Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Teen Interest in Apple Watch Drops Ahead of Launch, iPhone Remains Popular

Meh to be honest I don't see how useful this thing is to kids. It's only about status with them. Plus, they're so expensive (for a kid making minimum wage or as a gift from very generous parents) - I have to believe Apple never really counted on this demo. This is going to be a huge hit with the young professional crowd like me. Disposable income, required to be connected constantly, looks great. Once ResearchKit get going, I expect this will be used a lot for those in their 50's+, as well. Especially if they can link everything up with home bp cuffs and glucometers, amongst other things.
 
Shaun said:
They brought the price down by getting the mobile networks to subsidise the sales price in return for exclusive contracts. Nobody is going to subsidise the Apple Watch. You're paying £650 for a watch that will be obsolete in a year. Spend that or more on a traditional watch and you would probably expect to keep it for at least a few years.
Click to expand...

People, teens especially, happily paid $300 or more for iPods throughout my youth.

But anyway, I think that teens aren't really the market for the watch, so the point doesn't matter since I assume they'd be less interested. The iPod was something different, an expression of yourself through music and that was important in my youths. The  Watch isn't trying to be that.

It's silly to say one wouldn't invest $350 for something like this, I think. The price is high, but the watch hardly prices itself out of the market and the higher end versions target an older, more established market, while also being within reach of those who otherwise wouldn't dare spend the cash normally but are willing to splurge.
 
JAQ said:
Raising unit prices seems to me like a defensive maneuver to shore up profits, by going after the high end and selling it as fashion accessory, reflecting the erosion of the market at the low end, and as a utility device.

As fundamentally meaningless, and biased by a lot of wishful thinking and selective blindness on your part?

For example, a whole bunch of different watch models on Amazon doesn't mean people are buying them. In fact, it could represent manufacturers trying desperately to find something that will recapture the interest of buyers, emphasizing style over function. And you're no better than you accuse him of: extrapolating from your tiny corner of the planet (hint: traveling doesn't put you into contact with a substantially larger percentage of the population) to imagine a world that the rest of us (i.e. more observers than you) are not seeing. The decline in watch-wearing, especially among the young, is well-documented. Your flimsy anecdotal evidence does nothing to refute that, and the strength with which you assert it suggests some kind of emotional investment in the enduring popularity of the buggy whip... I mean wrist watch.
Click to expand...

Funny that you use the term 'buggy whip'. I was playing golf a few weeks ago and was paired with a guy who was a regional sales manager for a watch company. He described his job as 'selling buggy whips.'

I asked him about his thought on smartwatches and the Apple watch. He surprised me by saying he's convinced it's the future of watches and Apple is going to dominate the watch industry like they did the smartphone industry.

I'm not as bullish on the Apple Watch as he is, but it's his industry.
 
snaky69 said:
I'm 26 years old, make a reasonable amount of income and could easily afford one.

Ever since it has been announced, I've been following the Apple Watch more or less closely.

The question that pops in my mind every time is "What is it even for?". I just don't see any appeal for such a product. Just like every other smart watch out there, it tells the time and mirrors a few of the phone's features.

All the other "features" not pulled directly from what the phone can do are nothing more than gimmicks. I don't need to monitor my heart rate. I don't need to draw things on a tiny screen to send to another tiny screen.

No matter how I look at it, I simply see a useless lump of metal and plastic that'll need charging everyday and adds absolutely nothing to my daily life.

Nobody so far has been able to convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Personally, I purchased one for the following primary reasons [at 30 years old]:

1. I work in a manufacturing environment where I am constantly moving around the facility and I often cannot feel my phone vibrate or ring (its also very loud in here) having the watch "tap" me will prevent me from missing calls from my wife or other emergencies when someone needs to get ahold of me. [She has a few conditions which I need to know about when she tries to contact me]

2. I have started to get more into fitness mode. I like the idea of having the heart rate sensor to ensure I am going at it hard enough (but not going overboard) and I don't care about GPS at all, I run the same area just different amounts. So this should be great to give me feedback about my walk/run/jog & I don't mind taking my phone along for GPS if I do biking because I can store it on the bike instead of on me.

