or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple has discussed charging 'around $400' for its wearable 'iWatch' - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple has discussed charging 'around $400' for its wearable 'iWatch' - report - Page 3

post #81 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

Good to see some here (patchyThePirate, for example) catching onto my idea (from many months ago) of an iWatch with multi-purpose bands. Here are my compiled thoughts on the iWatch I've been posting here and elsewhere all along.

In the realm of dedicated watches, the world's first GPS watch cost $2300. This watch uses GPS signals to synch your watch to the local time as you cross time zones (versus using the radio signals normally used to synch high-end watches with an atomic clock as you change time zones). $2300 for a watch that tells you the time, has some chronograph features, and updates itself as you cross time zones. How do you get $2300 for a watch with no more functionality than one included app on any modern smartphone? Two words: Style. Materials.

Apple's iWatch will perform hundreds of functions. Add some Apple style and you boost the price. Make a model incorporating precious metals, like gold or platinum and you boost the price higher. But Apple has a third potential means of boosting the price. Apple can, and as widely speculated, will, add some sophisticated health monitoring functions not yet available on any available consumer wearable.

Now imagine if Apple were to add some of these health monitoring sensors not in the body of the iWatch, but in easily attachable bands. A diabetic would buy the band with blood glucose monitoring sensors, and pay a pretty penny for it, perhaps subsidized by insurance. A sports enthusiast/athlete will buy the sports band with sensors to monitor UV exposure, pulse rate, etc. With interchangeable bands, an iWatch owner could switch from a sports band to a more formal band for wearing the iWatch when going out in the evening. If the bands incorporate the batteries, then switching to another band gets you a full charge, and the switched out band gets set down on the included inductive charger.

Now how much would you pay? 

In the fullness of time, all of the traditional watch makers are vulnerable.  The utility of a watch as a timepiece has already been wholly disrupted by technology.  Gone are the days when people check the time 100 times a day; smartphones with reminders and appointment calendars inform us of our time-based commitments, and these devices are looked at for a variety of purposes throughout the day, with the time ever present on screen.  Smart watches will first supplant ordinary watches as a more functional fashion accessory.  And with smart watch functionality soon becoming expected, luxury smart watches will come on the scene where they will displace those luxury watches whose functionality extends only to telling the time and a few other time-based functions.  A technology ecosystem will be a critical part of the picture, and this is something none of the existing luxury watchmakers can bring to the market in any meaningful way compared with the technology giants currently moving into this space.  Within 10 years, the notion of a luxury watch will be synonymous with luxury smart watch and the Rolexes of the world will be on the path to extinction.

Advice to the luxury watch makers:  partner with tech giants, if they'll even have you.

+1 - I've already written enough in other posts on this topic for people to see what I think this product will be.

However for those too bothered to look a quick summary. I also believe the iWatch will be a 2-part accessory to iOS devices:
a) watch-styled face for QuickLook and reaction buttons (yes-no-later-sleep to iOS events, reminders, etc.) designed by Apple for people that want this functionality;
b) separate bands - both as fashion/individuality statements and additional functionality through integrated tech sensors in the bands themselves. Whether that tech interfaces with the Apple watch-face, or directly with an iOS device, or possibly used "stand-alone" attached to an existing watch-face that you already have and connecting only to an iOS device over BT4 or NFC.

I just can't see Apple getting into the business of fickle fashion, and determining the complete final look for something that many people consider jewelry, status or fashion statement. Leave that to Gucci, Breitling, Diesel, Fossil, Burberry, YSL... Mattel and Disney... or a smart hospital bracelet supplier.

I expect a price range for the "smart parts" to be between $150 - 400, and bands to go into the $1000s depending on material, bling and added functionality due to sensors.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #82 of 128

Thanks for that article; I had forgotten about it.

