Apple Watch

[Raz0rEdge]

From the Sep 9th event, nice to see the new iPhones, but owning an iPhone 5S, I won't be upgrading anytime soon..

The Apple Watch, however, was intriguing since I have a number of devices that do portions of what the Watch would do as a single device. Consolidating it all to a Watch that I would wear is great and all.

Apple announced the availability to be 2015 which is fine but I hadn't read anything about the pricing from the Keynote and now that I have seen it, I'm torn. The pricing will start at $349 and since it comes in 3 editions, the Sport and Edition versions will likely cost more..

I'm not sure what my cut-off price point would've been, but I think if it was $150 or something I would've picked it up without even giving it a second thought. At more than double that "don't care" price in my head, now I gotta think and ensure that it's a solid experience all around before plunking that much cash down.

I know people who have the Samsung watch which just sucks.

Via: Apple announces Apple Watch pricing and availability | 9to5Mac

 

[Chris H.]

The WATCH as we know it looks to be an almost complete device.

I think it needs further refinement. $350 is a bit much even for me…I'd rather spend that on an iPhone than anything else.

But looking at Android Wear and Samsung Galaxy Gear…the WATCH is much more appealing.

With that being said, I wonder if Apple will update the watch every year. If that's the case, I may just wait for the second generation if it makes the first generation at a lower price point. The other thing to consider is perhaps a price drop sometime after its initial release.

The part that has me holding back though is 1) requires an iPhone, 2) I can't upgrade to a new phone until next year...

 

[Raz0rEdge]

The part about requiring the iPhone is likely more a marketing ploy than a technical challenge. They could, no doubt, cram the necessary phone bits in the Watch to make it a stand-alone device, but if you can double your sales with that coupling, why not? Besides, since Android Wear and Samsung Galaxy Gear do the same thing, no need to differentiate yet..

You bring a good point about the upgrade cycle. I imagine, like every other Apple product, this will fall into the once a year refresh cycle..

 

[vansmith]

It's $350 for a watch. My phone, unlocked, cost $330 and can do so much more than this watch. I'm left concluding that this is very much a "if you have money to burn" luxury device that serves little productive purpose. Then again, Android Wear watches fall into that category but at least some of them are nice looking (the Moto 360 is leagues ahead of the Apple Watch in terms of design) and considerably cheaper.

I don't get Apple sometimes. They make a **** of a computer and tablet but every once in a while, they release something like this and all I can think is...so, this is a joke right? I think I went from pleasantly surprised (given that the iP6 is the first iPhone I would actually consider using) to utterly underwhelmed.

At the end of the day, no matter how you look at it, it's a chunky square on your wrist which just looks awkward. Watches are round and given the design ethos (circle shapes dominate the watch interface), I don't know why they didn't go circle.

 

[jennymac]

It's $350 for a watch. My phone, unlocked, cost $330 and can do so much more than this watch. I'm left concluding that this is very much a "if you have money to burn" luxury device that serves little productive purpose. Then again, Android Wear watches fall into that category but at least some of them are nice looking (the Moto 360 is leagues ahead of the Apple Watch in terms of design) and considerably cheaper.

I don't get Apple sometimes. They make a **** of a computer and tablet but every once in a while, they release something like this and all I can think is...so, this is a joke right? I think I went from pleasantly surprised (given that the iP6 is the first iPhone I would actually consider using) to utterly underwhelmed.

At the end of the day, no matter how you look at it, it's a chunky square on your wrist which just looks awkward. Watches are round and given the design ethos (circle shapes dominate the watch interface), I don't know why they didn't go circle.

Totally agree, my husband said he wouldn't wear one if it was free. Plus they are UGLY! Doesn't look like an Apple product at all.

 

[fleurya]

Overall I think it's pretty good. I like that they made 2 different sizes, 3 different finishes, and a multitude of very clever bands that can be very quickly and eaily swapped out. That kind of differentiation is very costly in the manufacturing world, and I don't think people are giving Apple any due credit for investing in making so many options available. It is certainly way out of their character and sets them apart from the competition for a device that is traditionally as much or more of a fashion piece than it's intended function.