3. Homekit. I am extremely hopeful for homekit to eventually be a big success. I am waiting for Home Automation products utilizing homekit so I can leave my phone in the other room on the charger when I get home and I can just tell siri what I want to turn on and off or want information on. It should be pretty awesome to do that without having my phone out or to interrupt whatever I'm doing on my phone to talk to siri instead.

4... (somewhat) Mutitasking. I'm hoping that two screens are better than one... for example if I'm playing a game on my phone, perhaps I can answer calls on the watch instead of interrupting what im doing on the phone. Same thing for texts for if I want a quick answer from siri, I don't have to interrupt my phone session.

These are my primary watch purchase reasons. Of course everyone will have different reasons but for me these are very compelling. :)

I got the Apple Watch Sport 42mm Space Gray. I won't bother with a more expensive or "stylish" one until a later revision.
 
Last edited:
MasterRyu2011 said:
if the watch becomes really popular to the point teens are doing this, it'd be caught on by the educators real quick. It's not like the Apple Watch is not easy to notice.
Click to expand...

At some schools this is going to start on Monday, April 27 because there will be dozens of kids with the watch by then. If the kids abuse it they will be taken away. But it will be much easier to check the watch than a phone. So this is very much going to be something the kids want. They just haven't had the features and the use shown to them yet.
 
This doesn't surprise me at all...

I think what's selling the Apple Watch to grown ups is:
  • We miss being able to check the time without pulling something out of a pocket.
  • Elegant design
  • We got a cholesterol report from our doctors and need to start counting steps.
I don't think any of those things motivate a teen. They don't remember a time when watches were the norm. To the extent they seem to like the design, they seem to like it because it's Apple, so it's cool over elegant. They're too young to prioritize fitness in the way adults are-- athletes are training under coaches, adults want to make sure they're walking enough.

The only common thread I think is the ability to see communications without creating a fuss-- whether its in class or in a meeting. If the Apple Watch does catch on, it will almost certainly be because kids are tapping messages to each other under the desk.

Hey, maybe Morse Code will make a comeback!

Oops, ht to TallManNY, who hit on the same point 90 posts ago...
TallManNY said:
...
Click to expand...
 
JAQ said:
Raising unit prices seems to me like a defensive maneuver to shore up profits, by going after the high end and selling it as fashion accessory, reflecting the erosion of the market at the low end, and as a utility device.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you don't need me to explain fundamentals of business to you. But typically as something becomes less relevant, manufacturers are forced to lower their prices to get more buyers.

Rolex have managed for more than a decade to move their price up significantly, while simultaneously enjoying a surge in sales.

As for the low end, as I mentioned in another post, my local Macy's just ripped out their watch department and increased the floor space by a good 25%, and even included some higher end brands, to go along sides the cheaper brands.

Since major department stores are incredibly aware of profit per square foot, this would seem like an odd move for an industry in the last days.

And this isn't any old Macy's it's one of the flagship ones at the Mall of America. Speaking of, there are dozens of watch retailers in that mall, and they are all managing to pay the presumably outrageous rent in that place. All pretty impressive since no one buys watches any more.


JAQ said:
For example, a whole bunch of different watch models on Amazon doesn't mean people are buying them.
Click to expand...

Ah, okay so Amazon just needlessly put 1.4 million of a product no one is buying on the web site. That make sense.

Interestingly, I just did a search for Amazon Prime eligible watches and still got 181,000 results. Now it's not always the case, but generally if it is Prime, it means Amazon keep it in their warehouse. Once again, a lot of warehouse space for an obsolete and irrelevant product.

