This thing is on your wrist. Other than offering a new model with a round screen, or some incredible breakthrough in batteries where they could make it vastly thinner I'm curious to hear your thoughts on what they could do that would justify changing the physical dimensions so dramatically that your concern might even be remotely valid?
Other than Apple has never done anything like that before? The internal components of the 3G iPhone won't fit into the case of a 1G iPhone. The contents of a 4 won't fit into a 3G, et al. I'm not even sure you can put the internal components of a 5S into a 5. And you surely can't put the internals of a 5S into a 5C.
So in your fantasy world, Apple just stops innovating and freezes the Apple watch in time, never changing the design, or style, so they can continue to upgrade the internals to make the whiners on here happy with their initial purchase well past the time Apple normally stops supporting their products. They completely abandon their business model, which relies on people upgrading their electronic devices routinely.
Yeah. you've really got the inside track on this one! /s
We're talking about the whole gut of the watch...that's beyond impossible. Mac Pro is upgradable for some minor parts only like RAM and such...but motherboard? NO.
Ignoring the silly use of impossible, it's also not improbable. In fact, it's a lot more possible now than it's ever been before because of the vertical stacking of the components -and- the physical requirements associated with a wrist-worn CE.
The ceramic disc and sensors will be at the bottom, with the sensors being inside the ceramic ring. The battery will likely be next, to put it closer to the charging unit, followed by the SIP above it and the display above that. 10 years from now do you really think they will move things around the way the Mac Pro has changed based on heating, expansion, and other considerations? I certainly don't. If there is a 42mm ?Watch in a decade it's quite possible to have everything stacked the same... including these diameter ceramic disc underneath, even if there are more sensors included. Battery tech can get better without taking up more volume, the SIP could be the exact same shape with even more features with a small lithography, and even the interconnects for the battery and display for the SIP could have been designed with longevity in mind since there is no weird ribbon running around an iDevice needed when everything is digital parfait stacked neatly atop each other.
Did they plan for all that? I don't know, but I do know that Ive said this was the hardest project he's ever worked on and Apple does seem keen on selling their $17,000 consumer electronics, so I think it's probable that they al least considered that track.
Ignoring the silly use of impossible, it's also not improbable. In fact, it's a lot more possible now than it's ever been before because of the vertical stacking of the components -and- the physical requirements associated with a wrist-worn CE.
The ceramic disc and sensors will be at the bottom, with the sensors being inside the ceramic ring. The battery will likely be next, to put it closer to the charging unit, followed by the SIP above it and the display above that. 10 years from now do you really think they will move things around the way the Mac Pro has changed based on heating, expansion, and other considerations? I certainly don't. If there is a 42mm ?Watch in a decade it's quite possible to have everything stacked the same... including these diameter ceramic disc underneath, even if there are more sensors included. Battery tech can get better without taking up more volume, the SIP could be the exact same shape with even more features with a small lithography, and even the interconnects for the battery and display for the SIP could have been designed with longevity in mind since there is no weird ribbon running around an iDevice needed when everything is digital parfait stacked neatly atop each other.
Did they plan for all that? I don't know, but I do know that Ive said this was the hardest project he's ever worked on and Apple does seem keen on selling their $17,000 consumer electronics, so I think it's probable that they al least considered that track.
Want a bet? Let's do it. I said NEVER upgradable for the gut.
Other than Apple has never done anything like that before? The internal components of the 3G iPhone won't fit into the case of a 1G iPhone. The contents of a 4 won't fit into a 3G, et al. I'm not even sure you can put the internal components of a 5S into a 5. And you surely can't put the internals of a 5S into a 5C.
So in your fantasy world, Apple just stops innovating and freezes the Apple watch in time, never changing the design, or style, so they can continue to upgrade the internals to make the whiners on here happy with their initial purchase well past the time Apple normally stops supporting their products. They completely abandon their business model, which relies on people upgrading their electronic devices routinely.
Yeah. you've really got the inside track on this one! /s
Where is your imagination? If Apple makes the guts of the watch replaceable, it doesn't mean they'll do so for free. I'm sure they'd still have healthy margins on the upgrade. Also, if in fact replaceable guts become a possibility, it doesn't mean that there won't also be a new style and new form factor that also contains the latest and greatest in the way of guts. Both are very do-able. It's not a black and white world and because they do one, doesn't mean they can't also do the other... So new customers, would be purchasing the new style, while customers who are upgrading would opt for a "guts replacement". They'd end up with the same capabilities, but with possibly completely different style cases. This could potentially go on indefinitely. The obstacle to this being feasible though will be Apple's desire to add more, and better sensors. The type and placement of the v2 or v3 sensors may not be compatible with the v1 form factor.
In any case - upgradeable internals are not impossible. They're also not guaranteed. It will be interesting to see how Apple decides to take this forward over the next few years.
Oh yeah, I also think that by v3 at the latest, the Apple Watch will be able to stand on its own without requiring a companion iPhone. It will be slightly better, and do more when paired with an actual iPhone however you'll be able to buy an Apple Watch and use most of its features without any kind of phone present at all!
Rolex, Omega, and TAG Heuer, for example, never slim down their flagship watch models.
Doing so would obsolete the Rolex you bought in 2012, and that obsolescence would hurt sales.
First those watches all have mechanical components that cannot be realistically reduced in size. Second, how would a newer model design obsolete the Rolex I bought, any more than a new Porsche design obsoletes the model I bought 2 years ago? And finally, they are classic designs. The Apple watch is a flat block of metal with black glass square on top, that looks like every other smart-watch out there (not to mention digital watches from the 70s). How is that in any way comparable with the iconic statement made by those classic flagship watches?
