Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I do, but it makes no difference to me anyway, selling old buying new costs peanuts - it's easy for me to update every year, every six months, every 2 years. I just don't think this will be a yearly project, firstly I don't think the tech will move fast enough and secondly I don't know if they'll be able to update all the SKU's so quickly AND keep such high supply chains for them. iPhone has to be priority, everything else is secondary in supply chain after that.
possible, but only after gen 2 of the watch. They will update it as fast as the market needs and how the competitors features stack to the device. Your gen 1 is a beta IMO.
 
How many people are going to buy a new watch every year?

As almost everyone who wants an Apple Watch has bought one by now, I question the demand for a new one next year.

Who is going to buy a new refrigerator every year? I think everyone who needs a refrigerator already owns one. So how is it that they are able to continue selling things everyone already owns.

It could be that
1) new people come into the market
2) the device needs replacements because of damage, theft or whatever
3) the new device is so much better that current owners trade in their old one, only needing to pay the difference in price.
4) the new device is so much better that the market for it expands.

Go into any Home Depot and you will find an entire isle of toilets. Who does not already have one? But still they sell enough that an entire isle of floor space is justified. How could this be? Look at the four items above. They apply to just about everything watches included.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dannys1
Would it be shown off at a March event? Like this year. Either way I'm excited to see what gen 2 brings to the table.
 
I see a trend happening in Macrumors, people are becoming more critical of Tim Cook and skeptical of the path Apple is taking. If 2nd generation isn't a jaw dropper, then someone should get the boot!

No, I see a long path of incremental improvement for the watch. Apple is constrained by the available technology. A watch must us an ultra-low power processor these will improve slowly as will battery technology. Then of course the engineering at Apple will learn new things as they make watch after watch. You have to figure that they started on version two before version one was shipping. Some are working on version three right now. The watch will evolve slowly just like the iPhone and the MacBook.

I figure in 6 to 8 years the watch will be a mature product.
 
I wouldn't think anyone would use the watch as a "dive watch". Swimming as the OP originally mentioned is quite different than a dive a watch. A dive watch is a very specialized watch. I don't think taking a swim with a watch would really qualify for "trust my life" to it.

I watch gets wet every day, no issues. I treat it no different than any other "NON DIVE" watch I own.

hyperbole aside, swimming has more in common with diving than the daily water exposure you're subjecting your watch to. The forces involved in swimming require much greater pressure protection than the Apple Watch is likely prepared for. Swimming regularly in the watch is putting it at risk for failure, in a way you do not likely have to be concerned about.

Bottom line, it's assembled with glue. That kind of continued exposure will eventually lead to failure, especially in environments where there are fluctuating temperature changes, and salinity. Whether the watch is built well enough to hold up to some of this abuse in the short term does not mean it's engineered to keep up with it indefinitely like a properly engineered and tested IPX8 rated watch.

I use the watch for surfing, which involves even greater forces than swimming, but I have no pretensions that the watch may fail at any time, and I hope that Apple Care Plus will cover it the first time. I have pre-ordered a catalyst case for the future, but the reality is the damage may already done. And I accept that. Most here asking these questions are trying to prevent losing their investment. I've resigned myself to the fact I may have to buy a new watch if this one fails, but that's the cost of being able to use it the way I want now before the watch has been engineered to endure those conditions without external protection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Deepness
Who is going to buy a new refrigerator every year? I think everyone who needs a refrigerator already owns one. So how is it that they are able to continue selling things everyone already owns.


2) the device needs replacements because of damage, theft or whatever

How many people need to purchase a new fridge because theirs has been stolen :eek:
 
possible, but only after gen 2 of the watch. They will update it as fast as the market needs and how the competitors features stack to the device. Your gen 1 is a beta IMO.

Well thats good, beta hardware eh? Its a "beta" I couldn't live without anymore and has been the best Apple device i've bought for years and worn everyday for 6 months now so.
 
How many people need to purchase a new fridge because theirs has been stolen :eek:
"I have to buy a new fridge, since the latest software update mine constantly warms food up instead of cooling it down and the freezer only goes to 0 Celcius"
"Help guys my fridge is bricked what can I do? I can't get my food out"
"My fridge no longer notifies me I forgot to buy soft drinks, what to do?"
"The egg container can not be accessed at this time, try again later"
 
Well thats good, beta hardware eh? Its a "beta" I couldn't live without anymore and has been the best Apple device i've bought for years and worn everyday for 6 months now so.
strong :apple: watch koolaid you are taking. But, do enjoy your device :)
 
I can't really shrug off the feeling of how poorly this business model with Apple Watch aligns with the traditional use of watches. Especially in this price segment, clearly marketing some of them as luxury items. It's just so far off why people would normally buy them, where the value of luxury watches traditionally often come from their heritage and longevity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
hyperbole aside, swimming has more in common with diving than the daily water exposure you're subjecting your watch to. The forces involved in swimming require much greater pressure protection than the Apple Watch is likely prepared for. Swimming regularly in the watch is putting it at risk for failure, in a way you do not likely have to be concerned about.

Bottom line, it's assembled with glue. That kind of continued exposure will eventually lead to failure, especially in environments where there are fluctuating temperature changes, and salinity. Whether the watch is built well enough to hold up to some of this abuse in the short term does not mean it's engineered to keep up with it indefinitely like a properly engineered and tested IPX8 rated watch.

