"Without negative feedback trolls almost always leave of their own accord." There are psycho-trolls, who do it out of contrarian disposition and who might go away, like you say.
And there are paid trolls, who do it for money. Frost is one of these latter prostitutes, in my opinion. He won't go away unless he is banned. Here he is panting for Walt Mossberg's death blow to the Watch. He should be banned, even if the rules have to be changed to ban him.
Few people know who Mossberg is. Few people care. Not that he's a nobody, but not everyone read the WSJ and his columns.
The watch will success or fail based on the reception by consumers, the buying public.
Anyway, I don't see the watch really making a big wave or change. I see more of sport bands and simpler devices attractive to more people. The watch won't be too attractive to too many people.
Mossberg is pretty fair, but your purchases shouldn't and can't be based on what he says. He generally calls it like it is - warts and all.
Kuo said he expects at least one, but as many as three, new casings to go into production in the fourth quarter of calendar 2015. Those new models, he said, could debut as soon as this fall.
Here are my choices for pre-holiday 2015 ?Watch casing materials:
1. Titanium alloy
2. Carbon fiber
3. Platinum 750 (equivalent to 18k)
4. Transparent Aluminum (with Space Black tint)
And maybe next year Apple will ship Sport models with new colors, starting with the Product(RED) red. Then gold, of course. Then green, blue, whatever. Should be a simple matter of anodizing and marketing.
-The screen has the highest PPI on the market, and well within retina range. People won't be holding the watch that close to their eyeballs. 300+ PPI is fantastic.
-Battery has been confirmed to be replaceable.
-Processor means very little. The watch relies on the iPhone for heavy lifting. You aren't going to see considerable speed bumps that warrant upgrading.
People think of Apple Watch as a computer. It is much more of a display, where the iPhone is your computer. No one buys computer monitors every 2 years.
You do realize that flip side of your post. If what you're saying were true what incentive would people have to buy a new Apple watch when they're not being improved our upgraded? Either the tech improves, which it most certainly will resulting in obsolescence or development on the watch soups and there us no gen 2
My guess is that Hublot's mixture is insanely patented. Apple's video made no mention of ceramics, but did mention alloy metals like copper, silver etc., and the extra hardness was identified as the result of massive compression.
I've reported his posts occasionally using the built-in post flagging tool for violations to the comment forum's terms of use/code of conduct, but the moderators apparently think those rules do not apply to him (or most others in violation).
Since when does thinking a product is a stinker = being a troll? I guess all you want to read here is an endless Apple love fest? He's entitled to think the watch won't do well. That doesn't make him a troll.
I don't think it's going to do well either. I hoped the Monday event would reveal some new wow feature, but no such luck. There is no doubt a small market for people who want a really expensive fitness tracker and remote screen for the iPhone. But the watch is way too limited in features and overpriced at this point to gain serious traction. I continue to ask every iPhone owner I meet if they plan to buy one and so far not a single person has said yes. Try it. When you're out in the real world (and not hanging out on a fan forum), ask iPhone users if they're interested in the watch and see how many say no.
My guess is that Hublot's mixture is insanely patented. Apple's video made no mention of ceramics, but did mention alloy metals like copper, silver etc., and the extra hardness was identified as the result of massive compression.
You are correct in that we don't know whether or not the gold in the watch is using this process.
But based on the things they have said about the gold they are using (that it's harder than normal 18k gold), and that they are good at finding ways of getting higher margins (gold made in this process has less gold in it, due to the ceramic that comprises 25% of the mixture being less dense than the kinds of metals normally taking up that part of the mixture in 18k gold), it would make a lot of sense.
-The screen has the highest PPI on the market, and well within retina range. People won't be holding the watch that close to their eyeballs. 300+ PPI is fantastic.
-Battery has been confirmed to be replaceable.
-Processor means very little. The watch relies on the iPhone for heavy lifting. You aren't going to see considerable speed bumps that warrant upgrading.
People think of Apple Watch as a computer. It is much more of a display, where the iPhone is your computer. No one buys computer monitors every 2 years.
