Why is the Apple Watch such a tough sell?

[Benjamin Frost]

I completely agree with you. And I've collected and worn many watches over the years, I've never seen a $60 watch that I would actually wear.

I've seen someone mention before about having to flick your wrist to see the time with an Apple watch. Well unless you have x-ray vision you're going to have to do something with your wrist to see the time on any watch unless you have that rare breed of $60 watch that reads the time to you. The effort required is exactly the same.

And there are multi thousand dollar watches that have to be hand wound each night so how much of an effort is involved in slapping an AW on a charger? For some of us especially those with the 42 it doesn't have to be a daily thing.

I'm amazed at the number of people that are so dissatisfied in their lives that the only therapy they can afford is to come here and rant. If you're simply not interested in a product that's fine, nobody cares.

A normal watch doesn't need to be moved to tell the time; you just glance at it.

If you wear an Apple Watch, the screen is off by default. If you are sitting in a theatre or in a meeting and can see your watch, no movement is required for a proper watch. With an Apple Watch, you have to jerk your wrist in an ungainly fashion and wait for the time to appear, thereby drawing attention to yourself and annoying those around you with its glaring screen.

I’ll take the time-honoured traditional watch, thanks.

 

[BarracksSi]

Regarding flicking the AW up to read the time versus most regular watches --

Yes, it's true, the AW is not as easy to read. Most of my other watches can be read at a pretty steep angle. But as I learned this morning, which was the first day I wore it to work while carrying my coffee in my "watch hand", I couldn't see the time without either (a) switching my coffee to the other hand and doing the wrist turn to activate the AW, or (b) risking tipping the coffee.

I'm sitting here now, typing on my phone, and the AW is not showing the time at its current angle. I would be able to read my other watches, though.

I knew this drawback before purchasing the watch yesterday. I want to find out for myself if its many other uses would outweigh this issue.

 

[Roller]

A normal watch doesn't need to be moved to tell the time; you just glance at it.

If you wear an Apple Watch, the screen is off by default. If you are sitting in a theatre or in a meeting and can see your watch, no movement is required for a proper watch. With an Apple Watch, you have to jerk your wrist in an ungainly fashion and wait for the time to appear, thereby drawing attention to yourself and annoying those around you with its glaring screen.

I’ll take the time-honoured traditional watch, thanks.

Hey, Frosty. If you're going to criticize (I know you can't help it, bless your heart), at least be accurate. You don't have to raise or "jerk your wrist in an ungainly fashion" to activate the screen - a simple tap wakens it immediately. And many conventional watches also need some action by the wearer to activate the backlight in dark surroundings, no less attention-grabbing than tapping the AW face.

 

[sean000]

Hey, Frosty. If you're going to criticize (I know you can't help it, bless your heart), at least be accurate. You don't have to raise or "jerk your wrist in an ungainly fashion" to activate the screen - a simple tap wakens it immediately. And many conventional watches also need some action by the wearer to activate the backlight in dark surroundings, no less attention-grabbing than tapping the AW face.

Good point. I see conventional watches with backlights frequently in dark theaters. The Apple Watch isn't as bright... especially if you have something like the Simple Face selected with minimal detail. That will will have very little illumination at all (just the hands)... which will make it more like a watch with glow-in-the-dark hands than a watch with a backlight (which seems quite common these days).

As far as the motion required for the watch to display the time, it is so natural to me that it has never been something I have even thought about. Even a slow roll of the wrist and the Apple Watch displays the time to me almost instantly. Roll back and the screen goes black. Yes... you can tap the display to display the time without moving the watch at all, but I almost never do.

Personally I would not want an always-on Apple Watch. If you have a face enabled that is displaying your next appointment and your activity rings, do you really want everyone to be able to see that information? Do you want to be sitting in a public place or in a meeting and realize that the person next to you has been staring at your watch and now knows what your next appointment is? No thank you. That said it would be nice to have an "always on" mode that you could enable for special situations... like when you take your watch off but still want to be able to see the clock or a timer you set.

