John Gruber's thoughts on Apple Watch

[NewbieCanada]

I do hope if they do decide to go to an upgrade program rather than a smelting program, they continue to come out with more styles. Sure there's a lot of styles, but it's all of the same watch. I would hate to see them never come out with a round version as they are limited to producing new boards that go into the gold versions.

It's hard enough for developers to make apps that work decently on all the different sizes and shapes of iPhone/ipad screens. Round and square is more or less impossible - and the screen size of a round face is considerably smaller than a square face.

There is no more reason for a round smart watch than there is for a round TV, movie or computer screen.

 

[acctman]

ImageImage

screenshot 1: Photo's that's just pulling from your phone and even then doesn't require 16gb

screenshot 2: that can all be done with under 8gb

the watch is pretty much pointless without the iphone. And I doubt Apple will ever make it into a full standalone device. they're going to want to make it thinner over time.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

This kind of supports the prediction I made in the Pricing Prediction thread that the Sport will by far be the bread & butter line and will likely be more extensive in model selection/prices. Here is what I said think the Sport line may look like. Also with the Watch starting at $1000 the Sport line may be a 3 memory option instead of 2 to fill in all the price gaps. The Sport might start at 4GB for $350.

Just to expand on my theory, what if the Sport line is far more extensive and something like below?

8GB 38mm $350, 42mm $450, Space Gray $400/$500
16GB 38mm $450, 42mm $550, Space Gray $500/$600

Now the Watch and Edition are smaller lines with 16GB only. Then the Watch could plausibly start at $750.

All in wild speculation.

The leakers/rumor mill have pegged it at just one capacity at 8GB of internal storage with 512MB LPDDR3 but this is also speculation.

 

[dannyyankou]

Ouch, I was willing to go as high as $500-600 for the stainless steel one. Not sure I'd go any higher than that. Hope this article is wrong.

 

[Julien]

screenshot 1: Photo's that's just pulling from your phone and even then doesn't require 16gb

screenshot 2: that can all be done with under 8gb

the watch is pretty much pointless without the iphone. And I doubt Apple will ever make it into a full standalone device. they're going to want to make it thinner over time.

1) "...Keeps your favorite photos on your wrist.... It was even said in the presentation that photos can be stored on the aWatch. You can view photos while you iPhones is left at home.

2) Music can take up a lot of space. I have a 32GB iPhone and after Apps/Data I can only put about 400 ALAC songs on it.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

I actually came here just post a link to Gruber's article, if it wasn't being discussed already.

I found his articale very shocking and inciteful, and it certainly makes me look at the Apple Watch in a whole new light. And now I have much more faith in the Watch's success. More expensive things instantly give things more appeal. A $1,000 Apple watch edition just seems ludiciously high to us, but to top 1% it's not even worth a glance. But now bump that up to $5,000 or event $10,000 and I think the watch is suddenly has a whole nother level of appeal and desire. Not only does it made the Edition version enviable, but it makes the low end watch more desirable and even the $350 price sound reasonable. "Wow! I can buy this $350 watch that is functionally and stylistically the same as Elon Musk's $10,000 watch!" This is almost starting to work on me actually. haha. I do agree that there would likely have to be some sort of an upgrade path at least for the most expensive models.... I can't imagine even Apple trying to make $10,000 items obsolete after 3 years. Option to take your watch in for $300 servicing (right below the price of the lowest end watch) and Apple will retrofit it with the latest internals.

I do think Apple presented the watch really weirdly. His musings on what it could be or might mean are more informative than what Apple actually said the watch is.

Well said. I think we all came away not really understanding the Apple Watch very well. I have a much clearer view of Apple's intentions now (assuming that Gruber is right).

 

[douglasf13]

I really cannot see a lot of rich people spending $4999 on an Apple Watch.

This isn't a rolex people, this is a computer on your wrist that will become obsolete within 12 months. When you buy a proper time piece as a status of wealth you do so knowing that it will either be desirable for a very long time or even increase in value making it both a status symbol and a good investment.

The day you buy an Apple Watch it will start to lose value and as each successive year rolls on it will be worth less and less.

I was given a gold rolex when my great uncle died. A watch that he had owned for decades, he had a modest collection of gold rolex watches maybe 12 or so. Many of them were over 50 years old. And they still worked perfectly.

