Jony Ive Reveals Exclusive Apple Watch Sport Bands at Milan Design Week

[TallManNY]

So is apple not allowed to sell a gold watch?

I just don't get it. Apple has made something that competes with expensive real estate, where people's tastes has a huge impact on a person's purchasing decision. It's a significantly different market that they've ventured into.

My only complaint, if any, would be that they should have probably been more up front about the cost early on so that fewer people would have been letdown by the pricing.

Perhaps I've just misunderstood your stance on the issue.

Well my stance is a bit unclear. I don't fault Apple for making money or for selling products aimed at the very rich. We live in a world where the very rich is increasingly becoming an even more important target demographic. Apple is responding to this and capitalizing on it. If anything, they might have priced the Edition watch too low. It will be interesting to see what the Edition trades for in the market after its release on April 24.

It is just worth noting that this is an Apple product where no middle class person can possibly justify buying it. That is something new. Even a Mac Pro, while expensive, delivers enough long term value that I could see someone who makes $50,000 a year buying it with the financing package and it basically making sense. The Edition (unless it miraculously retains huge amounts of value as a collectors item) would be a disastrous purchase for that middle class person. Apple is now different for having made the Edition.

I guess my main point is that it is ironic that Apple is finally doing a fashion focused marketing campaign after years of what I considered misguided analysis that the iPhone was selling based on it being fashionable.I always thought that Apple didn't even pull out the big guns in trying to make iPhone fashionable.

The Apple Watch is really being launched in a completely bigger way. Isn't this a much bigger push than when the iPad was released? Celebrities didn't get the iPad weeks in advance or in their own special color. But since this is jewelry is makes sense that it is being marketed in a different fashion. But let's just recognize that this is different.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

So maybe I'm sheltered, but the only place I'm seeing apple watches in the wild is from news articles posted on these sites...

We're all sheltered. The public unleashing will occur in 6 days (April 24th is when they start arriving at peoples' houses).

 

[Keirasplace]

Wow, super important stuff.

[whispered] Exclusive....

Feels so much like Apple's selling itself out to fashion, and at the higher end, a collusion with the so-called 1%, the uberwealthy.

Only if you think those involved in fashion and designers (Apple's bread and butter and a huge clientele for decades) are actually some distinct group, and that a few hundred watches given to industry insiders and influencers is somehow a "betrayal" of whatever ideal you cooked up in your head.

Apple is "selling itself", is in "collusion" with... The at most 15% of the world population who can actually afford an Apple product RIGHT NOW... (including those dreaded 1%). Yes, Apple has been an exclusive club of the richest on earth since its birth; it is time to stop the denial and accept this fact.

Early adopters an even smaller part of the world wide income pyramid, since by definition, they have money to spare on such "experiments"; probably no more than a third of current Iphone owners are truly a target for a gen 1 Apple watch. Apple is selling to them; these are generally an even more affluent bunch, who actually care about fashion and brands.

It would be hypocritical for any Apple buyers to tumb their nose at the 1%, when in fact they sit just under them atop the world wide pyramid of wealth. From 1976-2000, those Apple buyers would be even more affluent and educated than nowadays, with products with average selling price in the 3-8K range in 2015 money.

Considering Apple makes 50B in profits a year mostly by catering to the top end of the world's demographics, any current outrage now comes off as mostly comedy in my book.

This kind of outrage is trendy since the 1860s, maybe you should make a T shirt with something catchy like "Das Kapital sucks"... (sic) on it.

 

[applelover4u]

China needs to get to work quick making these available to us common folk!

O its out there

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

some things changed.. it went from 'Steve is insane'.. 'Steve is on drugs'.. 'Steve must have horrible advisors'

-to-

'Steve would never have let this happen'

otherwise, yeah.. everything is the same

I read those too... The hate was strong on that one...

What ever happened to that iPod thing, anyway?

 

[Keirasplace]

The Apple Watch is really being launched in a completely bigger way. Isn't this a much bigger push than when the iPad was released? Celebrities didn't get the iPad weeks in advance or in their own special color. But since this is jewelry is makes sense that it is being marketed in a different fashion. But let's just recognize that this is different.