JAQ said:
In fact, it could represent manufacturers trying desperately to find something that will recapture the interest of buyers, emphasizing style over function.
Click to expand...

Sure. I guess it could. But then again, given how much it costs to make new designs, you're telling me that these manufacturers sell no product, yet have the money to invent 1.4 million different designs in the hopes that one of them will take off? Now who's reaching?

JAQ said:
And you're no better than you accuse him of: extrapolating from your tiny corner of the planet (hint: traveling doesn't put you into contact with a substantially larger percentage of the population) to imagine a world that the rest of us (i.e. more observers than you) are not seeing.
Click to expand...

In the last two years I have taken more than 250 flights. I've spent a lot of time in airports, where you see people from all over the world. I take connections in major hubs like Chicago, where planes leave to all over the world. My job has taken me thus far to 38 states. In the last five years.

So yeah, I'd like to think I do see more people from more places than the average person in this country.

JAQ said:
The decline in watch-wearing, especially among the young, is well-documented. Your flimsy anecdotal evidence does nothing to refute that, and the strength with which you assert it suggests some kind of emotional investment in the enduring popularity of the buggy whip... I mean wrist watch.
Click to expand...

Well documented eh? You must have forgotten to post the URL of this documentation. Because until you do show me this documentation, you have no actual evidence.

You are making the same mistake of the original poster, who's noted a few of his buddies don't wear watches any more and has extrapolated that to a global trend.

Apple just sold out in the nine countries they launched in. Tell me how many of these countries have you visited? And how many surveys of watch wearing habits have you conducted or read?

Look I'm not suggesting that watches are as popular as they once were. I do accept that probably there's been a bit of a decline in some generations. But this catastrophic fall off that some have spoken of I don't buy.

Also between Apple's proven strategy team versus a few whiners on MacRumors, I'm going to trust that Apple knew what they were getting into, and looked at this from far more angles than you have, or are capable of doing. And that is not meant as an insult, they just have far more money, staff and researchers than you do.

Bottom line here, as I've said before, I think it's kind of insulting to act like Tim Cook was just bouncing a tennis ball against his office wall one day, and then suddenly yelled, "You. Boy. Go make me a watch now. And I want mine to have a red digital crown. Do it NOW!" :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
omgitsbees said:
It's one thing to have your parents buy you a iphone, but I don't think any parents would buy their teen a $350+ watch. And very few teens are going to be able to afford an Apple Watch.
Click to expand...

If you were to deflate $350 in 2015 to 1975 dollars, you would spend about $81 on a watch. Many parents would kick in for that and many teens would easily earn that if they wanted to flash the latest tech toy.
 
I think 11% for a product nobody has been able to buy yet is pretty good, especially for teens who have an attention span of about half a second. Teens will want one when they see one or two other teens with one. It's also pretty expensive, but hey, so's an high-end iPhone.
I'm encouraged by this survey.
 
JAQ said:
Raising unit prices seems to me like a defensive maneuver to shore up profits, by going after the high end and selling it as fashion accessory, reflecting the erosion of the market at the low end, and as a utility device.

As fundamentally meaningless, and biased by a lot of wishful thinking and selective blindness on your part?

..... it suggests some kind of emotional investment in the enduring popularity of the buggy whip... I mean wrist watch.
Click to expand...


It would take you less than 5 minute with google to learn enough about the watch industry and Rolex pricing so that you would know what you are talking about, Genuis. Or maybe you are content just guessing.
 
The Apple watch is for adults, I would even say people over 35, professionals who like to train a lot and who are in need of staying in touch with their emails and notifications. Fantastic for Apples since the 35-55 is the wealthiest market and the current top demographic!
 
Apple without Steve Job is like Ford without Henry Ford. Men with real visions and passion for their products, not like so many other CEO who care most about sales, revenue, shareholders.

Steve Job reinvented music player (ipod), reinvented smartphone (iphone), reinvented tablet (ipad), reinvented apps (app store), etc.

