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To suggest that the watch is obsolete/useless/junk after one year is simply the height of intellectual laziness/stupidity.
I agree with you. I do think like the iPhone and iPad it'll have a four year life span till iOS updates are no longer released and it will be incompatible with new iPhones running that new iOS.
A year no. But it will not last the decades high priced collector watches do
Yes, especially if it means it's easier to waterproof it.
There is no such thing as a waterproof watch. The term 'waterproof' was phased out long ago.
The Apple Watch will be IPX7 certified, meaning it can withstand water pressure similar to 1 meter of depth for 30 minutes. It could do more, but that is the baseline.
There is no such thing as a waterproof watch. The term 'waterproof' was phased out long ago.
The Apple Watch will be IPX7 certified, meaning it can withstand water pressure similar to 1 meter of depth for 30 minutes. It could do more, but that is the baseline.
That's impressive. Should stand up to 99.99% of normal use, but I still wouldn't shower while wearing it.
I keep seeing people online hoping they can do that. I suppose you could, but me... I'll take it off.
It's not like you don't have to take it off to charge it.
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
That's a valid point, but should be tempered.
"obsolescence" is too strong a word.
I do think that the Gen1 aWatch will not be desired as soon as a thinner and 30M water resistant aWatch version is available.
...at that point (18 months?) you'll start to see quite a few Gen1 aWatches on craigslist/ebay.
But other than that, I'm not sure we'll see significant technological improvements over the next few years.
Also, realize that Apple will do as they always have...make their previous generation devices available for purchase at a slightly lower cost while introducing newer ones at a slightly higher cost. Average upgrade purchase/cycle times for aWatch will be around 4-5 years. IMO.
I agree with you. I do think like the iPhone and iPad it'll have a four year life span till iOS updates are no longer released and it will be incompatible with new iPhones running that new iOS.
A year no. But it will not last the decades high priced collector watches do
I hope you're wrong, only because it seems a waste for a watch to be obsolete in 4 years.
It'll take effort by Apple, but I think in the case of the aWatch, it will be usable for longer than 4 years (i.e. iOS compatible).
...issue here is that it's not a standalone product/accessory (yet!). And its reliance on the iPhone is crucial...thus, it's important for Apple to ensure compatibility...I'm thinking for at least 5-10 years.
Can someone enlighten us on how far the current embedded (aWatch) chip can be leveraged to be "upgraded" to keep up with future iOS upgrades?
So Jony Ive and Marc Newson are going to open the 1st Condé Nast International Luxury conference in Florence Italy next month:
"Apple is now a powerful part of the luxury industry," Menkes said today. "The iPhone, iPad, and the forthcoming Apple Watch are in direct competition with handbags, timepieces and high-end accessories. I want Jony Ive to tell the conference delegates where 21st century luxury is headed."
[quote]The Apple twosome are joined on the bill by Beluti CEO Antoine Arnault, Axel Dumas, CEO of Hermès; Karl Lagerfeld; Chloé's president and creative director, Geoffroy de la Bourdonnaye and Clare Waight Keller; and Jonathan Anderson of JW Anderson among others. The event will be held on April 22 and 23 at the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. Visit www.CNILuxury.com to apply for your place.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a waterproof watch. The term 'waterproof' was phased out long ago.
The Apple Watch will be IPX7 certified, meaning it can withstand water pressure similar to 1 meter of depth for 30 minutes. It could do more, but that is the baseline.
Semantics. I want a water resistant-watch that Apple will guarantee I can take into the shower without damaging. So far they do not recommend anything more than sweating on it, washing your hands, or getting caught in the rain. That does not bode well for swimming, surfing, or being submerged in water for any substantial length of time.
You say the Apple Watch can do more than be submerged in 1 meter of water for 30 minutes -- where is the documentation for that? Certainly not in Apple's recommendations for exposure to water.
Here's one case design I wonder if they will change, or eventually offer left and right handed versions. After seeing this, and reading about it, I do wonder why they didn't chose to put the digital crown in the middle, and making the other button smaller. Personally I see the digital crown on the top as elegant, but somewhat clunky-looking on the bottom.
Here's one case design I wonder if they will change, or eventually offer left and right handed versions. After seeing this, and reading about it, I do wonder why they didn't chose to put the digital crown in the middle, and making the other button smaller. Personally I see the digital crown on the top as elegant, but somewhat clunky-looking on the bottom.
The screen is rotatable, the remaining nuance is whether the bands only attach in one direction. My bet is they're symmetrical. So we get both a right handed AND left handed watch in one! Twofer. Leaving aside the symmetric bands such as the stainless steel link ones.