Sean

 

[papbot]

A normal watch doesn't need to be moved to tell the time; you just glance at it.

If you wear an Apple Watch, the screen is off by default. If you are sitting in a theatre or in a meeting and can see your watch, no movement is required for a proper watch. With an Apple Watch, you have to jerk your wrist in an ungainly fashion and wait for the time to appear, thereby drawing attention to yourself and annoying those around you with its glaring screen.

I’ll take the time-honoured traditional watch, thanks.

If you're sitting in a theater it's dark so you can't see any watch but turning your wrist allows you to see the AW. So you'll "take the time-honoured traditional watch". Great, who cares? I've always worn traditional watches and have some very expensive ones but they all sit in a drawer now.

Really what is the reason why you feel you have to justify not buying the watch? None of us care. Why is it important to you to tell us? I don't remember anyone asking.

 

[BarracksSi]

Hey, Frosty. If you're going to criticize (I know you can't help it, bless your heart), at least be accurate. You don't have to raise or "jerk your wrist in an ungainly fashion" to activate the screen - a simple tap wakens it immediately.

Watches are convenient because they're one-handed. The tap-to-activate requirement is one reason I felt that the previous-gen iPod Nano made a terrible wristwatch (even though I really wanted it to succeed, and this was after I put mine on a wristband).

And many conventional watches also need some action by the wearer to activate the backlight in dark surroundings, no less attention-grabbing than tapping the AW face.

My G-Shock's backlight can activate by turning my wrist, and it'll only do it in dim light or darkness. My Seiko diver and Citizen have really strong lume and can be seen all night long; a movie theater is easy-peasy. The Rado's tiny bits of lume, though, can only be seen in total darkness with well-adjusted eyes.

I much prefer the Seiko's and Citizen's good legibility at every viewing angle during my predawn commute. But, neither of them show me text messages that I often get along the way. I'll have to decide which advantage I'd rather have.

 

[BarracksSi]

[soapbox]

At least I've tried all these options.

I have two quartz watches that run on solar power and regularly sync with the atomic clock in Colorado. I've got a Garmin GPS/HR watch. I now have four mechanicals -- one 75-year-old manual and three automatics -- and have worn the two newest ones on most days since last winter. I've also got the aforementioned iPod Nano (5th gen?) parked on a wrist strap. And, most recently, I picked up a SS AW on a sport strap on Monday.

I'm only lacking a mechanical chronograph and Seiko's specialty Kinetic and Spring Drive movements. Fundamentally, though, I think I've got all the bases covered.

[/soapbox] ;-)

 

[sean000]

Watches are convenient because they're one-handed. The tap-to-activate requirement is one reason I felt that the previous-gen iPod Nano made a terrible wristwatch (even though I really wanted it to succeed, and this was after I put mine on a wristband).

There is no "tap-to-activate" requirement with the Apple Watch. I never do that. I simply rotate my wrist towards my face (don't even have to raise my wrist) and the time displays.

My G-Shock's backlight can activate by turning my wrist, and it'll only do it in dim light or darkness. My Seiko diver and Citizen have really strong lume and can be seen all night long; a movie theater is easy-peasy. The Rado's tiny bits of lume, though, can only be seen in total darkness with well-adjusted eyes.

The Apple Watch faces are very customizable. You can display a lot of information, or nothing but watch hands. The less you display, the more subtle the light will be in a dark theater. You certainly aren't going to attract attention with a minimalist Apple Watch face as much as you will with a fully backlit analog watch that glows like a beacon in the dark. Of course neither an Apple Watch nor a backlit analog watch will be as distracting to the other patrons as a large smartphone screen lighting up.

I much prefer the Seiko's and Citizen's good legibility at every viewing angle during my predawn commute. But, neither of them show me text messages that I often get along the way. I'll have to decide which advantage I'd rather have.

The wide viewing angle is an advantage for the watches you describe. The Apple Watch display is actually quite visible from shallow viewing angles if it is on, but it's not going to turn on until you rotate the watch to a more direct angle/line of sight unless you tap the display.