How long do you think the Apple Watch will function? Do you think the generation 1 Apple Watch will still communicate with the 2020 model of iPhone? Remember it requires an iPhone connection to function properly.

And this is at a software level but even if we look at just the battery, most batteries go bad between 3 and 5 years. This watch doesn't use a watch battery you can't just go to a jeweler and get it replaced. It is probably glued in there and knowing Apple only authorised resellers will be able to do a change and for how long? I'm sure if you took a generation 1 iPhone to an authorised apple repair shop they wouldn't be able to replace the battery for you. That phone is 7 years old the Apple Watch has no greater chance of receiving longer battery replacements.

All of these things work against the Apple Watch in the luxury high end watch range which in my opinion sits around the $1,500 - $50,000 range which apparently this $4999 Apple Watch is in.

I think it will be a really successful product at < $400 but I do not think this super high end $4999 one is going to sell well. It's just a ridiculous proposition even for the stupidly wealthy.

Did you read the article? It's possible that there could be some kind of upgrade or trade in program for the higher end watches.

Either way, for the wealthy, $5K is nothing. A "plain" old Rolex Submariner in gold retails for $35K, and you see them everywhere here in Los Angeles. If the gold Apple Watch was $50K, then it may be an issue, but $5K on something that lasts a couple of years is no big deal to people of status. It's called a Veblen good.

As others have mentioned, once people see a few celebrities with the Apple Watch on, they'll rush to buy the functionally identical cheaper models.

----------

There's something Gruber hasn't quite picked up. When he compares steel and gold versions of Rolexes with Apple watch versions, there's a huge difference that cannot be overlooked. Rolexes are always very expensive, while the Apple Sport watch is starting at $349. So if you're buying a gold Edition Apple Watch it's no different from a watch next to anybody could wear except for the material. Doubtful this will be overlooked by the people who have the necessary pocket change to afford luxury watches, and who like that kind of bling.

Will the Apple Watches functionality be that convincing that they'll still go for it? It's a big bet Apple is taking.

"Low end" Rolexes are $8K, and higher end Rolexes are closer to $50K. To lots of people, $8K isn't much money, and they buy the $50K watches, despite being functionally identical with the same internals. The same applies here.

 

[fuchsdh]

I too think Gruber did an excellent job laying out where the Apple Watch goes. The Apple Keynote was good (aside from its technical difficulties), but we’re used to great, and part of the shine being off might be that Apple is still working on what they’re doing with it.

The idea of swapping out the components seems like a good compromise of fashion and the nature of technology; on the other hand you have to wonder how much of the tech that small could be easily serviced. Feels like it’d be beyond Apple Store technicians.

Personally the Sport seems very interesting to me, and I say that as a guy who only has a pocket watch for special occasions, and otherwise is definitely of the “young people don’t wear watches” mold. At the price they’re asking though it’s got to do more than just replace my shuffle with a slightly more interesting and useful UI when doing workouts and running.

 

[bigred7078]

I thought this was a REALLY good article. It was a bit of a gut punch reading that the Space Black version I was eyeing may be $1k though...

 

[DarkJaye]

I like the idea that they're intentionally holding back to avoid showing their hand too early. When you think about the presentation, they showed just enough to stymie any leaks coming out of the supply chain when they start to produce more watches.

1. We know what it looks like, in all form factors and styles.
2. We know a basic set of functionality, that is, they've led Motorola and Samsung to believe that they're heading down the right path.
3. Most importantly to Apple, they've led Google to believe that they're also on the right path with Android Wear.

It's common knowledge that Google pretty much immediately switched directions on Android as soon as they saw the iPhone reveal in an effort to get their OS touchscreen ready, and even then the first real product didn't get a release until 2008. What's going to be their reaction when the Apple Watch is fully unveiled 2 weeks before launching to millions of customers world wide and they're caught completely flat footed?