What I wanted more than anything is independent GPS so I could use it as a running watch, but I guess you can't have it all. My other gripe is the digital cronw. Even if it is silky smooth to operate, it's going to be awkward to use on your wrist, especially for right-handed people funny enough. I don't think Steve Jobs would have taken this route. I think a better idea would have been to make the bezel touch-enabled. you could touch the sides to move around, and touch-hold the top or bottom to zoom in and out. Maybe they'll consider this if/when the crown fails.

Watches are round.

MOST watches are round, but there ar plenty that have square faces too. And if you look around, you'll notice a lot of multi-functional watches are square/rectangle in shape. Just look at the GPS watch category. Only more recently have they slimmed down their watches and started making round versions. And this does so much more than those watches!

People are bulking at the idea of a rectangle watch because of the convention of mostly being round. But what people need to come to terms with is the fact that this is not simply a watch. It does much more. And the things that it is intended to do work better on a square screen.

Just look at cell phones. People were all about making them smaller until the smartphone. If the iPhone launched with a 5.5" screen in 2007, people would have laughed at it and it would have failed. Now, it's the growing trend.

When it gets more mainstream, people will understand why smartwatches have to be more square, and learn to accept the look and appreciate it, just like phablets of today.

 

[osxx]

I will pass on the watch since for me when it comes to watches I am old school and like autos that only tell time hour,minute and second while not requiring a battery or sunlight just the movement of my wrist.

 

[chas_m]

I imagine, like every other Apple product, this will fall into the once a year refresh cycle..

Actually, almost no Apple products are on a "yearly refresh cycle." Only the iPhone, iPad (and that's probably about to change) and the iOS/OS X platforms. Everything else is on a "when it's ready" cycle that varies. (Ask any Mac Pro owner!)

I acknowledge that the "yearly refresh" products are their biggest sellers, but the statement is still inaccurate. Have no idea about how often the iPhone Watch will be refreshed, it might go either way.

It's $350 for a watch. My phone, unlocked, cost $330 and can do so much more than this watch. I'm left concluding that this is very much a "if you have money to burn" luxury device that serves little productive purpose. Then again, Android Wear watches fall into that category but at least some of them are nice looking (the Moto 360 is leagues ahead of the Apple Watch in terms of design) and considerably cheaper.]

Perhaps you are not looking at it from the correct perspective. Consider someone who relies heavily on their iPhone, but also wears a $500 timepiece (and that's considered "low end" in luxury watches). They might find the Apple Watch to be a steal.

Here's another perspective: For me, I'm not a wristwatch wearer, nor am I excited by the price of the Apple Watch. I am *amazed* by the engineering however. I was thinking about buying a top-of-the-line fitness band, one of the really good ones not a POS cheapie.

Oh look, guess what? The best one available costs $150-$200 and doesn't do a fraction of what the Apple Watch does. That $350 still looks steep, but not as steep as it did a minute ago.

It's really all a matter of how you look at it, I think. I'm not in the market at the moment, but I'm certainly open-minded enough to actually wait till I can *try one* before I make a judgement on its worth to me personally. I suspect the Apple Watch will do very well among people who wear watches (more than you might expect, I've been noticing this for the first time in the last day or so), but the key to the device will be if they can persuade people like me who don't wear watches to consider changing that habit.

I didn't expect fitness bands to do NEARLY as well as they did for the same reasons I listed above ... I don't need to pay $100 or so for a thing to nag me to walk more. But you know what? I was wrong about that. Being open-minded is fun!*

*if a little expensive ...

 

[fleurya]

^^ very good points! I wear an $800 watch (wedding gift from my wife) and, as you said that's low end. I don't know if watches under $1,000 are even considered true luxury!