In any case - upgradeable internals are not impossible. They're also not guaranteed. It will be interesting to see how Apple decides to take this forward over the next few years.
Of course not, the same could be said for every single device Apple makes. Yet, they don't. It's not in their best interest to let customers hang on to old designs. Their business model is driven by promoting the latest and greatest products, which can't happen if they support decades of old products. Except for the Editions, the ?Watches are not so expensive as negate a steady upgrade volume, perhaps not on the timeline of the two year iPhone cycle, but within the lifespan of the typical 5 year product support window. The idea that for every new watch design they introduce to accommodate new features, they will also have to design a version that will fit into all previous versions of the watch design is a profit loss proposition regardless of how much they charge for it. And theoretically they would have to offer the 3G upgrade, for instance, in formats to fit the 1G and 2G cases. Every new watch design then necessitates a retrofit design for every variation they've ever made! By 3G, assuming they change nothing else other than the case design, they would have to design a minimum of 6 watch configurations to support upgrades of both sizes of the previous two watch generations. And test them. And support them. I mean where does it stop?
First those watches all have mechanical components that cannot be realistically reduced in size. Second, how would a newer model design obsolete the Rolex I bought, any more than a new Porsche design obsoletes the model I bought 2 years ago? And finally, they are classic designs. The Apple watch is a flat block of metal with black glass square on top, that looks like every other smart-watch out there (not to mention digital watches from the 70s). How is that in any way comparable with the iconic statement made by those classic flagship watches?
Would a slimmer 2017 ?Watch obsolete the current one? It wouldn't. But it would make the 2015 model look dated.
My 1994 Rolex Submariner looks more or less exactly the same as the 2015 Submariner. Classic yet current.
The question none of us knows the answer to, yet, is "Will Apple market ?Watch as technology or as 'classic' fashion?"
If technology, then yes, Apple will rev the design as often as is necessary to stay ahead of other smartwatches.
If 'classic' fashion, then no, Apple will not change the ?Watch (or Sport or Edition) design.
(Of course, Apple could always release new lines e.g. ?Watch Titanium, ?Watch Carbon, etc. With slimmer form-factors.)
Other than Apple has never done anything like that before? The internal components of the 3G iPhone won't fit into the case of a 1G iPhone. The contents of a 4 won't fit into a 3G, et al. I'm not even sure you can put the internal components of a 5S into a 5. And you surely can't put the internals of a 5S into a 5C.
Many of those case designs were based on lessons learned from previous generations, or were functional change that were NOT constrained to the primary factor of "will this thing fit on your wrist". Comparing those devices to the Apple Watch makes about as much sense as complaining you can't put a desktop motherboard in an iPhone.
How can you see the Apple watch significantly changing, other than possibly offering a round display instead of square or making it thinner?
I'm all ears.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a lock they will offer it. But it's far from impossible as some people are insisting.
So in your fantasy world, Apple just stops innovating and freezes the Apple watch in time, never changing the design, or style, so they can continue to upgrade the internals to make the whiners on here happy with their initial purchase
But for the edition level of watch, I might be as ready to dismiss it as you are. The edition model kind of changes that dynamic. I agree, anything under $2K fits squarely in the disposable category (from Apple's point of view anyway), but not at $10K+ - especially when the majority of that cost is aesthetic.
They completely abandon their business model, which relies on people upgrading their electronic devices routinely.
lol - on one hand you talk about design and style, and the other you defend your position by pointing to disposability? Blindly mapping the old models on top of this new offering is probably going to prove perilous. For those attempting to do so anyway, certainly not Apple because I'm extremely confident none of what is discussed in this thread is a surprise to them.
I must say, this has been the most entertaining Apple product launch announcement in a long time. So much fun watching people trying to second guess something so new and unique to Apple's offerings. It's been a long time since that has happened.
EDIT: And if Apple was so desperate for forced upgrades as you imply, then why support so many older devices with newer OS's time after time after time? Seem's counter productive to your thesis.
And you still didn't answer if you think the fact that the Apple Watch looks very similar to many other smart watches was just them being lazy vs. some other very good reason?
First those watches all have mechanical components that cannot be realistically reduced in size. Second, how would a newer model design obsolete the Rolex I bought, any more than a new Porsche design obsoletes the model I bought 2 years ago? And finally, they are classic designs. The Apple watch is a flat block of metal with black glass square on top, that looks like every other smart-watch out there (not to mention digital watches from the 70s). How is that in any way comparable with the iconic statement made by those classic flagship watches?
The axe you're grinding is getting so thin it's transparent. Has been for awhile.
Neither a Rolex nor a Porsche come with a massive ecosystem of services and a repository of your mental and social and general life activities of your every waking moment, with maybe some sleeping thrown in.
You are not trolling intelligently enough. It's painful to see what you do to snare honest posters into your web.
Obviously they would never tell us when an updated refresh would happen , but they spent 4 years on this thing and they seem to be having a later launch date then I would have guessed . So I personally don't think a new one will be out in a year maybe the fall of next year tied in with a new iPhone but not in a year . But I'm sure they could improve and eventually add gps so you can go for a run without your phone and so on , but right now there seems to be more emphasis on fashion then function
@eriamjh I would be very surprised if the watch isn't "upgraded" every year, particularly when it is selling well. Bear in mind also, iPhones and iPads have a limited lifespan before they go "out of support". There's no reason to believe that the same won't also apply to the watch. In a few years, there will be a lot of people who will be very disappointed when their iWatch 1 won't talk to their shiny new iPhone 10.