Furthermore, consider where Apple holds its competitive advantages. To this day, they've excelled at miniaturization more than anyone else. No one has been able to match the the performance and size of the iPhone 4" form factor and maintain the same battery life. Their competitors were lucky that in the case of phones, larger screens are more appealing to customers and were able to work around Apples advantages via pure brute force (i.e. having room for bigger batteries, using hardware to make up for the flaws in Android software performance issues)

When it comes to watches, how it looks is king more than anything that has come before, and you can't simply make it bigger to squeeze more battery or performance in to increase appeal to customers. In fact, the watch form factor essentially relies on Apples greatest strengths: designing stylish, desirable products better than anyone else in the industry; and designing powerful, miniature electronics that sip power.

It will be interesting to see if anyone can catch up to Apple at the same rate that they did in smartphones.

 

[Julien]

...It will be interesting to see if anyone can catch up to Apple at the same rate that they did in smartphones.

I love Apple innovation and product details. Also I'm embedded in the ecosystem but hard, tough and fast competition is good for all of us.

 

[richdruitt]

Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh. At $4999, that's what the Apple watch will end up being. An enormously white elephant.

There are lots of common sense things others have been saying in here. Anything over $1000 will need to have staying power. This is a computer in a watch, there's no staying power in that. It will last a maximum of three or four years and then stop functioning (if you're lucky). Many high end watches come with lifetime warranties, something I'm betting the Apple Watch won't be coming with.

I'm also going to go out on a limb and predict that just like the first few generations of iPhones had issues with making and receiving phone calls (their primary purpose for existence), this watch will fail in its primary purpose as a watch and just end up at the bottom of landfill somewhere or sitting around as an embarrassingly expensive paper weight to remind the user that Apple do indeed jump the shark at times.

 

[Carlanga]

Apple Watch Sport (aluminum/glass): $349 (not a guess)
Apple Watch (stainless steel/sapphire): $999
Apple Watch Edition (18-karat gold/sapphire): $4,999

Horrible guesses… Are we sure he wasn't drunk when he wrote this nonsense

 

[KPOM]

Here is what you are missing. Rolex makes 100% of it profits off high end watches. For Apple the profits of the Edition will be below negligible on its balance sheet. The Edition is a show piece. An analogy might be the NSX. Acura/Honda does't need to sell many NSXs because:

1) The NSX brings people into the showroom and helps with the mass sales of other models.
2) Each unit has a high profit margin.

Apple knows that even if it sales only a few Editions they will still be on high profile celebrates wrists. This will help dive sales of the Sport. People will notice celebs wearing the Edition and this will feed the need for celebrities to have it.

If it's a show piece there would be one or two versions, not 6. I think it will be priced to sell in moderate quantities. Apple is generally about affordable luxury. $650-1000 for the Watch is consistent with Michael Kors, Movado, and Tissot stainless steel watches. The only significant difference with the Edition is the use of gold. The design is essentially the same. While it's possible it will be $5000, I think $2000 may be more likely.

----------

Apple Watch Sport (aluminum/glass): $349 (not a guess)
Apple Watch (stainless steel/sapphire): $999
Apple Watch Edition (18-karat gold/sapphire): $4,999

Horrible guesses… Are we sure he wasn't drunk when he wrote this nonsense

He says he's being serious. However, note that the Edition is being sold with leather and plastic bands. It isn't being sold with links. The Rolexes he's comparing them to when measuring the scrap value of the gold have a LOT more gold as they have metal bands.

On the other hand, Burberry sells rose gold plated watches for $2,995. Since the Apple Watch Edition is solid 18kt gold, $4995 is in the ballpark. http://us.burberry.com/the-britain-bby1807-34mm-diamond-inner-track-p38858871

 

[Julien]

Apple Watch Sport (aluminum/glass): $349 (not a guess)
Apple Watch (stainless steel/sapphire): $999
Apple Watch Edition (18-karat gold/sapphire): $4,999

Horrible guesses… Are we sure he wasn't drunk when he wrote this nonsense

You do know that John Gruber is a highly respected journalist and is believed to have lot's of inside contacts at Apple. He is usually spot on with his predictions. Also he is not one to give into wild unsubstantiated speculation and certainly not drunken nonsense guesses. You can all but bet your rent check that the info is accurate as of today.

 

[richdruitt]

You do know that John Gruber is a highly respected journalist and is believed to have lot's of inside contacts at Apple. He is usually spot on with his predictions. Also he is not one to give into wild unsubstantiated speculation and certainly not drunken nonsense guesses. You can all but bet your rent check that the info is accurate as of today.

