[QUOTE]“It was different with the phone – all of us working on the first iPhone were driven by an absolute disdain for the cellphones we were using at the time. That’s not the case here. We’re a group of people who love our watches. So we’re working on something, yet have a high regard for what currently exists.” [/QUOTE]
So to all those who think Apple is arrogantly trying to replace luxury watches STFU.
After a long hiatus from using a watch, I'm going to try take a chance on the Apple watch. I'm hoping that the long term focus though is far less health & fitness tracking but more universal - as in enhancing all of your daily life activities. If Apple's advertising for the watch is primarily health & fitness, it will be marginalized as a fitness speciality product that won't be flying off the shelves. In the end, like the iPhone, the app developers will ultimately determine whether or not the watch appeals to the masses or to the few.
What I love about Ive is that every word he says seems so real. Doesn't sound like marketing message - which, frankly, I find oozes out of the likes of Phil Schiller (I sense incidentally that those two aren't so close - he wasn't mentioned once in that New Yorker article and had to push for the watch to be accepted.. probably by marketing)....
He's gracious enough to acknowledge the beauty of existing 'dumb' watches, and wants to make their smart watches as great - and that he'll continue working on gen 2 etc.
Obviously he cant make an exquisite classical watch that he dreams of in the sense that he's severely constrained by relatively bulky batteries and other technology which remains in its infancy. Just as with the iPhone it'll get crafted towards perfection as the technology allows.
Here's the thing ... What attracts watch wearers to a watch? Is it what it's capable of, or is it how it looks?
The ?Watch is a square piece of black glass inlaid onto a featureless gold or silver box. When the display is inactive, you might as well be wearing a polished onyx stone mounted in a particularly boring bracelet.
When I notice watches, I notice the ornate dials, intricate designs, materials, coloring, and workmanship. The ?Watch may be a fashionable smart watch, but it's hardly the stuff watch lovers like yourself are going to be attracted to. Apple presumes the watch as a replacement for the Rolexes, Citizens, and other personal expressions of style and status on their wrists. The "Edition" seems designed to express status and wealth without any of the substance a Rolex watch is otherwise revealed for -- yes this watch is a basic and featureless mass market assembly line product, but it cost a fortune.
Will you ever learn to appreciate what it can do over its lack of substantive style?
I hardly ever see others peoples watches in detail and so can't appreciate them as they are hidden up a sleeve. Perhaps if it was warmer in the UK we would have short sleeves and our watches would be on show.
After a long hiatus from using a watch, I'm going to try take a chance on the Apple watch. I'm hoping that the long term focus though is far less health & fitness tracking but more universal - as in enhancing all of your daily life activities. If Apple's advertising for the watch is primarily health & fitness, it will be marginalized as a fitness speciality product that won't be flying off the shelves. In the end, like the iPhone, the app developers will ultimately determine whether or not the watch appeals to the masses or to the few.
Oh, I don't think there's any chance of them limiting their watch to Fitbit territory.
So I see that article cites the Edition as costing around 4,500 dollar. If it's cited here, in a piece with a sanction interview, and it's described as 'unconfirmed' you can be sure nods and winks were given to sugget that wasnt too far off..
- Far less ludicrous than the 10-15,000 price banded about some. Let's get a grip here - unless they have a 10 year trade in programme for upgrades that was nver going to work for a chinese made, electronics device, however much it was made to look fancy.. 0$4,5004,
From a distance they really all look the same, round chronographs with either a metal or leather strap. At least with Apple Watch I'll be able to change watch faces on a whim.
And the same is true for the ?Watch -- the difference is, the ?Watch will also look like every other ?Watch even up close, unless your display is illuminated, which you will want to keep to a minimum to preserve battery life. The idea of changing your watch face on a whim is a gimmick and isn't really why most watch owners choose a watch. Most people I know who wear expensive watches (i.e. Over $300) do so as jewelry to make a statement. And the ?Watch is hands down the most uninteresting piece of jewelry I've ever seen, especially when the display is dark. If the ?Watch eventually sells in numbers equal to the iPhone, it will be the digital equivalent of the ubiquitous Armstrong LiveStrong rubber wristband.
So I see that article cites the Edition as costing around 4,500 dollar. If it's cited here, in a piece with a sanction interview, and it's described as 'unconfirmed' you can be sure nods and winks were given to sugget that wasnt too far off..