Well, I'll admit that its different; that they haven't done this before. But, I certainly won't say like some here that this is goes against Apple's very core; or that Apple is suddenly licking the 1% boot (in an inflammatory rhetoric).

Apple has never released a wearable before (I'd argue that no one has truly released one in a major way either seeing as how horrible a sales failure all other projects have been), so who knows how Apple/Jobs would have done it if they had before.

Apple in this case has to sell the need for this product (which no one seems to have done), to actually sell the product. It is a kind of 'inception". People must convince themselves they need this new thing they never thought they needed before, without even having seen a useful one in the wild.

This is important that it popped up in all reviews about the watch. Reviewers said that it was a great smart watch... But, do we need smart watches?

That's why Apple has to push to get the watch out there. It is actual use that will help answer this question.

Nobody questioned that phones were useful, or even portable tablets that looked like bigger Iphones, could be useful when they launched. The transition of phones into computers themselves had already almost been completed with the emergence of bigger smart phones. They already had a built in public that wanted the function those products delivered. Apple only had to deliver on the technical/experience side and that's it. Selling was pretty easy (and sales took off like a rocket).

 

[flat five]

It's too late to know if it would have been a flop if Apple had decided to sell it the same way they sell computers and iPods.

why would they do that though?
all watch companies market the fashion side of things.. a watch is a bracelet.. bracelets are jewelry.. jewelry/accessories are fashion.

you don't wear a computer.. though even then, apple certainly markets the beauty of their computers.. maybe even moreso than they do the functionality.

computers aside, i seriously question your inclusion of ipods..

i mean:
http://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/ipod-silhouettes-2000-2011/

The silhouette ads were particularly notable for the evocative effect they had on culture, fashion, and “hipness”– reaching Apple customers and well beyond.

that's one of the best ad campaigns ever.. or at least most effective.. it's definitely fashion marketing.

apple wants another opportunity to make a campaign like that.. one where it's all about people's dress/style/attitude/etc.. they can't really do it with the iphone as people keep them in their pockets or out of view and the idea of someone dancing around with an iphone tethered to their body via earbuds probably wouldn't go over too well.

the watch is tethered to the phone.. only now, wirelessly.. it's worn at all times.. it's more out there than the ear buds.. it gives apple a great opportunity to market using dress/style/attitude/etc.. and they're definitely going to take advantage of that (or- i assume they developed&designed in order to create this opportunity).

but the idea of "apple is all of a sudden trying to be some crazy fashion & popculture company" misses the mark imo.. they have been for the past 10-15 years.

----------

00:00. Stereo Rock: "Walkie Talkie Man" by Steriogram (2004)
00:30. Dance: "Rock Star" by N.E.R.D. (Jason Nevins Remix) (2004)
01:15. Breakdance: "Channel Surfing" by Feature Cast (2004)
01:45. Vertigo: "Vertigo" by U2 (2004)
02:15. Pop-Lock: "Technologic" by Daft Punk (2005)
02:45. Rollerskating: "Feel Good Inc." by Gorillaz (2005)
03:15. Saturday Hip-Hop: "Saturday Night" by Ozomatli (2005)
03:45. Rock: "Are You Gonna Be My Girl" by Jet (2005)
04:30. Hip-Hop: "Hey Mama" by The Black Eyed Peas (2005)
05:15. Accoustic: "Someday Baby" by Bob Dylan (2006)
05:45. Curtain Call: "Lose Yourself" by Eminem (2006)
06:15 Sparks: " ""Sparks" by Wynton Marsalis (2006)
06:45. Seventy: "Love Train" by Wolfmother (2007)
07:15. Party Animated: "Flathead" by The Fratellis (2007)
07:45. Party Color: "Flathead" by The Fratellis (2007)
08:15. Mandolin: "Dance Tonight" by Paul McCartney (2007)
08:45. Island: "Mi Swing Es Tropical" by Quantic & Nickodemus (2007)
09:15. Queen: "Work That" by Mary J. Blige (2007)
09:45. Gamma: "Shut Up and Let Me Go"" by The Ting Tings (2008)
10:15. Sonic: "Viva la Vida" by Coldplay (2008)
EXTRAS
10:45 Wild Posting: "Ride" by The Vines (2005)
11:15. Vertigo - Extended version: "Vertigo" by U2 (2004)

