Myself... I couldn't give a rat's patootie about wardrobe coordination (... and you'd know that if you saw me).
On the other hand... a few of my male friends and every one of my female friends, including my Wife, would agree with you wholeheartedly... especially if they are going to spend over $300 (or $100 for that matter) on something attached to their wrist.
Myself... I couldn't give a rat's patootie about wardrobe coordination (... and you'd know that if you saw me).
On the other hand... a few of my male friends and every one of my female friends, including my Wife, would agree with you wholeheartedly... especially if they are going to spend over $300 (or $100 for that matter) on something attached to their wrist.
gold gold gold
I agree. That's why I think we will see a few variants of the Watch later this year. I fully expect a gold variant of the Sport, similar to the finish of a gold aluminium iPhone, which will look different enough from the proper gold Edition Watches. I also reckon we may see a plastic Watch as well, this would be possibly $50-$100 cheaper than the Sport. Although this will be depending on how the Watch sells over the next 3 months. Not sure what it would be called....possibly just a Watch Sport Color and will probably be available in the typical colourings like White, Blue, Green, Pink and Red.
One thing I can't get my head around with the Apple watch and one area where I think they have miscued badly is that the $17,000 top of the line edition watch is the exact same guts as the $350, you're just paying for the gold and higher quality band.
Nope. Most estimates put the gold content at about $2000. You're paying for the privilege to own a limited and exclusive offering, crafted in gold. you're paying for the engineering to create a process that allows Apple to "use as little gold as possible" while still claiming 18k gold. You're paying for the specialized manufacturing process to produce the gold watch and accessories. But most of all you're paying for bragging rights to the most expensive product Apple has ever sold. Unlike the $10,000 20th Anniversary Macintosh which was delivered to your door in a limo and setup by a guy wearing a tux and white gloves, you'll actually have to go into a store to buy it.
Yeah I get all of that, and I'm not disagreeing with you with regards to the specialised engineering to produce the gold and the extra cost involved in smaller production run and I understand that the cost is reasonable considering that Apple have said it will only be in a limited edition. That's all fine, I'm just saying that because the bottom line is that the guts of the watch is just the normal mass produced bottom rung watch, that they'd maybe have been better off not making it a limited edition and spreading the cost of development over more watches at a cheaper price.
What this does is stick the finger up at it's normal loyal customers, enough of whom I'm sure would be willing to pay say 4 or 5 grand for a gold watch which would be exclusive enough anyway and worth the price, and instead selling it on 'exclusivity' alone, thus making it a limited edition. So if you like Apple and if you like gold then you can't have this watch because the price is silly. But if you are a fashionista wanker then, sure, you can have this watch. Gold is not diamonds.
True. And I'm in complete agreement, I think they are doing themselves a disservice by not offering a mid-priced gold edition, especially when Apple's product line is loaded with gold-tone products now, and average consumers who grab them up.
Perhaps this is a way to limit early-adopters and actually slow the roll-out so they can better address the myriad of issues that are sure to crop up once the thing hits the streets.
As I see it, they're significantly limiting who will buy the watch in cutting out people who will only want a gold watch, but can't afford $10,000. People who want a water-resistant watch for swimming, and working around water. People who don't own an iPhone, but have an iPad or Mac, and would otherwise be able to use the watch (and in that respect it's almost like dangling a carrot to drive already amazing iPhone sales). And then there's a smaller group of people who aren't going to be interested in a watch they have to charge everyday, and some of the other minor complaints about this watch.
True. And I'm in complete agreement, I think they are doing themselves a disservice by not offering a mid-priced gold edition, especially when Apple's product line is loaded with gold-tone products now, and average consumers who grab them up.
Perhaps this is a way to limit early-adopters and actually slow the roll-out so they can better address the myriad of issues that are sure to crop up once the thing hits the streets.
As I see it, they're significantly limiting who will buy the watch in cutting out people who will only want a gold watch, but can't afford $10,000. People who want a water-resistant watch for swimming, and working around water. People who don't own an iPhone, but have an iPad or Mac, and would otherwise be able to use the watch (and in that respect it's almost like dangling a carrot to drive already amazing iPhone sales). And then there's a smaller group of people who aren't going to be interested in a watch they have to charge everyday, and some of the other minor complaints about this watch.
But we will see.
The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It’s just so tacky.
I generally don't go for gold, though it can look beautiful on well-made watches and jewellery.