I use the watch for surfing, which involves even greater forces than swimming, but I have no pretensions that the watch may fail at any time, and I hope that Apple Care Plus will cover it the first time. I have pre-ordered a catalyst case for the future, but the reality is the damage may already done. And I accept that. Most here asking these questions are trying to prevent losing their investment. I've resigned myself to the fact I may have to buy a new watch if this one fails, but that's the cost of being able to use it the way I want now before the watch has been engineered to endure those conditions without external protection.

Pressure due to water has nothing to do with swimming vs just soaking the watch in water. Pressure is a function of depth of water pressure, not he moment through the water. This why watches and other devices intended to be used in water are rated on depth, not how fast you move your hand in the water.
 
This is a graph for Apple as a whole, not Apple Watch.

You could well be replying to Watch criticism with a graph showing the strength of iPhone 6 sales here...

Read the post that I replied to. The poster was regurgitating the same inane "Tim Cook needs to go" mantra. And stating that the Watch was the last straw in what was some imaginary string of failures during his tenure. The graph was meant to represent that Apple's revenue during the time between 2011 and 2015 has only grown. At a historical pace, in fact.

Apple's doing fine under Cook. That's all I was saying.
 
Pressure due to water has nothing to do with swimming vs just soaking the watch in water. Pressure is a function of depth of water pressure, not he moment through the water. This is why watches and other devices intended to be used in water are rated on depth, not how fast you move your hand in the water.
Not going to debate this point with you. It's basic physics. Increased force equals increased pressure. The greater the depth pressure rating the higher the force it can withstand. Those watches aren't rated at 300 meters because someone is actually going to dive to that depth while wearing one. It's the same reason why you can pour a glass of water onto a phone on a table and nothing happens, but if you hit that same phone with water from high pressure garden hose, on the same table, the phone is far more likely to suffer water ingress.
 
FaceTime isn't going to get me to upgrade my Apple Watch. Apple needs to address the following:
  • Slow app load times. They're still not that good under Watch OS 2. They'll probably need a bigger battery to run more tasks on the watch itself, perhaps along with more RAM or a faster Bluetooth connection to the iPhone.
  • Increase speaker volume. It's difficult to hear people on the phone. For me, it's just barely too low. A 15-20% increase would be fine.
  • Additional health sensors. Gen 1 was a nice first step, but people really need blood pressure monitoring, glucose tracking, etc so that they can keep on top of their health. Unfortunately I think that would require FDA approval, and if I remember right, Cook recently had comments against that.
  • Week long battery life. Or at least work-week long. I'm not as annoyed with the battery as I thought it would be, but a massive increase in battery life would be enough for me to upgrade—or at least definitely push me to do so. I don't think this will happen any time soon. Just like iPhones over the years, battery life improvements have been tiny (aside from the Plus model). Apple puts more resources into speed increases and thinness. I hope they don't become obsessed with making the watch thin. My Apple Watch is a little thinner than my old mechanical watch. It doesn't need to be thinner.
As for making the watch more independent of the iPhone—I've got an idea: the Apple Sim. Could the Apple Watch be put into a mode that would allow the iPhone to handoff the sim card digitally to the Watch, powering up a cellular modem when going out to exercise, etc? I wonder how power efficient you could make a 3g or slow 4g chip using the latest chip fab process? Even just a few Mbits should be enough to easily load the type of content consumed on the Watch. But apps need to be made more independent before that can happen.

TL;DR: I hope the next Apple Watch is more energy efficient with a volume boost in the same case design. Increased power capacity could help drive components to run apps completely natively on the device, and perhaps a low-power 3g or 4g chipset that gets Apple SIM info handed off digitally from the iPhone when going out to exercise or whatever. Additional health sensors are icing on the cake.


You want week long battery life AND a modem in the watch, these are pretty much mutually exclusive man
 
Not going to debate this point with you. It's basic physics. Increased force equals increased pressure. The greater the depth pressure rating the higher the force it can withstand. Those watches aren't rated at 300 meters because someone is actually going to dive to that depth while wearing one. It's the same reason why you can pour a glass of water onto a phone on a table and nothing happens, but if you hit that same phone with water from high pressure garden hose, on the same table, the phone is far more likely to suffer water ingress.

The motion of a hand through the water is nothing compared to the static head pressure of the water.
The pressure from the water is basically 0.43 psi for every foot of depth. I know some physics, I have a masters degree in engineering.
 
I see a trend happening in Macrumors, people are becoming more critical of Tim Cook and skeptical of the path Apple is taking. If 2nd generation isn't a jaw dropper, then someone should get the boot!

This is the last place you should look for a trend. This site is so completely unrepresentative of the general buying public with regard to any product, including Apple products. You have loads of people here that love to criticize for the sake of criticizing and take incredible delight in bashing apple products. You can't draw any conclusions from what you read here.
 
The only reason I would want a yearly sycle is so Apple can pump out more versions in less time and hopefully give me a compelling reason to buy. My wife insisted she "needed" one and... it's basically just a watch for her. She also orders chipotle, though not since the lovely slamonella report.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.