Apple Watch featured in UK's Style magazine, Space Gray Sport version quoted at $349

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 73
    irelandireland Posts: 17,747member
    applegreen wrote: »
    This product doesn't have to be for you you know.
  • Reply 62 of 73
    nairbnairb Posts: 253member

    I have to say this is a really ugly watch. But maybe I am bias. I never liked rectangle watch faces. But I do see them in the jewellers still, so I guess they do sell.

     

    Must admit it is a more functional shape for a screen though. More usable real-estate for a wrist worn computer than a circular screen.

  • Reply 63 of 73
    cjcoopscjcoops Posts: 95member
    What a horrible photo.

    I can't decide which is worse: the safety pins in the ear or the pus-like icons of the Apple Watch.

    Indeed.
    She should be condemned to the fiery pits of hell for abusing her god given body in such a manner. /s

    tumblr_ljq77svYwA1qavmeoo1_500.gif
  • Reply 64 of 73
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,183member
    clemynx wrote: »
    OK. That photo's cringe-inducing.

    Hope Apple had nothing to do with this placement.

    I actually find it pretty great and artsy. Best image of Apple Watch yet.

    Seriously, what's the significance of four spread out fingers and one thumb being sucked? Doesn't it detract from everything else? Perhaps there's some subtle message or meaning there, but I am missing it.
  • Reply 65 of 73
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Fast Company says the watch is going to flop, it's going to be Tim Cook's Newton. The writer of the piece, Mark Wilson, said he's just saying what everyone else is thinking. Of course it's easy to piss on ?Watch. The script was already written. No matter what Apple did it would be a flop and something that wouldn't have happened under Steve Jobs. We'll see who's right in the long run.
  • Reply 66 of 73
    rogifan wrote: »
    Fast Company says the watch is going to flop, it's going to be Tim Cook's Newton. The writer of the piece, Mark Wilson, said he's just saying what everyone else is thinking. Of course it's easy to piss on ?Watch. The script was already written. No matter what Apple did it would be a flop and something that wouldn't have happened under Steve Jobs. We'll see who's right in the long run.

    Exactly.

    I share Mark Wilson's viewpoint. This will be the first great test for Apple post-Jobs: can they still bring out a hit?

    It will be interesting to see.
  • Reply 67 of 73
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member

    $349
    $749
    $7499. Possibly an additional premium above that for the Rose Gold too.

    $7499 based on what exactly? Just because ?Watch Edition uses gold doesn't make it a Rolex. I get the gold from a fashion standpoint; in fact the rose gold with matching leather band is my favorite ?Watch model. But pricing it with luxury watch margins is nuts. If Apple is going down that route then they better have something up their sleeve other than the execs have rich friends that will drop a lot of money on the gold watch.
  • Reply 68 of 73
    clemynx wrote: »
    OK. That photo's cringe-inducing.

    Hope Apple had nothing to do with this placement.

    I actually find it pretty great and artsy. Best image of Apple Watch yet.

    Seriously, what's the significance of four spread out fingers and one thumb being sucked? Doesn't it detract from everything else? Perhaps there's some subtle message or meaning there, but I am missing it.

    Don't worry; you're not missing anything.

    It's just pretentious twaddle that defines the fashion world.

    The marketing for the Apple Watch doesn't bode well for its future. It's manna for the stereotypical Apple haters, who accuse Apple of being style over substance. Sadly, with the Apple Watch, they have a point.
  • Reply 69 of 73
    rogifan wrote: »
    $7499 based on what exactly? Just because ?Watch Edition uses gold doesn't make it a Rolex. I get the gold from a fashion standpoint; in fact the rose gold with matching leather band is my favorite ?Watch model. But pricing it with luxury watch margins is nuts. If Apple is going down that route then they better have something up their sleeve other than the execs have rich friends that will drop a lot of money on the gold watch.

    Apple will want to balance demand with supply. The WSJ's numbers for the Edition had them consuming a third of the world's annual gold output, which is bonkers and not going to happen. They've got to price it high enough for it to scare most off, but keep it low enough that rich people will buy it in light of the possible risk of obsolence (still think we'll see an upgrade path).
  • Reply 70 of 73
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Apple will want to balance demand with supply. The WSJ's numbers for the Edition had them consuming a third of the world's annual gold output, which is bonkers and not going to happen. They've got to price it high enough for it to scare most off, but keep it low enough that rich people will buy it in light of the possible risk of obsolence (still think we'll see an upgrade path).

    Honestly I think anything between $3K and $5K would scare most people off. I'm seeing a lot of angst in some quarters that the gold watch is Apple saying "not for you" and they've never done that before. I disagree though because from all we know so far every watch model has the same functionality and capabilities. So the person buying the $349 watch is getting the same device as someone buying the very expensive gold watch. At most the gold watch buyer will get a nicer box. Maybe that should bother those who can afford the gold model but o don't know why it would bother anyone else.
  • Reply 71 of 73
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    1. People who want a well-designed fitness tracker with other features.
    So far we know that the ?Watch requires the iPhone. I really hope we find that Apple expands that to any iOS device in order to allow as many people as possible to adopt the watch from day one. There are many people out there whose only Apple product is an iPad or iPod Touch. The watch itself has broad appeal, battery life notwithstanding, but at the moment, doesn't appear to be a standalone product, nor compatible with any other device outside of the iPhone. Some have suggested it as a gateway product to Apple, but not if there's no way to set it up, or use it without an iPhone.

    Who knows, perhaps Apple will surprise us, and all it requires for basic functionality (fitness, time, iPod, apps) will be iTunes, on a PC or Mac. That would give it the widest possible launch. Of course the inherent problem with that approach is that the marketing will focus on ALL the things the watch can do, some of which which will have to be disclaimed for some devices, and that could get confusing and lead to disgruntled early adopters.

    I can see this easily replacing the shuffle and nano, if Apple offers a more basic model down the line with comparable storage, especially if it encompasses just the fitness and iPod functionality, without ?Pay, etc., in much the same way the iPod Touch compliments the iPhone. But it's gotta have much broader device accessibility than it supposedly has now.
  • Reply 72 of 73
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    Exactly.



    I share Mark Wilson's viewpoint. This will be the first great test for Apple post-Jobs: can they still bring out a hit?



    It will be interesting to see.



    Indeed. And if it flops like we anticipate, this will be the beginning of the Michael Spindler era at Apple, Take Two.

Sign In or Register to comment.