Watch thoughts

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Andy0379, May 12, 2015.

  1. Andy0379 macrumors newbie

    May 11, 2015
    I think that the normal Watch and the Watch Edition is much more overpriced or ridiculous than people think. First, let me point out that I will probably get the higher end version next generation due to the massive improvements that they most likely would have made. I understand people who care about fashion and how they look and do not want to wear a cheap watch around, however I do think that Apple has done a poor job distinguishing computers and fashion this time. Apple is becoming a fashion company.

    1. People now have this misconception that stainless steal is a better material than aluminum, but in reality aluminum is a much more expensive and rarer material. Some may say that the standard Watch looks better with the bands, which is true only in the case with the Milanese loop.

    2. The Only "advantage/advantages" that the Watch has over the Watch sport : the screen is made of sapphire. I think that this is not a huge advantage. The ionX glass is more sturdy in big impacts like drops, but the sapphire is basically not scratch-able. Personally, I think that this is neither an advantage or a disadvantage for the Watch sport. The feel is the same, (except the ionX glass is lighter) and also unnoticeable unless you happen to scratch it somehow. This is not saying that the Watch sport is vulnerable to scratches, not at all. The sapphire is just almost invincible to it.

    3. The pricing is a reasonable price, given the material used. But, as an intelligent, analytical consumer, it does not. Doesn't the casing matter more than the barely noticeable, lighter, expensive glass? Swiss watch makers only use sapphire to match the nice casing, which is not present in this case.

    I think that the conclusion given is, Apple will not make perfect lineups of products anymore. The aluminum should go with the sapphire, and the gold line shouldn't even exist. The iPad 1 & 2 has a major step up, and buying a Rolex - priced watch (1st Gen) is non sense. I am not hating on the people who spend money on a higher end watch, I'm just saying that you are being delusional in ways. 
  2. AbeFrohman macrumors 6502


    Mar 18, 2011
  3. whatos macrumors 6502a

    Apr 15, 2015
    Maranello Italy / California USA
    I bought stainless simply because I prefer that material and seek functionality not appearance as a preference. Especially since all models are very ordinary and plain looking. Nothing unique or special.

    I bought the watch because I could... And wanted a first hand experience to see what the baseline is.

    After a full week of use I was eager to return it. The watch is nice, but not compelling enough to be a must have for me. For those whose emotional attachment to Apple is significant I do understand their need to be seen wearing it.
  4. Che Castro macrumors 603

    May 21, 2009
  5. jigzaw macrumors 6502

    Oct 12, 2012
    I love this thread, seriously. Hahahahaha.

    That said, the OP raises a great point. I never knew that stainless steel was such a precious metal. It's prettier than the aluminum, for sure, but the difference in price (nearly double if you want anything other than the sports band) was enough to make me laugh out loud and spit out my water the first time I saw it. I'm torn though, because I like the way it looks, but I'm having a very difficult time justifying spending $700 instead of $400 simply because of the look. Hmmmm.....
  6. GrumpyMom macrumors 604


    Sep 11, 2014
    Well, I read it. I'm not sure I can follow it all in one reading to formulate any response as I admit to being taken aback by some of it, so I'll mull it over. When I saw the thread title I did start reminiscing about SNL.

    Attached Files:

  7. flur macrumors 68020


    Nov 12, 2012
    Proper pricing rarely has anything to do with the cost of the materials.
  8. ToastErickson macrumors member

    Sep 8, 2008
    yes if you go weight for weight basic aluminum is more expensive than basic steel, however depending on how you make the two (cold forged for example) it can easily change the difference. Also Aluminum is much more flexible and malleable so to mill the Aluminum into the proper shape is probably considerably cheaper.
  9. GrumpyMom macrumors 604


    Sep 11, 2014
    Hmmm. I admit it seems like in the Western market, so far, the Edition seems to have limited appeal and the celebs who are wearing it were apparently gifted it and did not purchase it. Gold plating probably would have kept the cost down and brought in purchasers who do like gold but don't want to pay $10-17k on unproven technology and dubious fashion appeal. That might include some sensible frugal celebrities. Not every celebrity or wealthy mover and shaker is a show off spendthrift and some are very careful with their money. I know a couple of such people through my husband's connections and you'd be surprised at how dated and modest their tech is. As is their clothing. Not all affluent and powerful people strive to be noticed for mere trappings.

    And yes the Apple Watch falls into a kind of no man's land between technology and fashion. As such, it's hard to gauge its value against known parameters for either watches or computers.
  10. Natzoo macrumors 65816


    Sep 16, 2014
    Not sure where i am
    my opinion of the apple watch is a device that needs more improvement. Like we all know that apple will make a product and every single person will probably buy it and thats what we did. If apple was smart they would've copied the samsung gear and made it more appealing, noting that the apple watch is the thickest product that apple produces. and why no camera??? why no more memory or speakers. it is really thick and they said they have been working on it for years. But I'm going to keep mine because i can just go on twitter and IG during class and look at text messages.
  11. GrumpyMom macrumors 604


    Sep 11, 2014
    Natzoo, what aspects of the Samsung Gear models do you wish Apple had adopted? From what I've read the Gears pack a lot of features in but do so in a very large body. I saw one in person on a guy in front of me in line on Sunday. He was a big guy and the Gear was enormous. Looked like a cell phone got bent around his wrist. That design has to leave out a lot of people with smaller wrists and a lot of women. And that would be a big mistake because I think we are seeing that women in particular potentially have a very compelling use case for a smart watch because cell phones are more challenging to keep on us.
  12. TEBnewyork macrumors regular

    Jun 13, 2009
    If you like SS better it isn't $400 vs. $700 but $400 vs $600. That's comparing both with a sport band.

Share This Page