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

[jkruehne]

Currently the apple watch requires an iphone on your person why wouldn't I just pull my smartphone out of my pocket to do the same function?

that would actually be my point - my point for purchasing one
- lot of time i didn't recognise an incoming message when my phone is in the pocket. a subtle "skin alert" might help out …

 

[Yaboze]

The watch looks nice, but there's no way I am buying a Rev. 1 Apple product.

I'll wait a few years...

 

[TallManNY]

I won't be happy till I can get 24 hours on a single charge. I'd love a iPhone the thickness of the original iPhone if the extra space was just battery.

Me too as far as the iPhone. Personally, I easily make it through a day with 6. But I don't hit it hard and I've got my Blackberry with me as well (which incidentally has a large battery and is pretty much a "two day" phone, and their recently announced phone trumpets 25 hours of usage time). But I know others who still deplete their 6 in a day. I think a 20% bigger battery would have been worth the trade off in extra size. I'm also concerned that in a year or so I won't be able to replace the battery in my 6 easily and then it will have degraded too far.

But as far as current laptops, there is no issue. But maybe I will sing a different tune once the current laptops are four or five years old. But I assume the batteries in those devices are fairly easily replaceable. I haven't looked into that yet though.

 

[Recognition]

That was answered by Apple at the hands-on back in September.

Image

Ah thanks!

Must of missed that first time round!

That's my favourite combination too!

 

[jkruehne]

Can wait to get this one
Sport one black

Watch: 18 Karat Roségold + steel space black band
(plus win the lottery

 

[Kourage2]

I'm going to wait until the second gen comes out. I'm just not impressed and I think it's more features that are not on this device that is gaining my attention. No FaceTime. The bezel is not big enough. A 3G version with work with your data plan. I have a Fitbit and Nikefuel band. People can just buy a Fitbit surge or charge and get the heart rate and calls to their device that why Apple won't sale this products in their store. I had the iPad 1st gen and then the iPad 2 came out. Big difference and people went crazy over the second gen. The product was on back order and it was hard to get one. Not many people cared for the 1st iPad. So I'm going to wait next year. I still have the same iPad 2 but I'm waiting on the next gen because my software will not update to iOS 9 but look how long I got out of that device. My point is that people that rush and get this device might want to wait until next year.

 

[SMIDG3T]

Just adding my thoughts...

With the digital crown, how would left hand users (watch worn on the right wrist) operate it comfortably? They would by covering the screen with their left hand and it would be an awkward angle for your hand, or will the watch be able to be worn upside down?

Also just noticed the Apple Store is being updated! Maybe pre-orders will start today?!
Looking forward to seeing what the price will be in the UK, usually Apples prices are a direct conversion of 1$ = 1£...

There is no upside-down to the Apple Watch.

 

[Recognition]

that would actually be my point - my point for purchasing one
- lot of time i didn't recognise an incoming message when my phone is in the pocket. a subtle "skin alert" might help out …

I agree totally,

Only a minute ago I just found I missed 2 calls and a text msg because my 6+ was in my pocket as I was walking down the street, despite being on 75% volume and virbrate, I still didn't notice it going off.

Having the apple watch will be a lot more convenient for me to check whether that was a real call coming in or just a phantom vibration.
Especially walking the busy streets of central London on my daily commute.

----------

There is no upside-down to the Apple Watch.

Yea I see that now.
It's just the pictures I've seen show the digital crown on the right!

 

[bobob]

There is no upside-down to the Apple Watch.

...or more accurately, there is no downside-down to the Apple Watch.

 

[bobob]

I just read an article on 9to5 mac and it says...

http://9to5mac.com/2015/03/09/platinum-apple-watch/?pushup=1


"18-karat gold isn’t pure gold, it is defined as being 75% gold by weight. The remaining 25% of the mix is usually made up of one or more other metals, with silver and copper popular choices. The Apple patent describes mixing gold with low-density ceramic particles instead of metal.

