What to Expect at Apple's 'Spring Forward' Media Event

[aloshka]

The iPod, iPhone, and iPad were all products that offered something unique over what was previously available. I honestly don't see that with the Watch. Otherwise I would get one.

If you want the latest product, go for it. But don't call people with valid arguments "less than chaff".

And yet these same exact people complained about the iPhone, iPad, iPod with the same "valid" arguments.

----------

Honestly, this Apple watch is garbage. The two sizes are still too small to what I would prefer, and don't like having to charge a phone. Its only a companion device (aka needs an iPhone work fully), and virtually useless on its own. Battery run time too short based on rumours. It comes down to want vs need. I don't need a watch with all this crap. I prefer my Swiss Made Tissot T-Watch MotoGP edition - automatic - self winding - no battery - all mechanical. This is a proper watch. The Apple watch is basically a re-designed digital watch with an OS. Not to mention most of the health features have been scrapped.

Is your watch broken? If not, why don't you just keep it and not buy the iWatch? The rest of us wondering what it's like and if it will be worth the money after it's announced.

 

[thekeyring]

According to other rumours the new A9 chip will be powerful enough to rival the current entry level MBA. Why carry 2 devices ?

I would argue (and many would agree, though feel free not to) that if you need a MacBook Air - say youre using Final Cut Pro X or doing a lot of typing - you would use just that: a MacBook Air.

Anything you might use the iPad for in that situation can be covered by the MacBook Air or the iPhone in your pocket.

However, if that is true about A9, maybe Apple feels the time is ripe to launch Final Cut Pro, Logic, etc on iPad. Maybe they'll encourrage Adobe to launch Photoshop that rivals the Mac and Windows version?

----------

The iPod, iPhone, and iPad were all products that offered something unique over what was previously available. I honestly don't see that with the Watch. Otherwise I would get one.

I'm really, honestly, truly not trying to get into an argument here, but I think you're misremembering slightly.

When the iPad launched many regarded it as simply 'a big iPod touch' - people were also amazed it had shipped without a camera, or Flash, or that it was running iPhone OS and had no multitasking.

I wasnt following Apple as closely for the iPhone launch but look through old MacRumors posts when the iPod launched: people were as critical as they are being now.

 

[RnSK]

I was thinking the same thing. I mean I will buy a mac pro and when next version comes out, I will sell current and buy a new one and only lose 500-600 in the process (with my type of job, that's fine, I know a lot of people that's not fine). But that's a Mac Pro, it has good resell value. How would an older watch that would be obsolete sell for 7500, 50k or whatever prices they are giving it? People who can afford those watches would not be buying them from eBay as they are more of a fashion statement (would you buy expensive clothing from goodwill?)

I've got a Mac Pro...it's got a *lot* of legs on it and a clear upgrade path, direct from Apple and beyond. You can get the GPUs via the 6xx- parts paths, and of course, the Workstation/Server-class Xeons are completely upgradable. Not sure what Apple would be doing with the pro that would warrant a total resell/flip any time soon...as a *pro* machine, it's got bang for the buck I'd not seen out of Apple in awhile.

-K

 

[IJ Reilly]

Sure they are, to people like you who just want the new product and will ignore any argument against it. The only reason it is repeated so much is because it is a valid argument for many people.

The iPod, iPhone, and iPad were all products that offered something unique over what was previously available. I honestly don't see that with the Watch. Otherwise I would get one.

If you want the latest product, go for it. But don't call people with valid arguments "less than chaff".

Is that a fact? No, it isn't, but please don't let that stop you. I won't resort to a desperate "people like you argument" but instead deal directly with what you have said.

The problem those of us who've been around for awhile have with your argument is that we've heard it for every new Apple product since, well, the beginning of time. That argument didn't suddenly become any more valid now than it turned out to be before. I guess some of us have learned not to underestimate what Apple can do, especially before we've actually seen the thing.

 

[RnSK]

Not your fault...

The iPod, iPhone, and iPad were all products that offered something unique over what was previously available. I honestly don't see that with the Watch. Otherwise I would get one.

Apple has really been downplaying the full capability. I mean, if looking at it, face value, you don't "see" it fitting in your lifestyle, you probably have a lifestyle a bit different than the market Apple is targeting.

It is far, far more capable than anything else in the space, out of the box, without question, but if none of those capabilities appeal to you because X (most X cases I've heard are 'I can just use my phone' - the Watch is designed to reduce those cases dramatically) then it doesn't matter what it can do or not.

However, you'll get a better understand of the "depth" of the device and of the platform as a whole tomorrow.

Pretty much, any "major" feature of any iOS app that isn't a game can be utilized on demand or triggered by an event, including "deep linked" features, in seconds.

Depending on your life, these things may not effect you at all, but for some people, that time saved/returned is very, very valuable.