Adding to the panacea of call me underwhelmed. And that they're offering a $13,000 watch that as others have pointed out will be obsolete in a year or two. good grief.
There's a tremendous amount of potential for wrist devices, but most of the technology that's required to build it isn't actually on the watch, but rather off of it. Imagine a device that, much like many Seiko watches, charges itself through your body movement. It could, like a fitbit, detect if it's on your person (and hasn't been removed). Imagine something like Disney's Magic band tech, except rather than tying you to one unique identity, it would allow you to automatically create identities for each interaction and then allow you to control what personal information is connected to that identity, and account for how and when that personal information is used. That's where the bulk of the tech would be required - an identity service that is biometrically tied to your body, but allows you to control how you're identified (allowing you to manage all your identities, whether they're on the internet, offline at a store, at a bank, etc). This is the kinda killer app that could revolutionize business and even government (ie use your watch to sign agreements with a public key, share your personal information and track how its used, so much more).
Instead, we get a watch where you can change the face, maybe see your text messages or emails, ie things that others have done and no real innovation, and certainly not worth $500 to the vast majority of people (considering you can get an iPhone that does all these things for less than that). The apple Watch is going to flop, and flop hard. There is no way it'll sell 15 million units in the first year. I'll take that bet that if it does, I'll delete my account and shut my mouth about Apple (not just for 1 month, but permanently).
Apple, I've been a fan for a very long time, but this is just sad.
Of course not, the same could be said for every single device Apple makes. Yet, they don't. It's not in their best interest to let customers hang on to old designs. Their business model is driven by promoting the latest and greatest products, which can't happen if they support decades of old products. Except for the Editions, the ?Watches are not so expensive as negate a steady upgrade volume, perhaps not on the timeline of the two year iPhone cycle, but within the lifespan of the typical 5 year product support window. The idea that for every new watch design they introduce to accommodate new features, they will also have to design a version that will fit into all previous versions of the watch design is a profit loss proposition regardless of how much they charge for it. And theoretically they would have to offer the 3G upgrade, for instance, in formats to fit the 1G and 2G cases. Every new watch design then necessitates a retrofit design for every variation they've ever made! By 3G, assuming they change nothing else other than the case design, they would have to design a minimum of 6 watch configurations to support upgrades of both sizes of the previous two watch generations. And test them. And support them. I mean where does it stop?
It stops where Apple decides it no longer makes sense. I'm not replying to your message for your benefit or to try to show you where your logic is wrong because you won't be convinced. You've already decided what the "realities" are based on your own limited imagination and other "facts" that are not real but that you've simply willed into existence to support the conclusion you want to see to the exclusion of all others (even if you have to fabricate data points to do so.) My reply is for the other readers that stumble upon this thread - specifically the ones that have a more robust imagination than you and the ones that have open minds and a greater all 'round understanding of things in general.
It would be quite easy, and cost effective for Apple to decide internally, that the guts of their watches will always fit within a specific shape and volume regardless of the exterior shape and style of the casing. It's also likely that the "next" generation of the watch, using miniaturization and newer technologies, will be able to fit more into that fixed size than they did in the current or previous generation. That makes it very easy for Apple to offer a guts upgrade in the watch if they choose to do so - and for that update to be extremely cost effective because the guts they use to upgrade the older watches will be *exactly* the same module they put in this years stylish new casing. I also think that they would be able to command much higher margins on that type of upgrade and sell to a segment of the market that might otherwise be "sitting out" this years upgrade cycle.
One more example - I have several friends who really loved the look, feel and size of the iPhone 4S. If replaceable guts were an option with iPhones, they would definitely have kept the 4S form factor and paid for an update to the internals. As things are, 2 of the 4 friends in this category are still using their 4s and the other 2 have switched to Android because they find the size of the iPhone 5 and newer to be too big. Could replaceable guts have worked with iPhones too? Possibly - but lot without a monumental effort from Apple. Their are many issues with iPhones that simply don't exist with the Apple watch. The point I'm trying to make with this anecdote is that a similar situation will likely occur within the community of Apple Watch users - where a portion of the user base will prefer the style of an older casing instead of the latest and greatest - but at the same time, hese users would certainly welcome an update to the internals which would bring the latest features, speed improvements, etc to their existing device.
I'm still not predicting whether Apple will go this route or not, but it's silly and small-minded to say that they *won't* do it simply because they've never done it before with any other product line.
Adding to the panacea of call me underwhelmed. And that they're offering a $13,000 watch that as others have pointed out will be obsolete in a year or two. good grief.
There's a tremendous amount of potential for wrist devices, but most of the technology that's required to build it isn't actually on the watch, but rather off of it. Imagine a device that, much like many Seiko watches, charges itself through your body movement. It could, like a fitbit, detect if it's on your person (and hasn't been removed). Imagine something like Disney's Magic band tech, except rather than tying you to one unique identity, it would allow you to automatically create identities for each interaction and then allow you to control what personal information is connected to that identity, and account for how and when that personal information is used. That's where the bulk of the tech would be required - an identity service that is biometrically tied to your body, but allows you to control how you're identified (allowing you to manage all your identities, whether they're on the internet, offline at a store, at a bank, etc). This is the kinda killer app that could revolutionize business and even government (ie use your watch to sign agreements with a public key, share your personal information and track how its used, so much more).
Instead, we get a watch where you can change the face, maybe see your text messages or emails, ie things that others have done and no real innovation, and certainly not worth $500 to the vast majority of people (considering you can get an iPhone that does all these things for less than that). The apple Watch is going to flop, and flop hard. There is no way it'll sell 15 million units in the first year. I'll take that bet that if it does, I'll delete my account and shut my mouth about Apple (not just for 1 month, but permanently).