The screen is rotatable, the remaining nuance is whether the bands only attach in one direction. My bet is they're symmetrical. So we get both a right handed AND left handed watch in one! Twofer. Leaving aside the symmetric bands such as the stainless steel link ones.
I read it was confirmed that the bands are reversible, that this is Apple's solution to left-handed users. But if I were left handed I might feel a little cheated as the digital crown on the bottom just looks less appealing to me. But to each his own. I just wonder why Apple didn't put it in the middle. And did they really need two buttons?
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?
what do the ultra wealthy do now with gold watches they're tired of?
what do they do with the high end caviar they've eaten and high end wine they've drunk?
<span style="font-size:16px;line-height:22.399999618530273px;">You say that like it's an actual fact.</span>
<span style="font-size:16px;line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> </span>
<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">My guess is that Hublot's mixture is insanely patented. </span>
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.
they have some gold patents that give more insight, they were published on the usual sites a while
back.
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.
that isn't what makes him a troll. his racism does. his calling buyers of the watch fools or idiots does.
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?
Good question!
It will be obsolete in 1 year I guess.
Next year Apple will present a 7 mm thick version and that will make the current bulky one impossible to wear.
Software wise it will be relevant for 3 or 4 years and will then be stuck to a fixed version.
So Jony Ive and Marc Newson are going to open the 1st Condé Nast International Luxury conference in Florence Italy next month:
"Apple is now a powerful part of the luxury industry," Menkes said today. "The iPhone, iPad, and the forthcoming Apple Watch are in direct competition with handbags, timepieces and high-end accessories. I want Jony Ive to tell the conference delegates where 21st century luxury is headed."
Great find! Very interesting. Between this event, the two week try on period, and further articles/ads, there will be an enormous amount of mindshare for the Apple Watch release. I love that despite being the biggest company in the world, Apple is promoting the Apple Watch as carefully and deliberately as if the company depended on it. They could easily just rest on their laurels and let their now huge marketshare and brand clout do all the work for them, resulting in what would still be a successful launch with little effort. But they seem to continue to put a lot of care into how the Watch is being presented to the world.
Semantics. I want a water resistant-watch that Apple will guarantee I can take into the shower without damaging. So far they do not recommend anything more than sweating on it, washing your hands, or getting caught in the rain. That does not bode well for swimming, surfing, or being submerged in water for any substantial length of time.
You say the Apple Watch can do more than be submerged in 1 meter of water for 30 minutes -- where is the documentation for that? Certainly not in Apple's recommendations for exposure to water.
Apple won't guarantee that because some fool would take an hour shower with the watch directly underneath the shower head.
Comments
I agree with you. I do think like the iPhone and iPad it'll have a four year life span till iOS updates are no longer released and it will be incompatible with new iPhones running that new iOS.
A year no. But it will not last the decades high priced collector watches do
Yes, especially if it means it's easier to waterproof it.
There is no such thing as a waterproof watch. The term 'waterproof' was phased out long ago.
The Apple Watch will be IPX7 certified, meaning it can withstand water pressure similar to 1 meter of depth for 30 minutes. It could do more, but that is the baseline.
There is no such thing as a waterproof watch. The term 'waterproof' was phased out long ago.
The Apple Watch will be IPX7 certified, meaning it can withstand water pressure similar to 1 meter of depth for 30 minutes. It could do more, but that is the baseline.
That's impressive. Should stand up to 99.99% of normal use, but I still wouldn't shower while wearing it.
I keep seeing people online hoping they can do that. I suppose you could, but me... I'll take it off.
It's not like you don't have to take it off to charge it.
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
That's a valid point, but should be tempered.
"obsolescence" is too strong a word.
I do think that the Gen1 aWatch will not be desired as soon as a thinner and 30M water resistant aWatch version is available.
...at that point (18 months?) you'll start to see quite a few Gen1 aWatches on craigslist/ebay.
But other than that, I'm not sure we'll see significant technological improvements over the next few years.
Also, realize that Apple will do as they always have...make their previous generation devices available for purchase at a slightly lower cost while introducing newer ones at a slightly higher cost. Average upgrade purchase/cycle times for aWatch will be around 4-5 years. IMO.
I agree with you. I do think like the iPhone and iPad it'll have a four year life span till iOS updates are no longer released and it will be incompatible with new iPhones running that new iOS.
A year no. But it will not last the decades high priced collector watches do
I hope you're wrong, only because it seems a waste for a watch to be obsolete in 4 years.
