Gold 'Apple Watch Edition' could cost $1,200, industry insiders say

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 163
    I doubt the Edition would cost $1299. I am sure it's going to be at least $1499.
  • Reply 122 of 163
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    Why not just leave?


     

    I think you got your wish.

  • Reply 123 of 163

    Just came across a very good article about the ?Watch: Apple Watch: Asking Why and Saying No by Ben Thompson of Stratechery.

     

    It basically criticises the presentation of the watch, because the 'why' wasn't explained. When I read it, it made me realise why I thought the presentation felt so rushed. Steve Jobs took much more time to set up the reason for a new product's existence. With the ?Watch, it was a brief intro by Cook, the video and then straight into the demo by Kevin.

     

    Moving away from the 'why', I've two more thoughts on the knob and the screen.

     

    1 The digital crown.

     

    I hate the knob. It's a bit like having a mouse on a watch. It divorces you from the content. But I don't think Apple had a choice. Why? This leads to -

     

    2 The screen.

     

    On the iPhone, you can swipe, pinch and zoom. It's amazing. You can also tap. These things pretty well cover every basic gesture. No mechanical buttons required. So why the crown?

     

    Think of the iPhone screen. When you zoom content, you use the middle of the screen. However, the edges of the screen are much less accurate. This doesn't matter, because the screen is big enough that you can always have your fingers pretty central. But with the ?Watch screen, there's very little middle, and an awful lot of side. This means that there is a much higher inaccuracy than the iPhone. Now, of course, I have no idea how much improvement Apple may have made to this; I imagine they had some success. But I suspect that the reason they mocked the zoom in the maps demo part of the keynote wasn't because you're obscuring the content with your fingers; after all, you obscure the content to a large extent on the iPhone when you zoom. 

     

    No; it was because the screen wouldn't have been accurate enough to cope with it. 

     

    Take the maps demo: twiddling the knob looks incredibly fiddly and hard to get to exactly the right zoom; you're either going to overshoot or not go far enough very easily. Whereas, double tapping or pinch zooming feels so much more natural and in control of the content. Bear in mind, also, that Kevin was demoing all the features with two hands! It's going to be much harder when it's on your wrist and you're reaching over with your other hand. I'm afraid it reminds me of those Android videos posted recently showing the gestures for reducing the screen for one-handed use, yet needing two hands to do so.

     

    And so, Apple had to resort to the mechanical knob on the side, rather than simply enabling the same gestures as the iPhone. This is a shame, because it confuses the interface control and therefore usability substantially, and is a large part of why the demo was so confusing, though Kevin's presentation skills didn't help. I also thought that the way he explained the difference between press and tap was less than ideal. Why so much complexity? Why not just tap and hold like we're used to?

     

    My feeling is that simplicity is so, so important for the watch! Tap and swipe should be all you need to do for almost everything. The icons should be much larger. A rectangle is a more efficient shape than a circle, and probably easier to code for, but a circle would have been much more friendly and direct. A rectangle says, "Here's a miniature iPhone/iPad screen on your wrist; come and squint at me." A circle would say, "I am simple and friendly; look me in the eye and focus on my centre!" 

     

    When it comes to Apple overall, I still think they'll have a mega year and outdo themselves in a big way for at least the next year or three. But the ?Watch's time doesn't feel ready to me. I think its very concept is flawed in its current incarnation. I would love them to bring out a successful one, that's for sure.

  • Reply 124 of 163
    droidftw wrote: »
    go4d1 wrote: »
    A gold Rolex is meant to last 100 years. How long a gold iWatch? Don't go gold for an item that will last 2 years!

    People who will be buying it will be just fine with purchasing another one in a year or two, don't you worry about them.

    True, but that also means a tiny market. Something that Apole may not want to waste its time on.
  • Reply 125 of 163
    A lot of the posts above are missing the resale value of the old watch for those who want to upgrade to the new. It won't be all that different from someone buying the most expensive iPhone (unlocked) or iPad, and upgrading every couple of years. Moreover, the gold version is only a portion of the portfolio of offerings.
  • Reply 126 of 163
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,427member
    For luxury watch it's very appealing
    Some watch affection ado see it as the most for the least that at their price point no other watch can compete with or without being a smart watch

    Here comes TAG HEUER wanting to make a smart watch
    The cheapest I've see a TAG $1400 and up well above Rolex 6-12k

    So with a proven company like apple 1200$ isn't much stretch for a TAG customer

    But tag heuer wants to try
    OMG how???
    http://news.yahoo.com/lvmhs-tag-heuer-plans-smartwatch-paper-111638749--finance.html
  • Reply 127 of 163
    My money is on real gold rather than gold-plated. Apple already has "sport" and "watch" to tackle the 200-500 dollar watch market, but the trick is to crack the $1000 Swiss market dominated by mechanical swiss watches worn by usually older individuals who are less likely to be early adopters. Making gold plated versions would simply not appeal to these people and Swiss wouldn't be in as much trouble as Jony Ive claims them to be.
  • Reply 128 of 163
    truffol wrote: »
    My money is on real gold rather than gold-plated. Apple already has "sport" and "watch" to tackle the 200-500 dollar watch market, but the trick is to crack the $1000 Swiss market dominated by mechanical swiss watches worn by usually older individuals who are less likely to be early adopters. Making gold plated versions would simply not appeal to these people and Swiss wouldn't be in as much trouble as Jony Ive claims them to be.