Apple, I've been a fan for a very long time, but this is just sad.
The device you describe sounds pretty awesome - and maybe we'll get there in a few years. I just finished watching (again) the 2007 introduction of the original iPhone. Not just the 3 minute highlight clip - the entire keynote. I didn't become an iPhone user until the 3GS came out and I certainly remember what passed for a "smart" phone before the iPhone.
What surprised me most about the video was not the contrast between "the original iPhone and what came before it" from the incumbent smartphone manufacturers - (which we all know was a dramatic difference.) It was the contrast between the original iPhone and today's iPhone 6! Despite an annual cycle of complaints that each new version of the iPhone "lacked innovation" or consisted of only incremental improvements, I find that the differences between the original iPhone and today's iPhone to be every bit as dramatic as the differences between the original iPhone and what came before it.
So - having said all that - remember that the Apple Watch is a first gen product and that there will be countless updtes and improvements to it over the coming years. I think it's entirely possoble that it will in fact evolve into the device you describe.
I don't think that a permanent ban is warranted over an incorrect prediction - but I'll take you're bet if we make it a self-ban for a month. For the sake of the bet, I'll say they sell over 20 million of them in the 12 months following it's release. (I actually think they'll sell more than 40 million - but not strongly enough to "bet" based on that number!)
It would be quite easy, and cost effective for Apple to decide internally, that the guts of their watches will always fit within a specific shape and volume regardless of the exterior shape and style of the casing.
Apple tried that already, it was called the Apple III.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenly
I also think that they would be able to command much higher margins on that type of upgrade and sell to a segment of the market that might otherwise be "sitting out" this years upgrade cycle.
They would have to, because they have to pay for a dedicated service facility to perform the upgrade. And this was the case with their poorly performing sales of PPC processor upgrades sold in the 90s. But my main criticism of this is once the customer replaces the battery along with the new upgrade, how much more would a brand new watch cost them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenly
where a portion of the user base will prefer the style of an older casing instead of the latest and greatest - but at the same time, hese users would certainly welcome an update to the internals which would bring the latest features, speed improvements, etc to their existing device.
Fair enough, but isn't that the case with every Apple product? This assumes Apple implements your one-size fits all approach to their future designs. And it also assumes they can substantially redesign a watch which main feature is a large square of glass sitting across the top, enough to inspire some one to cling to their originally purchased design. And of course they will welcome the update as along as Apple prices it accordingly. How different would a new watch have to before someone decides the cost to upgrade just isn't worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenly
I'm still not predicting whether Apple will go this route or not, but it's silly and small-minded to say that they *won't* do it simply because they've never done it before with any other product line.
Again, I agree that I have no idea what they will do based on a new product line. However, my opinion is that this is not a very smart business move, one that Apple has tried in the past with little success, and one that is incompatible with their business model, and manufacturing realities of economy of scale. At the end of the day, in order to offset production and development costs, Apple needs to drive upgrades in their consumers. Part of this is inherently built into the software and technological innovations. But the other is in introducing new products and getting people to upgrade to them. If they offer hardware upgrades to their old products, then they start minimizing the return on their investment for the new products. No matter what the margins are on the replacement components, it's going to cut into the sales of new watches on which costs have to be recouped. And Apple has to guess how many upgrades they will have to manufacture for. And what if it's 100% of the original watch purchasers? Is that alone going to pay for the R&D and manufacturing of the new watch? And will it help lower their overall costs, so some of those profits can be returned to customers in the form of lower prices, and thus greater sales?
In the end, if not greater profits, what exactly does Apple gain from potentially compromising their new designs so that the internals are backward compatible with older products? You say your friends have no choice but to upgrade their 4S, even though they would prefer not to. So your argument seems to be customer retention as the two friends who aren't using their 4Ses anymore have switched to Android. So when their Apple watches no longer are supported, and Apple has changed the form factor so dramatically that it's no longer acceptable to a customer, they will switch to an Android smart watch? And possibly an Android smart phone (since it won't compatible with an iPhone)?
If customer loyalty were truly such a major concern to Apple, wouldn't they have gone out of their way already to not change their products ever, or make sure they continue to offer a 3.5" iPhone? Or make them all backward compatible? I mean, I'm not the smart phone engineer you clearly appear to be, but if your customers are going to jump ship when you have the best smartphone on the planet just because you change the size, wouldn't they go out of their way to make sure they could upgrade them? Or at least keep making the same phone design as an option? I don't know, maybe I have such small mind that I can't imagine any other reasons Apple would want to potentially sacrifice future revenue and design in order to maintain vintage products. Again, you seem to be an expert in smart watch and smart phone design based on your comments of what you can and cannot do, as well as an MBA to justify Apple's implementation of this business plan. So I defer to you to enlighten me and others as to the reasons Apple would do this.
I mean, I'm not the smart phone engineer you clearly appear to be...
I don't know, maybe I have such small mind that I can't imagine any other reasons...
I don't even know how to begin to reply to your latest message. You base a lot of your reasoning on statements you make up and then present as if they were facts. We could go back and forth forever in this discussion if you just keep making up facts and waiting to see if I (or someone else) bothers to take the time to disprove them or to call you out on it. Here are just a few from your most recent message.
Quote:
...because they have to pay for a dedicated service facility to perform the upgrade.
Why would you think that swapping out a module would require a dedicated service facility? LOL! If it required a service facility at all, why would it have to be dedicated? Why don't they need dedicated service facilities to replace batteries? The type of upgrade I envision as being possible would definitely be as easy to perform as a battery replacement - which is probably something they can do "in store". LOL again @ "dedicated service facility". Just one example of you making stuff up and hoping people don't realize how ridiculous some of your statements are!
