Besides being on a wrist there isn't much they have in common.
Square, black, lots of buttons. Remember, I said from a distance they appear similar, both geeky which is the antithesis of the image that the model represents....in my opinion.
AppleWatch will be a standalone watch, fitness tracker and iPod, at a minimum. It will have standalone apps written for it. There may be additional standalone functionality we don't know about yet.
Has this been confirmed that one could purchase, and configure it without an iPhone? Does it have WiFi and connect to the internet on its own?
Has this been confirmed that one could purchase, and configure it without an iPhone? Does it have WiFi and connect to the internet on its own?
I believe Apple told the press it included wifi. I'd guess the Apple Watch still really isn't a standalone product tho, reliant on an iPhone for the most part.
As a side note one of the larger smartphone manufacturers (LG maybe?) just announced a 4G LTE smartwatch, no phone needed.
Perhaps those are renders but it definitely looks better than every other Android-based smartwatch that came before it, and in some ways better than ?Watch in the watch faces, although the HW definitely is inferior to ?Watch.
Square, black, lots of buttons. Remember, I said from a distance they appear similar, both geeky which is the antithesis of the image that the model represents....in my opinion.
There is only one physical button and a knob. IMO, saying that it looks exactly like a calculator watch from 1988 is like saying the Moto 360 looks exactly a Rolex with a round watch face.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
I follow the gold watch market and there is no way apple can made a solid 18k watch with less than 1/2 ounce of gold. No watch on the market with 1/2 ounce gold cost less than $2000. Even the generic no name chinese brands.
It comes down to physical limitations (minimum of 1/2 ounce gold) and the watch market. If Apple is striving to be a luxury brand they cannot be selling gold watches for less than no name chinese brands.
Now if the watch is gold plated then all bets are off and it could easy be less than $2000. Doubt they will do gold plate because that gets easy flaked and scratched. This is luxury not ebay market place
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
You keep making the same mistakes over and over. At least try to make a case as to how it's physically impossible to have less than a 1/2 an ounce of gold in either the 38 or 42mm casings. Show us that you've at least tried to put in some effort to research your argument instead of simply making sweeping claims that you can't support.
Here's some numbers estimating the amount of gold that will be used. I initially thought they were high given that the back won't be gold and the wall thickness is unknown, so as a former jeweler, had been personally guesstimating less than a Troy oz. (31.1gr) in the 42mm but, thanks Solly, I'd forgotten to include the strap buckle.
So if these links are based on actual volumetric analyses, 50-75gr (or more) (of which 75% is gold) and proportionately less in the 38mm model is a starting point:
The watch is ALSO - and significantly - on its way to "fine jewelery and horological" outlets. And something else I know well as a jeweler - and Angela knows far better than I - is that the markups these shops operate on is "triple key" (three times wholesale) and UP*. So I wouldn't expect these stores to change time-honored biz models just to accommodate Apple. (Yet at least. Big A is disruptive after all.)
(*Note: This, btw, is why chain jewelers can regularly have "50% off" sales and unlike most retail businesses still make a 50% gross profit. Which is just a smart shopper sidelight - don't expect the ?Watch to be on sale any time soon.)
So if the manufacture costs Apple somewhere around $1250-$1400 (somewhere around a troy oz of 18K gold plus all the ?Sauce), before their markup to resellers, say to $1700 to $1900 at a 40% (minimum) markup, in no way should anyone expect to see the 42mm "Edition edition" priced anywhere below $4999. With $5999 or more hardly out of the question.
Square, black, lots of buttons. Remember, I said from a distance they appear similar, both geeky which is the antithesis of the image that the model represents....in my opinion.
There is only one physical button and a knob. IMO, saying that it looks exactly like a calculator watch from 1988 is like saying the Moto 360 looks exactly a Rolex with a round watch face.
I believe you are slightly twisting the words in my comments. I originally said "looks something like" then I said "from a distance they looked similar" I never used the word "exactly". Furthermore it is just my opinion, which I clarified, so it you have a different opinion, fine, but please don't put words in my mouth.
Here's some numbers estimating the amount of gold that will be used. I initially thought they were high given that the back won't be gold and the wall thickness is unknown, so as a former jeweler, had been personally guesstimating less than an T. oz. (31.1gr) in the 42mm but, thanks Solly, I'd forgotten to include the strap buckle.
So if these links are based on actual volumetric analyses, 50-75gr (or more) (of which 75% is gold) and proportionately less in the 38mm model is a starting point:
The watch is ALSO - and significantly - on its way to "fine jewelery and horological" outlets. And something else I know well as a jeweler - and Angela knows far better than I - is that the markups these shops operate on is "triple key" (three times wholesale) and UP*. So I wouldn't expect these stores to change time-honored biz models just to accommodate Apple. (Yet at least. Big A is disruptive after all.)
