Certainly not as easy to select icons as on an iPhone.
If it had the iPhone UI and no digital crown I'd say you have a point but it does have a digital crown that shows that scrolling, zooming and selecting will be natural and easy, as well as an entirely new Ui designed around the input. That just seems like the worst possible argument against ?Watch.
I think I'll go with the judgment of the Paris-edition of Vogue than yours on this matter.
I make no pretentious about my expertise in the fashion world. I know what I like and what I dont. I also know Vogue promotes the cutting edge of style and fashion which often change radically from season to season. Their well paid advertisement praising the watch today, may not survive even into the Fall. Apples usual trend of creating a product that remains unchanged in the marketplace for two or three years without changing its design cues is not going to fly in the fashion world. Add to that that Vogue reports on the trends on the bleeding edge of fashion, often endorse designs you would most likely find not to your liking. The fact you happen to agree with Paris Vogue on their current assessment of the ?Watch is no gurantee of anything in the fashion world.
I don't think the ?Watch is particularly attractive or stylish. However, I think it looks pretty good for what it purports to do. If Paris Vogue thinks that's the cutting edge of fashion, then that supports my opinion of their model wearing "mom" jeans. If that's the height of fashion at the moment -- I think I'll pass.
Really…. You should just stop. The hole you've dug is deep enough. You're there.
If the Watch cost $5000 I can't see it being worth less than $5000 in 10 years if its left unopened and will probably worth at least DOUBLE. How many other investments can you say that? And still you can always sell the gold.
IMO its a very safe investment.
Good luck with your prediction. Based on Rolex watch, a stainless steel Submariner is around $8k and the Gold Submariner which has Gold bracelet cost 3 times more. So, without the gold bracelet, I would say it's around 2.5x more or $20k at most.
Now, with similar calculation, a stainless steel Apple watch would be around $500, so the Edition would be around $1250. I hope it's priced under $1000, but I'm not surprised if it's priced close to $1500. Just like someone else's estimation, I strongly believe it's around $1000-$1500. This is right on price range with TAG. If it goes to $5k+, I would say Cook and Schiller are crazy to compete with Omega or Rolex.
Seriously, even though I'm Apple fan, but ask me to chose a Rolex or Apple watch in the same price range, I pick Rolex without thinking. At that price, it's not about the functionality anymore, but the status symbol/branding. It's like Chanel handbags or Louboutin shoes.
To be fair, the watches we were wearing almost all just told us the time. The feature phones that killed the watch could tell time. These watches are capable of monitoring us more than loose phones in our pockets and offer other conveniences such as Apple pay, glancing for rich content, not to mention the time.
Which takes me back to my orginal position prior to the formal announcment of the watch. How do you call this thing a watch? Watch is a grossly inadequate description.
To be fair, the watches we were wearing almost all just told us the time. The feature phones that killed the watch could tell time. These watches are capable of monitoring us more than loose phones in our pockets and offer other conveniences such as Apple pay, glancing for rich content, not to mention the time.
Which takes me back to my orginal position prior to the formal announcment of the watch. How do you call this thing a watch? Watch is a grossly inadequate description.
Show me gold Rolex that cost $5000. The Watch will still be significantly cheaper than a gold rolex.
No way on earth the Gold watch will be under $2000. No freakin way.
Your argument is pointless because you can't even prove that ?Watch Edition will $5,000 worth of gold. I can show you a car that costs over $1 million and then state that carbon fiber is expensive, but there are much cheaper cars that contain carbon fiber.
True. And it gets even more complicated because even a person with good taste, can't articulate what it is that draws them to a certain design, nor do they necessarily have the ability to create equally well designed objects.
Show me a solid 18k watch for under $2000. There is none.
So you are expecting Apple to have the CHEAPEST gold watch on the market? Even cheaper than Chinese brands? Get real. You only need common sense to realize the watch will cost more than $2000.
Even when gold was $600 an ounce there was no gold watch for under $2000. How can you expect that now when gold is $1200? You do realize half an ounce is pretty much the absolute minimum amount of gold you need to make the case and buckle? You expect Apple to get gross margins less than iphone? Seriously? They did not hire tons of fashion and luxury executives to sell the cheapest gold watch on the market.
There's no proof that the watch is going to be solid 18k gold. Apple says the watch is going to be crafted from 18k gold.
Show me a solid 18k watch for under $2000. There is none.
