Apple Watch will come in two sizes & three collections, with six different strap styles

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 102
    I'm all for a round faced watch but this really isn't a watch and a square would work so much better for Apple Watch's intended use.
  • Reply 62 of 102
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crawdad62 View Post



    I'm all for a round faced watch but this really isn't a watch and a square would work so much better for Apple Watch's intended use.

     

    Apple and developers will ultimately offer many, many different watch faces.

  • Reply 63 of 102
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    Marvin wrote: »
    That's true and that's going to affect sales of this watch too. Say that 10% of compatible iPhone owners buy one, that's ~30m sales for the entire year = 6% extra revenue. Not worth bothering about. I also doubt that 10% will get one.

    http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2335363/moto-360-smartwatch-will-pair-with-all-devices-running-android-43-and-above

    "Wicks went on to talk about the Moto 360's circular design, and said that the design team decided to give people what they want, with 80 percent of watches sold featuring circlar faces.
    "We made a decision to not swim against the cultural current, and instead thought 'lets go with it'. 80 percent of the watches sold are circular, and we felt it was important not to try and defy gravity," Wicks said."

    Here's a poll from an Android forum that surprisingly puts the Apple Watch ahead of the LG:

    http://phandroid.com/2014/09/09/apple-watch-vs-moto-360-android-wear/

    but the 360 is still way out in front. When I first saw the 360 marketing video, I thought it was the kind of slam dunk design that immediately made the likes of the Galaxy Gear look terrible and it's exactly the kind of design I'd have expected Apple to deliver except without the cutout and with good battery life and a little smaller diameter.

    I like what Moto tried to do, but I think that they should have gone against the grain with the 360, and throw cultural current out the window. It does indeed look like a watch, but it does much more, and those extra functions/features working properly should have been paramount in deciding whether to go round, or squarish.
  • Reply 64 of 102
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    All observations I share, sadly.

    I don't like the black screen. I guess it helps save on battery life. Really, my £40 Seiko is so much nicer with its simple, elegant white face.

    They say the screen automatically comes on when you move it up. Two problems with that: what if you just want to glance at your wrist for the time? Blank screen. And if you're sitting with friends, most of the time you'll have this big, black blob on your wrist staring at everyone. It just doesn't look good. 

    On the Apple Watch pages, they don't say how thick it is, but you can see that it is very thick; much thicker than a normal watch. The straps are okay; I might live with the black leather one.

    It's all a bit fiddly and non-killer.

    It can be used left-handed, and it's just as I envisioned. Just reverse the display in Settings and swap the sides the bands are on. You'll have the knob and button positions be switched from top to bottom but I don't think that's an issue.
  • Reply 65 of 102
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    All these SKUs...seems so un-Apple. 

    I get that people want variety for such a personal thing. And yet, I feel they could still have made it simpler. Most of the differentiation seems to be very minor, like straps or a gold face. The big things - size, weight and black face essentially come in two sizes, but are otherwise unchangeable. Most of the customisation will come with the software, which is the same on all the Watches. Why do they need a 'Sports' version just with different straps? They could have just got rid of that version and put all the different straps together. Just as much choice, but a simpler presentation. It feels very car-like, and we all know that there are far too many car models.

    1) Check out how many iPad skis they have. A bet it's more than 34.

    2) This is fashion so I predicted it would be a lot of skis to cover many styles. I'm actually surprised it's not more since the watch bands are interchangeable.
  • Reply 66 of 102
    solipsismx wrote: »
    All observations I share, sadly.

    I don't like the black screen. I guess it helps save on battery life. Really, my £40 Seiko is so much nicer with its simple, elegant white face.

    They say the screen automatically comes on when you move it up. Two problems with that: what if you just want to glance at your wrist for the time? Blank screen. And if you're sitting with friends, most of the time you'll have this big, black blob on your wrist staring at everyone. It just doesn't look good. 

    On the Apple Watch pages, they don't say how thick it is, but you can see that it is very thick; much thicker than a normal watch. The straps are okay; I might live with the black leather one.

    It's all a bit fiddly and non-killer.