 

[Ceviche Lover]

I understand the need to promote a product and good luck to Apple, but is it just me or does all the media lately suggest Apple are more interested in what the fashion industry think of the Watch than ordinary people? A 10k watch doesn't make me feel any easier either.... I know people are gonna flame me for it, but the thing i like about Apple and Steve in particular is that they seemed to be "one of us". Geeks who built stuff all us geeks would love. To put it another way, it was all about the tech and product design and getting it into the hands of as may people as possible.... Apple are a tech company; sure, promote a product, and if a bunch of silly people in the fashion industry (who would pay $100,000 for a pile of poo if it was put in a gallery) like it, then great, no harm done... But what the fashion industry THINK has never been (and should never be) a consideration.... Until now apparently. In the previous article there are photos of Apple people at the Gallery looking like spare pricks at an orgy; looking like nerds sucking up to the cool kids in the playground... Come on... Since when does anyone's opinion in the fashion industry matter at all in the real world, let alone in the tech industry and let alone to the talented people at Apple.

I just wish Apple would make this about a wearable piece of tech rather than making it a fashion icon! If it becomes a fashion icon, fine, let it be one, but don't COURT the fashion industry to try and make it one. They didn't do all this with the iPhone; it became iconic because the tech changed the world, not because Apple marketed it to the fashion industry.

I blame Ive for all of this...

I think Ive has made the mistake many designers make in that he now cares what his peers think... This terrible mental virus is often the ruin of many decent careers; he needs one of this old mates from Newcastle Poly to slap him in the face and tell him he's being a prat and to go back to doing what he's good at... Someone needs to tell the king he has no clothes on.... Oh, wait, that was Steve's job.... Damn

/* End Of Rant */

It's necessary for them to market this as a fashion accessory first before a tech device for a few reasons:


1)If they market like a traditional tech product, it will go the way of the Samsung Gear/Pebble/Motorola watch. In other words, only geeks will buy it and mainstream won't buy into it. They need to market it as a fashion device first because wrist watches are fashion items these days more so than a tool like they used to be.

2)There's no 'killer app' for it yet and all the watch really is is a remote control for the apps on your IPhone, and that in itself isn't a compelling enough reason for people to spend their money on.

 

[macs4nw]

The Apple Watch is the most useless Apple product in a long while.

It may seem somewhat duplicitous at the moment, while doing little more than a top-of-the-line iPhone, but as a handsfree device, and with Moore's law and vastly improved battery tech coming sometime in the future, in addition to a staggering amount of AppleWatch-specific Apps coming down the pipeline, this device is all set to become virtually indispensable to all but the most die-hard luddites within no more than a few years.

With continued miniaturization and future built-in cellular and WiFi technology, as well as gyroscope, accelerometer, barometer and various other sensors, it will all but replace iPhones eventually, much like iPhones have replaced iPods.

The list of possibilities is only limited by one's imagination, and as a partially hands-free device the potential convenience is off the charts. No more fumbling with wallets, purses, keys or smartphones, the AppleWatch will keep track of a zillion things for you, remind you of things --either visually or tactilely--, check you in at the airport, open your hotel room door, unlock your car door, enable you to rent stuff, register for things, vote, present your (electronic) drivers license to the police, and of course pay for things all with a simple wave of your wrist, even while having your hands full with other things.

So unless you were in jest or just trolling, you may very well change your mind before too long.

 

[flat five]

I blame Ive for all of this...

I think Ive has made the mistake many designers make in that he now cares what his peers think... This terrible mental virus is often the ruin of many decent careers; he needs one of this old mates from Newcastle Poly to slap him in the face and tell him he's being a prat and to go back to doing what he's good at

example?

often & many? i'm sure you can offer at least one or two examples.