I agree. I doubt the watch will see yearly updates. Updates will center around additional sensors, not a new processor.
If Apple's hardening process was simply to compress the gold to make it harder, consider that this would actually lower their margins, as there would be more gold (by weight) in the same volume as a "normally compressed" gold watch. This is not Apple's style. Makes much more sense that they would go with their patented ceramic 18k gold process, to reduce the amount of gold content and increase margins.
Read Dr. Drang's piece to understand how their is less gold in this ceramic gold, while still allowing for it to be 18k gold.
I think a huge demographic underrepresented is the contractor work/outdoor demo with a rugged edition. Scratch proof liquid metal case, sapphire screen and rugged leather or high performance straps. I really think the blue collar work force/outdoor demo is one that could truly see the benefits most. The selling point is simple. Go about your daily activities but keep your phone in your pocket.
Great product for wives and girlfriends to gift their men for holidays and birthdays too.
Every penny I've got is going towards my next apple product. Which is not gonna be a watchband. Spending $100 extra on a blue band is not my idea of status. Dudes, it's your chance to show everyone "I'm an idiot!" Wear a blue T shirt and a pair of a China blue jeans and some shades you picked up off the beach and still have $75 left over for some books
You do realize that flip side of your post. If what you're saying were true what incentive would people have to buy a new Apple watch when they're not being improved our upgraded? Either the tech improves, which it most certainly will resulting in obsolescence or development on the watch soups and there us no gen 2
Lots of people making up straw men in attempts to make the proposition of ?Watch sound more negative (it will be obsolete in a year, who wants to upgrade every year, it will be a $17K lump of coal in a year, ...). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but nothing wrong with putting a bit of thought into it.
So many people seem to regurgitate the "upgrade every year" as though this was a golden rule of consumer electronics. There seems to be some evidence that the typical upgrade cycle (e.g. for most people, the average) for modern smart phones is 2-3 years. Some will upgrade every year by trading in, but others hold out longer. Contracts mostly based on the 2-year cycle. However, that is not true of computers, tablets, TV's, game consoles, iPods before it, etc. The smartphone cycle is the "exception", and even there it is not "every year".
I do expect a new ?Watch to be released each year that has improvements across the board (subtle changes to design - a tiny bit thinner, advances in processor tech, possible new sensor or tech each year [GPS added] and above all - some improvements in battery life). Expect as this article indicates some different/new SKUs. This will drive some upgrades every few years, and expand the market. Those purchasing a new one likely will hold it for 4+ years, because as noted it will not become "obsolete" given its functions. It will gain more independence from the iPhone over time of course, and appeal to a broader audience.
To suggest that the watch is obsolete/useless/junk after one year is simply the height of intellectual laziness/stupidity.
Ben Thompson has (as usual) a very well thought out piece on his blog at Stratechery. Specifically like his take on why Apple "has to" stress fashion so hard.
Actually, what I want to see a story on is how Apple's going to appease its "Gold" customers when the next generation watch ships.
Unlike a traditional watch, this version is going to be "obsolete" within a couple of years as processors, screens, and batteries improve and evolve. What then? Just throw a $17,000 watch in the back of a drawer?
Anyone else want one made of "a new kind of plastic" for $250?
Yes, especially if it means it's easier to waterproof it. I'm not going to wear an ?Watch for my day-to-day affairs, as I just don't see the need for it. However, I will buy a sport model if i can actually use it for my sports, swimming, surfing, boating, and wear it in the shower without worry. In fact, seal up the speaker and microphone ports and remove that functionality for this model. People buying the cheap end of things will have to make a few sacrifices. The speaker is the dumbest thing on the watch, followed closely by the microphone. Considering phone calls are the most power-draining feature of the watch, best to get rid of the temptation for the sports enthusiast who is most likely not going to have their phone on them to make calls or access Siri anyway, especially in a situation where there's a real need for waterproofing.
