OP asked and I answered, nothing was said about who could or couldn't.
It's an Apple product so that makes me interested, doesn't mean I will buy
one.
Why are you here?......
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What is the max you will spend on the Apple Watch.
- Thread starter iCore24
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OP asked and I answered, nothing was said about who could or couldn't.
It's an Apple product so that makes me interested, doesn't mean I will buy
one.
Why are you here?......
I'm in the Apple Watch forum because I'm actually interested in the Apple Watch. I'm not interested in the Mac mini, but I'm not on that forum complaining about it.
Crazy huh?
I'm interested in the
watch as I said, because it's an Apple product.Where is the complaining you speak of? OP asked a question, I gave my
answer. If you don't like my post don't read or respond to them.
Now, Sod Off.......
I'm interested in the
Where is the complaining you speak of? OP asked a question, I gave my
answer. If you don't like my post don't read or respond to them.
Now, Sod Off.......
Sodding off! lol
$50 for a first-generation. (Yes, I would take one if you gave it to me free, I'd even pay up to $50 for a fully working one, as that's well within my 'useless gadget that looks fun to play with' budget.) But I wouldn't buy it as a serious daily-wear watch.
I'm a Pebble user. I *REALLY* like my 4-6 day battery life. And I use it a lot. Activity tracking, lots of notifications, watch-apps, active-update faces (like weather and 'next appointment' info on the watch face; I also really like having the face always visible - if the backlight trigger is any indication of reliability of "lift wrist to turn on" on the Pebble is any indication, I don't trust "off until I look at it" LCD watches.)
The first generation Apple Watch is a nonstarter for me. Even if the rumored 19 hour battery life is off by a factor of 3 (i.e. it's really 57 hours / 2.4 days) that's still far too short for my liking. I want to be able to go a whole weekend without charging. I want to be able to go on a 3-day business trip without having to carry yet another charger. (I use a battery case for my phone when I travel to avoid the need for a charger for up to 2 days.)
When the gen 2 comes out, if it has at least 5 day advertised "active use" battery life, I'll go for it. At that point, assuming it looks decent (I'm not 100% sold on the look of the Apple Watch, either, at least the Pebble was dirt cheap,) I'd go as high as $500. I'm not a "fashion watch" person - the most I've ever spent on a watch is $100 (three times.) I don't care about the fashion sensibilities of it, as long as it doesn't look horrendous.
Personally, I really like the look of the Moto 360, and I wish it was fully functional with iOS. (And had a multi-day battery life.) I don't want my watch to be a strange hybrid of high tech and "fashion watch," I want it to either be a "classic watch" or fully a "high tech device." Apple seems to be trying too hard to mix the two. (Another one I like the look of is the HP/MB Chronowing - less functionality than the Pebble (with no app ecosystem,) but looks like a conventional watch.)
I'm a Pebble user. I *REALLY* like my 4-6 day battery life. And I use it a lot. Activity tracking, lots of notifications, watch-apps, active-update faces (like weather and 'next appointment' info on the watch face; I also really like having the face always visible - if the backlight trigger is any indication of reliability of "lift wrist to turn on" on the Pebble is any indication, I don't trust "off until I look at it" LCD watches.)
The first generation Apple Watch is a nonstarter for me. Even if the rumored 19 hour battery life is off by a factor of 3 (i.e. it's really 57 hours / 2.4 days) that's still far too short for my liking. I want to be able to go a whole weekend without charging. I want to be able to go on a 3-day business trip without having to carry yet another charger. (I use a battery case for my phone when I travel to avoid the need for a charger for up to 2 days.)
When the gen 2 comes out, if it has at least 5 day advertised "active use" battery life, I'll go for it. At that point, assuming it looks decent (I'm not 100% sold on the look of the Apple Watch, either, at least the Pebble was dirt cheap,) I'd go as high as $500. I'm not a "fashion watch" person - the most I've ever spent on a watch is $100 (three times.) I don't care about the fashion sensibilities of it, as long as it doesn't look horrendous.
Personally, I really like the look of the Moto 360, and I wish it was fully functional with iOS. (And had a multi-day battery life.) I don't want my watch to be a strange hybrid of high tech and "fashion watch," I want it to either be a "classic watch" or fully a "high tech device." Apple seems to be trying too hard to mix the two. (Another one I like the look of is the HP/MB Chronowing - less functionality than the Pebble (with no app ecosystem,) but looks like a conventional watch.)
Man, people on this thread must have a ton of disposable income. $500-$1000 for a tech watch?
At least when you spend money on established luxury brands like Rolex, Cartier, Omega, Breitling, Atek Philippe, etc. you can be confident that they will hold their value and won't be obsolete / incompatible within a few years.
Remember the original iPhone? $599 at launch. You can find them all day long for under $50 as of a few years ago. I expect the first revision aWatch will be the same story.