 

[zmunkz]

1)If they market like a traditional tech product, it will go the way of the Samsung Gear/Pebble/Motorola watch. In other words, only geeks will buy it and mainstream won't buy into it. They need to market it as a fashion device first because wrist watches are fashion items these days more so than a tool like they used to be.

2)There's no 'killer app' for it yet and all the watch really is is a remote control for the apps on your IPhone, and that in itself isn't a compelling enough reason for people to spend their money on.

I agree with both of your points.

Although, I don't see that it needs a killer app, nor that we should expect one, whereas your phrasing seems to suggest we should. I see the watch as a new interface that enhances the iPhone experience, not truly a separate device. This doesn't bother me at all. It is just too small to be its own "thing"... you could never interface with it efficiently enough to really generate content... but even so, just as a supplemental device, I think it ads a great deal of value to the iPhone experience even if no "killer apps" ever emerge -- just extensions of what the phone can already do, I submit, will be enough to make it worth it.

 

[macaron95]

Everywhere Marc goes, Jony goes

 

[doelcm82]

why would they do that though?
all watch companies market the fashion side of things.. a watch is a bracelet.. bracelets are jewelry.. jewelry/accessories are fashion.

you don't wear a computer.. though even then, apple certainly markets the beauty of their computers.. maybe even moreso than they do the functionality.

computers aside, i seriously question your inclusion of ipods..

i mean:
http://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/ipod-silhouettes-2000-2011/



that's one of the best ad campaigns ever.. or at least most effective.. it's definitely fashion marketing.

I don't disagree with you as to your first point. There are those who are suggesting that Apple should have used less effective advertising for the Apple Watch in order to give it a fighting chance to be a total flop. They stacked the deck in order to make sure it was a success, and that just isn't fair.

I don't think the iPod ads really compare to what Apple is doing in Milan. Most of Apple's advertising up to now has been populist, starting with the '1984' Superbowl ad. The "Im a Mac" ads emphasized Apple as a dressed-down, non-stuffy brand. Even the iPod commercials, like the one you mentioned, are about popular fashion, rather than high fashion. Those dancing models appear to be wearing Gap, Old Navy, A&F, or thrift-store outfits.

Please understand that I am not criticizing Apple for this. If you are reading a criticism into what I write, then you are misinterpreting me, and I won't defend anything that I never intended to say in the first place.

People were saying that Apple couldn't sell a Watch the way they sell computers, iPods or iPhones. I think they're right. I think Apple thinks so to. They're trying new strategies, and that includes selling watches as high fashion. I get the feeling that some of those who claimed Apple didn't know how to sell watches are disappointed that Apple's approach has been as successful as it has been.

We'll go through all this again if Apple decides to sell a car a few years down the line.

 

[robbyx]

I've already stated in various threads that Apple did a nice job with the watch. I've tried it on too and it is good quality. All Imsaid was the buzz factor would be near zero if anyone else made the same thing.

I agree. I finally went and checked out the watch in person. It's nice. But it's not wow. I find the styling too simple really. But it's very Apple. I think it will seem dated rather quickly. There's nothing timeless about it, despite its elegance. The screen looks fantastic. I wasn't blown away by any of the bands. I still don't think it's a winner, but I definitely think it will find a niche.

 

[Solomani]

Have I been in a coma? I've never associated Apple with "affordability" Apple has always been a sort of elitists brand. But one that everyone agrees with because their hardware and software integration is bar none as well as their motto of not cramming crap 3rd party software onto your gear like all the other manufacturers did (moreso back in the 90's and early 2000s)

But Apple products have always had a slight premium over every competitive product.

I personally don't like the direction they have taken though with the Apple Watch. It seems now more about the status symbol of the device rather than the technology. As shown by hiring the former CEO of Burberry and now doing these fashion shows. It seems Apple is taking on a bit of the Beats approach of making flashy gear that works "ok" rather than purely making the "best" gear. Don't misconstrue my words though. I'm not saying that the Apple Watch is bad like previous gen Beat headphones but I'm saying the emphasis is more on the flashiness (Gold watches, $7k watchbands, fashion shows) and the celebrity endorsements than letting the technology speak for itself.