I also have a Garmin 220 GPS running watch. It's, doesn't do much, but what it does, it does well, and sells very well at $250. And it's not even the high end GPS watch. It's mid-range!

When you put it in that perspective, the Apple Watch isn't that bad at all. But, I think people are making a mistake in even in comparing it to a normal watch in terms of battery life or price. It's really a totally different product. Comparing to a regular watch is like comparing a smartphone with an old rotary phone.

 

[chscag]

You're right, nowadays $350 for a watch is nothing. You can always buy one of these beauties:

Rolex GMT‑Master I...
$6,450.00
Portero

Rolex GMT Master II Men...
$6,190.00
SwissWatchE...

Rolex GMT Master II Stai...
$5,995.00
Portero

Vintage Rolex GMT‑Master...
$5,650.00
Portero

 

[osxx]

You're right, nowadays $350 for a watch is nothing. You can always buy one of these beauties:

Rolex GMT‑Master I...
$6,450.00
Portero

Rolex GMT Master II Men...
$6,190.00
SwissWatchE...

Rolex GMT Master II Stai...
$5,995.00
Portero

Vintage Rolex GMT‑Master...
$5,650.00
Portero

Add an Omega Aqua Terra Seamaster at around 6000.00

 

[pigoo3]

Back in the mid-1980's...I owned a Casio calculator watch. In my opinion...it does have somewhat of a similar appearance to the new Apple Watch.

It was thick, chunky, and square...and basically kind of "fugly"! But it was a cool...geeky...nerdy...sort of thing back then. Hey...it was a calculator on a watch darn it!!! It actually could have been the "Apple Watch" of the mid-1980's.

So I guess I have to say (from a beauty/appearance standpoint)...the Apple Watch is a bit "fugly" as well!

Some photos of course:

And the Apple Watch:

Sure...they don't look exactly the same. But there are some similarities.

- Nick

 

[fleurya]

For a watch comparison perspective, here is a good story about one watch expert’s opinion of Apple’s watch. He looked at it purely from a build and design perspective, and in his opinion, it is a superior watch for the relatively low $350 watch price range.

This Is What a Watch Expert Thinks of the Apple Watch

 

[vansmith]

Perhaps you are not looking at it from the correct perspective. Consider someone who relies heavily on their iPhone, but also wears a $500 timepiece (and that's considered "low end" in luxury watches). They might find the Apple Watch to be a steal.

The AW is not a luxury watch though. This is akin to equating a well built Toyota to a Ferrari and pretending that the AW is a Lambo. Luxury watches are just that - luxury. I'd hardly qualify any smartwatch as a luxury watch but that's an issue of semantics I suppose.

Oh look, guess what? The best one available costs $150-$200 and doesn't do a fraction of what the Apple Watch does. That $350 still looks steep, but not as steep as it did a minute ago.

This forgets one important thing though - you need an iPhone. A useable AW is thus going to cost you close to $1000.

For a watch comparison perspective, here is a good story about one watch expert’s opinion of Apple’s watch.

Hmmm...

It's unclear how much time he actually spent with the Apple Watch [...] Clymer's Apple Watch impressions are only about the exterior. He purposely stays away from the functionality and the interface. And while he's mostly positive, it's clear he still thinks that smartwatches in general are missing something

So, he didn't spend much time with the watch and completely ignored the functionality of it? He might be an expert on watches but not reviews.

 

[fleurya]

Hmmm... So, he didn't spend much time with the watch and completely ignored the functionality of it? He might be an expert on watches but not reviews.

Like I said, he was speaking only about the design and build quality, which, of course, is all you can use to compare it with traditional watches. I don't know how much time he spent with the watch, but I doubt someone who wants to maintain their reputation in a luxury product industry would go around giving half-baked opinions. Possible, but not probable. I would also respectfully point out that, even if he only handled it for a minute, it's probably enough for him to gain some understanding of the relative quality as a person in the industry. Also, it would be a minute more than you have handled it in person, yet you felt free to pass judgement on its relative quality in your cars comparison.

