuff. Therefore I don't want soft-arse gold on my watch. I want the hardest stainless steel you can cook up. There aren't too many other materials as sturdy and affordable as SS, so it's a good watch material.
But of course to each his or her own. I'm glad I went with the SS upgrade and only wish I had gone ahead and gotten a leather or Milanese loop band. The sport band is very comfortable, but sometimes when it gets sweaty it starts feeling a little stiff afterward. Probably need to clean it, but for the most part I'd love something that is a little flashier.
To be fair, the comparison to rolex's isn't about having a physical object to hand down....it's about having a physical object to hand down which still has a significant financial value. I personally wouldn't spend £15,000 on a rolex but they do hold their value well and a twenty year old working rolex will still be worth many thousands of pounds. Purchasing a rolex makes more sense 'to me'. What the watchmaker is saying is that, in twenty years time, the apple watch edition most likely won't work and may be worth nothing. I know that early apple computers can shift for significant sums of cash but that's an unusual phenomenon which we can't guarantee will apply to a broken watch.
He has a 60 years experience in watches.
Timekeeping is only one feature of the Apple watch. It is like having someone who has 40 years of experience in calculators assessing a laptop.
I never understood that line of thinking.
The meal with the wife yesterday is also not worth anything anymore. But that $500 is about the experience, not the physical item. Most purchases are like that.
You spent 500$ on a meal with your wife? I think I'll make do with the watch....
I think a dinner with your wife is a lot different than a watch. Those are moments that you will never forget, and will leave a lasting impression. A watch does not have that same kind of effect on something.
He's not stupid, he knows there won't be gears inside. He just wants to assess how serviceable it is as a device, because as he said it will be almost impossible to open without damaging the gold or the screen if it is just bonded together (which it is). He is wondering how easy it is to change the battery for example.
To be honest, you are coming across as "having no clue" when you mention checking if taking off the bands allows you access to the internals. It doesn't! Hence there was no point in mentioning it in the video. He did tell him how they took apart the sport model (via the screen) and even showed him the dismantled one when the watch expert suggested it might be possible to go in through the the back (via the HRM sensor). As soon as he saw the dismantled watch he dismissed that as being possible.
Yeah, that reminded me of when I took my car to a farrier for a tyre change...
(disclaimer: I didn't)
I know, right? Electronics have junk long term value, especially 1st gen products. Just look at those Apple 1 boards, they're like worth nothing at all!
63 Apple 1s know to exist vs. millions of apple watches. Forgive my pessimism, but I won't stop the pension contributions just yet.