[SIZE=11px](*Note: This, btw, is why chain jewelers can regularly have "50% off" sales and unlike most retail busineses still make a 50% gross profit. Which is just a smart shopper sidelight - don't expect the ?Watch to be on sale any time soon.)[/SIZE]
So if the manufacture costs Apple somewhere around $1300, in no way should anyone expect to see the "Edition edition" priced anywhere below $3999. With $4999 or more hardly out of the question.
Now that's what I'm talking about! That's a solid argument.
I believe you are slightly twisting the words in my comments. I originally said "looks something like" then I said "from a distance they looked similar" I never used the word "exactly". Furthermore it is just my opinion, which I clarified, so it you have a different opinion, fine, but please don't put words in my mouth.
You did use the term "exactly" in this conversation, but it was in regards to what you think of when you see ?Watch form a distance. I clearly conflated your usage in my later post. Mea culpa.
You did use the term "exactly" in this conversation, but it was in regards to what you think of when you see ?Watch form a distance. I clearly conflated your usage in my later post. Mea culpa.
I did? My mistake then, I never meant looked "exactly". It just reminds me of that sort of geeky watch.
If Vertu can find enough people to buy their way over priced Android phones then Apple can definitely find people to buy an expensive smartwatch.
I would imagine their target numbers differ quite a bit. Apple typically has to sell quite a few of a particular product to justify its continued existence.
So does that mean it cannot be purchased and configured without an iPhone?
I'd bet money that it requires an iPhone to set up, and there will no SW that could even allow you to setup and connect to a WiFi network.
That is what I thought. Once it is setup you can use it to some degree independently, but to add software, music or update the OS you would likely need an iPhone.
That is what I thought. Once it is setup you can use it to some degree independently, but to add software, music or update the OS you would likely need an iPhone.
1) From everything they've stated, anything that requires some sort of access to the Internet requires a connection to an iPhone. Not even an iPad or Mac which has the appropriate HW.
2) There are still people that think you need to have an iPhone tethered for EVERYTHING, because of an incorrect notion that ?Watch has no apps. This even includes using it for ?Pay, but from everything they've shown us you only need the iPhone for setup ?Pay on ?Watch which will store the unique referential card numbers in it's own Secure Element on the NFC chip. After that you can go for a run with your BT headphones listening to music stored locally on the device, and then stop off for a smoothie at an establishment that accepts ?Pay, all while leaving your iPhone and wallet at home.
Comments
This is what I think of when you say calculator watch.
From a distance, the app icons look remarkably similar to the little key pad buttons on the classic calculator watch.
This is what I think of when you say calculator watch.
Exactly!
Besides being on a wrist there isn't much they have in common.
Exactly!
[image]
Besides being on a wrist there isn't much they have in common.
Square, black, lots of buttons. Remember, I said from a distance they appear similar, both geeky which is the antithesis of the image that the model represents....in my opinion.
Has this been confirmed that one could purchase, and configure it without an iPhone? Does it have WiFi and connect to the internet on its own?
As a side note one of the larger smartphone manufacturers (LG maybe?) just announced a 4G LTE smartwatch, no phone needed.
EDIT. It is LG, and it's not Android Wear either.
http://betanews.com/2015/02/26/lg-announces-4g-lte-enabled-watch-urbane-smartwatch/
EDIT 2: Yes, Apple announced it includes wifi.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/09/09Apple-Unveils-Apple-Watch-Apples-Most-Personal-Device-Ever.html
EDIT 2: Yes, Apple announced it includes wifi.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/09/09Apple-Unveils-Apple-Watch-Apples-Most-Personal-Device-Ever.html
Thanks for the link.
The way that is worded I am still a little unsure if it can be purchased and configured without an iPhone.
Perhaps those are renders but it definitely looks better than every other Android-based smartwatch that came before it, and in some ways better than ?Watch in the watch faces, although the HW definitely is inferior to ?Watch.
There is only one physical button and a knob. IMO, saying that it looks exactly like a calculator watch from 1988 is like saying the Moto 360 looks exactly a Rolex with a round watch face.
Based on their wording there and elsewhere the WiFi is only for BT-HS, so you won't be using the Digital Crown to select/imput an SSID and password.
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.
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.
I follow the gold watch market and there is no way apple can made a solid 18k watch with less than 1/2 ounce of gold. No watch on the market with 1/2 ounce gold cost less than $2000. Even the generic no name chinese brands.
It comes down to physical limitations (minimum of 1/2 ounce gold) and the watch market. If Apple is striving to be a luxury brand they cannot be selling gold watches for less than no name chinese brands.