Quote:
And it also assumes they can substantially redesign a watch which main feature is a large square of glass sitting across the top,
Okay - so your point here is that the watch really does have to stay essentially the same size and shape because of it's function as a watch. This sounds like you are saying that it would be difficult for Apple to develop compelling new shapes or form factors. This is actually a good argument for my point that the guts from a newer model will very likely fit inside the older watch casing - since casings will not vary dramatically in size and shape - and because the newer technology will be smaller than the older technology it is replacing.
Quote:
...if not greater profits, what exactly does Apple gain from potentially compromising their new designs so that the internals are backward compatible with older products?
Okay - so here you try to slip in the idea that making an upgradeable watch will result in compromises to the new designs. It won't.
Quote:
If they offer hardware upgrades to their old products, then they start minimizing the return on their investment for the new products
Maybe you don't understand the type of upgrade I'm envisioning. I'm not talking about opening the old watch up and upgrading the camera or the wi-fi. It's a complete swap of the contents of the watch. A remove and replace. The "guts" that you put into your old watch, would not compete with Apple's "new product", it actually *IS* Apple's new product. I don't know why you don't see that. As part of designing the watch, they design the electronics of it, the functionality, the capabilities - and in parallel with that, they design the packaging, the casing, etc. So you essentially need to think of it as 2 new products. The "guts" being one, and the container/casing being the other. Perhaps with the watch bands being a third new product.
Quote:
No matter what the margins are on the replacement components, it's going to cut into the sales of new watches
No. It won't. Because the sale of the "guts" is essentially a sale of a new watch and needs to be treated as such.
Quote:
And Apple has to guess how many upgrades they will have to manufacture for
Ugh. No they don't. They have to estimate how many people will want the capabilities of the new generation. The "guts" are not similar between an upgrade and a new watch, they are identical - thereby avoiding this issue and maintaining the economies of scale that you claim will be sacrificed.
My whole point on this topic has been that it appears that it would be possible and almost easy for Apple to offer upgradeable guts. Apple has reams of marketing data and engineering data that they will use when determining whether or not to offer upgrades. My original claim was that it will be interesting to see which direction Apple decides to take - however, then you came along with all of your proclamations in absolute form - based on facts and data that aren't real.
The biggest reason I can see for Apple offering the upgrades is to convince people to pull the trigger on the initial purchase of a watch. I imagine that a lot of people will be hesitant to purchase the mid-tier and top-tier watches knowing that the device is disposable after 2-3 years. If people are assured that they will be able to upgrade their watches at a reasonable cost, I think they'll be more confident about making the initial purchase.
Comments
This thing is on your wrist. Other than offering a new model with a round screen, or some incredible breakthrough in batteries where they could make it vastly thinner I'm curious to hear your thoughts on what they could do that would justify changing the physical dimensions so dramatically that your concern might even be remotely valid?
Other than Apple has never done anything like that before? The internal components of the 3G iPhone won't fit into the case of a 1G iPhone. The contents of a 4 won't fit into a 3G, et al. I'm not even sure you can put the internal components of a 5S into a 5. And you surely can't put the internals of a 5S into a 5C.
So in your fantasy world, Apple just stops innovating and freezes the Apple watch in time, never changing the design, or style, so they can continue to upgrade the internals to make the whiners on here happy with their initial purchase well past the time Apple normally stops supporting their products. They completely abandon their business model, which relies on people upgrading their electronic devices routinely.
Yeah. you've really got the inside track on this one! /s
Ignoring the silly use of impossible, it's also not improbable. In fact, it's a lot more possible now than it's ever been before because of the vertical stacking of the components -and- the physical requirements associated with a wrist-worn CE.
The ceramic disc and sensors will be at the bottom, with the sensors being inside the ceramic ring. The battery will likely be next, to put it closer to the charging unit, followed by the SIP above it and the display above that. 10 years from now do you really think they will move things around the way the Mac Pro has changed based on heating, expansion, and other considerations? I certainly don't. If there is a 42mm ?Watch in a decade it's quite possible to have everything stacked the same... including these diameter ceramic disc underneath, even if there are more sensors included. Battery tech can get better without taking up more volume, the SIP could be the exact same shape with even more features with a small lithography, and even the interconnects for the battery and display for the SIP could have been designed with longevity in mind since there is no weird ribbon running around an iDevice needed when everything is digital parfait stacked neatly atop each other.
Did they plan for all that? I don't know, but I do know that Ive said this was the hardest project he's ever worked on and Apple does seem keen on selling their $17,000 consumer electronics, so I think it's probable that they al least considered that track.
Ignoring the silly use of impossible, it's also not improbable. In fact, it's a lot more possible now than it's ever been before because of the vertical stacking of the components -and- the physical requirements associated with a wrist-worn CE.
The ceramic disc and sensors will be at the bottom, with the sensors being inside the ceramic ring. The battery will likely be next, to put it closer to the charging unit, followed by the SIP above it and the display above that. 10 years from now do you really think they will move things around the way the Mac Pro has changed based on heating, expansion, and other considerations? I certainly don't. If there is a 42mm ?Watch in a decade it's quite possible to have everything stacked the same... including these diameter ceramic disc underneath, even if there are more sensors included. Battery tech can get better without taking up more volume, the SIP could be the exact same shape with even more features with a small lithography, and even the interconnects for the battery and display for the SIP could have been designed with longevity in mind since there is no weird ribbon running around an iDevice needed when everything is digital parfait stacked neatly atop each other.