I will say that text messages and other notifications en route are nice as long as they aren't distracting. I commute on foot or on bicycle, so they aren't terribly dangerous to me and are often useful.

Sean

 

[papbot]

Watches are convenient because they're one-handed. The tap-to-activate requirement is one reason I felt that the previous-gen iPod Nano made a terrible wristwatch (even though I really wanted it to succeed, and this was after I put mine on a wristband).

Most of out grandfathers or great-grand fathers, my father, and actually some people today, used pocket watches that had to be pulled out to view the time and sometimes have a case opened before being able to view it. I don't think they bemoaned having to do so. It was quite a while before a wrist watch became a "manly" enough replacement for those.

If an Apple watch was purchased primarily or exclusively to view the time then the disadvantages mentioned here are valid but why the hell would anyone buy it just for that? I've asked that same question when others focus exclusively on any health or fitness tracking shortcomings. If that was the sole reason for buying the device then it was misguided, there are many less expensive devices that will fulfill that purpose quite well.

Most os us, at least all the people I know who have purchased one including myself and my wife, did so because of the awesome convenience it affords us throughout our day. Not having to go digging for our phones when we have them buried in bags, pockets, jackets or even on our person at all was the primary and most important reason for acquiring the device. My wife uses hers all day long at her job in a hospital.

If a quick glance at the time was the only need, I have several far more expensive watches I can use for that. So really those comparisons are not even relevant to this device. Anymore so than comparing a Rolex or your Nano to a smartphone is.

 

[Arran]

A normal watch doesn't need to be moved to tell the time; you just glance at it.

Ahem. Stop moving an automatic watch, and it stops telling the time. Forever!

But, yes, I get your point. It is sometimes a teeny bit annoying when the auto-on doesn't work and I have to tap my apple watch. But that's a tradeoff I'm happy to make for all the other benefits I get from my watch.

My watch buys me lunch. In a flash. When I have no cash.

Do that with a normal watch and report back.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

1. After a lot of pre-launch build-up (6 mo) the launch was marred with very limited inventory for immediate shipping and no availability for impulsive in-store buyers, i.e., instant buzz-kill.
2. No killer app - lots of apps available for AW but not a single one that makes a consumer say "I gotta have that."
3. Operation is not as intuitive as consumers expect an Apple product to be, and the pre-programmed demo watches @ the Apple Store do not clear up how it really works in "real life." There is a slight learning curve w/ the watch and consumers don't like to have to learn how to use something, they just want to use it.
4. Watches as a concept are a bit anachronistic to key "disposable income" demographic so they are a tougher sell than a phone or a tablet that works the same way as the phone, without the phone part.
5. Post launch Apple has done a poor job introducing the AW to non-tech and non-watch wearing public. It hasn't tried to make case (no pun) for AW like it did for iPhone and iPad.
6. It's an accessory, not a stand-alone device.

 

[maflynn]

Tough sell, I don't know, from my very initial experience at my local apple store, the apple watch was selling like hotcakes.

I agree that its a type of product that isn't "needed", but its a nice to have. It compliments a person's lifestyle it does not alter it.

The iPhone altered people's lifestyle when it was introduced, the iPad like the AW, did not. Its a nice secondary device but its been shown not to be a viable replacement of a laptop (for many people) imo.

Overall, my opinion of the AW has evolved and I've changed my stance on it. I did not see the value in it, when it was unveiled but as time goes on and I see how I use my Fitbit Surge, I can see the AW complementing and helping me out more then I initially expected. YMMV and if people don't see the value in it, they are free not to buy it

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Tough sell, I don't know, from my very initial experience at my local apple store, the apple watch was selling like hotcakes.

Of course the problem with that is, if you are a Disney World, hotcakes might be a big seller. But in West Hollywood, no so much. Conversely, wheat germ burgers might be a huge hit in West Hollywood, but if you were there to witness that it would be a mistake to attribute those same sales at Disney World. Anecdotal is anecdotal. We are sorely missing direct sales facts w/ AW, but I think its safe to say, it's not a blazing sales category or Apple would be bragging like hell about it, as they did w/ previous new big product launches.

