First look: Hands-on with Apple Watch and working software

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 2015
Apple spilled additional details about its hotly anticipated Apple Watch wearable on Monday, and AppleInsider was there to take a first look at the device that could soon dominate a burgeoning smartwatch market.




Following a formal presentation covering previously unanswered questions about capabilities, battery life and -- perhaps most importantly -- pricing, Apple gave attendees at Yerba Buena Center a chance to preview working Apple Watch examples.




On the outside, Apple Watch remains largely unchanged from demo models shown off in September. The units at today's event, however, were fully functional, giving those in attendance a taste of how Watch will operate in the real world.




On the underside is Apple's bespoke heart rate sensor, which will enable Watch to track realtime stats to offer users a more personalized health and fitness experience.




Also on display were various Apple Watch straps, including fluoroelastomer sport bands included with many entry-level Watch models.




Along with a 38mm model, Apple is offering a 42mm version for each of the three Apple Watch tiers; Apple Watch Sport, Apple Watch and Apple Watch Edition. The larger versions come at a premium of $50 for the Sport and Watch, while the 42mm Edition costs an extra $2,000.

Apple will start accepting preorders for Apple Watch on April 10, the same day devices are slated to hit Apple Store display tables for fittings. The device is scheduled to launch on April 24.

«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 44

    I assume we'll get some impressions as well? Or will you wait for a full reivew?

  • Reply 2 of 44
    lymflymf Posts: 65member
    Could you please add in the description of the pictures which models are being wore? Would be helpful to know how big each model is. Thank you :)
  • Reply 3 of 44
    Which size are you guys wearing? I have a good size wrist, so I wanna make sure that the 42 isn't too big.
  • Reply 4 of 44
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,962member

    beside the fking price, it's all good....

    I hope with the low sale number, Apple just slash the price to $299/$449 for Sport/Watch...I ignore the Edition.

  • Reply 5 of 44
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    how loud is the speaker - can you hear a call in a busy room? outside?
  • Reply 6 of 44
    peterjh3peterjh3 Posts: 15member
    "The larger versions come at a premium of $50 for the Sport and Watch, while the 42mm Edition costs an extra $2,000."

    ...only an extra $2,000.00? Why don't you check your numbers at Apple.com before you publish? Starting price of Apple Watch Edition is $10,000.00 and it goes up from there.
  • Reply 7 of 44
    capnbobcapnbob Posts: 386member

    I think you need to brush up your comprehension... the $2000 is the increment for the 42mm over the 38mm ($10K vs $12K)... it's pretty clear.

  • Reply 8 of 44
    So thick; I couldn't bear to wear one. It would constantly catch on cuff links.
  • Reply 9 of 44
    oneaburnsoneaburns Posts: 354member

    I'm a guy but I'm leaning towards getting the smaller one.  I don't have large wrists and these things look too large and clunky on the guys the photos.

  • Reply 10 of 44
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    So thick; I couldn't bear to wear one. It would constantly catch on cuff links.
    It's just about the same thickness as a Rolex Submariner. Has anyone ever complained about a cuff link conflict with a Submariner?
  • Reply 11 of 44
    capnbobcapnbob Posts: 386member

    I'm good with the Sport, Watch and band costs for those but I just checked out the bands on the Edition... the leather classic buckle bands cost $3000 over the sport band!!! The Grey modern buckle cost $7000 over the sport band!!!

     

    HOW MUCH GOLD IS IN THESE BUCKLES???

     

    If this proves anything, it is Apple pricing the Edition at what the luxury market will bear rather than anything related to cost. I am sure they know their benchmarks and comparators. At those levels, I'm not sure people will buy fewer Rolexes... they'll probably just add an Apple Watch to their collection and keep it charged, like the Rolexes sit in the $10000 winders!

  • Reply 12 of 44

    It's hard to get a sense of scale on the wrists in the photos but the watch looks too big.

     

    I was hoping to get my girlfriend one but I think I'll have to take her to try on one in case the small one is even too big.

     

    This might be a wait until next year type of thing for the thinner/faster/etc one

  • Reply 13 of 44
    davebarnesdavebarnes Posts: 266member

    I think 38/42 mm is a tad small.

    Samsung has a much larger diamter device at 155 mm.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K9_Thunder

  • Reply 14 of 44
    It's called a hands-on, but there's no info besides the stats from their webpage. I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion on it. How does it compare to other products in this category?

    I'm beginning to think of the Apple Watch more like the iPod than the iPhone. The success will come from having more functionality and intuitiveness then other products available.
  • Reply 15 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oneaburns View Post

     

    I'm a guy but I'm leaning towards getting the smaller one.  I don't have large wrists and these things look too large and clunky on the guys the photos.




    Agreed, they look pretty large, but I think it's an interesting strategy having people come in and try them on but then have to wait 2 weeks before they can get them . But like the iphone 6 and 6+ they say the 42mm has a bigger battery. So might be worth it.

  • Reply 16 of 44
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    Despite people saying it looks huge, and despite the fact that 38 and 42mm are standard watch sizes, I'm betting we see larger faces as standard as the wrist-worn wearable market grows.
  • Reply 17 of 44
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,589member
    Nice report. Hands on and 'working software', and all that. Pity the software clearly stopped working after the headline had been written.
  • Reply 18 of 44
    New drinking game: take shot every time DED uses bespoke in a sentence. :)
  • Reply 19 of 44
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post



    Despite people saying it looks huge, and despite the fact that 38 and 42mm are standard watch sizes, I'm betting we see larger faces as standard as the wrist-worn wearable market grows.

     

    The main reason for a larger size right now is battery size. If someone offers GPS or Cell on the watch, it HAS to be larger.

    There are a few battery tech coming up, but not within 2-3 years. I'd expect improvement to the screen energy consumption to occur before there is improvement in batteries.

  • Reply 20 of 44
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by allmypeople View Post

     

    It's hard to get a sense of scale on the wrists in the photos but the watch looks too big.

     

    I was hoping to get my girlfriend one but I think I'll have to take her to try on one in case the small one is even too big.

     

    This might be a wait until next year type of thing for the thinner/faster/etc one


     

    The big watch is the standard size for men. The small one a bit larger than the larger current women's models Movado and Tissot have 35mm.

    Since typical standard women's watch are 30-35mm, not sure we will see those sizes anytime soon with current battery tech and a need for a decent size screen. At 32mm, even with a rectangle, the screen would be less than a square inch

Sign In or Register to comment.