They made a plastic iPhone 5C, so what's the problem with a plastic ?Watch? It still beats the pants off of any other smart watch on the market which are almost all plastic. And while it could never compete with the comparable iPod shuffle price-wise, in the $250 range it could easily replace the iPod nano, especially considering everything else it can do.
Comments
"Without negative feedback trolls almost always leave of their own accord." There are psycho-trolls, who do it out of contrarian disposition and who might go away, like you say.
And there are paid trolls, who do it for money. Frost is one of these latter prostitutes, in my opinion. He won't go away unless he is banned. Here he is panting for Walt Mossberg's death blow to the Watch. He should be banned, even if the rules have to be changed to ban him.
Few people know who Mossberg is. Few people care. Not that he's a nobody, but not everyone read the WSJ and his columns.
The watch will success or fail based on the reception by consumers, the buying public.
Anyway, I don't see the watch really making a big wave or change. I see more of sport bands and simpler devices attractive to more people. The watch won't be too attractive to too many people.
Mossberg is pretty fair, but your purchases shouldn't and can't be based on what he says. He generally calls it like it is - warts and all.
Will gold-pressed latinum be an option?
Kuo said he expects at least one, but as many as three, new casings to go into production in the fourth quarter of calendar 2015. Those new models, he said, could debut as soon as this fall.
Here are my choices for pre-holiday 2015 ?Watch casing materials:
1. Titanium alloy
2. Carbon fiber
3. Platinum 750 (equivalent to 18k)
4. Transparent Aluminum (with Space Black tint)
And maybe next year Apple will ship Sport models with new colors, starting with the Product(RED) red. Then gold, of course. Then green, blue, whatever. Should be a simple matter of anodizing and marketing.
You do realize that flip side of your post. If what you're saying were true what incentive would people have to buy a new Apple watch when they're not being improved our upgraded? Either the tech improves, which it most certainly will resulting in obsolescence or development on the watch soups and there us no gen 2
Apple's gold is equivalent to Hublot's Magic Gold (i.e. they're both 18k gold made from gold and ceramic). http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/03/07/apple-gold
You say that like it's an actual fact.
My guess is that Hublot's mixture is insanely patented. Apple's video made no mention of ceramics, but did mention alloy metals like copper, silver etc., and the extra hardness was identified as the result of massive compression.
Since when does thinking a product is a stinker = being a troll? I guess all you want to read here is an endless Apple love fest? He's entitled to think the watch won't do well. That doesn't make him a troll.
I don't think it's going to do well either. I hoped the Monday event would reveal some new wow feature, but no such luck. There is no doubt a small market for people who want a really expensive fitness tracker and remote screen for the iPhone. But the watch is way too limited in features and overpriced at this point to gain serious traction. I continue to ask every iPhone owner I meet if they plan to buy one and so far not a single person has said yes. Try it. When you're out in the real world (and not hanging out on a fan forum), ask iPhone users if they're interested in the watch and see how many say no.
You say that like it's an actual fact.
My guess is that Hublot's mixture is insanely patented. Apple's video made no mention of ceramics, but did mention alloy metals like copper, silver etc., and the extra hardness was identified as the result of massive compression.
It's a fact that Apple has a patent on making gold in this way, as explained by Dr. Drang: http://leancrew.com/all-this/2015/03/apple-gold/
You are correct in that we don't know whether or not the gold in the watch is using this process.
But based on the things they have said about the gold they are using (that it's harder than normal 18k gold), and that they are good at finding ways of getting higher margins (gold made in this process has less gold in it, due to the ceramic that comprises 25% of the mixture being less dense than the kinds of metals normally taking up that part of the mixture in 18k gold), it would make a lot of sense.
Read Dr. Drang's article, it's interesting.
I agree. I doubt the watch will see yearly updates. Updates will center around additional sensors, not a new processor.
Just to be clear, they didn't say the gold was harder because of the compression. They video stated that process (which I'm assuming is pretty normal for gold-making in jewelry), was to make the gold dense and pore-free (about 1:25 into this video: http://images.apple.com/media/us/watch/2015/a718f271_b19c_47d8_928d_d108fc5d702a/tour/gold/watch-gold-cc-us-20150309_r848-9dwc.mov).