Because weight, not volume, is what defines the karat gold standards, Apple’s watch could use less than a third the gold of a conventional alloy while still qualifying as 18-karat gold … "

if that's the case then the edition watch, as I've predicted, won't be anywhere near 5 grand. you can't justify using a third of the gold and sell a watch for 5 grand.

Alloys are a miracle of metallurgy; not a way to save a few bucks.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Gruber talks himself right out of his own argument. The strategy in pricing in tiers is to induce up-selling. Considering this reality, a $400 premium for the stainless steel watch with the sport band make no sense. Nobody will in induced to spend that much more just to get steel. More like $100-150 makes a lot more sense. Apple already does this all across their model lines. Why Gruber thinks they will take a radically different approach with Apple Watch is beyond me, and unless I missed some deep thinking, I don't see where he's articulated any argument for it.

Edit: Read Gruber again looking for evidence of deep thinking. None found. His argument for the huge gap between the Sport and Apple Watch models is based on something he calls "operational efficiency." What the hell is that? He doesn't say, but he does say it should be convincing. Sorry, no sale.

you missed his point. his point was a diff of only $150 is too low, considering the cost *to apple* in operational efficiency. that is, all the different materials introduce operational complication and thus cost even beyond material cost alone.

there ya go.

----------

Wow Mr Gruber, those are some poorly written sentences right there.

what nonsense. he's one of the best Apple writers and analysts in the industry, which is why he makes half
a million a year doing it.

where's your site?

----------

Was the first iPad speculated at $1000? Gruber is no different compared to an average poster in this blog. Apple must be crazy to price it at $750 unless they want no sale. Even me, i want one but would remove myself out if it is more than $500 for stainless steel version.

one report guessed $1000 and the rest of the tech media latched onto it. in the end the highest priced iPad was $850 and very near it anyway.

 

[Nosferax]

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.

You won't really know until such an option is offered.

 

[Websnapx2]

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!

Honestly, what are you talking about? Apple bought Beats to re-examine how they serve music to their customers. iTunes Match will undoubtedly be effected. Just by the fact that you are calling it an “iWatch” kinda shows you both don’t know what you are talking about and facts and details don’t really play a role in you thoughts and opinions on the matter. Usually when they “stop paying attention” to a product line or feature it is either because they are phasing it out or replacing it with something. Depending on what the roadmap or timeline is on the project they are replacing it with (in this case, the Beats service) they may not be ready to release details on the new project so it may look like they aren’t doing anything. However, if you look at all their big reveals – iPhone, Watch, Mac Pro – you would see that they have been working on them for years, you just weren’t privy to the information.

 

[mdelvecchio]

I don't think the Apple Watch will be a hit, which should be expected as other watches had the same fate. The watch is just for fashion, that's it.

I can understand its use if it had health capabilities but there aren't any. And it takes way too long to do one simple thing on the watch where you can just easily take your phone out of your pocket.

...and how does one update that thing anyways? And its dependent on your phone too, so you can't just leave your phone at home or something. Watches like these just aren't ready for primetime.

original iPhone, totally obsolete,
unsupported - $1,000 on eBay:

http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&alt=web&id=181302922381

...also you appear ignorant on the watch and what it can do untethered. wireless iPod, fitness tracking, Apple pay. sold.

 

[Mark Booth]

I think the 42mm stainless steel with link bracelet is going to come in at about $799 to $999. The closer it is to $799, the higher the likelihood that I'll buy one.

Mark

 

[Neodym]

Not many people cared for the 1st iPad.

"Although initially met with scepticism, the iPad became an instant hit upon its release in April 2010: in less than three months, Apple sold 3.27 million iPads and went on to sell almost 20 million units in its first year on the market."
Source: http://www.statista.com/topics/877/ipad/

 

[zyr123]

I am calling the black sheep announcement of the event is discover apple pay. This would make me very happy.

