But it does expire! The technology will eventually be very outdated. And what happens when the battery dies? Admittedly, it will last more than 2 years, but not for generations like the traditional luxury watches.
It is not a traditional luxury watch. The only things in common between Apple Watch and traditional Watch are they both go on your wrist and tell time. You might as well call the iPhone a pocket watch since it tells time and goes in your pocket. Batteries can be replaced and the fact that it is built from durable material will make it last for long time. Maybe not generations but definitely more than two years.. even more than 10 years if you ask me. There are still 1st generation iPhones around and it's been seven years since Apple released it.
The thing most people keep referring to are traditional watches. Just remember teenagers these days don't wear watch.
If an "expert jeweler" thinks that it would cost about $600 to make just the gold watch body, then that's about 2/3 of an ounce of gold. One ounce of 18 k gold goes for about $925 right now.
We all know that many Apple products hold their value pretty well, but that will apply even more so to this watch!
And what if the price of gold doubles ten years after you bought the watch?
For those attempting to make some valuation/longevity comparisons to luxury brands like Rolex, you are aware that the prices for the nice-to-really nice watches are something like $12-25k?
1299 or so is peanuts in comparison for the top tier Apple Watch.
Since it will siphon services and functionality via Bluetooth from an iPhone, I suspect functionality will last far longer than people's desire to change. Newer watches may have more sensors and different designs, but the hybrid nature of the Apple Watch and iPhone implies to me greater longevity for watch functionality.
I like it, but would have preferred a round design, and less bulk, but I get the technical reasons. Hiding batteries in an integrated metal band might be a future option
They also didn't mention display visibility in bright sunlight. Will be curious to see this.
I could see it being sold as a numbered limited edition model. I can't afford it but it would be a nice collector's item and I'm sure the value would appreciate somewhat over time being the first Apple smartwatch. It's a great way for Apple to make more money and it's likely those limited edition AppleWatches would sell out in a short time. Apple's always got some way to attract consumers with plenty of cash.
For those attempting to make some valuation/longevity comparisons to luxury brands like Rolex, you are aware that the prices for the nice-to-really nice watches are something like $12-25k?
1299 or so is peanuts in comparison for the top tier Apple Watch.
Agreed!
No matter what the cost of the ?Watch in gold, it will be dirt cheap compared to the price of many so called luxury watches. I also think that it's smart of Apple to be using real gold in the top model.
No matter what the cost of the ?Watch in gold, it will be dirt cheap compared to the price of many so called luxury watches. I also think that it's smart of Apple to be using real gold in the top model.
How long is it going to last? I have a LeCoultre from the 1950's that runs just fine.
How long is it going to last? I have a LeCoultre from the 1950's that runs just fine.
Well, since it's a tech device, it will obviously have tech inside that gets outdated eventually, even if the watch still works and runs and if you put in a brand new battery. But as I wrote above, there will be many hundreds of dollars worth of gold in it perhaps, so no matter what happens, it will always be worth a bit.
I don't think that anybody who buys tech devices, no matter what kind of devices, expects them to last for decades.
So somebody buys an ?Watch and they can buy a new one in a few years time if they like it, and as the tech continues to progress. They can either keep the original one that they have as collectible, or they can give it away, or they can sell it, and still get back a decent amount of their purchase price, since it's real gold after all.
The range of apple watches, especially the gold version, isn't about taking market away from high end watch makers, although it might impact a little bit there. Eventually. But That will take a few iterations of the Apple watch.
No. Cook learnt the lesson Jobs failed to do about market differentiation. Jobs insisted on the one perfect screen size. He did it with the original imac, and he did it with the iPhone too. Why he didn't with the iPod I do not know. Maybe someone fooled him by pointing in another direction entirely and making Jobs think the different iPods were different products rather than about properly segmenting the market.
So one size iPhone and iPad left screen size gaps for android phone manufacturers to exploit and built critical mass for the platform. Cook, from the start, is looking to leaving other smartwatch manufacturers' only choice be to dwell in the profit-less bargain basement.
Obviously design is subjective, but I truly thing Apple absolutely nailed the fundamentals of the Watch, especially in terms of build quality and how they put such a focus on customizability- testing it like a piece of jewelry, which is exactly the way you're supposed to treat something you want people to wear.
The only thing I'm not sure about is whether it was worth making 2 separate sizes, and all the manufacturing inefficiencies, extra skus, and double the straps required. Wouldn't a 40mm version have done the trick, instead of 38 and 42? But again, I'm sure they considered this greatly.
I wish Apple offered a titanium or platinum edition. I may consider the 316L stainless steel with diamond-like carbon layer and sapphire crystal. I would prefer the ?watch be more compact.
I very much like what Apple has achieved with the ?watch user experience.
I am very excited to see what Apple can do with the ?watch in the next five years.
They'll save those for limited edition product Red versions.
Pretty cheap, about a tenth of the cost of a Patek.
Obviously design is subjective, but I truly thing Apple absolutely nailed the fundamentals of the Watch, especially in terms of build quality and how they put such a focus on customizability- testing it like a piece of jewelry, which is exactly the way you're supposed to treat something you want people to wear.
