Is It Worth $600? HELL NO!!!!!

[BradDylan]

No kidding Dr. New Product Developer.

The operative words in my post were "roughly" and "in materials."

Of course there are a billion other costs associated with the development of the Watch. I suppose my point was not relayed - the market will pay $999 for a link SS watch, because the watch looks good with an SS link. I doubt that link costs 449/unit...even when you add in development costs.

Hi,

Here is some information on the Link band I wanted to share. I thought you might find it interesting. It partialy explains it's cost.

"The (link band) is made out of 316L Stainless Steel. The strap contains over 100 components that are meticulously machined – it takes 9 hours to cut one strap -the Link Bracelet is then hand brushed."

B

 

[zmunkz]

I hate these flat-out opinion threads. Just add your comment to an existing opinion thread and limit new threads to unique technical questions.

Yes

 

[dandrewk]

I hate these flat-out opinion threads. Just add your comment to an existing opinion thread and limit new threads to unique technical questions.

Totally agree.

But then, does a toddler throw a tantrum if there is nobody around to notice? Provocative click bait thread titles, lots of capital letters and exclamation points, contrived and unfounded reasoning... it's all there: Somebody needs attention.

 

[Ambush083]

I agree with the original poster the watch is not all that. Highly overpriced for sure. But I'm still going to keep it.

 

[telefono]

Is It Worth $600? HELL YES!!!!!

 

[MrXiro]

odd... my 38mm SS BSB doesn't have those massive scratches on it. Even after wearing for 2 weeks now and not doing anything special.

Sure - if you hit your watch hard into something ... you will get those massive scratches. But good luck doing that to your aluminum watch.

Fact: 316L is used among all major watchmakers and I have yet to hear about "scratch-gate" from Tissot/Omega/IWC owners ...

and no - "micro-scratches" only visible under a magnifying glass in blinding bright light don't count

I've had my aluminum one for 2 weeks and I've hit it against metal, no scratches. You're delusional if you think aluminum is soft like plastic. It'll withstand plenty... your iPhone is the same material, is it scratched?

Meanwhile... see attached.

I'm not saying anything of "scratch-gate" but Stainless steel scratches. It's a more durable material in general it's just not one that should have a polished finish. That's why Steel appliances use a brushed look rather than the polished one on of the iPod and Apple Watch.

You want more evidence here:

Google Search for "Sport Apple Watch Scratches" = 0 pics of scratched aluminum, 2 scratched glass but I'm not talking about glass screens so don't bother going there.

Google Search for "Steel Apple Watch Scratches" = At LEAST 3, some are multiple pics of the same watch. Including the one found below.

I'm not disparaging your watch so no need to feel butt hurt about it. It's just not something I want to spend $200 extra to deal with on a 1st gen product. It's just a fact about the metal.

As for other watchmakers using the same material; they don't mention finish. I hated the shiny "chamfered" edge of the iPhone 5/5s and iPads for the same reason. I scratched mine up bumping my sunglasses on them. That's some BS I don't want to deal with and I'm glad they got rid of it on the iPhone 6. Had they used a shiny finish on the Sports watch I'd be pretty annoyed too.

If they want to use a shiny finish they should use tungsten carbide, my wedding band is made of that and I've banged it against walls and not a scratch. It's also a cheap metal so it would keep costs down.

 

[texasstar1981]

As for other watchmakers using the same material; they don't mention finish.

???

polished 316L stainless steel is the same for ALL watchmakers who use polished 316L stainless steel.... there is NEVER any finish on polished shiny 316L stainless steel... unless you put a black coating on...

regarding the watch pictures (and being a long-time watch owner of a polished 316L stainless steel IWC) ... you have to treat your watch like absolute crap to get these massive and visible scratches... make rubbing a metal key really hard against it will do...

 

[MrXiro]

???

polished 316L stainless steel is the same for ALL watchmakers who use polished 316L stainless steel.... there is NEVER any finish on polished shiny 316L stainless steel... unless you put a black coating on...

regarding the watch pictures (and being a long-time watch owner of a polished 316L stainless steel IWC) ... you have to treat your watch like absolute crap to get these massive and visible scratches... make rubbing a metal key really hard against it will do...