Why don't you show me a SOLID gold watch, first. Now show me a SOLID gold smartwatch? Finally, show me how much gold is used in Apple Watch?
You can't do all those tasks because you don't have the data. You haven't even made a single objective and balanced comment that showed a range of possibilities in theie pricing matrix. If you were so aure about your pricing you would be able to pull up the data you spent hours or days researching so you could create a graph that details how Apple could reach various price points and why you think a $10k minimum is the most likely.
There's no proof that the watch is going to be solid 18k gold. Apple says the watch is going to be crafted from 18k gold.
They use the term alloy for the first two metals but the switch to unique formulations for the gold. No idea what that is suppose to mean
"We created Apple Watch from custom alloys of stainless steel and aluminum — each in two finishes — as well as unique formulations of 18-karat yellow and rose gold. All were specially developed not only to look great, but to stand up to the physical demands of daily wear."
They also forget that what they think is or isn't stylish is simply a matter of taste, fashion trends and what's in vogue (pun intended). These things come and go, look at bell bottoms. ?Watch is about to come into fashion just as the iPhone did, it didn't happen immediately with the iPhone, it happened over a year or so. Same will happen with the Watch IMHO.
They use the term alloy for the first two metals but the switch to unique formulations for the gold. No idea what that is suppose to mean
"We created Apple Watch from custom alloys of stainless steel and aluminum — each in two finishes — as well as unique formulations of 18-karat yellow and rose gold. All were specially developed not only to look great, but to stand up to the physical demands of daily wear."
Perhaps the quote means of the three alloys only the gold they use one hasn't been used before, i.e. some new blend. Appledium maybe?
There's no proof that the watch is going to be solid 18k gold. Apple says the watch is going to be crafted from 18k gold.
18k is 18 k. 75% gold and the rest any alloy you want that works. You can't 'craft' 18k gold into something else with additional metals that reduces that 75% gold and call it 18k.
18k is 18 k. 75% gold and the rest any alloy you want that works. You can't 'craft' 18k gold into something else with additional metals that reduces that 75% gold and call it 18k.
I agree, but there's a reason Apple is tip toeing around the usual jewelry nomenclature in describing the watch. It will be interesting to see what they mean.
I agree, but there's a reason Apple is tip toeing around the usual jewelry nomenclature in describing the watch. It will be interesting to see what they mean.
But they are doing that with 10 aluminium models and 18 steel models, too. I think the product category has to have a heavy fashion focus to work. If this was marketed like all other smartwatches before it would be for geeks and the fail to capture the market. We can look back on Apple's history of making something geeky into someyhing everyone wants.
The good thing what I have been hearing about the ? watch is that it is designed to be an external screen for the iPhone. This is a very smart way to tackle the obsolescence issue. Want to upgrade your watch? Get a new iPhone!
I bought a 20 inch Apple Cinema Display in 2005 and I am still using it. The only thing I am changing is my mac mini and macbook pro.
So yes, smart move from Apple to make the ? watch "just" an external screen for the iPhone. It will justify its investment and guarantee its longevity.
Comments
If it had the iPhone UI and no digital crown I'd say you have a point but it does have a digital crown that shows that scrolling, zooming and selecting will be natural and easy, as well as an entirely new Ui designed around the input. That just seems like the worst possible argument against ?Watch.
I seriously thinking of buying a Gold Edition watch and not opening it.
Could be worth a ton a few decades
Well, if it turns out to be between $1000-$1500, it won't worth the effort.
I think I'll go with the judgment of the Paris-edition of Vogue than yours on this matter.
I make no pretentious about my expertise in the fashion world. I know what I like and what I dont. I also know Vogue promotes the cutting edge of style and fashion which often change radically from season to season. Their well paid advertisement praising the watch today, may not survive even into the Fall. Apples usual trend of creating a product that remains unchanged in the marketplace for two or three years without changing its design cues is not going to fly in the fashion world. Add to that that Vogue reports on the trends on the bleeding edge of fashion, often endorse designs you would most likely find not to your liking. The fact you happen to agree with Paris Vogue on their current assessment of the ?Watch is no gurantee of anything in the fashion world.
I don't think the ?Watch is particularly attractive or stylish. However, I think it looks pretty good for what it purports to do. If Paris Vogue thinks that's the cutting edge of fashion, then that supports my opinion of their model wearing "mom" jeans. If that's the height of fashion at the moment -- I think I'll pass.