The only thing I'm not sure about is whether it was worth making 2 separate sizes, and all the manufacturing inefficiencies, extra skus, and double the straps required. Wouldn't a 40mm version have done the trick, instead of 38 and 42? But again, I'm sure they considered this greatly.
Are you kidding? Even the 38mm is too large. If they had only had the 42, Apple would have lost women completely.
Truth is, the ideal smartwatch would be bigger still than the 42—I bet 50mm would make for a much more satisfactory experience. But it's all about compromise.
And it's an impossible one in its current incarnation. Never mind the looks, which are subjective. Never mind the finish, which, being Apple, is no doubt exemplary.
It's the software. That interface is way too busy and complex, both in the number of ways to manipulate it and in the size of the icons and the text. It needs to be much simpler. The knob is a kludge that needs to go. It reminds me of those little levers you used to get on smartphones pre-iPhone.
It needs to look attractive when you're not using it, not like a black blob. But having a white face permanently on would drain the battery. It would also be annoying having light constantly emitting from your wrist. That's why a hybrid is a much better solution. Kairos have the best I've seen, although it's apparently very expensive.
And it needs to be much more independent to the iPhone. This seems to be the biggest criticism from people, although battery life casts a big shadow, too. The iPhone and the iPad have such comprehensive ecosystems that it's going to take a hell of a lot to entice Apple users to run three mobile devices or four if you have a laptop. Take Apple Pay: why bother with the watch when you've got it on the iPhone?
The iPhone was about what it could replace. The iPhone replaced your MP3 player, your camera, your phone, your calendar, camcorder and a multitude of other devices.
The iPad enabled you to duplicate most of your iPhone on a big screen and enabled you to bring the computer to the couch.
The Apple Watch brings convenience, but is that enough of a reason to buy it? Guess we'll see come early 2015.
Seems crazy to spend a lot on a tech watch that will be obsolete in 18-24 months. Sounds reminiscent of the 20th Anniversary Mac. A splendid machine...until it wasn't anymore.
It costs more to service one of those than to buy an entry level Apple watch.
The best thing about them are the swappable bands, so much better than fiddling around with the current bands when you want to change the look.
You are right, my 30 year old Rolex Date costs $500 per service, that's before any required parts or labor if they are needed. It's had three such services so far. I am very interested in an Apple Watch indeed.
It costs more to service one of those than to buy an entry level Apple watch.
The best thing about them are the swappable bands, so much better than fiddling around with the current bands when you want to change the look.
On the subject of bands: I hope either Apple or someone else makes lugs that fit the Apple Watch, but take regular spring bars and can be fitted with aftermarket straps.
I love the steel bracelet, but the leather straps all look terribly mass produced to me. I would love to put a custom exotic skin strap on my Apple Watch for dressier occasions.
Don't care. Take my money. That's the best looking watch out of all of them personally. Pair it with that leather classic buckle band and we've got a party.
Meh.
It's a watch. I don't wear watches any more, haven't since college. I've got an iPhone, I can look at that if I want to know what time it is.
I would love to put a custom exotic skin strap on my Apple Watch for dressier occasions.
Oh, somewhat related. I’ve been using my iPod shuffle as a tie clip for quite some time. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I’m still thinking about getting a new in box stainless steel third-gen from eBay or somewhere else. Yes, it would look like a real tie clip, but I could simply plug in some headphones to set it off visually like my current 2nd gen.
Comments
But it does expire! The technology will eventually be very outdated. And what happens when the battery dies? Admittedly, it will last more than 2 years, but not for generations like the traditional luxury watches.
It is not a traditional luxury watch. The only things in common between Apple Watch and traditional Watch are they both go on your wrist and tell time. You might as well call the iPhone a pocket watch since it tells time and goes in your pocket. Batteries can be replaced and the fact that it is built from durable material will make it last for long time. Maybe not generations but definitely more than two years.. even more than 10 years if you ask me. There are still 1st generation iPhones around and it's been seven years since Apple released it.
The thing most people keep referring to are traditional watches. Just remember teenagers these days don't wear watch.
If an "expert jeweler" thinks that it would cost about $600 to make just the gold watch body, then that's about 2/3 of an ounce of gold. One ounce of 18 k gold goes for about $925 right now.
We all know that many Apple products hold their value pretty well, but that will apply even more so to this watch!
And what if the price of gold doubles ten years after you bought the watch?
1299 or so is peanuts in comparison for the top tier Apple Watch.
Since it will siphon services and functionality via Bluetooth from an iPhone, I suspect functionality will last far longer than people's desire to change. Newer watches may have more sensors and different designs, but the hybrid nature of the Apple Watch and iPhone implies to me greater longevity for watch functionality.
I like it, but would have preferred a round design, and less bulk, but I get the technical reasons. Hiding batteries in an integrated metal band might be a future option
They also didn't mention display visibility in bright sunlight. Will be curious to see this.