A simple quick search of Google shows a majority if not 100% of the watches are not polished like the Apple Watch. They are brushed or have a matte finish. All I did was search "Steel Watch" in case you're wondering.

I don't know what you're "???"-ing about I seemed to have been pretty thorough with what I'm speaking about and how it's just not worth it to ME, personally to have the more costly, heavier and scratch prone watch with the exact same tech inside. All I care about is the tech, the materials are worthless to me.

 

[eifer]

Luckily you don't have to spend $600 to get an apple watch. Mine is about to be delivered and I paid $376 plus tax for it.

 

[texasstar1981]

A simple quick search of Google shows a majority if not 100% of the watches are not polished like the Apple Watch. They are brushed or have a matte finish. All I did was search "Steel Watch" in case you're wondering.
.

just google "polished stainless steel watch" and you will quickly see that nearly every major manufacturer offers them... IWC, Omega, Breitling, Tissot, Tag Heuer and and and ... so highly doubtful that 100% (or even close to it) of stainless steel watches are brushed....

A brushed stainless steel has a more sporty but less elegant look ...

seriously... I'm questioning how many of the watch buyers owned a decent watch before? Yes - stainless steel will scratch... but it does NOT scratch like the iPod backs or the monster scratches the apple watch in the pictures is showing.... unless you really rough up your watch or insist on rubbing metal against it.

 

[BillyTrimble]

I agree with the original poster the watch is not all that. Highly overpriced for sure. But I'm still going to keep it.

This I don't understand. You hate the watch as does the OP. You consider it overpriced as does the OP. Why in the world would you want to keep something that malfunctions, is ugly, and is overpriced (according to the OP)?

 

[foxkoneko]

Totally agree.

But then, does a toddler throw a tantrum if there is nobody around to notice? Provocative click bait thread titles, lots of capital letters and exclamation points, contrived and unfounded reasoning... it's all there: Somebody needs attention.

perfect description of OP

 

[Cyberpower678]

Why are we responding to this troll?

That's not a word I use lightly, but look at his other posts. It's the typical mis-informed pot shots from an insecure Apple basher. He doesn't miss a chance to jump into any thread here and crap all over it.

If you respond, you are giving him the attention he so desperately needs. Just ignore him. Eventually, he'll go away.

I said the same thing, but it's falling onto deaf ears, or this case blind eyes.

 

[jediuia]

Absolutely positively not. I own the Sapphire Glass Stainless with the black band in 42mm. Owned it for a week now. It looks cheap, feels cheap and fails to accurately update DJIA quotes and Weather temperature changes. Also, the watch faces are ATROCIOUS. My watch is getting returned tomorrow. Apple has released an over priced over hyped failure of a watch. I am thoroughly disappointed in Apple. My 2012 $299 Galaxy Gear was more functional, more reliable, and felt better on my wrist than this $600 2015 Apple Watch.

U mad bro?

----------

Absolutely positively not. I own the Sapphire Glass Stainless with the black band in 42mm. Owned it for a week now. It looks cheap, feels cheap and fails to accurately update DJIA quotes and Weather temperature changes. Also, the watch faces are ATROCIOUS. My watch is getting returned tomorrow. Apple has released an over priced over hyped failure of a watch. I am thoroughly disappointed in Apple. My 2012 $299 Galaxy Gear was more functional, more reliable, and felt better on my wrist than this $600 2015 Apple Watch.

It doesn't work on a galaxy phone, that might be why your stock and weather app isn't updating.

 

[eastamherstbias]

Absolutely positively not. I own the Sapphire Glass Stainless with the black band in 42mm. Owned it for a week now. It looks cheap, feels cheap and fails to accurately update DJIA quotes and Weather temperature changes. Also, the watch faces are ATROCIOUS. My watch is getting returned tomorrow. Apple has released an over priced over hyped failure of a watch. I am thoroughly disappointed in Apple. My 2012 $299 Galaxy Gear was more functional, more reliable, and felt better on my wrist than this $600 2015 Apple Watch.

Well you can return it. Secondly, updates to the apple watch software along with app software will fix any issues you have with it in the future.