Do you personally think this is a feasible solution? Unfortunately there weren't many responses to the article, and I for one don't think it will work. But then again, I'm not an engineer, and have zero knowledge on the topic of solar charging.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #83 of 128

A Timex is not a Rolex! I'm confident there will be iWatch models for every buyer. But WTF do I know?

post #84 of 128

A number of other posters on previous threads have mentioned the possibility of solar.

I've tended towards thermal body energy... but can see both of these forward-thinking technologies being utilized in the same device by Apple.

I doubt very (very!) much that you will have to plug it into something to charge "regularly". Maybe once a year if ever.

Battery tech and sensor/radio optimization will be the "aha moment" and future thinking I expect from Apple to differentiate itself and these products. Similar to working 64-bit into their chips and software for iOS before anyone else had a clue that it was even feasible.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #85 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by InteliusQ View Post
 

((( link and 1000 photos of fantasy gadget porn omitted )))

 

Bloorgh. I threw up a little in my mouth. Please god don't let the iWatch be more tech geek couture. If Woz wants to show it off next to the six other Android smart watches on his arm, Apple is doomed, do I need a /s at the end?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #86 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by xZu View Post
 

With all the rumored features… biofeedback, star counter, gravity manipulator, walk of shame transmogrifier, time travel… doesn't sound that pricey to me….

 

Isn't Apple design about simplicity, focus, and less-is-more?

Or are those days over, now that they're chasing the Samsung kitchen-sink-desperation, "design by throwing spaghetti on the wall" phablet market?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #87 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


A number of other posters on previous threads have mentioned the possibility of solar.

 

I would love for it to be solar powered.

 

I bought a Casio g shock watch for around $200 a couple of years ago, and I love how I will never, ever have to replace and buy another watch battery for the entire lifetime of the watch. I expect that watch to last longer than I will!

 

I got tired of replacing the battery on my previous watch almost every single year. What a waste of money and waste of time.

post #88 of 128
Euhm… I'm sorry but at 400 dollars it will not be competing with the high-end of the watch market. Not even close.
post #89 of 128
As for solar, remember one of the first digital watches was the SunWatch (I've looked and looked, but I can't find anything about it online, but I remember reading about it at the time.) Everything was embedded in a solid block of acrylic, and the whole top (what you'd call the face) was a solar cell, and the LED readout (before LCDs remember) was in the side. With the solar cell, you didn't need to push a button to see the time, like all the others. (It also had buttons on the side that allowed you to observe how many seconds you gained or lost in a week or a month and gradually hone in on the exact right rate of going, a feature I wish all watches had.)

All that said, what happened to the weights self-winding watches have had since time immemorial? Couldn't they turn a generator and produce enough energy with the motions of your arm to power a watch?
post #90 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Thanks for that article; I had forgotten about it.

Do you personally think this is a feasible solution? Unfortunately there weren't many responses to the article, and I for one don't think it will work. But then again, I'm not an engineer, and have zero knowledge on the topic of solar charging.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

A number of other posters on previous threads have mentioned the possibility of solar.

I've tended towards thermal body energy... but can see both of these forward-thinking technologies being utilized in the same device by Apple.

I doubt very (very!) much that you will have to plug it into something to charge "regularly". Maybe once a year if ever.

Battery tech and sensor/radio optimization will be the "aha moment" and future thinking I expect from Apple to differentiate itself and these products. Similar to working 64-bit into their chips and software for iOS before anyone else had a clue that it was even feasible.


Considering that we know Apple has a patent for solar, we know they have investigated solar charging. We also know that several companies use solar charging for watches. Given current market offerings, we know that battery life is a significant issue. Whether or not Apple will use solar charging though, I can not say.
post #91 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

A number of other posters on previous threads have mentioned the possibility of solar.

I've tended towards thermal body energy... but can see both of these forward-thinking technologies being utilized in the same device by Apple.

I doubt very (very!) much that you will have to plug it into something to charge "regularly". Maybe once a year if ever.