Did they plan for all that? I don't know, but I do know that Ive said this was the hardest project he's ever worked on and Apple does seem keen on selling their $17,000 consumer electronics, so I think it's probable that they al least considered that track.
Want a bet? Let's do it. I said NEVER upgradable for the gut.
Where is your imagination? If Apple makes the guts of the watch replaceable, it doesn't mean they'll do so for free. I'm sure they'd still have healthy margins on the upgrade. Also, if in fact replaceable guts become a possibility, it doesn't mean that there won't also be a new style and new form factor that also contains the latest and greatest in the way of guts. Both are very do-able. It's not a black and white world and because they do one, doesn't mean they can't also do the other... So new customers, would be purchasing the new style, while customers who are upgrading would opt for a "guts replacement". They'd end up with the same capabilities, but with possibly completely different style cases. This could potentially go on indefinitely. The obstacle to this being feasible though will be Apple's desire to add more, and better sensors. The type and placement of the v2 or v3 sensors may not be compatible with the v1 form factor.
In any case - upgradeable internals are not impossible. They're also not guaranteed. It will be interesting to see how Apple decides to take this forward over the next few years.
Oh yeah, I also think that by v3 at the latest, the Apple Watch will be able to stand on its own without requiring a companion iPhone. It will be slightly better, and do more when paired with an actual iPhone however you'll be able to buy an Apple Watch and use most of its features without any kind of phone present at all!
Rolex, Omega, and TAG Heuer, for example, never slim down their flagship watch models.
Doing so would obsolete the Rolex you bought in 2012, and that obsolescence would hurt sales.
First those watches all have mechanical components that cannot be realistically reduced in size. Second, how would a newer model design obsolete the Rolex I bought, any more than a new Porsche design obsoletes the model I bought 2 years ago? And finally, they are classic designs. The Apple watch is a flat block of metal with black glass square on top, that looks like every other smart-watch out there (not to mention digital watches from the 70s). How is that in any way comparable with the iconic statement made by those classic flagship watches?
I don't know what you're saying here.
In any case - upgradeable internals are not impossible. They're also not guaranteed. It will be interesting to see how Apple decides to take this forward over the next few years.
Of course not, the same could be said for every single device Apple makes. Yet, they don't. It's not in their best interest to let customers hang on to old designs. Their business model is driven by promoting the latest and greatest products, which can't happen if they support decades of old products. Except for the Editions, the ?Watches are not so expensive as negate a steady upgrade volume, perhaps not on the timeline of the two year iPhone cycle, but within the lifespan of the typical 5 year product support window. The idea that for every new watch design they introduce to accommodate new features, they will also have to design a version that will fit into all previous versions of the watch design is a profit loss proposition regardless of how much they charge for it. And theoretically they would have to offer the 3G upgrade, for instance, in formats to fit the 1G and 2G cases. Every new watch design then necessitates a retrofit design for every variation they've ever made! By 3G, assuming they change nothing else other than the case design, they would have to design a minimum of 6 watch configurations to support upgrades of both sizes of the previous two watch generations. And test them. And support them. I mean where does it stop?
First those watches all have mechanical components that cannot be realistically reduced in size. Second, how would a newer model design obsolete the Rolex I bought, any more than a new Porsche design obsoletes the model I bought 2 years ago? And finally, they are classic designs. The Apple watch is a flat block of metal with black glass square on top, that looks like every other smart-watch out there (not to mention digital watches from the 70s). How is that in any way comparable with the iconic statement made by those classic flagship watches?
Would a slimmer 2017 ?Watch obsolete the current one? It wouldn't. But it would make the 2015 model look dated.
My 1994 Rolex Submariner looks more or less exactly the same as the 2015 Submariner. Classic yet current.
The question none of us knows the answer to, yet, is "Will Apple market ?Watch as technology or as 'classic' fashion?"
If technology, then yes, Apple will rev the design as often as is necessary to stay ahead of other smartwatches.
If 'classic' fashion, then no, Apple will not change the ?Watch (or Sport or Edition) design.
(Of course, Apple could always release new lines e.g. ?Watch Titanium, ?Watch Carbon, etc. With slimmer form-factors.)
Many of those case designs were based on lessons learned from previous generations, or were functional change that were NOT constrained to the primary factor of "will this thing fit on your wrist". Comparing those devices to the Apple Watch makes about as much sense as complaining you can't put a desktop motherboard in an iPhone.
How can you see the Apple watch significantly changing, other than possibly offering a round display instead of square or making it thinner?
I'm all ears.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a lock they will offer it. But it's far from impossible as some people are insisting.
But for the edition level of watch, I might be as ready to dismiss it as you are. The edition model kind of changes that dynamic. I agree, anything under $2K fits squarely in the disposable category (from Apple's point of view anyway), but not at $10K+ - especially when the majority of that cost is aesthetic.
lol - on one hand you talk about design and style, and the other you defend your position by pointing to disposability? Blindly mapping the old models on top of this new offering is probably going to prove perilous. For those attempting to do so anyway, certainly not Apple because I'm extremely confident none of what is discussed in this thread is a surprise to them.
I must say, this has been the most entertaining Apple product launch announcement in a long time. So much fun watching people trying to second guess something so new and unique to Apple's offerings. It's been a long time since that has happened.
EDIT: And if Apple was so desperate for forced upgrades as you imply, then why support so many older devices with newer OS's time after time after time? Seem's counter productive to your thesis.
And you still didn't answer if you think the fact that the Apple Watch looks very similar to many other smart watches was just them being lazy vs. some other very good reason?