    It can be used left-handed, and it's just as I envisioned. Just reverse the display in Settings and swap the sides the bands are on. You'll have the knob and button positions be switched from top to bottom but I don't think that's an issue.

    Thanks for the info.
  • Reply 67 of 102
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    I'm not surprised Apple has gone this route. Maybe eventually there will be 3rd party straps available but for gen 1 they wanted it to be an Apple product through and through. It's a lot of SKU's to manage but once you get into fashion there really isn't any other choice. And this is what I think sets iWatch apart from Android Wear devices. Apple watch has more customization out of the gate.
  • Reply 68 of 102
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by George Georgiou View Post

     


    If its waterproof ill buy it if not forget it 

     

    It has a microphone- so that'll be very very tough to be waterproof- although the Gopro is (albeit at a much larger size).  But I could see Apple's engineers having this thing waterproof/water resistant to a decent amount of meters.  Maybe 10?

  • Reply 69 of 102
    andysol wrote: »
    If its waterproof ill buy it if not forget it 

    It has a microphone- so that'll be very very tough to be waterproof- although the Gopro is (albeit at a much larger size).  But I could see Apple's engineers having this thing waterproof/water resistant to a decent amount of meters.  Maybe 10?

    I think rainproof would satisfy most people.
  • Reply 70 of 102
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    I think rainproof would satisfy most people.

     

    Waterproof would be nice, but I doubt this applies. Assumedly the sport version is more sweat resistant, but if one dropped the watch in a glass of water there would probably be a problem.

  • Reply 71 of 102
    I think rainproof would satisfy most people.

    Waterproof would be nice, but I doubt this applies. Assumedly the sport version is more sweat resistant, but if one dropped the watch in a glass of water there would probably be a problem.

    I know there are lots of different levels of water resistance. My Seiko has got caught in heavy rain and been fine. I would expect Apple's to have the same resistance, though I imagine it would be harder to achieve due to the speaker and microphone.
  • Reply 72 of 102
    All these SKUs...seems so un-Apple. 

    I get that people want variety for such a personal thing. And yet, I feel they could still have made it simpler. Most of the differentiation seems to be very minor, like straps or a gold face. The big things - size, weight and black face essentially come in two sizes, but are otherwise unchangeable. Most of the customisation will come with the software, which is the same on all the Watches. Why do they need a 'Sports' version just with different straps? They could have just got rid of that version and put all the different straps together. Just as much choice, but a simpler presentation. It feels very car-like, and we all know that there are far too many car models.
    There are 18 iphone 6 SKUs, and a further 14 iphone 5 variants. It's nothing new.

    Also the sports version isn't just different straps, it's aluminium not steel, and someone (I've not noted this but assume it's right) said the glass was not sapphire but from Corning.
  • Reply 73 of 102
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,217moderator
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    I like what Moto tried to do, but I think that they should have gone against the grain with the 360, and throw cultural current out the window. It does indeed look like a watch, but it does much more, and those extra functions/features working properly should have been paramount in deciding whether to go round, or squarish.

    First and foremost, people buy a watch because it looks good, people are going to see it on your wrist frequently. People spend thousands of dollars on watches that do nothing more than tell the time so doing a lot of things is not critical. It needs to look good as a watch, be customisable enough and perform a few important functions well.

    The Moto 360 isn't perfect - the battery life should be longer, it would be better with no cutout in the display and it could do with being just a little smaller in diameter. For a first revision though, they've nailed it. If they introduce solar charging, compact the components to allow a smaller size, it will be the ideal smartwatch. If they could make it some way compatible with the iPhone, possibly with an app, that would be good but just allowing it to work standalone would be enough.
  • Reply 74 of 102

    I like it. I don't care for the round/square debate. For me Apple made the right call as it is. The correct shape/form for a device that is so much more than a timepiece. I'd buy it even if it didn't tell the time as that's not primarily what I want it for. I primarily want it for the Health/Fitness aspect but also to use in conjunction with my iPhone6. Wish it had more sensors but maybe subsequent ones will. I will buy at least one for myself and more than one strap.