Given it's likely low value retention and short amount of time to be useful, I wouldn't pay more than what I pay for headphones - about $200.
At least when you spend money on established luxury brands like Rolex, Cartier, Omega, Breitling, Atek Philippe, etc. you can be confident that they will hold their value and won't be obsolete / incompatible within a few years.
Remember the original iPhone? $599 at launch. You can find them all day long for under $50 as of a few years ago. I expect the first revision aWatch will be the same story.
Given it's likely low value retention and short amount of time to be useful, I wouldn't pay more than what I pay for headphones - about $200.
I think we are still a way off it being practical for mass production.
But I still think one answer would/could/should exist in the form of thin flexible batteries that are inside the watch straps.
That is such a MASSIVE amount of totally wasted space right now.
I've no doubt they could make it in the lab, but I guess there are issues with lifespan, what it people try and bend it too far, how flexible a battery can be/lifespan etc.
But future wise, I'd think it could be a possible solution, leaving the body of the watch to contain just the screen, chips, and sensors.
----------
Please remember.
1: This forum does not represent Normal People
I mean that in the nicest possible way!
2: Financially the same applies as you only have to look at what some people here go on about spending on watches, but you look in normal watch stores to see the type of prices the mass population consider normal for a watch.
3: People like to show off and brag here about the latest item they have, even listing it all for others to admire (I still think that's odd!)
(and why I did the same in a jokey but honest way!)
Actually, you'd be hard pressed to find an original iPhone for under $50, even now. You can't even use them as a phone, but they are big time collectors items.
I use my original iPhone daily as a phone, text messaging device, email, music, and light web surfing (the browser is so out of date that many websites don't work right on it any more, but it does work.)
It's in immaculate condition, and I still have all the original packaging. Going by eBay, I could quite possibly make a profit on it. (I bought it on launch day.) I could easily sell it for $200 locally.
You're right, as long as the
Watch stays the way it is. The Garmin 920XT gets about a week connected to a phone using notifications and regular workouts. Granted, the screen and potential are nowhere near the Watch. They are two very different watches with different intended uses, so it is difficult to compare. However, I question the features Apple have added at the expense of battery life. For example, the screen. I would be more than willing to have a screen that looked half or even a quarter as good if it doubled or quadrupled battery life. I am not interested in looking at photos or watching video on my watch. The resolution and framerate are battery hogs with little to no gain, other than it looks pretty.Wow, for some reason, I was under the impression that the phone companies didn't support the original iphone anymore. Bravo AF !
You're right, as long as the
Sub-par screen quality is definitely not something I would take in 2015.
Under $400 for a 1st generation Sport. Up to $1500 when the 2nd generation watches comes out, this year or more probably next. Apple is innovative, but still comparatively weak on completeness with version 1.0 products.
Look on ebay. There are about a dozen completed listings that sold for under $50 in just the past few months. Many are what I would describe as "average" or "used but not abused" condition. Of course an immaculate unopened box one is far far more.
I think as a "smart watch" per say, I'd be fine to pay between $600-$800. If I was somehow convinced it would be collectable like the iPhone 2g's are now, or had at least 50% of what I paid I could get back in scrap gold I'd be comfortable to spend $1500-$2000.
It's a weird thing to try and pin down it's worth...
It's a weird thing to try and pin down it's worth...
As I said in my other post:
Sport 38 will be $349. I speculate the 42 will be $449.
The Watch edition 38 will be $499 and the 42 will be $599.
Considering it now, its actually above my max of $400-500. But if it comes with the nice magnetic band, I think Id go for it.
Itll be a hell of a step up from my pebble.
Sport 38 will be $349. I speculate the 42 will be $449.
The Watch edition 38 will be $499 and the 42 will be $599.
Considering it now, its actually above my max of $400-500. But if it comes with the nice magnetic band, I think Id go for it.
Itll be a hell of a step up from my pebble.
£500 maybe £600. I want the 43mm steel with a leather loop band, I'd also quite like to buy one the the rubber bands separately, so I can change it up. If I can't get that for £500/£600 then I'll drop down to the sport model and maybe buy the leather loop separately.
How on earth do you justify a $100 price jump for 4mm of screen? In the iPhone you pay $100 extra for almost of an inch of screen plus some other little things like OIS, and larger battery (because of bigger screen)
If there is a price difference there is not a chance it is more than $50 and I am not convinced there will be a price difference.
Exactly, I expect that if there's a price difference based on size, that it will be around a $50. We MAY see as small as a $100 difference between Sport and SS collections (band prices withstanding). So something like $349 for 38mm Sport, $399 for 42mm Sport, $449 for 38mm SS, $499 for 42mm SS. Edition - $????
I know that I may be on the low end for the SS, but I can see how a $100 difference fits what Apple has done for pricing in the past.
Is that because you don't like the look of Aluminium ?
Or the strap, which you know you could change.
What is wrong about the Aluminium version in your opinion that makes you uninterested in it ?