Well that's easy to say. "Accurate as of today", considering the watch won't be out till sometime next year.

 

[Julien]

Well that's easy to say. "Accurate as of today", considering the watch won't be out till sometime next year.

I said that, he didn't. How can anyone say with certainty what will be in February. So what if Apple adjust the price to $5999 or $3999 on launch. Will that deserve a big now? If it's $5999 or $3999 will you be more likely to buy it?

 

[richdruitt]

I said that, he didn't. How can anyone say with certainty what will be in February. So what if Apple adjust the price to $5999 or $3999 on launch. Will that deserve a big now? If it's $5999 or $3999 will you be more likely to buy it?

Absolutely not. I wouldn't buy a smart watch at any price above $1000. Frankly, it would be the same type of people that blew money on the TAM who would be stupid enough to spend that sort of money on a watch that will have rubbish battery life and be obsolete in twelve months or less.

I'd just find it hard to believe that Apple would be silly enough to pull a TAM again.

 

[Cashmonee]

I don't disagree with the prices, but those are insane for this type of device!

 

[richdruitt]

For $370, one could get the Samsung Gear 2
For $330, there's the Sony SW2

And Gruber seriously wants people to believe that Apple believes that its product is so much better than Samsung or Sony for be worth in the order of about 10 times the amount of money?

Come on guys. There's no way Apple could justify that sort of pricing when their competitors have superior products out on the market for far less money. Even with the premium, over $1000 is still far fetched.

 

[Julien]

I don't disagree with the prices, but those are insane for this type of device!

...but so is this and how about this for some chicken wings and booze.

 

[richdruitt]

...but so is this and how about this for some chicken wings and booze.

The price for the gold iPhone though is not from Apple. That's different and custom made. We're talking about products, made en masse by Apple. Not custom gold plating for the tasteless of the world.

 

[Julien]

The price for the gold iPhone though is not from Apple. That's different and custom made. We're talking about products, made en masse by Apple. Not custom gold plating for the tasteless of the world.

I'm talking about the fact that there are MANY people willing and able to pay these kind of prices.

 

[KPOM]

For $370, one could get the Samsung Gear 2
For $330, there's the Sony SW2

And Gruber seriously wants people to believe that Apple believes that its product is so much better than Samsung or Sony for be worth in the order of about 10 times the amount of money?

Come on guys. There's no way Apple could justify that sort of pricing when their competitors have superior products out on the market for far less money. Even with the premium, over $1000 is still far fetched.

Apple isn't targeting the Gear 2 crowd with the Edition. Maybe they are with the Sport, but even then they seem to be taking the approach of ignoring the smart watch competition. It isn't as if they are trying to take market share from Samsung or Motorola. They are trying to take market share from Tourneau, Swatch, and Movado, or build a new market altogether.

 

[richdruitt]

I'm talking about the fact that there are MANY people willing and able to pay these kind of prices.

I'm talking about the fact that if there were indeed a big market of cashed up chavs and oil rich arabs desperate for golden iPhones and therefore horrendously expensive gold watches, then Apple would be mass producing them for that market, rather than small third party operators doing it.

At the end of the day, all of the other competitors on the watch market, like Motorola, LG, Sony, Samsung et al, are all around the $150 to $350 mark. The ones at $350 are similar or superior to the Watch. There is no way that Apple is mass producing $2000 watches, $3000 watches, $4000 watches or $5000 watches.

If they are, then they are stupid and learnt nothing from their other bombs like the TAM

----------

Apple isn't targeting the Gear 2 crowd with the Edition. Maybe they are with the Sport, but even then they seem to be taking the approach of ignoring the smart watch competition. It isn't as if they are trying to take market share from Samsung or Motorola. They are trying to take market share from Tourneau, Swatch, and Movado, or build a new market altogether.

LOL....ROFLOL!!!!

Are you serious? A watch that has barely enough battery power to last a day is supposed to compete with Tourneau? Seriously? Are you deluded? You expect me to believe that Apple is expecting its crappy electronic watch with crappy battery power will compete with fine mechanical Swiss time pieces?

If you believe that you're seriously deluded. If anyone at Apple believe that, then they are seriously deluded as well.