It'll take effort by Apple, but I think in the case of the aWatch, it will be usable for longer than 4 years (i.e. iOS compatible).
...issue here is that it's not a standalone product/accessory (yet!). And its reliance on the iPhone is crucial...thus, it's important for Apple to ensure compatibility...I'm thinking for at least 5-10 years.
Can someone enlighten us on how far the current embedded (aWatch) chip can be leveraged to be "upgraded" to keep up with future iOS upgrades?
"Apple is now a powerful part of the luxury industry," Menkes said today. "The iPhone, iPad, and the forthcoming Apple Watch are in direct competition with handbags, timepieces and high-end accessories. I want Jony Ive to tell the conference delegates where 21st century luxury is headed."
[quote]The Apple twosome are joined on the bill by Beluti CEO Antoine Arnault, Axel Dumas, CEO of Hermès; Karl Lagerfeld; Chloé's president and creative director, Geoffroy de la Bourdonnaye and Clare Waight Keller; and Jonathan Anderson of JW Anderson among others. The event will be held on April 22 and 23 at the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. Visit www.CNILuxury.com to apply for your place.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a waterproof watch. The term 'waterproof' was phased out long ago.
The Apple Watch will be IPX7 certified, meaning it can withstand water pressure similar to 1 meter of depth for 30 minutes. It could do more, but that is the baseline.
Semantics. I want a water resistant-watch that Apple will guarantee I can take into the shower without damaging. So far they do not recommend anything more than sweating on it, washing your hands, or getting caught in the rain. That does not bode well for swimming, surfing, or being submerged in water for any substantial length of time.
You say the Apple Watch can do more than be submerged in 1 meter of water for 30 minutes -- where is the documentation for that? Certainly not in Apple's recommendations for exposure to water.
Here's one case design I wonder if they will change, or eventually offer left and right handed versions. After seeing this, and reading about it, I do wonder why they didn't chose to put the digital crown in the middle, and making the other button smaller. Personally I see the digital crown on the top as elegant, but somewhat clunky-looking on the bottom.
Here's one case design I wonder if they will change, or eventually offer left and right handed versions. After seeing this, and reading about it, I do wonder why they didn't chose to put the digital crown in the middle, and making the other button smaller. Personally I see the digital crown on the top as elegant, but somewhat clunky-looking on the bottom.
The screen is rotatable, the remaining nuance is whether the bands only attach in one direction. My bet is they're symmetrical. So we get both a right handed AND left handed watch in one! Twofer. Leaving aside the symmetric bands such as the stainless steel link ones.
The screen is rotatable, the remaining nuance is whether the bands only attach in one direction. My bet is they're symmetrical. So we get both a right handed AND left handed watch in one! Twofer. Leaving aside the symmetric bands such as the stainless steel link ones.
I read it was confirmed that the bands are reversible, that this is Apple's solution to left-handed users. But if I were left handed I might feel a little cheated as the digital crown on the bottom just looks less appealing to me. But to each his own. I just wonder why Apple didn't put it in the middle. And did they really need two buttons?
what do the ultra wealthy do now with gold watches they're tired of?
what do they do with the high end caviar they've eaten and high end wine they've drunk?
they have some gold patents that give more insight, they were published on the usual sites a while
back.
that isn't what makes him a troll. his racism does. his calling buyers of the watch fools or idiots does.
Good question!
It will be obsolete in 1 year I guess.
Next year Apple will present a 7 mm thick version and that will make the current bulky one impossible to wear.
Software wise it will be relevant for 3 or 4 years and will then be stuck to a fixed version.
So Jony Ive and Marc Newson are going to open the 1st Condé Nast International Luxury conference in Florence Italy next month:
"Apple is now a powerful part of the luxury industry," Menkes said today. "The iPhone, iPad, and the forthcoming Apple Watch are in direct competition with handbags, timepieces and high-end accessories. I want Jony Ive to tell the conference delegates where 21st century luxury is headed."
Great find! Very interesting. Between this event, the two week try on period, and further articles/ads, there will be an enormous amount of mindshare for the Apple Watch release. I love that despite being the biggest company in the world, Apple is promoting the Apple Watch as carefully and deliberately as if the company depended on it. They could easily just rest on their laurels and let their now huge marketshare and brand clout do all the work for them, resulting in what would still be a successful launch with little effort. But they seem to continue to put a lot of care into how the Watch is being presented to the world.
Apple won't guarantee that because some fool would take an hour shower with the watch directly underneath the shower head.
b