Apple Watch is Tim Cook's product, who is the master of supply chain and production but lacks vision of Steve Job.

Apple Watch is not essential to many people but is too costly.
 
reevans said:
If you were to deflate $350 in 2015 to 1975 dollars, you would spend about $81 on a watch. Many parents would kick in for that and many teens would easily earn that if they wanted to flash the latest tech toy.
Click to expand...

How are 1975 dollars relevant? I know a lot of families with teenagers and I can tell you that there's no way mom or dad is going to spring for a $350-$1,000 watch. A mobile phone on a contract is one thing, but that much dough for a watch. No way. The average teenager going to school and maybe working part time is not going to be able to come up with that kind of scratch.

There might be a few well off families that would indulge their kids, but that certainly wouldn't be the norm.

And by the way, I live in the OC.
 
Interest in Apple Watch

I think that the "older" generations grew up with watches as part of their lives and they were necessary. As cell phones and smart phones have picked up speed there is less of a necessity of wearing watches. I can see younger generations may not even wear watches in general because their functionality is duplicated with the smart phone (iPhone).
 
normanfox said:
Apple without Steve Job is like Ford without Henry Ford. Men with real visions and passion for their products, not like so many other CEO who care most about sales, revenue, shareholders.

Steve Job reinvented music player (ipod), reinvented smartphone (iphone), reinvented tablet (ipad), reinvented apps (app store), etc.

Apple Watch is Tim Cook's product, who is the master of supply chain and production but lacks vision of Steve Job.

Apple Watch is not essential to many people but is too costly.
Click to expand...

Complete rubbish
 
Well allow me to retort! (choose any of the following)

• They don't get it.
• Gene Munster is a hater.
• The survey was conducted improperly.
• Piper Jaffrey is a joke.
• Teens have poor taste.
• "I'm shocked that someone who's not interested in the Apple Watch isn't interested in the Apple Watch"
• They're the past. The Apple Watch is the future.
• Of course they don't want one - they can't afford it working at McDonald's!
• NAH NAH NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!
 
Thoughts of a Stats PhD

So I guess we're going to just ignore the fact that the number of teens who own a smart watch decreased from 7% to 5% as well? That's a pretty significant net drop in ownership over just a few months considering that many teens must've bought wearables in the Holiday season. Seems like there's a lot of sampling variability with these surveys and it's hard to treat these results as "significant" to any degree, statistically or otherwise.

Additionally, I'm not sure why one would be concerned with teens -- they aren't the primary market for this watch (nor are their parents likely to drop this kind of cash on an accessory). The primary market is 20-30 year olds, who are either still in college (with a couple internships under their belt, mind you) or starting new (probably high paying) jobs, and hence have money to spend on a fashionable and functional wearable.

I'm in this latter market and have ordered a watch, as have several friends of mine. Guess what, all of those friends are in 20-30 year old group -- surprise, surprise.
 
nooaah said:
Meh to be honest I don't see how useful this thing is to kids. It's only about status with them.
Click to expand...

I believe this might be the case through out most targeted demographics. Hence the fashion associated advertising. Not to say people dont have other valid reasons for buying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not just that the watch is $350 _minimum_ (and goes up fast from there), it's that you need an iPhone 5+ to go with it.

----------
reevans said:
If you were to deflate $350 in 2015 to 1975 dollars, you would spend about $81 on a watch. Many parents would kick in for that and many teens would easily earn that if they wanted to flash the latest tech toy.
Click to expand...

$81 for a watch in 1975? You nuts? I was lucky to keep the watch I found behind the refrigerator when we moved in 1977.
 
normanfox said:
Apple without Steve Job is like Ford without Henry Ford. Men with real visions and passion for their products, not like so many other CEO who care most about sales, revenue, shareholders.
Click to expand...

Imagine, a CEO who cares about sales, revenue, and shareholders. I'd better sell my Apple stock tomorrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back