The axe you're grinding is getting so thin it's transparent. Has been for awhile.
Neither a Rolex nor a Porsche come with a massive ecosystem of services and a repository of your mental and social and general life activities of your every waking moment, with maybe some sleeping thrown in.
You are not trolling intelligently enough. It's painful to see what you do to snare honest posters into your web.
You should never again make an anti-Apple argument that claims Apple is about form over function after that statemtent.
Adding to the panacea of call me underwhelmed. And that they're offering a $13,000 watch that as others have pointed out will be obsolete in a year or two. good grief.
There's a tremendous amount of potential for wrist devices, but most of the technology that's required to build it isn't actually on the watch, but rather off of it. Imagine a device that, much like many Seiko watches, charges itself through your body movement. It could, like a fitbit, detect if it's on your person (and hasn't been removed). Imagine something like Disney's Magic band tech, except rather than tying you to one unique identity, it would allow you to automatically create identities for each interaction and then allow you to control what personal information is connected to that identity, and account for how and when that personal information is used. That's where the bulk of the tech would be required - an identity service that is biometrically tied to your body, but allows you to control how you're identified (allowing you to manage all your identities, whether they're on the internet, offline at a store, at a bank, etc). This is the kinda killer app that could revolutionize business and even government (ie use your watch to sign agreements with a public key, share your personal information and track how its used, so much more).
Instead, we get a watch where you can change the face, maybe see your text messages or emails, ie things that others have done and no real innovation, and certainly not worth $500 to the vast majority of people (considering you can get an iPhone that does all these things for less than that). The apple Watch is going to flop, and flop hard. There is no way it'll sell 15 million units in the first year. I'll take that bet that if it does, I'll delete my account and shut my mouth about Apple (not just for 1 month, but permanently).
Apple, I've been a fan for a very long time, but this is just sad.
It would be quite easy, and cost effective for Apple to decide internally, that the guts of their watches will always fit within a specific shape and volume regardless of the exterior shape and style of the casing. It's also likely that the "next" generation of the watch, using miniaturization and newer technologies, will be able to fit more into that fixed size than they did in the current or previous generation. That makes it very easy for Apple to offer a guts upgrade in the watch if they choose to do so - and for that update to be extremely cost effective because the guts they use to upgrade the older watches will be *exactly* the same module they put in this years stylish new casing. I also think that they would be able to command much higher margins on that type of upgrade and sell to a segment of the market that might otherwise be "sitting out" this years upgrade cycle.
One more example - I have several friends who really loved the look, feel and size of the iPhone 4S. If replaceable guts were an option with iPhones, they would definitely have kept the 4S form factor and paid for an update to the internals. As things are, 2 of the 4 friends in this category are still using their 4s and the other 2 have switched to Android because they find the size of the iPhone 5 and newer to be too big. Could replaceable guts have worked with iPhones too? Possibly - but lot without a monumental effort from Apple. Their are many issues with iPhones that simply don't exist with the Apple watch. The point I'm trying to make with this anecdote is that a similar situation will likely occur within the community of Apple Watch users - where a portion of the user base will prefer the style of an older casing instead of the latest and greatest - but at the same time, hese users would certainly welcome an update to the internals which would bring the latest features, speed improvements, etc to their existing device.
I'm still not predicting whether Apple will go this route or not, but it's silly and small-minded to say that they *won't* do it simply because they've never done it before with any other product line.
The device you describe sounds pretty awesome - and maybe we'll get there in a few years. I just finished watching (again) the 2007 introduction of the original iPhone. Not just the 3 minute highlight clip - the entire keynote. I didn't become an iPhone user until the 3GS came out and I certainly remember what passed for a "smart" phone before the iPhone.
What surprised me most about the video was not the contrast between "the original iPhone and what came before it" from the incumbent smartphone manufacturers - (which we all know was a dramatic difference.) It was the contrast between the original iPhone and today's iPhone 6! Despite an annual cycle of complaints that each new version of the iPhone "lacked innovation" or consisted of only incremental improvements, I find that the differences between the original iPhone and today's iPhone to be every bit as dramatic as the differences between the original iPhone and what came before it.
So - having said all that - remember that the Apple Watch is a first gen product and that there will be countless updtes and improvements to it over the coming years. I think it's entirely possoble that it will in fact evolve into the device you describe.
I don't think that a permanent ban is warranted over an incorrect prediction - but I'll take you're bet if we make it a self-ban for a month. For the sake of the bet, I'll say they sell over 20 million of them in the 12 months following it's release. (I actually think they'll sell more than 40 million - but not strongly enough to "bet" based on that number!)
Never say never. The apple iie was upgradable to the gs with an official Apple motherboard swap. Half the readers here may have not been born yet.
User-upgradability was one of the original Mac Pro/Power Mac G5's marquee features.
It would be quite easy, and cost effective for Apple to decide internally, that the guts of their watches will always fit within a specific shape and volume regardless of the exterior shape and style of the casing.
Apple tried that already, it was called the Apple III.
I also think that they would be able to command much higher margins on that type of upgrade and sell to a segment of the market that might otherwise be "sitting out" this years upgrade cycle.
They would have to, because they have to pay for a dedicated service facility to perform the upgrade. And this was the case with their poorly performing sales of PPC processor upgrades sold in the 90s. But my main criticism of this is once the customer replaces the battery along with the new upgrade, how much more would a brand new watch cost them?
where a portion of the user base will prefer the style of an older casing instead of the latest and greatest - but at the same time, hese users would certainly welcome an update to the internals which would bring the latest features, speed improvements, etc to their existing device.