 

[GizmoDVD]

I agree totally,

Only a minute ago I just found I missed 2 calls and a text msg because my 6+ was in my pocket as I was walking down the street, despite being on 75% volume and virbrate, I still didn't notice it going off.

Sad but true. I left the house on Saturday without my Pebble and my wife was mad I didn't respond to her TXTs or Call while I was in Target. I didn't feel the vibration of it.

It's a must.

 

[jetjaguar]

most likely just getting a space gray sports one .. not spending a ton a money on a gen1 product

 

[Rogifan]

Some of the discussions I'm seeing about what Apple is supposedly becoming are off the mark IMO. Sure the Jony and the Watch are front and center now but last year at WWDC Craig Federighi was the star and it was all about software. We'll see that again in a couple months at this years WWDC. And if we get a new iTunes/Beats music service, a new TV or Pay goes international then Eddy Cue will be front and center. The Watch is only one facet of Apple.

 

[WiseAJ]

It would be really hilarious if Apple doesn't mention the price of each Apple Watch model during the event at all. It's not going to happen, but it would be funny.

 

[macgabe]

The main pricing will start cheapish (over 200?) and go up in $100 increments - to induce upselling, of RAM, bands, precious metal etc. They'll be hoping to sell hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of these.

But then they will go SWATCH on us and produce limited edition collector's items several times a year. Some will be cheaper, sports type. Eg MLK day, President's Day, Christmas etc etc.

And some will be massively expensive (think RED) whale harpoons - with platinum, diamonds, meteorite, guest designers (Lady Gaga for Valentine's?) etc.

 

[IJ Reilly]

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

I think that is still too much for the Apple Watch with the Sport band. It also doesn't make much sense given that the Sport model will apparently come only with plastic bands. Once again this implies that any Apple Watch with anything but the Sport band will cost at least twice as much as the Sport model. I just don't see it, and especially not for stainless steel, which is hardly a precious metal.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

For all those who say that "I would never buy something so expensive that is going to be out of date so fast".

Consider the possibility for Apple to offer upgradeable chips. Given the system is integrated on a single resin-coated chip it would not be a difficult feat. I would not be surprised if this is offered as a set-fee option at the media event.

They won't do it. But even if they did make the watch modular in terms of chip upgrades, then the company will get attacked and criticized for not letting other products be upgradable as well especially the iPhone. In other words, if they do this with the watch, they will be under pressure to do the same for the iPhone.

It would be the most hypocritical thing if they make the chipset modular. Remember, all of their products have a unibody design which forces people to BUY the hardware every couple of years after being obsolete.

But if you want a watch that's upgradable, there's only one company that actually have their acts together more than Apple.

It's Kairos. It's a bit more expensive but far more practical.

Go look and weep: https://www.kairoswatches.com

 

[IJ Reilly]

With all the people speculating that the Applewatch Sport will be the cheap entry model, there's an interesting sidenote I didn't pay attention to before:

On Apple's website, the sequence (from left to right) is:

1. Apple Watch (the steel one)
2. Apple Watch Sport
3. Apple Watch Edition

It might just come from habit (being used to read and write from left to right), but somehow I expect such a sequence to be ordered from "lower" to "higher" (quality, price - whatever).

If the Sport would indeed be the most affordable one, I would expect it to be on the far left in the abovementioned sequence - not in the middle.

As one of Apple's product marketing points is lightweightness, perhaps the Sport variant is considered more "premium" than the rather heavy stainless steel one.

In watches, lightweight is not generally considered a virtue. Further, aluminum is extremely soft and will almost certainly get dinged up rather easily. Also, I think the steel model has the sapphire front and ceramic back.

It is likely that the Sport will be the entry-level priced model, if only because it is being shown currently only with the plastic band. OTOH, if you aren't approaching this entirely from the point of view of a watch snob, then the lightness of aluminum has its virtues.