- Far less ludicrous than the 10-15,000 price banded about some. Let's get a grip here - unless they have a 10 year trade in programme for upgrades that was nver going to work for a chinese made, electronics device, however much it was made to look fancy.. 0$4,5004,
Well the did get the SS pricing wrong (suggesting the Sport and SS watches would both start at $349) to which Apple PR gave comments to 9to5Mac and MacRumors saying the article got that wrong.
I hardly ever see others peoples watches in detail and so can't appreciate them as they are hidden up a sleeve. Perhaps if it was warmer in the UK we would have short sleeves and our watches would be on show.
Considering your experience is similar to those of everyone else in the UK, why then do you think anyone would wear anything more than a cheap timex on their wrist, if nobody ever sees them, and they only use them to tell time?
And then I have to ask, why do my friends with Rolexes, still pull out their cell phones to check the time?
Well the did get the SS pricing wrong (suggesting the Sport and SS watches would both start at $349) to which Apple PR gave comments to 9to5Mac and MacRumors saying the article got that wrong.
Oh ok - hadn't seen that. Well, that rather muddies the water! Then again, seems an interesting figure to have plucked out of midair as it's not really been the price most people have been citing. Feels more accurate to me as it'll sell relatively well - a nice gift rather accessible to the middle classes for signifiant occasions than exclusively for the nouveau riche/celebs of the world. If it was gen 3 and there was a market already established i would be more confident in higher prices - but go too high initially and it'll be a PR disaster (even if it's all perception). They can always bring out diamond bands and other fancy Edition versions next gen and push prices north as the style element becomes more the focus and the bulky tech gets out of the way with progress.
Therein lies the problem. A watch should be a personal possession. But there is only one design of the Apple Watch, so if Apple were to sell millions, you would be wearing the most impersonal watch you could imagine.
I count ten models (38mm and 42mm in aluminium, stainless steel, dark stainless steel, gold and rose gold), a wide variety of straps plus infinitely customisable software.
I count ten models (38mm and 42mm in aluminium, stainless steel, dark stainless steel, gold and rose gold), a wide variety of straps plus infinitely customisable software.
Variations on a theme to be fair so i see his point - anybody will say "Oh that's the ? Watch isn't it?"...
"Man you're prett clueless about how Apple and Ive work. He and his team weren't forced to do this -- they *wanted* to do it and had to convince leadership. Do yourself a favor and read the New Yorker profile on Ive before you make another mistake."
So they wanted to take an incredibly easy device and make it harder?
I count ten models (38mm and 42mm in aluminium, stainless steel, dark stainless steel, gold and rose gold), a wide variety of straps plus infinitely customisable software.
Not to mention the fact that the Watch is the gateway to the most personal device previous, your iPhone, which is essentially a repository and mirror for your own life and mind. People will be tied to their Watches like they are to their phones, only moreso.
It would take a weekend of ayahuasca to get Benji Frost to understand a point as simple and unsubtle as that. (If he's for real, which I doubt.)
"Man you're prett clueless about how Apple and Ive work. He and his team weren't forced to do this -- they *wanted* to do it and had to convince leadership. Do yourself a favor and read the New Yorker profile on Ive before you make another mistake."
So they wanted to take an incredibly easy device and make it harder?
Well...yes. I remember what the telephone was like in the mid 1960s. The iPhone in my pocket is way "harder." I think the point is that it is made "better." Apple Watch is called a "Watch" because of only two reasons: 1. It resides where watches traditionally are kept (a wrist); and 2. It can display the time. Beyond that it is a totally new device.
I see you've tempered your prediction of 40 million in the first year!
That's understandable in the light of Ive's confession of modest sales.
15 million would be a slightly disappointing success.
seriously, at a 350$ minimum, I'd take that "slightly disappointing success"... heck any smartwatch manufacturer will gladly take 10% of that. sheesh. You do understand that's 15M x $350 is over $5.2B
Comments
[QUOTE]“It was different with the phone – all of us working on the first iPhone were driven by an absolute disdain for the cellphones we were using at the time. That’s not the case here. We’re a group of people who love our watches. So we’re working on something, yet have a high regard for what currently exists.”