  • Reply 75 of 102
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by aderutter View Post

     

    I like it. I don't care for the round/square debate. For me Apple made the right call as it is. The correct shape/form for a device that is so much more than a timepiece. I'd buy it even if it didn't tell the time as that's not primarily what I want it for. I primarily want it for the Health/Fitness aspect but also to use in conjunction with my iPhone6. Wish it had more sensors but maybe subsequent ones will. I will buy at least one for myself and more than one strap.


    The round/square thing is moronic (IMHO) one of THE classic watches of all-time is the Cartier Tank: a rectangle!

    http://www.cartier.us/collections/timepieces/mens-watches/tank/tank-solo/w5200027-tank-solo-watch-extra-large-model

  • Reply 76 of 102
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    First and foremost, people buy a watch because it looks good, people are going to see it on your wrist frequently. People spend thousands of dollars on watches that do nothing more than tell the time so doing a lot of things is not critical. It needs to look good as a watch, be customisable enough and perform a few important functions well.



    The Moto 360 isn't perfect - the battery life should be longer, it would be better with no cutout in the display and it could do with being just a little smaller in diameter. For a first revision though, they've nailed it. If they introduce solar charging, compact the components to allow a smaller size, it will be the ideal smartwatch. If they could make it some way compatible with the iPhone, possibly with an app, that would be good but just allowing it to work standalone would be enough.

    But people drifted towards simple fashion as wristwatch function lagged behind their cellphones. Time was just as easy to keep track of on the smartphone so why bother with a wrist device? There's exceptions, I wear a watch (a simple timepiece with nice big hands to get the time at a glance) when my hands are occupied with things I wouldn't want contaminating my phone (in a bio-research lab) but otherwise a wristwatch that simply tells time HAS to offer a fashion benefit or why bother? That equation is shifted with the Apple Watch as it's got those extra functions far, far, beyond simple timekeeping. That the Apple Watch is at least expending effort to compete on the fashion front as well as vast functionality over other wearables is a way to expand the market.

  • Reply 77 of 102
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,217moderator
    jfc1138 wrote: »
    I wear a watch (a simple timepiece with nice big hands to get the time at a glance) when my hands are occupied with things I wouldn't want contaminating my phone (in a bio-research lab) but otherwise a wristwatch that simply tells time HAS to offer a fashion benefit or why bother? That equation is shifted with the Apple Watch as it's got those extra functions far, far, beyond simple timekeeping. That the Apple Watch is at least expending effort to compete on the fashion front as well as vast functionality over other wearables is a way to expand the market.

    The functions are mostly tied to the smartphone though. It has no GPS, wifi or cellular data. It can play music on its own but as a fitness tracker, it doesn't seem all that valuable without GPS. If people have the smartphone in their pocket, it reduces the watch to a $350 second screen. Siri is dependent on network access so again, without the phone, the watch is pointless.

    People buy the iPhone because it's $199 on contract. What incentive is there to buy an additional $350 product that requires its own maintenance/charging routine when it is almost useless without the iPhone near it? It's basically $350 to avoid pulling the phone out your pocket, which is not great value for money and hundreds of millions of people are comfortable being immersed in their phones. An iPod Shuffle is $49, a fitness band is $99 if people need to leave the iPhone at home for fitness routines.

    If they'd at least have given it cellular connectivity and GPS, it could be used for mobile maps and directions when out running. You could use Siri everywhere without having the iPhone with you so if you are working on something in the garage and need to find out what a measurement is in a different dimension, just ask Siri. Not possible without the iPhone nearby. Network carriers could subsidise both watch and phone together on the same contract and share the data plan. You'd be able to reply to messages on your watch when you wake up without the phone being near you.

    As it stands, it is a very expensive second screen for an iPhone and this has been tried with smartwatches and it's simply not worth the money unless it's also a really cool looking watch. The Apple Watch is not a cool looking watch, it looks like a cheap Casio watch just like the Galaxy Gear.
  • Reply 78 of 102
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    The functions are mostly tied to the smartphone though. It has no GPS, wifi or cellular data. It can play music on its own but as a fitness tracker, it doesn't seem all that valuable without GPS. If people have the smartphone in their pocket, it reduces the watch to a $350 second screen. Siri is dependent on network access so again, without the phone, the watch is pointless.