I don't mind that Apple strengthens their "fashion brand clout". As long as they continue to retain and (when needed) hire brilliant scientists and engineers who will actually make the hardware come to life.

I think it is easy for you (and everyone) to view Apple as only paying attention to the "designers" and fashion execs at Apple. The hard truth is that engineering and science is NOT sexy, is never fashionable, and tech nerds do not sell headlines or News attention. You want to know what sells attention? The known design and fashion people…. like those execs Iovine and Dre and Angela.

So the engineers, nerds, and brilliant tech scientists at Apple may still be just as strong and active as they were before, but CBS, Fox News, MSNBC and CNN will never interview them nerds and they will never get any press coverage or media hits. In general, the masses does not give a crap about them. The Media considers them boring. Why waste time putting them on the limelight when the Media can instead get hits with names already known like Iovine, Jony Ive, Dr. Dre, etc?

Even Tim Cook has become an even larger celebrity since his coming out. There must be a lot of LGBT teens and young people that look to him as a role model for success and perseverance.

 

[CFreymarc]

By this time next year, you will see as many band options for the Apple Watch as there are iPhone cases. It'll be everything from cheap $5 bands to some challenging the price of the Apple Watch Edition.

Honestly, I want to see a totally transparent band that makes it look like the watch is glues to your wrist. Better transparent bands with light up LEDs inside used as swag or a notification UI element.

----------

They're excluding allot of people, both literally and communicative.

I mean they've worked so hard to make Apple associated with affordability (albeit their prices). Now they throw that away by making gold-colored Macbook, iPhones and actual gold Watches and showcasing new stuff at exclusive design fairs. This is new...

You want an affordable smart-watch, get a Pebble. They pulled in just north of $20 million on Kickstarter and priced themselves just below the Apple Watch.

I'm sure there will be a smartwatch pecking order at WWDC this year including a few Apple Watch coding sessions.

 

[CFreymarc]

I don't think the iPod ads really compare to what Apple is doing in Milan. Most of Apple's advertising up to now has been populist, starting with the '1984' Superbowl ad. The "Im a Mac" ads emphasized Apple as a dressed-down, non-stuffy brand. Even the iPod commercials, like the one you mentioned, are about popular fashion, rather than high fashion. Those dancing models appear to be wearing Gap, Old Navy, A&F, or thrift-store outfits.

What you are quoting is the Jobs -> Scully -> (bozos) -> Jobs transitions that is Apple's history. Apple survived the IBM PC launch keeping themselves exclusive having the capital to make the Mac. Scully, wanted broad consumer while Steve wanted to stay high end (unlike what the Jobs movie said) and Steve lost.

Under Scully, they did well with 10x growth but he got out after the Newton flopped. (Yes, I wrote Newton code, flame away.)

This lead to glorified accountants and other commodity type CEOs taking the color out of the logo. At one time, having a gray scale Apple logo outside your office was a sign your were disappointed with the commodity approach Apple was taking at the time.

When Steve came back, he considered the Apple brand the highest value commodity the company had and not the technology. Thus, the high end image and brushed metal look on almost all the products.

Hence we are in the second post-Jobs era and so far, Tim Cook is keeping with the Jobs playbook.

----------



----------

Even a Mac Pro, while expensive, delivers enough long term value that I could see someone who makes $50,000 a year buying it with the financing package and it basically making sense. The Edition (unless it miraculously retains huge amounts of value as a collectors item)

I know one guy that bought TWO $17K highest end Apple Watch Editions with expectations of it appreciating to a quarter million each in the next ten years. He's calling them his twin daughter's college fund.

Celebrities didn't get the iPad weeks in advance or in their own special color.

I can most certainly tell you they did. Some were even custom anodized matching colors to custom magnetic cases. One I saw was even powder pink.

 

[ginkobiloba]

I just mean that they're marketing it too much in the fashion market and they're alienating a huge chunk of their core users; which in my opinion are the younger people. .

Do you see the contradiction in that phrase ? Who is more interested in fashion than young people ?

 

[neonart]

I've only read 3 pages of that thread but it's amazing... Nothing has changed in 14 years !