Battery tech and sensor/radio optimization will be the "aha moment" and future thinking I expect from Apple to differentiate itself and these products. Similar to working 64-bit into their chips and software for iOS before anyone else had a clue that it was even feasible.
In my eyes the available surface area on a watch just doesn't seem sufficient for solar power to have a significant influence on battery life. There is pretty much no doubt that it will have to be wirelessly charged every few days. Even current mechanical/smartwatch devices only get about 5-7 days.
Edited by Chipsy - 8/31/14 at 11:29am
post #92 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


Considering that we know Apple has a patent for solar, we know they have investigated solar charging. We also know that several companies use solar charging for watches. Given current market offerings, we know that battery life is a significant issue. Whether or not Apple will use solar charging though, I can not say.

A very reasoned response; thanks
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #93 of 128

A product that does not even exist…people will whine and cry when there is no "iWatch" announcement.  It was not long ago that people were commenting about another Apple product that does not exist, an Apple-branded Television.   All similar comments about that hypothetical product, and fake release dates…and it never happened.  I like the first comment…a bunch of hypochondriacs waiting in line for a product that does not exist.  Nice one.

post #94 of 128

With all due respect, noone here can give their opinion on this pricepoint, because noone yet knows what the **** the iWatch is, its capabilities and purpose, and if such theoretical pricepoint is justified. 

post #95 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post
 

A product that does not even exist…people will whine and cry when there is no "iWatch" announcement.  It was not long ago that people were commenting about another Apple product that does not exist, an Apple-branded Television.   All similar comments about that hypothetical product, and fake release dates…and it never happened.  I like the first comment…a bunch of hypochondriacs waiting in line for a product that does not exist.  Nice one.

 

It gives Wall Street and the clown car full of analysts leverage over Apple's stock (for a while). They'll jointly tank the stock after no watch appears.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #96 of 128

Apple can do technology, but can it do jewelry? How is the device going to be perceived in value?

post #97 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

BREAKING NEWS: Price Unknown for Unknown Product

JUST IN: Commenters Commenting on Price Being Too High or Low for Unknown Product


If there was a way to upvote you I would.   We don't know what it is, when it will come out or what it looks like.  We have no idea of price.  $400 is too expensive for what?  $99 is too cheap for what? 

 

Apple has kept this secret well, and that makes sense.  The manufacturing of watches is easier to hide and may be done entirely within one factory. 

post #98 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post

If there was a way to upvote you I would.

It's the little thumbs-up symbol next to the quote and multiquote buttons. Unfortunately, if you have Javascript disabled, which I do 99% of the time, it doesn't work.
post #99 of 128

Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

...if you have Javascript disabled, which I do 99% of the time...

 

Wait, it’s 1997?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #100 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
...if you have Javascript disabled, which I do 99% of the time...

Wait, it’s 1997?

Could be, I don't have my iWatch on to check.... A lot of the sites I regularly visit are infected with exceptionally virulent strains of Javascript, what can I tell you? Once we've killed Flash, maybe we can take on Javascript next?
post #101 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

Could be, I don't have my iWatch on to check.... A lot of the sites I regularly visit are infected with exceptionally virulent strains of Javascript, what can I tell you? Once we've killed Flash, maybe we can take on Javascript next?

What do you have to replace it because a world wide web without JS right now would suck big donkey balls.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #102 of 128
No way is Apple going to announce a new product category and have the design be decided by 3rd parties. Not a company as design focused as Apple. Maybe the device(s) will allow for interchangeable 3rd party bands but IMO the first product we see from Apple will be a complete product they designed (or collaborated with a high end watchmaker/fashion house on). When has Apple ever just supplied the guts and let others provide the style?
post #103 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