    The back says "18K gold". If it were -plated or -filled and didn't say so, the FTC would drink Tim Cook's blood from a chalice fashioned from his skull. You can take it to the bank that it's solid gold.

    My guess for what Jony Ive meant by the Swiss being in "deep sh?t" (I'm sure that's what he said): Apple plans on charging for the watch plus the actual cost of the gold—rather than many, many times the cost of the gold, as "jewelry" watchmakers do. That would blow the entire Swiss business model out the window.
  • Reply 129 of 163
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

     

     

    And so, Apple had to resort to the mechanical knob on the side, rather than simply enabling the same gestures as the iPhone. This is a shame, because it confuses the interface control and therefore usability substantially, and is a large part of why the demo was so confusing, though Kevin's presentation skills didn't help. I also thought that the way he explained the difference between press and tap was less than ideal. Why so much complexity? Why not just tap and hold like we're used to?

     


     

    This is one area where I really, really agree with what Apple did. Using the standard watch crown as a scrolling and zooming tool is clever, and makes sense. I think you'll find that in everyday use, it is unlikely to feel awkward (as a side note, I'm sure Kevin was incredibly nervous - who wouldn't be?)

     

    I don't know about the accuracy of the touch screen on the Apple Watch, but I fundamentally agree with the idea that pinch-to-zoom would be ridiculous on a screen that small. It can be awkward enough even on a much bigger phone screen for many people (not gadget gurus like us, of course - but your everyday non-tech person, especially people over a certain age).

     

    The only time you want to actually touch the screen are for quick swipes, taps, and presses. Apple's logic behind this is very sound; what will ultimately matter is how it really feels in person. As we all should know by now, theory is one thing, but actually experiencing the feel of the device is another.

     

    I also like the tap versus press idea. It sounds to me like press is similar to "tap and hold" - but again, I think you have to come back to the idea of the screen real estate and the "why" aspects. Tap and hold could be a bit painful on a device where the whole point is ultra-fast, quick, easy interaction. I think Apple are trying as much as possible to take the pain out of the experience - in practice, I can't imagine wanting to spend any more than a second interacting with my watch to action something. Even a second might feel long on a watch. Tap and press may help to facilitate that speed of interaction, in a way that keeps it light.

  • Reply 130 of 163

    I'm in my early 30's and have probably worn a watch for a total of 6 months in my entire life, but I can't wait to get the Apple watch, and I'm definitely not waiting for version 2. I exercise regularly enough, so I don't much care about the fitness component, but there are so many other things I can't wait to start doing with it. The functionality is amazing for a first gen product, with many features I'd actually use almost every day (subtle notifications, Apple TV remote, music control, camera remote). Just a few points after reading through the thread:

     

    1) Price: I'd be very surprised if the Edition sells for less than $2,000. There's no one on the planet that can compete with Apple for smart watches since the functionality depends on the UI and the ecosystem, which no one will be able to touch. Apple can easily exploit this to sell the watch for a few thousand. I find spending that kind of money on a watch ostentatious, but if there're people willing to spend a few thousand on a baseline "luxury" brand mechanical watch, there's no reason Apple shouldn't charge the same, even if it's not "forever" (which I think is just an excuse for people to spend way too much money on something so they can show off with a bit).

     

    2) Longevity: There's no way Apple will replace the internals. But for the Edition, I'm sure there will be a 5 year battery replacement warranty or something like that.

     

    3) Bands: I think a huge, under-appreciated aspect of the watch is going to be the bands. They will be a huge revenue driver. They are excellent quality, as good or better than any other luxury brands out there from what one popular luxury watch blogger said. The way Apple promotes them on the site suggests they're going to go for up to or over $200 each, describing select tanneries (Netherlands, France, Italy), hand polished parts, etc. I'm really looking forward to getting a couple different bands for different occasions. That milanese band looks freakin' amazing.

     

    4) 3rd party accessories: I'm not sure if Apple will do this, but there is a great opportunity to partner with luxury brands to create bands specifically for the Apple watch (with Made for Apple Watch licensing). This may be one of the many reasons why they delayed the launch. Now they can go over the models (and provide the locking mechanism specifications) with luxury brands (Burberry, Tiffany, Gucci, Fendi, etc), and have them ready, and in the stores, by launch day.

     

    5) Functionality: It's already the most functional watch by far, but there will be so much more, with 3rd party apps, more health integration, home kit, location tracking, and compatibility with future NFC compatible Apple hardware.

  • Reply 131 of 163
    Watch People,

    As a non-wearing-watch-person, who wants to buy the @watch, I'm trying to understand how you view this new and smart timepiece in regards to its planned obsolescence. I'll go out on a limb and say this doesn't happen with current watches and each watch has a story and some personal emotional attachment to. Could the same be said about the new @watch?