Yup. The iMac, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, and now Apple Watch. People just love to hate.

It's always the same thing too. Too expensive, too limited, nothing new, it's ugly, only for the apple faithful, etc.

It used to be that Steve was distorting reality. Now it's that Steve is gone and Jony/Tim/whoever is going crazy and Steve would never approve.

 

[SpectatorHere]

It may seem somewhat duplicitous at the moment, while doing little more than a top-of-the-line iPhone, but as a handsfree device, and with Moore's law and vastly improved battery tech coming sometime in the future, in addition to a staggering amount of AppleWatch-specific Apps coming down the pipeline, this device is all set to become virtually indispensable to all but the most die-hard luddites within no more than a few years.

With continued miniaturization and future built-in cellular and WiFi technology, as well as gyroscope, accelerometer, barometer and various other sensors, it will all but replace iPhones eventually, much like iPhones have replaced iPods.

The list of possibilities is only limited by one's imagination, and as a partially hands-free device the potential convenience is off the charts. No more fumbling with wallets, purses, keys or smartphones, the AppleWatch will keep track of a zillion things for you, remind you of things --either visually or tactilely--, check you in at the airport, open your hotel room door, unlock your car door, enable you to rent stuff, register for things, vote, present your (electronic) drivers license to the police, and of course pay for things all with a simple wave of your wrist, even while having your hands full with other things.

So unless you were in jest or just trolling, you may very well change your mind before too long.

I think you're buying into the wearables hype too much. People don't need a watch to open doors or pay, phones can do that already and have the added benefit of being far better at presenting visual information, as well as have better batteries due to size.


Wearables will take off eventually if you count augmented reality glasses. Those, tied to a "watch" to aid in UI, might just replace the phone, but the glasses are important technology to watch for--not the watch.

 

[Ed217]

I think you're buying into the wearables hype too much. People don't need a watch to open doors or pay, phones can do that already and have the added benefit of being far better at presenting visual information, as well as have better batteries due to size.

Not completely true based on current info. Using Apple Pay generally takes 2 hands. One to get the phone out and hold it, and the second to enter code or fingerprint. The Watch, once paired, can do pay from your arm with less effort. That may be a plus depending on how seamless that works in practice.

Wearables are an item in our future as they are just beginning to appear in useful forms. The Google Glass has been an interesting test, but so far not gone far. The distraction factor is key in anything that is always in front of your eyes.

I can remember people telling me that smartphones were just a passing fancy, as all anybody ever needed to do was make a call...

 

[TallManNY]

Well, I'll admit that its different; that they haven't done this before. But, I certainly won't say like some here that this is goes against Apple's very core; or that Apple is suddenly licking the 1% boot (in an inflammatory rhetoric).

Apple has never released a wearable before (I'd argue that no one has truly released one in a major way either seeing as how horrible a sales failure all other projects have been), so who knows how Apple/Jobs would have done it if they had before.

Apple in this case has to sell the need for this product (which no one seems to have done), to actually sell the product. It is a kind of 'inception". People must convince themselves they need this new thing they never thought they needed before, without even having seen a useful one in the wild.

This is important that it popped up in all reviews about the watch. Reviewers said that it was a great smart watch... But, do we need smart watches?

That's why Apple has to push to get the watch out there. It is actual use that will help answer this question.

Nobody questioned that phones were useful, or even portable tablets that looked like bigger Iphones, could be useful when they launched. The transition of phones into computers themselves had already almost been completed with the emergence of bigger smart phones. They already had a built in public that wanted the function those products delivered. Apple only had to deliver on the technical/experience side and that's it. Selling was pretty easy (and sales took off like a rocket).

I agree with most of this but let me challenged two things. First, I'd say fitbit has released a successful wearable in its pedometers. Not wildly successful, but I think FitBit sells millions of do-dads a year.

Second, the iPad was roundly criticized as completely unnecessary. Heck it still is. And yet Apple may make more profit off sale of the iPad than the entire PC industry makes off selling PCs. The iPhone was criticized as under powered and extravagantly expensive (as if constant access to the sum total of human knowledge by way of the internet wasn't a neat enough trick to spend a few hundred dollars on as opposed to a blackberry which couldn't functionally surf the web).