I would not have paid $600+ for a gen 1 product. I got the Sport Black Band and I don't regret it. It just works. Gen 2 will be better. Don't waste your money on the higher end stuff until Gen 2. 2012 was a good year for you so you should stay with tech from that era.

 

[texasstar1981]

Gen 2 will be better. Don't waste your money on the higher end stuff until Gen 2.

I frankly do not get the Gen2 argument... what about Gen3 when Gen2 comes out? Wouldn't it make sense to go cheap again and wait for Gen3 because Gen3 will be better than Gen2?

As we have seen with the iPhone the Gen2 wasn't all that dramatically better than Gen1... and Gen4 was much better than Gen3....

If makes a very small step with Gen2 (let's say same dimensions but slightly better battery life and S2 processor) but Gen3 is a new slimmer, design with all kinds of new features?

 

[mightyjabba]

The idea that many seem to have is that you don't want to go all-out on a first-gen product because it's often the second revision that will have big improvements, so you won't hold onto the first one for long. I'm not entirely convinced that will be the case with the watch.

The sport is a fine product and I'm not putting it down. But in my case, since I really wanted the stainless, getting the sport would have been settling. $400 is still not chump change -- if I have to spend that to get the version I don't really want, I'd rather just pay the extra $200 to get the one I do want. After all, I will definitely be using it for at least a year, if not longer.

 

[iConnected]

just google "polished stainless steel watch" and you will quickly see that nearly every major manufacturer offers them... IWC, Omega, Breitling, Tissot, Tag Heuer and and and ... so highly doubtful that 100% (or even close to it) of stainless steel watches are brushed....

Agreed - polished stainless steel is very much the norm with premium brands (except on bracelet links). You just have to learn (preferably not the hard way) to be careful with it.

 

[casavage]

Have SS with white band and I think its great! Its not going to change the world or anything but looking 5 years into the future we probably cant even imagine the utility of the then current model. I guess it all depends on how much $600 is worth to you as to whether buying this watch is something you should do. Fortunately other than taxes nobody is forcing anyone to pay for anything.

 

[Swiss-G]

My Gold Watch doesn't even serve me tea

You must have left it in compassion mode, so you don't have to fire your butler.

 

[gabo864]

Absolutely positively not. I own the Sapphire Glass Stainless with the black band in 42mm. Owned it for a week now. It looks cheap, and feels cheap. Also, the watch faces are ATROCIOUS. My watch is getting returned tomorrow. Apple has released an over priced over hyped failure of a watch. I am thoroughly disappointed. This is Apple's worst product ever. It is a stain upon the Apple brand and the memory of Steve Jobs. Tim Cook should be crucified for allowing this low end trinket's release.

I agree with you, Thats why I didn't want to buy the SS Apple Watch, I thought it was a waste of money. Two co-workers already returned theirs and went with the Sport! I think I would have gone with the SS Apple Watch if it offered something more than looks! like extra Battery life or some neat feature that the Sport didnt offer. I have the SG Watch Sport and I love it and it does exactly the same thing the SS apple watch does

 

[Tycho24]

Hmmmmm.... tough to say.

But, I know mine was worth $350!!

I imagine I'll be able to get close to $300 out of it, then drop another $300 on gen 2. That will be worth it as well.

 

[jonnyb098]

My only gripe is including the flouro band on the stainless steel....and even entry level gold.....seriously? Pony up and put a nice band on the nice watches out of the box. Not the cheap sport band.

 

[Sheon]

I paid 400$ (50$ extra Craigslist price cause I'm to lazy to wait for July ship date.) for my sport with black band 38mm

I love it

It has its issues but software updates can fix that

 

[BillyTrimble]

My only gripe is including the flouro band on the stainless steel....and even entry level gold.....seriously? Pony up and put a nice band on the nice watches out of the box. Not the cheap sport band.

Why? The purchaser has the choice of what band to get. Why should Apple force a more expensive band on a SS purchase. Many have described liking the sport band more than any other, regardless of the watch material. This may be hard for you to believe, but your opinion of what's cheap and what's not may not apply to everyone.