 

[BarracksSi]

Most of out grandfathers or great-grand fathers, my father, and actually some people today, used pocket watches that had to be pulled out to view the time and sometimes have a case opened before being able to view it. I don't think they bemoaned having to do so. It was quite a while before a wrist watch became a "manly" enough replacement for those.

Yup, it took until WWI for men to want wristwatches. Convenience trumped fashion for soldiers, or so the story goes.

Anyway, as I've said (if not in this thread, then it was in another), I'm just getting started with my AW. Among my first impressions, I think that it's not quite as good as some of my other watches at simply displaying the time.

But this morning, as I was walking to work, I got a couple texts from one of my junior guys. I was able to respond from my wrist without breaking my stride, first with a canned "OK" and next with a dictated text message. I thought it was pretty slick, and the convenience of the AW may win yet again.

 

[maflynn]

but I think its safe to say, it's not a blazing sales category or Apple would be bragging

I'm not so sure, at the risk of sounding like I'm blindly following apple, I don't think you make that jump. Cook has stated on various investor calls that he's happy with the sales numbers.

If AW was not selling well at all, he'd have a responsibility to the investors to communicate that. Also Apple seems to have a stance that they don't communicate sales numbers on products unless they have a material impact on the bottom line. The iPhone is a good example of that. I could be wrong but do they announce sales figures for iPods or appleTVs?

Finally what other smart watch manufacturer announces watch sales figures? I don't think any do and so its not like apple is doing anything different. My point is that we don't have enough information to state if the apple watch sales are miserable or stellar. What we do know is that the people at Apple are communicating that they're "pleased"

 

[Blujelly]

I think personally and don't shoot me for this, its just the lack of people who don't understand what it can do / be used for.

I feel there is smaller percentage of Apple fans who know what there product can do compared to those who buy Apple products with 50% knowledge of what there buying.

I'm going by the amount of people at my office that I give advise and help to.

 

[Micky Do]

I've talked to a lot of Apple Watch skeptics who scoff when they see my Space Grey Sport. The conversation usually goes something like this:

Me: What can your $400 watch do?

Skeptic: Tell the time. What can your $400 watch do?

Me:
Tell the time.
Track my activity/workouts.
Display new text messages/emails.
Warn me when it's about to rain (Dark Sky).
Control the music throughout my house.
Remind me of upcoming appointments.
Provide turn-by-turn directions.
Answer or place a phone call.
Quick access to one-time passwords (for 2FA).
And much more....

Skeptic: But you have to charge it every day!

That's it! That's the biggest knock against the Apple Watch.

I just don't get why the bar is set so high, given that the existing technology is so limited AND has a similar (or higher) price tag.

I don't wear a watch; haven't done so for more than 30 years, yet manage to get places on time more reliably than many watch wearers. I seldom carry a mobile phone either, for that matter.

I usually cycle to get around, and once or twice a week go on a longer ride, or swim or play sport, or whatever for fun and to burn off a bit of energy. How much? Dunno, and don't care.

I see any new texts or messages on my desktop computer at home.

Dark clouds suggest that rain is imminent.

I sometimes control music in my apartment using iTunes, but usually just go with what the radio station I am streaming plays.

I usually remember appointments, but sometimes use the Calendar app., or get someone to remind me.

I know most places I need to go, and can find new places using a map. Occasionally getting lost is an adventure and a way to discover new territory.

I seldom make or receive a phone call; any I do are very brief, usually to arrange a meeting. I prefer meet folks face to face.

etc.

The WATCH provides solutions to needs that I have neither had nor even realised existed. Probably the same for quite a few other folk who will remain hard to convince they need one.

 

[BarracksSi]

For sales figures --

Apple said some time back that they'd put the AW into their "Other" category, which includes the Apple TV, AirPort, etc.