But yes this smart watch thing is a massive education process. Hence Apple is pulling out all the stops. And one thing that the other smart phone watches didn't focus on was making sure that the watch worked as a fashion item as much as a utility item. I think the utility is going to become fairly obvious. In fact reports from smart watch wears is that there is enough utility. The watches just don't look that great and certainly don't have much in the way off off the shelf individuality. Apple really went all in releasing all these bands and two sizes and three models. Moto360 is nice, but did the initial release even give you a band option?

 

[SpectatorHere]

Yup. The iMac, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, and now Apple Watch. People just love to hate.

It's always the same thing too. Too expensive, too limited, nothing new, it's ugly, only for the apple faithful, etc.

It used to be that Steve was distorting reality. Now it's that Steve is gone and Jony/Tim/whoever is going crazy and Steve would never approve.

These posts point out how little rebuttal there is to the criticisms being leveled against the watch. To say that there have always been doubters is dismissive and just makes me more certain there is almost no case to be made for this product.


If you had to guess back when the iPod came out, of course you'd bet against it--you'd have been silly to believe it would be the device change the music industry. Sure, MP3 was gradually replacing disk players, but it wasn't at all clear the technology was cheap enough yet, and there was still the whole question of how the music industry was finally going to come down on digital music sales. As it turned out, Jobs saw an opportunity, and then followed it up with iTunes store that changed the entire industry. The iPod was great and all, but it was never preordained to be a blockbuster product, and if things had just gone a different way (say the music industry not engaging the iPod) or Apple holding on to Mac exclusive software/syncing too long and it all might not have worked. So, the iPod, unlike the watch, imo, had a clear purpose and utility, it was just very uncertain it could succeed where others have failed. These watches, to many of us, have little utility or purpose to begin with.


Stunning as the iPod/iTunes success proved to be, there is almost no connection to be made with this watch, except that it's a product Apple sells. I've tried to find any convincing explanation why this is the next iPod/iPhone/iPad, and the only case that makes any sense is a health and fitness monitoring. I'll admit that eventually many of us will wear devices that measure our vital stats 24/7, but let's remember that this watch doesn't do any of that whereas the first iPod most definitely held and played your MP3's. If the eventually does this monitoring in a revolutionary way, then I may be convinced, but right now it's less useful than a fitbit from two year ago. Additionally, wristwatches, seem retrograde for a company that did more to wipe out the need for wristwatches than anyone else. Smartphones are what people check the time with.


Anyway, I'll agree that there are always naysayers, and Apple has a strong history of proving naysayers wrong over the past decade and a half. But, I'll close by reemphasizing that if that is the best argument you've got, maybe the watch isn't like those other products.


And if anyone ever links to this post in the future, please note that almost no one objecting to the watch denies it might sell. It may be that Apple can sell just about anything and make it popular for a awhile--they are the most valuable corporation in the world after all. It's hard to say what a flop or success will even look like. What the majority of critics are saying, is that this watch simply isn't a compelling product.

 

[SpectatorHere]

Not completely true based on current info. Using Apple Pay generally takes 2 hands. One to get the phone out and hold it, and the second to enter code or fingerprint. The Watch, once paired, can do pay from your arm with less effort. That may be a plus depending on how seamless that works in practice.

Wearables are an item in our future as they are just beginning to appear in useful forms. The Google Glass has been an interesting test, but so far not gone far. The distraction factor is key in anything that is always in front of your eyes.

I can remember people telling me that smartphones were just a passing fancy, as all anybody ever needed to do was make a call...

If it makes any difference, I don't think you're addressing the same group of people that claimed smartphones weren't going to be amazing. You had to have your head in the sand to not realize that connecting a PDA, full web browser, email client, iPod, and phone wouldn't be amazingly useful. While you and others are free to keep comparing the watch to the smartphone, I just don't get the comparison.

 

[shyam09]

Because those silicone/rubber bands are oh so fashion forward... :|

Are you questioning Apple's judgment?? Remember what happened to Scott Forstall. Shhhhhhh!