Really…. You should just stop. The hole you've dug is deep enough. You're there.
I already hold AAPL stock and index funds.
If the Watch cost $5000 I can't see it being worth less than $5000 in 10 years if its left unopened and will probably worth at least DOUBLE. How many other investments can you say that? And still you can always sell the gold.
IMO its a very safe investment.
Good luck with your prediction. Based on Rolex watch, a stainless steel Submariner is around $8k and the Gold Submariner which has Gold bracelet cost 3 times more. So, without the gold bracelet, I would say it's around 2.5x more or $20k at most.
Now, with similar calculation, a stainless steel Apple watch would be around $500, so the Edition would be around $1250. I hope it's priced under $1000, but I'm not surprised if it's priced close to $1500. Just like someone else's estimation, I strongly believe it's around $1000-$1500. This is right on price range with TAG. If it goes to $5k+, I would say Cook and Schiller are crazy to compete with Omega or Rolex.
Seriously, even though I'm Apple fan, but ask me to chose a Rolex or Apple watch in the same price range, I pick Rolex without thinking. At that price, it's not about the functionality anymore, but the status symbol/branding. It's like Chanel handbags or Louboutin shoes.
GORGEOUS.
those who say the Watch is ugly have no taste
Taste is subjective.
?Taste is subjective. But whether one actually has any or not, is not.
Which takes me back to my orginal position prior to the formal announcment of the watch. How do you call this thing a watch? Watch is a grossly inadequate description.
Blame Apple.
They're the ones who have called it a watch.
Your argument is pointless because you can't even prove that ?Watch Edition will $5,000 worth of gold. I can show you a car that costs over $1 million and then state that carbon fiber is expensive, but there are much cheaper cars that contain carbon fiber.
True. And it gets even more complicated because even a person with good taste, can't articulate what it is that draws them to a certain design, nor do they necessarily have the ability to create equally well designed objects.
There's no proof that the watch is going to be solid 18k gold. Apple says the watch is going to be crafted from 18k gold.
Why don't you show me a SOLID gold watch, first. Now show me a SOLID gold smartwatch? Finally, show me how much gold is used in Apple Watch?
You can't do all those tasks because you don't have the data. You haven't even made a single objective and balanced comment that showed a range of possibilities in theie pricing matrix. If you were so aure about your pricing you would be able to pull up the data you spent hours or days researching so you could create a graph that details how Apple could reach various price points and why you think a $10k minimum is the most likely.
They use the term alloy for the first two metals but the switch to unique formulations for the gold. No idea what that is suppose to mean
"We created Apple Watch from custom alloys of stainless steel and aluminum — each in two finishes — as well as unique formulations of 18-karat yellow and rose gold. All were specially developed not only to look great, but to stand up to the physical demands of daily wear."
They also forget that what they think is or isn't stylish is simply a matter of taste, fashion trends and what's in vogue (pun intended). These things come and go, look at bell bottoms. ?Watch is about to come into fashion just as the iPhone did, it didn't happen immediately with the iPhone, it happened over a year or so. Same will happen with the Watch IMHO.
Perhaps the quote means of the three alloys only the gold they use one hasn't been used before, i.e. some new blend. Appledium maybe?
18k is 18 k. 75% gold and the rest any alloy you want that works. You can't 'craft' 18k gold into something else with additional metals that reduces that 75% gold and call it 18k.
I'm wondering of Liquid Metal could be used in this process.
I agree, but there's a reason Apple is tip toeing around the usual jewelry nomenclature in describing the watch. It will be interesting to see what they mean.
But they are doing that with 10 aluminium models and 18 steel models, too. I think the product category has to have a heavy fashion focus to work. If this was marketed like all other smartwatches before it would be for geeks and the fail to capture the market. We can look back on Apple's history of making something geeky into someyhing everyone wants.
The good thing what I have been hearing about the ? watch is that it is designed to be an external screen for the iPhone. This is a very smart way to tackle the obsolescence issue. Want to upgrade your watch? Get a new iPhone!
I bought a 20 inch Apple Cinema Display in 2005 and I am still using it. The only thing I am changing is my mac mini and macbook pro.
So yes, smart move from Apple to make the ? watch "just" an external screen for the iPhone. It will justify its investment and guarantee its longevity.
? watch 1 is going to be a collector's item.