Now if the watch is gold plated then all bets are off and it could easy be less than $2000. Doubt they will do gold plate because that gets easy flaked and scratched. This is luxury not ebay market place
You keep making the same mistakes over and over. At least try to make a case as to how it's physically impossible to have less than a 1/2 an ounce of gold in either the 38 or 42mm casings. Show us that you've at least tried to put in some effort to research your argument instead of simply making sweeping claims that you can't support.
Here's some numbers estimating the amount of gold that will be used. I initially thought they were high given that the back won't be gold and the wall thickness is unknown, so as a former jeweler, had been personally guesstimating less than a Troy oz. (31.1gr) in the 42mm but, thanks Solly, I'd forgotten to include the strap buckle.
So if these links are based on actual volumetric analyses, 50-75gr (or more) (of which 75% is gold) and proportionately less in the 38mm model is a starting point:
https://applespotlight.com/2015/02/18/the-real-value-of-gold-in-an-apple-watch/
https://applespotlight.com/2014/09/17/john-grubers-initial-thoughts-and-observations-on-apple-watch/
The watch is ALSO - and significantly - on its way to "fine jewelery and horological" outlets. And something else I know well as a jeweler - and Angela knows far better than I - is that the markups these shops operate on is "triple key" (three times wholesale) and UP*. So I wouldn't expect these stores to change time-honored biz models just to accommodate Apple. (Yet at least. Big A is disruptive after all.)
(*Note: This, btw, is why chain jewelers can regularly have "50% off" sales and unlike most retail businesses still make a 50% gross profit. Which is just a smart shopper sidelight - don't expect the ?Watch to be on sale any time soon.)
So if the manufacture costs Apple somewhere around $1250-$1400 (somewhere around a troy oz of 18K gold plus all the ?Sauce), before their markup to resellers, say to $1700 to $1900 at a 40% (minimum) markup, in no way should anyone expect to see the 42mm "Edition edition" priced anywhere below $4999. With $5999 or more hardly out of the question.
Square, black, lots of buttons. Remember, I said from a distance they appear similar, both geeky which is the antithesis of the image that the model represents....in my opinion.
There is only one physical button and a knob. IMO, saying that it looks exactly like a calculator watch from 1988 is like saying the Moto 360 looks exactly a Rolex with a round watch face.
I believe you are slightly twisting the words in my comments. I originally said "looks something like" then I said "from a distance they looked similar" I never used the word "exactly". Furthermore it is just my opinion, which I clarified, so it you have a different opinion, fine, but please don't put words in my mouth.
Now that's what I'm talking about! That's a solid argument.
You did use the term "exactly" in this conversation, but it was in regards to what you think of when you see ?Watch form a distance. I clearly conflated your usage in my later post. Mea culpa.
Based on their wording there and elsewhere the WiFi is only for BT-HS, so you won't be using the Digital Crown to select/imput an SSID and password.
So does that mean it cannot be purchased and configured without an iPhone?
I'd bet money that it requires an iPhone to set up, and there will no SW that could even allow you to setup and connect to a WiFi network.
You did use the term "exactly" in this conversation, but it was in regards to what you think of when you see ?Watch form a distance. I clearly conflated your usage in my later post. Mea culpa.
I did? My mistake then, I never meant looked "exactly". It just reminds me of that sort of geeky watch.
If Vertu can find enough people to buy their way over priced Android phones then Apple can definitely find people to buy an expensive smartwatch.
I would imagine their target numbers differ quite a bit. Apple typically has to sell quite a few of a particular product to justify its continued existence.
So does that mean it cannot be purchased and configured without an iPhone?
I'd bet money that it requires an iPhone to set up, and there will no SW that could even allow you to setup and connect to a WiFi network.
That is what I thought. Once it is setup you can use it to some degree independently, but to add software, music or update the OS you would likely need an iPhone.
The mistake is all mine. I see no ambiguity in what you meant by your "Exactly!" reply. I made the error, and I apologize.
1) From everything they've stated, anything that requires some sort of access to the Internet requires a connection to an iPhone. Not even an iPad or Mac which has the appropriate HW.
2) There are still people that think you need to have an iPhone tethered for EVERYTHING, because of an incorrect notion that ?Watch has no apps. This even includes using it for ?Pay, but from everything they've shown us you only need the iPhone for setup ?Pay on ?Watch which will store the unique referential card numbers in it's own Secure Element on the NFC chip. After that you can go for a run with your BT headphones listening to music stored locally on the device, and then stop off for a smoothie at an establishment that accepts ?Pay, all while leaving your iPhone and wallet at home.