I could see it being sold as a numbered limited edition model. I can't afford it but it would be a nice collector's item and I'm sure the value would appreciate somewhat over time being the first Apple smartwatch. It's a great way for Apple to make more money and it's likely those limited edition AppleWatches would sell out in a short time. Apple's always got some way to attract consumers with plenty of cash.
All tech does.
For those attempting to make some valuation/longevity comparisons to luxury brands like Rolex, you are aware that the prices for the nice-to-really nice watches are something like $12-25k?
1299 or so is peanuts in comparison for the top tier Apple Watch.
Agreed!
No matter what the cost of the ?Watch in gold, it will be dirt cheap compared to the price of many so called luxury watches. I also think that it's smart of Apple to be using real gold in the top model.
How long is it going to last? I have a LeCoultre from the 1950's that runs just fine.
How long is it going to last? I have a LeCoultre from the 1950's that runs just fine.
Well, since it's a tech device, it will obviously have tech inside that gets outdated eventually, even if the watch still works and runs and if you put in a brand new battery. But as I wrote above, there will be many hundreds of dollars worth of gold in it perhaps, so no matter what happens, it will always be worth a bit.
I don't think that anybody who buys tech devices, no matter what kind of devices, expects them to last for decades.
So somebody buys an ?Watch and they can buy a new one in a few years time if they like it, and as the tech continues to progress. They can either keep the original one that they have as collectible, or they can give it away, or they can sell it, and still get back a decent amount of their purchase price, since it's real gold after all.
No. Cook learnt the lesson Jobs failed to do about market differentiation. Jobs insisted on the one perfect screen size. He did it with the original imac, and he did it with the iPhone too. Why he didn't with the iPod I do not know. Maybe someone fooled him by pointing in another direction entirely and making Jobs think the different iPods were different products rather than about properly segmenting the market.
So one size iPhone and iPad left screen size gaps for android phone manufacturers to exploit and built critical mass for the platform. Cook, from the start, is looking to leaving other smartwatch manufacturers' only choice be to dwell in the profit-less bargain basement.
The only thing I'm not sure about is whether it was worth making 2 separate sizes, and all the manufacturing inefficiencies, extra skus, and double the straps required. Wouldn't a 40mm version have done the trick, instead of 38 and 42? But again, I'm sure they considered this greatly.
They'll save those for limited edition product Red versions.
Pretty cheap, about a tenth of the cost of a Patek.
It costs more to service one of those than to buy an entry level Apple watch.
The best thing about them are the swappable bands, so much better than fiddling around with the current bands when you want to change the look.
Are you kidding? Even the 38mm is too large. If they had only had the 42, Apple would have lost women completely.
Truth is, the ideal smartwatch would be bigger still than the 42—I bet 50mm would make for a much more satisfactory experience. But it's all about compromise.
And it's an impossible one in its current incarnation. Never mind the looks, which are subjective. Never mind the finish, which, being Apple, is no doubt exemplary.
It's the software. That interface is way too busy and complex, both in the number of ways to manipulate it and in the size of the icons and the text. It needs to be much simpler. The knob is a kludge that needs to go. It reminds me of those little levers you used to get on smartphones pre-iPhone.
It needs to look attractive when you're not using it, not like a black blob. But having a white face permanently on would drain the battery. It would also be annoying having light constantly emitting from your wrist. That's why a hybrid is a much better solution. Kairos have the best I've seen, although it's apparently very expensive.
And it needs to be much more independent to the iPhone. This seems to be the biggest criticism from people, although battery life casts a big shadow, too. The iPhone and the iPad have such comprehensive ecosystems that it's going to take a hell of a lot to entice Apple users to run three mobile devices or four if you have a laptop. Take Apple Pay: why bother with the watch when you've got it on the iPhone?
The iPhone was about what it could replace. The iPhone replaced your MP3 player, your camera, your phone, your calendar, camcorder and a multitude of other devices.
The iPad enabled you to duplicate most of your iPhone on a big screen and enabled you to bring the computer to the couch.
The Apple Watch brings convenience, but is that enough of a reason to buy it? Guess we'll see come early 2015.
You are right, my 30 year old Rolex Date costs $500 per service, that's before any required parts or labor if they are needed. It's had three such services so far. I am very interested in an Apple Watch indeed.
On the subject of bands: I hope either Apple or someone else makes lugs that fit the Apple Watch, but take regular spring bars and can be fitted with aftermarket straps.
I love the steel bracelet, but the leather straps all look terribly mass produced to me. I would love to put a custom exotic skin strap on my Apple Watch for dressier occasions.
Don't care. Take my money. That's the best looking watch out of all of them personally. Pair it with that leather classic buckle band and we've got a party.
Meh.
It's a watch. I don't wear watches any more, haven't since college. I've got an iPhone, I can look at that if I want to know what time it is.
I can't see myself ever wearing a watch again.
Oh, somewhat related. I’ve been using my iPod shuffle as a tie clip for quite some time.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I’m still thinking about getting a new in box stainless steel third-gen from eBay or somewhere else. Yes, it would look like a real tie clip, but I could simply plug in some headphones to set it off visually like my current 2nd gen.