Tempted by the Ultra, but won't buy it because of the chip

[spiderman0616]

The current SiP on the Series 8/SE/Ultra is absolutely adequate and then some for what the Apple Watch does, which is actually quite a lot. I'm sure once they can make it more battery efficient they will absolutely do so, but currently they are just changing the version number when they add new sensors for the new revision. Fine with me. I upgraded from a series 4 to a series 8. Still a huge bump in speed and features for me.

My pattern seems to be upgrades every 4 years with Apple Watch, which is I think probably about average if not a tad more frequently than the average person, but I would definitely jump earlier from the Series 8 if they could make a SiP that resulted in a huge jump in battery capacity (kind of like iPhone 12 -> iPhone 13 or Intel -> M1). I don't want a watch as big as the Ultra, but I'm hoping for one someday that can match or come near its current battery life.

 

[CyberDavis]

I’ve never considered my Ultra to be slow or have an underperforming CPU, and the chip never entered my mind as a consideration.
For me battery, screen and design were the important topics.

 

[Christopher Kim]

The SS S8 is in effect a red herring, a decoy option. It makes the Ultra look like a comparatively good deal, but if the SS S8 did not exist, the Ultra would not look like such a good deal.

This is an interesting thought that I hadn’t considered. I’m not totally sure it’s intentional by Apple, but I do agree with you that the SS S8 today is in a weird spot - it’s the same price as the SS S7 was (last year when there was no Ultra). It was bad “value” vs the aluminum then Too, so was really for those who wanted a nicer version primarily for the higher-end look.

Nothing has changed with the SS S8, other than that now there‘s an Ultra version out there which from a $/value perspective, really highlights the poor value-prop of the SS versions generally. It was always there, it’s just brought to light that much more obviously when the Ultra’s pretty good value-per-$ comes out at a similar price range.

 

[BenGoren]

The SS S8 is in effect a red herring, a decoy option. It makes the Ultra look like a comparatively good deal, but if the SS S8 did not exist, the Ultra would not look like such a good deal.

Decoy effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The smart way to evaluate two options is to only consider the two options, and completely disregard any third option. Else one can fall victim to the decoy effect.

The problem with your theory is that the SS S8 is the same price as the SS S7, and that basic price point has been consistent for quite some time — more than enough time for Apple to adjust it to its own optimum point.

So, unless you want to suggest that Apple has been sacrificing sales of the SS watches for years just to lay the foundation for them being a decoy option for the Ultra?

The more reasonable interpretation is that Apple has always charged a premium for their “best-of-the-best.” Now, they’ve got two contenders. They probably do have comparable manufacturing costs; it’s not hard to imagine that, on the one hand, the Ultra battery costs Apple more than the SS, but the finish on the case of the SS costs more than the raw titanium of the Ultra — and so on. Plus, by sharing the same well-established SIP, most of the up-front R&D and other design expenses are already long since accounted for.

The end result is, again, two “best-of-the-best” options: one for those who want something sleek with the “high fashion” vibe and for whom the improved specs of the Ultra don’t matter; and another for whom the “high fashion” look either is irrelevant or inferior to the “rugged hardcore” vibe of the Ultra and who prize its improved specs.

b&

 

[wilberforce]

The problem with your theory is that the SS S8 is the same price as the SS S7, and that basic price point has been consistent for quite some time — more than enough time for Apple to adjust it to its own optimum point.

So, unless you want to suggest that Apple has been sacrificing sales of the SS watches for years just to lay the foundation for them being a decoy option for the Ultra?

The more reasonable interpretation is that Apple has always charged a premium for their “best-of-the-best.” Now, they’ve got two contenders. They probably do have comparable manufacturing costs; it’s not hard to imagine that, on the one hand, the Ultra battery costs Apple more than the SS, but the finish on the case of the SS costs more than the raw titanium of the Ultra — and so on. Plus, by sharing the same well-established SIP, most of the up-front R&D and other design expenses are already long since accounted for.

The end result is, again, two “best-of-the-best” options: one for those who want something sleek with the “high fashion” vibe and for whom the improved specs of the Ultra don’t matter; and another for whom the “high fashion” look either is irrelevant or inferior to the “rugged hardcore” vibe of the Ultra and who prize its improved specs.

b&

Sure, but you miss the point. The point is that to compare two options, compare only the two options. Don't use a third option to judge one of the two options.
Previous poster was comparing aluminum S8 with Ultra (the two options).
Subsequent poster was saying Ultra was a good deal because it is better value than the SS S8 (the third option). This has nothing to do with the choice between the first two options. This is the decoy effect. I am not saying Apple deliberately introduced this "decoy" to fake us out, but that happens to be the name given to this effect.

In your post you are comparing SS S8 with Ultra, for the purpose of comparing SS S8 with the Ultra. I agree with this, this is correct and proper. The problem happens when one compares SS S8 with Ultra, for the purpose of comparing Aluminum S8 with Ultra. When I say it like that, it sounds like an obviously stupid thing to do, but people are doing exactly this without realizing it.