If Apple's hardening process was simply to compress the gold to make it harder, consider that this would actually lower their margins, as there would be more gold (by weight) in the same volume as a "normally compressed" gold watch. This is not Apple's style. Makes much more sense that they would go with their patented ceramic 18k gold process, to reduce the amount of gold content and increase margins.
Read Dr. Drang's piece to understand how their is less gold in this ceramic gold, while still allowing for it to be 18k gold.
I agree. I doubt the watch will see yearly updates. Updates will center around additional sensors, not a new processor.
Yes I agree, updates every 18-24 months.
Titanium could be interesting. White Gold or Platinum is irrelevant to me.
Forged Carbonfiber as pioneered by Audermars Piguet I think, would be a very interesting (but expensive) case material.
And would suit the Apple Watch's high-tech luxury device aura.I really think the blue collar work force/outdoor demo is one that could truly see the benefits most. The selling point is simple. Go about your daily activities but keep your phone in your pocket.
Great product for wives and girlfriends to gift their men for holidays and birthdays too.
You do realize that flip side of your post. If what you're saying were true what incentive would people have to buy a new Apple watch when they're not being improved our upgraded? Either the tech improves, which it most certainly will resulting in obsolescence or development on the watch soups and there us no gen 2
Lots of people making up straw men in attempts to make the proposition of ?Watch sound more negative (it will be obsolete in a year, who wants to upgrade every year, it will be a $17K lump of coal in a year, ...). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but nothing wrong with putting a bit of thought into it.
So many people seem to regurgitate the "upgrade every year" as though this was a golden rule of consumer electronics. There seems to be some evidence that the typical upgrade cycle (e.g. for most people, the average) for modern smart phones is 2-3 years. Some will upgrade every year by trading in, but others hold out longer. Contracts mostly based on the 2-year cycle. However, that is not true of computers, tablets, TV's, game consoles, iPods before it, etc. The smartphone cycle is the "exception", and even there it is not "every year".
I do expect a new ?Watch to be released each year that has improvements across the board (subtle changes to design - a tiny bit thinner, advances in processor tech, possible new sensor or tech each year [GPS added] and above all - some improvements in battery life). Expect as this article indicates some different/new SKUs. This will drive some upgrades every few years, and expand the market. Those purchasing a new one likely will hold it for 4+ years, because as noted it will not become "obsolete" given its functions. It will gain more independence from the iPhone over time of course, and appeal to a broader audience.
To suggest that the watch is obsolete/useless/junk after one year is simply the height of intellectual laziness/stupidity.
Ben Thompson has (as usual) a very well thought out piece on his blog at Stratechery. Specifically like his take on why Apple "has to" stress fashion so hard.
http://stratechery.com
It's a watch, not a solid gold PC.
I'm seriously hoping for a more colorful and cheaper Apple Watch C version.
Anyone else want one made of "a new kind of plastic" for $250?
Yes, especially if it means it's easier to waterproof it. I'm not going to wear an ?Watch for my day-to-day affairs, as I just don't see the need for it. However, I will buy a sport model if i can actually use it for my sports, swimming, surfing, boating, and wear it in the shower without worry. In fact, seal up the speaker and microphone ports and remove that functionality for this model. People buying the cheap end of things will have to make a few sacrifices. The speaker is the dumbest thing on the watch, followed closely by the microphone. Considering phone calls are the most power-draining feature of the watch, best to get rid of the temptation for the sports enthusiast who is most likely not going to have their phone on them to make calls or access Siri anyway, especially in a situation where there's a real need for waterproofing.
They made a plastic iPhone 5C, so what's the problem with a plastic ?Watch? It still beats the pants off of any other smart watch on the market which are almost all plastic. And while it could never compete with the comparable iPod shuffle price-wise, in the $250 range it could easily replace the iPod nano, especially considering everything else it can do.
Would not be the dumbest move Apple could make.