At the last quarterly earnings call, Apple said that "Other" took in nearly a billion more dollars than before.

I'm pretty sure that the Apple TV, even with its recent price drop, did not account for such a massive jump in revenue.

http://www.macworld.com/article/295...ays-of-apples-q3-2015-quarterly-earnings.html

 

[nickkrumors]

At the last quarterly earnings call, Apple said that "Other" took in nearly a billion more dollars than before.

I'm pretty sure that the Apple TV, even with its recent price drop, did not account for such a massive jump in revenue.

Beats is also in this category. Those headphones are a very high margin device, though I do understand what you are getting at. The Apple Watch probably did a get chunk of that.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I'm not so sure, at the risk of sounding like I'm blindly following apple, I don't think you make that jump. Cook has stated on various investor calls that he's happy with the sales numbers.

If AW was not selling well at all, he'd have a responsibility to the investors to communicate that.

I suspect you've never studied corporate governance and the CEO's fiduciary duty to shareholders. A CEO, or any corporate officer, does not have a legal duty of disclosure to report sales a particular product, especially if the company has never stated introduction of said product would materially effect the companies financial outlook.

That out of the way, let me restate your argument:

If your kid came home and said he is "happy with his algebra test grade," would you be OK with that because he is your kid, or would you want to know your kid's benchmark for what he is happy with? He could be "happy" with a "C," because he didn't have time to study much for it, but objectively that's not a grade one should be proud of, or that would be helpful come college application time.

Or if your town's mayor told Moodys the town's finances were in "great shape." Do you think Moodys would take his or her statement at face value and give them an AAA bond rating, or do you think they'd want to peek at the books before making a judgment?

Fact is Cook has never set a benchmark for sales or been transparent about AW sales in any degree. So we don't know what numbers he is happy with, we can only postulate. And we are suppose to take his word for it because he's Tim Cook. As an Apple fan and investor, I find his demeanor here rather patronizing. I don't find blind loyalty to anything or anyone particularly admirable or intelligent. I don't believe being a fan means having to be a "yes man." (Its funny how sports fans easily rip their own team for its mistakes, but fans of tech companies try to rationalize them and being dogmatic. You'd think tech fans would embrace healthy skepticism, as that is how science progressed).

Then you state "I don't think you make that jump." But if you can attribute sales at ONE store to every Apple Store, every X minutes, then, why can't I suggest that Cook's caginess = nothing good to talk about?" Both our opinions have logical fallacies, but yours seems to make a much larger logical jump than mine.

 

[greytmom]

I have not experienced any of the issues others seem to be having when talking about their Apple Watch. Maybe because I'm not trying to sell it. I just enjoy mine, and if someone asks me about it, I answer them to the best of my ability.

 

[maxsix]

Its $400 for a watch that will be quickly outdated, and likely unusable within a few years.

You are correct.

To which I would ad, more people are aware of this fact than Apple may have realized.

No amount of Apple's incredible truly world class marketing expertise can counter a product that just doesn't have much appeal in the mainstream retail environment.

 

[blairh]

I think the biggest issue with the AW is the retail price. And I'm talking about the Sport models. The SS models are outrageous IMO.

I think the Sport models should have started at $250/$300. Or at the most $300/$350.

If tracking your fitness doesn't appeal to you, then really the only killer function of the AW is notifications.

I also think 2.0 is a huge deal. It will allow 3rd party apps to truly shine. Once the AW gets a dedicated Google Play Music and Pocket Casts app I'll be in heaven.

I do think in the long run the AW will be huge. But I don't think it will explode until next year or the following.

 

[samiznaetekto]

Smartwatches will never be "huge".

 

[Recognition]

I am constantly to-ing and fro-ing on whether or not to buy for one reason:

Price.

If your worried about price, break it down into the daily cost,

A $600 Apple watch (for example) would only be $1.65 a day (approximately) for a year.

Would you be happy to have the features the watch brings for just $1.65 each day?

Seems like a no-brainer to me!