 

[BenGoren]

Sure, but you miss the point. The point is that to compare two options, compare only the two options. Don't use a third option to judge one of the two options.
Previous poster was comparing aluminum S8 with Ultra (the two options).
Subsequent poster was saying Ultra was a good deal because it is better value than the SS S8 (the third option). This has nothing to do with the choice between the first two options. This is the decoy effect. I am not saying Apple deliberately introduced this "decoy" to fake us out, but that happens to be the name given to this effect.

In your post you are comparing SS S8 with Ultra, for the purpose of comparing SS S8 with the Ultra. I agree with this, this is correct and proper. The problem happens when one compares SS S8 with Ultra, for the purpose of comparing Aluminum S8 with Ultra. When I say it like that, it sounds like an obviously stupid thing to do, but people are doing exactly this without realizing it.

We might be strenuously agreeing with each other.

My initial reply to another was objecting to a comparison between the base-level 40mm WiFi aluminum S8 and the Ultra, where the other complained that this somehow demonstrated that the Ultra was excessively overpriced.

I suggested the proper comparison instead was between the SS S8 and the Ultra, which do indeed compare quite similarly, including price.

b&

 

[Jackbequickly]

With a contracting economy and slowing Apple sales, future updates on a lot of Apple products will be stretched.

Other than “update” time, I find my series 7 and Ultra CPU to work great for everything I need the devices for.

 

[JT2002TJ]

With a contracting economy and slowing Apple sales, future updates on a lot of Apple products will be stretched.

Other than “update” time, I find my series 7 and Ultra CPU to work great for everything I need the devices for.

I wouldn't mind if this is the case, it would force Apple to focus on firmware/software optimization for improvements instead of using new hardware to overcome bad programming (making older products run slow).

I hope this would be the case for all iOS/iPadOS/WatchOS devices.

 

[DontGetTheCheese]

That’s not even remotely close to a reasonable comparison.

The $400 S8 is the smallest aluminum case with a glass face and no cellular connectivity.

The $800 Ultra is a large titanium case with a sapphire face and cellular connectivity.

The S8 with comparable specifications as the Ultra costs … the same $800 as the Ultra.

And, oh-by-the-way, the Ultra has a bigger battery and a bigger and brighter display and louder speakers and ...

What you’re doing is akin to complaining that a Lexus is more expensive than a Toyota, but you neglect to observe that a Toyota with the same trim level as the Lexus costs exactly the same as the Lexus. The only difference is that you can buy a Toyota with a lesser trim level.

And, contrary to your addended complaint, the Ultra has a new, exclusive watch face with more complications than on any other face, plus it comes with your choice of new exclusive-to-the-watch bands.

It’s perfectly fine if you’re not interested in all the upgrades the Ultra offers over the base S8 configuration, or if the new faces and bands aren’t to your taste. But to pretend that those upgrades are therefore worthless does nobody any favors — including you, as you present yourself in a very unflattering light when you do so.

Cheers,

b&

I, actually agree that it is overpriced for what we get but everything from Apple is overpriced. An AppleTV ran as high as $179, when a Fire Stick could be had for $30. One was not $140 better than the other.

That said, in my opinion, the Ultra is the best watch on the market for my needs at this time.

 

[BenGoren]

I, actually agree that it is overpriced for what we get but everything from Apple is overpriced. An AppleTV ran as high as $179, when a Fire Stick could be had for $30. One was not $140 better than the other.

That said, in my opinion, the Ultra is the best watch on the market for my needs at this time.

So, the “everything from Apple is overpriced” idea doesn’t really ring true.

What is true is that Apple simply doesn’t compete in the low end of the market, whereas most other manufacturers do.

The analogy would be with a “premium” car brand such as Mercedes. It looks like the cheapest Mercedes you can buy right now is $35,000 for the base model, which is more than twice as much as the “roughly” comparable cheapest Nissan.

But spec a Nissan to the same features as the Mercedes, and you’ll be within a rounding error of the same price.

And, at the top end, Mercedes makes cars far more expensive than anything Nissan sells, but nothing Nissan sells is comparable.

If you look at it from the perspective of, “both have four wheels and will get five people from Los Angeles to San Francisco in about six hours, depending on traffic,” then, of course, “everything from Mercedes is overpriced.”

But people who buy a Mercedes are only peripherally interested in the bare utility. They care about all those upgrades — just as almost all Nissan buyers do when they buy anything other than the base model.

If you’re the “six hours SF to LA” type, sure, anything but the bare minimum is overpriced. But most of us aren’t quite so puritanical and / or desperate.

Now, add to that the fact that — aside from the technogeeks who upgrade with every new minor release — Apple buyers overwhelmingly keep their devices more than twice as long as other owners, despite spending much less than twice as much on them … well, at that point, one is reminded of the all-too-sad truisms: being poor is effin’ expensive, and buying cheap is, all too often, flushing money down the toilet. (Apple has had some klunkers, to be sure, but not many, all things considered.)

b&

P.S. A footnote: between my wife and her two sons, we own three Nissans — two Leafs and one Sentra, and they’re all between five and ten years old. And we love all three. But I don’t think I’d be very interested in that $15K Versa, though. b&