A product that does not even exist…people will whine and cry when there is no "iWatch" announcement.  It was not long ago that people were commenting about another Apple product that does not exist, an Apple-branded Television.   All similar comments about that hypothetical product, and fake release dates…and it never happened.  I like the first comment…a bunch of hypochondriacs waiting in line for a product that does not exist.  Nice one.
We've never really seen any rumors on an Apple television set other than Jony Ive is rumored to have one in his design studio. Most of the chatter around an Apple TV has come from Wall Street clowns like Gene Munster. This wearable rumor is coming from a much more credible source. If there was really nothing to it wouldn't we have gotten a Jim Dalrymple "nope" by now?
post #104 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

We've never really seen any rumors on an Apple television set other than Jony Ive is rumored to have one in his design studio. Most of the chatter around an Apple TV has come from Wall Street clowns like Gene Munster. This wearable rumor is coming from a much more credible source. If there was really nothing to it wouldn't we have gotten a Jim Dalrymple "nope" by now?

Depends. Has Dalrymple been asked?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #105 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Depends. Has Dalrymple been asked?
Doesn't need to be. If Apple wants a nope out there, they can use him to do it.
post #106 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

No way is Apple going to announce a new product category and have the design be decided by 3rd parties. Not a company as design focused as Apple. Maybe the device(s) will allow for interchangeable 3rd party bands but IMO the first product we see from Apple will be a complete product they designed (or collaborated with a high end watchmaker/fashion house on). When has Apple ever just supplied the guts and let others provide the style?

 

If Apple does go with the interchangeable bands concept I'm sure they will have produced some great bands without the need for 3rd parties. But I think the inclusion of 3rd party fashion vendors is the only thing that will get people to truly replace their luxury watches for most situations. People overpay for "luxury" brands not necessarily for style but because it makes a statement about them and their place in society. As ThePixelDoc eloquently put it, "I just can't see Apple getting into the business of fickle fashion." However, I can see Apple working closely with the 3rd parties, especially to integrate different combinations of technology (e.g. wireless charging, health sensors, extra battery capacity). I think the 3rd parties are going to want to have multiple bands of their own.

   

Reply

   

Reply
post #107 of 128
Well there are some questions you can ask Siri in iOS 8 and she'll either say the request failed or nothing at all. There's definitely something happening with iOS 8 and we will see it this year.
post #108 of 128

The big question will be what it the big difference between the iWatch and other smart watches that'll make people switch over… I love watches myself and for me question is what will make me switch over from my regular analogue watch… tried the Pebble and Gear, they're still way off the cut.

post #109 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeiP5 View Post

Well there are some questions you can ask Siri in iOS 8 and she'll either say the request failed or nothing at all. There's definitely something happening with iOS 8 and we will see it this year.
It gets released? 1tongue.gif
post #110 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornchip View Post


Elite? One of the guys at my company has an $11,000 Breitling. As well as others. $400 is chump change for a nice watch.

 

Congratulations, you work with people who have more money than sense. For most people, $400 is a lot of money to put down on a watch that will likely just show notifications and maybe let you do most if not all of Siri's commands. Oh and let's not forget, show you the time.

post #111 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by eponymous View Post
 

The iPad was rumored to be around $1000 just before Jobs unveiled it in 2010, wasn't it?  This seems like Apple setting expectations to me.  I guess we'll see soon.  

 

That was my first thought.  I suspect they'll try to aim for the bottom rung being $199.  That would seem to make sense to me.

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

- Gordon Hinckley

Reply

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

- Gordon Hinckley

Reply
post #112 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuarayer View Post
 

 

For most people, $400 is a lot of money to put down on a watch that will likely just show notifications and maybe let you do most if not all of Siri's commands. Oh and let's not forget, show you the time.

 

I would be speechless if the range of functionality you describe is the extent of the Apple's creativity for such a device.

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

- Gordon Hinckley

Reply

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

- Gordon Hinckley

Reply
post #113 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuarayer View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornchip View Post

Elite? One of the guys at my company has an $11,000 Breitling. As well as others. $400 is chump change for a nice watch.

Congratulations, you work with people who have more money than sense. For most people, $400 is a lot of money to put down on a watch that will likely just show notifications and maybe let you do most if not all of Siri's commands. Oh and let's not forget, show you the time.