    People buy the iPhone because it's $199 on contract. What incentive is there to buy an additional $350 product that requires its own maintenance/charging routine when it is almost useless without the iPhone near it? It's basically $350 to avoid pulling the phone out your pocket, which is not great value for money and hundreds of millions of people are comfortable being immersed in their phones. An iPod Shuffle is $49, a fitness band is $99 if people need to leave the iPhone at home for fitness routines.



    If they'd at least have given it cellular connectivity and GPS, it could be used for mobile maps and directions when out running. You could use Siri everywhere without having the iPhone with you so if you are working on something in the garage and need to find out what a measurement is in a different dimension, just ask Siri. Not possible without the iPhone nearby. Network carriers could subsidise both watch and phone together on the same contract and share the data plan. You'd be able to reply to messages on your watch when you wake up without the phone being near you.



    As it stands, it is a very expensive second screen for an iPhone and this has been tried with smartwatches and it's simply not worth the money unless it's also a really cool looking watch. The Apple Watch is not a cool looking watch, it looks like a cheap Casio watch just like the Galaxy Gear.

     

    I suppose I'll have to get some kind of strap or pack to carry my iPhone, as I'd like to wear the Watch when I exercise outdoors. They probably made the right compromises for the tech that is currently available. Adding GPS to the watch would make it huge.

  • Reply 79 of 102
    Marvin wrote: »
    jfc1138 wrote: »
    I wear a watch (a simple timepiece with nice big hands to get the time at a glance) when my hands are occupied with things I wouldn't want contaminating my phone (in a bio-research lab) but otherwise a wristwatch that simply tells time HAS to offer a fashion benefit or why bother? That equation is shifted with the Apple Watch as it's got those extra functions far, far, beyond simple timekeeping. That the Apple Watch is at least expending effort to compete on the fashion front as well as vast functionality over other wearables is a way to expand the market.

    The functions are mostly tied to the smartphone though. It has no GPS, wifi or cellular data. It can play music on its own but as a fitness tracker, it doesn't seem all that valuable without GPS. If people have the smartphone in their pocket, it reduces the watch to a $350 second screen. Siri is dependent on network access so again, without the phone, the watch is pointless.

    People buy the iPhone because it's $199 on contract. What incentive is there to buy an additional $350 product that requires its own maintenance/charging routine when it is almost useless without the iPhone near it? It's basically $350 to avoid pulling the phone out your pocket, which is not great value for money and hundreds of millions of people are comfortable being immersed in their phones. An iPod Shuffle is $49, a fitness band is $99 if people need to leave the iPhone at home for fitness routines.

    If they'd at least have given it cellular connectivity and GPS, it could be used for mobile maps and directions when out running. You could use Siri everywhere without having the iPhone with you so if you are working on something in the garage and need to find out what a measurement is in a different dimension, just ask Siri. Not possible without the iPhone nearby. Network carriers could subsidise both watch and phone together on the same contract and share the data plan. You'd be able to reply to messages on your watch when you wake up without the phone being near you.

    As it stands, it is a very expensive second screen for an iPhone and this has been tried with smartwatches and it's simply not worth the money unless it's also a really cool looking watch. The Apple Watch is not a cool looking watch, it looks like a cheap Casio watch just like the Galaxy Gear.

    I couldn't have said it better myself.

    If the Apple Watch had the functionality you have described, then it could almost replace the iPhone, meaning one could carry iPad and wear the Watch, or just wear the Watch. As it is, it's very much an optional extra.

    I've just finished watching the keynote again via the podcast—with no freezes!—and I'm more convinced than ever that it's not going to achieve more than a small fraction of iPhone sales. As a shareholder, I'd be delighted if I were wrong. I really don't like the interface. Photos are silly. The icons will be tiny in real life. The watch face is far too big on the wrist. Above all, I find it unattractive.

    I'm looking forward to the iPhone 6 or 6 Plus.
  • Reply 80 of 102
    Marvin wrote: »
    It has no GPS, wifi or cellular data.

    Horace Dediu of Asymco is saying it has 802.11b/g, which I'm very surprised by.
Sign In or Register to comment.