-K

 

[Technarchy]

I don't know what to expect, but I hope it isn't just 60 minutes about a watch.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Releasing a gold watch is certainly a radically different approach. They have not released gold iPhones or iPods. Even just having the steel and aluminium versions, ie, selling the same product using different materials is something completely new.

Therefore existing pricing patterns might easily not apply. Getting a 128 GB iPhone 6 Plus follows existing pricing and up-sell patterns. Get something more with each $100 step. Whatever your initial purchase target was, just spending $100 more could give you something tangible (size or storage). Getting the gold version will certainly not be the traditional up-sell, whether it costs $2000, $5000 or more.

Using gold as a material is certainly a departure, but we're really not talking about the Edition here, which is going to have a very tall price and a very limited appeal. The question is whether Apple Watch will be (as Gruber argues) more than twice the price of the Sport. As an up-selling proposition this pricing structure simply makes no sense.

 

[RnSK]

Why?

file tree? or finder?

I've heard this a lot too, but it is really a rather archaic thing...even BeOS's tracker was trying to move away from this sort of thing in a thing in a thing. It doesn't matter *where* things are, only that you can get to them relationally.

But people like what they like, I suppose, but modern iOS has pretty much reduced the need for "file organizers" because things can tell the system what they can open, modify and create.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

This is the first product of Tim Cook's Apple so lets see what happens, it really depends on what they're targeting. Normal prices would be $350 for the Apple Watch Sport, $500 -$1000 for the Apple Watch, and $1000-$2000 for the Apple Watch Edition. But if Apple is really going to try to make this a luxury item then all bets are off. You could easily see them pricing the watch in the $10,000-$20,000 range.

Your prices are in line with my expectations
Sport 349$
Watch 499$
Edition 999$

Start prices of course with the cheapest band and then plus for the better bands.

 

[RnSK]

In all it looks to be very un-iOS like, which could hurt them. Apple wrote the book on touch UI/UX and this looks to throw it all out the window. Look at how the move from iOS 6 to iOS 7 disrupted a lot of people, and that was essentailly just a re-skin. My worry is that tons of people are going to buy Watch, expect it to work along the lines of their iPhone/iPod and get frustrated when it doesn't. Only time will tell.

The Digital Crown paradigm is actually one of the most impressive conceits to reality - fingers on a tiny screen will cover what the heck you're lookin' at. They certainly *could* have stuck with what they had, but I think the solution devised will prove to me the correct one.

The Pebble deals with this with clicky buttons (and completely lacks touch). The DC allows for another implementation of the *result* and *UX* of Pinch/Zoom, without masking the content. Same with scrolling, tho people will be inclined to touch initially.

Wear just...ugh. Maybe by I/O Google will have their ducks aligned so that we devs can really get something out of it.

I guess it's been so long now, bu does anyone remember the whole series of videos Apple published teaching people "how to iPhone" because it was all so new?

Perhaps they will do this again for the watch and the UX for the crown and force touch (people will be 'long pressing'...it is velocity/pressure sensitive but people aren't used to that so will be inclines to 'touch and hold')

 

[danysl]

Most likely I´ll be wrong

I just don´t see a product like this selling like hotcakes. Seems limited, not just the apple watch, but all the smartwatch market.

The price apparently will be too high.

The thing is, Apple has a way of getting people to buy stuff.

I would rather see Apple entering other markets.

 

[RnSK]

Because I've written software for it

But this looks painfully bad--how can you maintain interest? Happy Monday, everyone!

...I know what it is already capable of. It is far more capable than people realize

They have a winner here and it will prove extremely valuable to those that buy the thing.

-K

 

[Michael CM1]

Whenever a "new" Apple product comes out, I begin to see the waters get muddier. Problems on existing devices will have almost no chances of being fixed with so many devices/products to look after. Shame. Everything will be iWatch now, ZERO chance of getting my iTunes match issues resolved at this point or even continuity problems!

Since itunes will probably get a new version with the Beats integration, I wouldn't be surprised to see whatever issues you're having fixed this year with the new Apple Music or whatever it ends up getting branded. Also, Apple hired a lot of people to work on the watch. I know sometimes resources are shifted, but if it's a widespread problem it's getting looked at. Maybe not prioritized, but looked at.

 

[manu chao]

Using gold as a material is certainly a departure, but we're really not talking about the Edition here, which is going to have a very tall price and a very limited appeal. The question is whether Apple Watch will be (as Gruber argues) more than twice the price of the Sport. As an up-selling proposition this pricing structure simply makes no sense.

Upselling is certainly one motivation for the steel version. But addressing a different market (people who like high-quality materials in their at least partly fashion-driven wearables) is another motivation.

Apple is not the first company selling (partially) fashion-driven wearables using different materials. In another post, I mentioned a sportwatch example that goes for $350 in a aluminium/composite/glass version and for $500 in a steel/sapphire version. That is certainly one reference point but to be really meaningful one should look at a wider range of vendors.