    Clearly there will be a life cycle for these watches as the iPhone and iPad have. Are we thinking 2 year? 4 year? I find it hard to believe there would be a yearly update when there's the potential of buying a 1,200 watch every year/other year? Do people do that now with analog watches?

    Will this piece of technology carry the same emotion as a classic timepiece knowing that you'll be upgrading it on a regular basis? How does that effect the way you will think about buying the @watch?

    Just looking for some insight as I am strongly thinking of becoming a watch wearer!
  • Reply 132 of 163
    j3lunt wrote: »
    Watch People,

    As a non-wearing-watch-person, who wants to buy the @watch, I'm trying to understand how you view this new and smart timepiece in regards to its planned obsolescence. I'll go out on a limb and say this doesn't happen with current watches and each watch has a story and some personal emotional attachment to. Could the same be said about the new @watch?

    Clearly there will be a life cycle for these watches as the iPhone and iPad have. Are we thinking 2 year? 4 year? I find it hard to believe there would be a yearly update when there's the potential of buying a 1,200 watch every year/other year? Do people do that now with analog watches?

    Will this piece of technology carry the same emotion as a classic timepiece knowing that you'll be upgrading it on a regular basis? How does that effect the way you will think about buying the @watch?

    Just looking for some insight as I am strongly thinking of becoming a watch wearer!

    I don't think you can lump watch wearers together.

    I imagine you have people who collect them, others who have several, and others who keep one for a long time. I fall into the latter category. I think I've had mine for about 25 years and have no plans to get another, ?Watch included.
  • Reply 133 of 163
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member

    Rolex keeps their value after years of use. Apple no!

  • Reply 134 of 163
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,778member
    eightzero wrote: »
    Thanks. I don't get the Discovery Channel, so I don't see all those tech shows, I didn't get the reference.

    My wife runs a small business, and uses Square. Be nice to offer this too.

    Nor the Comedy channels either I'm guessing. ;)
    Futurama is a a cartoon series by Matt Groening the Simpsons creator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurama The Simpsons is a cartoon show too ... in case you haven't see that ... surely you have :)

    I suspect the ?Watch, if it could be made into a receiver for payments, would be an expensive way of doing it. For your business why not just invest in an NFC payments terminal. Perhaps your Bank will supply you with one on a rental or lease type set up. Although I could see a mobile payment system might be useful for those on the move when selling and just maybe an iPhone is the best solution then, with a plug-in reader. I assume they do/will exist?
  • Reply 135 of 163
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,778member
    marvfox wrote: »
    Rolex keeps their value after years of use. Apple no!

    That's true but they don't 'keeps' time too well :D Mine has always lost about five seconds a day.

    But yes they keep their value, my Rolex Date was about $3.5K back when my wife bought it for me in the early 80's and would today cost around $10-12k however to sell I am not sure how much it is worth my guess would be half that. But it has needed three services over those years at around $650 average cost each and extra insurance costs. That said I do like it's looks but I really am looking forward to getting an ?Watch and I certainly don't need the gold one. So I think I'll go for a sporty looking version and strap for everyday use. Especially given later versions over the next few years will be so much better no doubt as Jony perfects them and new technologies are added, this will be one Apple product I will definitely be getting a low end model to start with.
  • Reply 136 of 163
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,778member
    I don't think you can lump watch wearers together.

    I imagine you have people who collect them, others who have several, and others who keep one for a long time. I fall into the latter category. I think I've had mine for about 25 years and have no plans to get another, ?Watch included.

    I agree except I do want one. I've worn the same watch for 35 years and I hadn't even noticed people not wearing watches and was actually quite surprised when ?Watch articles had so many references to 'non watch wearing' folks, I honestly had never thought about it and didn't realize there were such people! We 'wrist watch wearers' must seem like the pocket watch folks did to us (Sherlock Homes era), to the new generation, a fascinating shift in fashion norms that I totally missed.

    I am now thinking of attaching a chain to my iPhone and putting it in the top pocket of my Harris Tweed jacket though ... :D
  • Reply 137 of 163
    Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

    Rolex keeps their value after years of use. Apple no!

     

    Your proof of this is what?

  • Reply 138 of 163

    I'll buy the iWatch which I can reasonably pay. Bottomline, I'll keep my eye on the iWatch and have one for myself.

  • Reply 139 of 163
    iaeeniaeen Posts: 588member
    marvfox wrote: »
    Rolex keeps their value after years of use. Apple no!

    When you factor in servicing costs, a Rolex costs many times more than an Apple Watch, regardless of how much you are able to sell it for.
  • Reply 140 of 163
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,778member
    Your proof of this is what?

    He is correct if you think about it. Logically an Apple product will hold value well based on all previous data but nothing like a Rolex that appreciates over time (many years obviously) relative to the original buying price (although perhaps not buying power of the $), this too based on actual data easily gleaned on Google. The second hand value of my Rolex is currently 250% of its purchase price. My iPhone 1 and Macintosh IIFX not so much ... :D
Sign In or Register to comment.