Fair enough, but isn't that the case with every Apple product? This assumes Apple implements your one-size fits all approach to their future designs. And it also assumes they can substantially redesign a watch which main feature is a large square of glass sitting across the top, enough to inspire some one to cling to their originally purchased design. And of course they will welcome the update as along as Apple prices it accordingly. How different would a new watch have to before someone decides the cost to upgrade just isn't worth it.
I'm still not predicting whether Apple will go this route or not, but it's silly and small-minded to say that they *won't* do it simply because they've never done it before with any other product line.
Again, I agree that I have no idea what they will do based on a new product line. However, my opinion is that this is not a very smart business move, one that Apple has tried in the past with little success, and one that is incompatible with their business model, and manufacturing realities of economy of scale. At the end of the day, in order to offset production and development costs, Apple needs to drive upgrades in their consumers. Part of this is inherently built into the software and technological innovations. But the other is in introducing new products and getting people to upgrade to them. If they offer hardware upgrades to their old products, then they start minimizing the return on their investment for the new products. No matter what the margins are on the replacement components, it's going to cut into the sales of new watches on which costs have to be recouped. And Apple has to guess how many upgrades they will have to manufacture for. And what if it's 100% of the original watch purchasers? Is that alone going to pay for the R&D and manufacturing of the new watch? And will it help lower their overall costs, so some of those profits can be returned to customers in the form of lower prices, and thus greater sales?
In the end, if not greater profits, what exactly does Apple gain from potentially compromising their new designs so that the internals are backward compatible with older products? You say your friends have no choice but to upgrade their 4S, even though they would prefer not to. So your argument seems to be customer retention as the two friends who aren't using their 4Ses anymore have switched to Android. So when their Apple watches no longer are supported, and Apple has changed the form factor so dramatically that it's no longer acceptable to a customer, they will switch to an Android smart watch? And possibly an Android smart phone (since it won't compatible with an iPhone)?
If customer loyalty were truly such a major concern to Apple, wouldn't they have gone out of their way already to not change their products ever, or make sure they continue to offer a 3.5" iPhone? Or make them all backward compatible? I mean, I'm not the smart phone engineer you clearly appear to be, but if your customers are going to jump ship when you have the best smartphone on the planet just because you change the size, wouldn't they go out of their way to make sure they could upgrade them? Or at least keep making the same phone design as an option? I don't know, maybe I have such small mind that I can't imagine any other reasons Apple would want to potentially sacrifice future revenue and design in order to maintain vintage products. Again, you seem to be an expert in smart watch and smart phone design based on your comments of what you can and cannot do, as well as an MBA to justify Apple's implementation of this business plan. So I defer to you to enlighten me and others as to the reasons Apple would do this.
I mean, I'm not the smart phone engineer you clearly appear to be...
I don't know, maybe I have such small mind that I can't imagine any other reasons...
I don't even know how to begin to reply to your latest message. You base a lot of your reasoning on statements you make up and then present as if they were facts. We could go back and forth forever in this discussion if you just keep making up facts and waiting to see if I (or someone else) bothers to take the time to disprove them or to call you out on it. Here are just a few from your most recent message.
Why would you think that swapping out a module would require a dedicated service facility? LOL! If it required a service facility at all, why would it have to be dedicated? Why don't they need dedicated service facilities to replace batteries? The type of upgrade I envision as being possible would definitely be as easy to perform as a battery replacement - which is probably something they can do "in store". LOL again @ "dedicated service facility". Just one example of you making stuff up and hoping people don't realize how ridiculous some of your statements are!
Okay - so your point here is that the watch really does have to stay essentially the same size and shape because of it's function as a watch. This sounds like you are saying that it would be difficult for Apple to develop compelling new shapes or form factors. This is actually a good argument for my point that the guts from a newer model will very likely fit inside the older watch casing - since casings will not vary dramatically in size and shape - and because the newer technology will be smaller than the older technology it is replacing.
Okay - so here you try to slip in the idea that making an upgradeable watch will result in compromises to the new designs. It won't.
Maybe you don't understand the type of upgrade I'm envisioning. I'm not talking about opening the old watch up and upgrading the camera or the wi-fi. It's a complete swap of the contents of the watch. A remove and replace. The "guts" that you put into your old watch, would not compete with Apple's "new product", it actually *IS* Apple's new product. I don't know why you don't see that. As part of designing the watch, they design the electronics of it, the functionality, the capabilities - and in parallel with that, they design the packaging, the casing, etc. So you essentially need to think of it as 2 new products. The "guts" being one, and the container/casing being the other. Perhaps with the watch bands being a third new product.
No. It won't. Because the sale of the "guts" is essentially a sale of a new watch and needs to be treated as such.
Ugh. No they don't. They have to estimate how many people will want the capabilities of the new generation. The "guts" are not similar between an upgrade and a new watch, they are identical - thereby avoiding this issue and maintaining the economies of scale that you claim will be sacrificed.
My whole point on this topic has been that it appears that it would be possible and almost easy for Apple to offer upgradeable guts. Apple has reams of marketing data and engineering data that they will use when determining whether or not to offer upgrades. My original claim was that it will be interesting to see which direction Apple decides to take - however, then you came along with all of your proclamations in absolute form - based on facts and data that aren't real.
The biggest reason I can see for Apple offering the upgrades is to convince people to pull the trigger on the initial purchase of a watch. I imagine that a lot of people will be hesitant to purchase the mid-tier and top-tier watches knowing that the device is disposable after 2-3 years. If people are assured that they will be able to upgrade their watches at a reasonable cost, I think they'll be more confident about making the initial purchase.