Overall style and built quality do play an important role. There are $100 Android phones available at your local supermarket that do 95% of what a $650+ Samsung GS4 can do. Is that 5% that not many people use anyway really worth a 600% price markup? Not likely, but people still buy them. They buy them for the style, quality, build, and brand cache.

 

[vansmith]

I would also respectfully point out that, even if he only handled it for a minute, it's probably enough for him to gain some understanding of the relative quality as a person in the industry.

You are absolutely correct - I haven't held it nor do I suggest that I am a watch expert (does it tell me the nice and looks nice? Great). That said, you can't assess a watch and neglect to test it. That would be like saying that a computer looks nice and recommending others to purchase it without having turned it on. It's shallow and superficial reporting at best.

Also, it would be a minute more than you have handled it in person, yet you felt free to pass judgement on its relative quality in your cars comparison.

I said nothing of its quality - it may very well be a well built watch. However, at $350, it hardly qualifies as "luxury" especially given the craftsmanship and cost of real luxury watches. I'm also skeptical of the Apple marketing machine which always positions their products as revolutionary, ground breaking and the best thing since the Big Bang (even when they often aren't). The watch reveal was a perfect example - I thought Cook was going to cry...revealing a watch.

 

[MacInWin]

I'll probably get an AW. I already have an iPhone, so that part of the expense is covered. It is a 5s, so I'm skipping the iP6 release, but getting the AW may provide the NFC functionality to the 5s, and I'm all for that. The US is way behind the curve in getting rid of the old magnetic stripe credit cards. Witness the data breaches at Target and Home Depot. The chip and pin cards of Europe are much more secure, but from the description of how Apple is implementing the token process, it looks even MORE secure. And since the payment requires a PIN for the watch when it's put on your wrist and starts to sense the pulses, it's relatively safe against a thief. If they set it up to kill the watch if the PIN is wrong more than a few times, that's even better. No real CC data flows in a transaction, so no tracking software at the store. And the convenience of waving your wrist at a sensor to pay is pretty attractive. So, I'll probably get one if the early adopters report that it works as advertised. The price is about the same as I've paid for my current Citizen, so that doesn't scare me off much, either.

 

[lclev]

I am planning on getting an iPhone 6 probably the 5.5 since I have that screen size now on my Note II.

As for the watch...... I like to change my watches to match my mood or what I am wearing so all my watches cost in the $15-$100 range. Plus I just want it to tell time and have a big enough and bright enough display for my old eyes to see easily.

So not planning on an iWatch.

Lisa

 

[chas_m]

The AW is not a luxury watch though.

I would argue that it is, but of course not in the same sense as a $1,000 Rolex. It's a luxury watch in the sense that it's not essential.

No, kidding. I mean its a luxury watch in the sense that it is finely engineered, and does more than other watches in its class. It has the ability, I believe, to attract "luxury" watch users.

This forgets one important thing though - you need an iPhone. A useable AW is thus going to cost you close to $1000.

By that argument, all Android smart watches also cost close to $1,000, since all the ones I'm aware of need a premium phone as well (excluding any low-functionality "cheapie" watches I may not be aware of).

There may be a misconception that the Appke Watch works only with the iPhone 6. That is not correct, it works with the iPhone 5 family as well.

 

[vansmith]

I would argue that it is, but of course not in the same sense as a $1,000 Rolex. It's a luxury watch in the sense that it's not essential.

No watch is essential.

No, kidding. I mean its a luxury watch in the sense that it is finely engineered, and does more than other watches in its class. It has the ability, I believe, to attract "luxury" watch users.

I'm going to guess that people who buy Rolexes are not going to buy an AW and if they do, they won't be wearing it as a replacement.

By that argument, all Android smart watches also cost close to $1,000, since all the ones I'm aware of need a premium phone as well (excluding any low-functionality "cheapie" watches I may not be aware of).

Absolutely they do. All Android Wear and Apple Watch smartwatches cost more than the cost of the watch itself.