That raises a point about heavily technology-based watches. The person who spent $11,000 on the watch would otherwise have had $11,000 in a bank doing nothing and the expectation would be that the watch won't depreciate significantly over time so it's not so much a stupid way of losing $11,000, it's an investment in hardware rather than having liquid assets. Wealthy people do that all the time so that worst case they have a reserve to fall back on. A heavily technology-based watch should on the other hand depreciate faster.
post #114 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuarayer View Post
 

 

Congratulations, you work with people who have more money than sense. For most people, $400 is a lot of money to put down on a watch that will likely just show notifications and maybe let you do most if not all of Siri's commands. Oh and let's not forget, show you the time.

 

Luxury watches -- or luxury jewelry of any kind -- is an item that will not only last decades for you, but be passed down once you die.  These aren't items meant to be replaced every year or two, like most tech items.  These are luxury items that last more than one lifetime.

 

$11,000 isn't all that much when you consider that.

post #115 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Battery life on a 'smart' watch is a problem that I think has not been solved yet. 

 

I am content to wait and see, and not get too excited.

 

Agree.  It'll be interesting to see bunch of people charging their watches at the airport.  

post #116 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

 

Luxury watches -- or luxury jewelry of any kind -- is an item that will not only last decades for you, but be passed down once you die.  These aren't items meant to be replaced every year or two, like most tech items.  These are luxury items that last more than one lifetime.

 

$11,000 isn't all that much when you consider that.

 

A $1000 watch is about eff-you status.  A watch with exquisite engineering and quality to last many lifetimes can be had for much less.

 

An iWatch?  I'm keeping my expectations low, but Apple could pull a rabbit out of the hat.  If it's a useful tool - and some of the rumors suggest it may be an insanely useful tool - then it could create a new market as the iPhone did.  

post #117 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post
 

 

A $1000 watch is about eff-you status.  A watch with exquisite engineering and quality to last many lifetimes can be had for much less.

 

An iWatch?  I'm keeping my expectations low, but Apple could pull a rabbit out of the hat.  If it's a useful tool - and some of the rumors suggest it may be an insanely useful tool - then it could create a new market as the iPhone did.  

 

Bull.  That's only true if saying, "F-You" is the reason you bought it.

 

There are lots of other reasons why someone might want a very expensive Omega, or whatever.

post #118 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

 

Bull.  That's only true if saying, "F-You" is the reason you bought it.

 

There are lots of other reasons why someone might want a very expensive Omega, or whatever.

 

This really doesn't relate to the iWatch, since even if it's a dud it will be 1000X more useful than your $1000 piece of jewelry that tells time.

 

You could even pass an iWatch down to your grandkiddies:

Quote:
"Back in my day, we used to wear computers on our bodies!  None of these implants you kiddies have, we did it the hard way and we even had to recharge them!  I remember one smartphone that I had to recharge twice every day!"
post #119 of 128
I would be very disappointed if Apple brought out something just worthy of the name "iWatch". "Watch" stands for sthg that tells the time and this is a completely useless feature. If the wearable(s??) announced on 9/9 does not allow me to replace all the devices (running watch, activity/sleep tracker, blood pressure monitor, scale?, etc) to track activity and monitor health it will be a huge miss. So hopefully we will see a product or a range of products allowing me to stay healthy. The device(s) need to be tightly integrated with iHealth and apps that bring intelligent analysis to the amount of data gathered.
The price point really depends on the functional scope. I have paid around 600-700 USD for a sports watch, activity tracker, blood pressure monitor and a wireless scale. It will definitely not compete with my watch which I wear less and less and for fashion purposes only.
post #120 of 128
Originally Posted by arnoale View Post
If the wearable(s??) announced on 9/9 does not allow me to replace all the devices... ...it will be a huge miss.


Thanks for the FUD. Why do we care?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple has discussed charging 'around $400' for its wearable 'iWatch' - report