[/QUOTE]
So to all those who think Apple is arrogantly trying to replace luxury watches STFU.
Ah, I see your meaning.
He's gracious enough to acknowledge the beauty of existing 'dumb' watches, and wants to make their smart watches as great - and that he'll continue working on gen 2 etc.
Obviously he cant make an exquisite classical watch that he dreams of in the sense that he's severely constrained by relatively bulky batteries and other technology which remains in its infancy. Just as with the iPhone it'll get crafted towards perfection as the technology allows.
I hardly ever see others peoples watches in detail and so can't appreciate them as they are hidden up a sleeve. Perhaps if it was warmer in the UK we would have short sleeves and our watches would be on show.
Oh, I don't think there's any chance of them limiting their watch to Fitbit territory.
So I see that article cites the Edition as costing around 4,500 dollar. If it's cited here, in a piece with a sanction interview, and it's described as 'unconfirmed' you can be sure nods and winks were given to sugget that wasnt too far off..
- Far less ludicrous than the 10-15,000 price banded about some. Let's get a grip here - unless they have a 10 year trade in programme for upgrades that was nver going to work for a chinese made, electronics device, however much it was made to look fancy.. 0$4,5004,
Well the did get the SS pricing wrong (suggesting the Sport and SS watches would both start at $349) to which Apple PR gave comments to 9to5Mac and MacRumors saying the article got that wrong.
And then I have to ask, why do my friends with Rolexes, still pull out their cell phones to check the time?
Well the did get the SS pricing wrong (suggesting the Sport and SS watches would both start at $349) to which Apple PR gave comments to 9to5Mac and MacRumors saying the article got that wrong.
Oh ok - hadn't seen that. Well, that rather muddies the water! Then again, seems an interesting figure to have plucked out of midair as it's not really been the price most people have been citing. Feels more accurate to me as it'll sell relatively well - a nice gift rather accessible to the middle classes for signifiant occasions than exclusively for the nouveau riche/celebs of the world. If it was gen 3 and there was a market already established i would be more confident in higher prices - but go too high initially and it'll be a PR disaster (even if it's all perception). They can always bring out diamond bands and other fancy Edition versions next gen and push prices north as the style element becomes more the focus and the bulky tech gets out of the way with progress.
Therein lies the problem. A watch should be a personal possession. But there is only one design of the Apple Watch, so if Apple were to sell millions, you would be wearing the most impersonal watch you could imagine.
I count ten models (38mm and 42mm in aluminium, stainless steel, dark stainless steel, gold and rose gold), a wide variety of straps plus infinitely customisable software.
I count ten models (38mm and 42mm in aluminium, stainless steel, dark stainless steel, gold and rose gold), a wide variety of straps plus infinitely customisable software.
Variations on a theme to be fair so i see his point - anybody will say "Oh that's the ? Watch isn't it?"...
So they wanted to take an incredibly easy device and make it harder?
Not to mention the fact that the Watch is the gateway to the most personal device previous, your iPhone, which is essentially a repository and mirror for your own life and mind. People will be tied to their Watches like they are to their phones, only moreso.
It would take a weekend of ayahuasca to get Benji Frost to understand a point as simple and unsubtle as that. (If he's for real, which I doubt.)
"Man you're prett clueless about how Apple and Ive work. He and his team weren't forced to do this -- they *wanted* to do it and had to convince leadership. Do yourself a favor and read the New Yorker profile on Ive before you make another mistake."
So they wanted to take an incredibly easy device and make it harder?
Well...yes. I remember what the telephone was like in the mid 1960s. The iPhone in my pocket is way "harder." I think the point is that it is made "better." Apple Watch is called a "Watch" because of only two reasons: 1. It resides where watches traditionally are kept (a wrist); and 2. It can display the time. Beyond that it is a totally new device.
Only 15 million?
I see you've tempered your prediction of 40 million in the first year!
That's understandable in the light of Ive's confession of modest sales.
15 million would be a slightly disappointing success.
seriously, at a 350$ minimum, I'd take that "slightly disappointing success"... heck any smartwatch manufacturer will gladly take 10% of that. sheesh. You do understand that's 15M x $350 is over $5.2B
Apple needs to disrupt the razor blade industry.
Interesting watch Ive is wearing in that shot.