I personally think $600 is the minimum for the steel version to stand out as a separate product and not a measly up-sell

 

[wovel]

I believe Gruber is way off on the pricing lineup. The Steel Apple Watch will likely be starting at $500, $150 more than the "Aluminium" one because of that relatively small price difference. Consider currently how there is a $100 difference between the 16GB and 64GB iPhone 6. People who can afford the extra would gladly do so since they think they are getting more for their money. Apple would apply this same logic here and try to get people to buy the shiny, more expensive one ...

Gruber acknowledges this is the likely counter-argument in the article. I will let you read for yourself why. I have no basis to disagree with either of you. I do suspect many people will be surprised by the price of them non-sport models.

 

[Sherif Iskander]

Gold and Longevity

So basically Apple is wanting to position a technology product as a collectible item or something you keep for a long time and hence worth the investment.

The only way I could see this happening is if they find a way to show a significantly longer life span compared to what we are used to in tech products.

Thinking a bit outside the box and bearing in mind the fact that the form factor changes for watches are really not going to change as often as phones or tablets, maybe the key would be in store replaceable internals.

So assume you buy a new gold Watch today and next year a new model comes out. You go to the store and they swap out the screen and internals for you to the latest iteration, charge you for the electronics and away you go.

This way you would buy the Watch up front for whatever it costs today and you walk into the store every 1 or 2 years and change out the electronics for brand new ones and that would be it.

I believe in this manner they can bridge the perception gap between a collectible and a tech gadget that has a very small life span.

just my 0.02$

./sherif

 

[Cergman]

The Gold apple watch WILL cost $10k. You heard it first here folks

 

[mackinmike]

zooming in just looks awkward. you have a list of tiny contact icons and you have to zoom in to see who they are.. the whole sending a smiley face and heart beat... really?

 

[CJM]

I can't imagine it being $750, that seems ridiculous. I certainly wouldn't buy V1 at that price.

$500 seems more likely, but we'll see.

 

[shandyman]

Honestly, this Apple watch is garbage. The two sizes are still too small to what I would prefer, and don't like having to charge a phone. Its only a companion device (aka needs an iPhone work fully), and virtually useless on its own. Battery run time too short based on rumours. It comes down to want vs need. I don't need a watch with all this crap. I prefer my Swiss Made Tissot T-Watch MotoGP edition - automatic - self winding - no battery - all mechanical. This is a proper watch. The Apple watch is basically a re-designed digital watch with an OS. Not to mention most of the health features have been scrapped.

I could easily make the same generalised complaints about your Tissot watch. Why pay so much money for the MotoGP edition when I can spend £5 for a digital watch that also tells me the time....

 

[christian_k]

The Apple watch might be 'obsolete' in three years, but then it keeps its capabilities the same way the sportwatch keeps its capabilities. If you are fine for many years with the functions of a given sportwatch, the only thing that makes the Apple watch 'more obsolete' is the fact that there will be improved versions.

Sure? The watch is tightly connected to (and only really useful with) an iPhone.
Will a 2015 Apple watch be compatible with 2020 iPhone with 2020 iOS? What will you be able to do with the watch if not? How long will the cloud services for the watch be alive?

I use a running watch that is 4 years old, but its not the same. There are more advanced models now, but the watch still does what it was bought for and it will still be useful, even if the cloud service for it is shutdown one day.

Christian

 

[cjbryce]

The link might well be more expensive than many expect, but remember that Gruber is also pricing the leather loop as a $500 premium over the plastic band. Where, even on Planet Ultimate Luxury, do leather watch bands sell for $500?

I just replaced the leather band for a Breitling with a genuine part - GBP120 which is about USD181. Fakes are available for about GBP40 and standard fitting no-name brands are available in shoe repair stores for about £15.

For Apple to charge USD500 for a "normal" leather strap (i.e. not crocodile, snakeskin or sharkskin) would be very strange indeed. Out just plain silly.

 

[RnSK]

I use a running watch that is 4 years old, but its not the same. There are more advanced models now, but the watch still does what it was bought for and it will still be useful, even if the cloud service for it is shutdown one day.

Christian

This is silly. People are still using C64's and *upgrading them*...Newtons...even NeXTStations. I understand your point, but you know, people typically do NOT replace things they buy whenever the next "Ooo Shiny" version comes out, and because, Markets, people will sell and service things far, far beyond how long they are "hot on the streets".

Just sayin'

-K

 

[gnasher729]

Why would you want a mouse and a keyboard on an iPad or iPhone? Kind of pointless...if you want one of those use a MacBook or an iMac

Fact is, in each quarter Apple sells about five million Macs to people who want MacOS X, and about 20 million iPads to people who want iOS. That is an undeniable fact.

There are not that many people who would be happier if you could run MacOS X on an iPad.

 

[Rogifan]

As a watch guy, I disagree completely. The Moto bracelet looks nicer for sure.

Based on what?