The Apple Watch Edition (and, indeed, all the Apple Watch versions) is not jewellery in my eyes, any more than a solid gold iPhone would be. It’s the equivalent of having gold taps; only the tasteless need apply.
Yeah I get all of that, and I'm not disagreeing with you with regards to the specialised engineering to produce the gold and the extra cost involved in smaller production run and I understand that the cost is reasonable considering that Apple have said it will only be in a limited edition. That's all fine, I'm just saying that because the bottom line is that the guts of the watch is just the normal mass produced bottom rung watch, that they'd maybe have been better off not making it a limited edition and spreading the cost of development over more watches at a cheaper price.
What this does is stick the finger up at it's normal loyal customers, enough of whom I'm sure would be willing to pay say 4 or 5 grand for a gold watch which would be exclusive enough anyway and worth the price, and instead selling it on 'exclusivity' alone, thus making it a limited edition. So if you like Apple and if you like gold then you can't have this watch because the price is silly. But if you are a fashionista wanker then, sure, you can have this watch. Gold is not diamonds.
You're approaching this as a techy would to a PC. This is a luxury product; a fashion accessory, not a PC. We are not their target audience.
Here's a thought, maybe Apple is planning on a scheme which they have not made public yet, whereby owners of the Edition watch, can return the watch to Apple to have the guts replaced with an updated watch in two years into the same casing, for a small cost.
What this does is stick the finger up at it's normal loyal customers, enough of whom I'm sure would be willing to pay say 4 or 5 grand for a gold watch which would be exclusive enough anyway and worth the price, and instead selling it on 'exclusivity' alone, thus making it a limited edition. So if you like Apple and if you like gold then you can't have this watch because the price is silly. But if you are a fashionista wanker then, sure, you can have this watch. Gold is not diamonds.
Nope. If you afford to spend $5k on a watch, you can spend $10k.
Here's a thought, maybe Apple is planning on a scheme which they have not made public yet, whereby owners of the Edition watch, can return the watch to Apple to have the guts replaced with an updated watch in two years into the same casing, for a small cost.
I personally don't think this makes much sense for Apple either financially, or from a marketing perspective. It not only forces Apple to design two motherboards, or constrains them to make improvements within fixed dimensions, but it diminishes their ability to drive focus for the latest model when watch owners know they can get their old models upgraded.
This idea also relies on the idea that this watch is irreplaceable. Which it's not -- it's not a classic limited edition Rolex to be preserved for that ages; it's a square block of gold with a black glass screen. And the bands will most likely be transferrable to next years model, so they won't have to spend as much as the first time (unless Apple introduces a new must-have diamond inlaid band). And finally, it overlooks the fact that anyone who is willing to spend $17,000 for a $350 smart watch, can easily afford to do it every year if that kind of thing is important to them, and write it off as a business expense, while handing down their 1G Edition to their children, or less well-healed relatives.
There has been a mention of the battery being replacable.
Also why is the concencus about 2G? I don't think it will appear until the end of next year at the earliest. Taking into account the amount of time it's taken to come to market as well as the fact that Apple have managed to cram quite a bit of tech in a very small form. It's one the smaller smartwatches on the market.
Also although everyone is assuming that the Apple Sport has the same insides as the Apple Edition. We cannot confirm this as we don't know what storage is gonna be in the devices. It's rumoured to be 8GB but they could potentially put in 32GB in the Edition....we just don't know
Nope. If you afford to spend $5k on a watch, you can spend $10k.
And if you don't have enough money to start a business you can just ask your parents to borrow the startup capital.
For the average middle class family, swimming in debt, there is a vast difference between $5,000 and $10,000, especially for an extravagance.
I mean if you can afford $600 you can afford $1200 right? Yet for some reason there are always empty seats in first class when coach is jammed. Or to put it in Apple terms, why does Apple even make two tiers of MacBooks? If you can afford $1299, you can afford $1599, right? I mean who actually wants a slower processor and less built-in storage when a measly $300 stands between the top of the line specs? /s
Also why is the concencus about 2G? I don't think it will appear until the end of next year at the earliest.
Well, I think that would put Apple behind the 8-ball. All the smart watch makers are racing since Apple's unveil last year to copy all of Apple's features. Apple cannot wait until the end of 2016 to make improvements, even if it's just battery life. Besides, an April introduction is no accident. Watches are one of the top gifts given at graduation, over any other time of the year. So it makes sense that if Apple wants to capitalize on that they will use April as an annual update cycle date. Moreover, it's already rumored they will be offering new colors before this year is out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davygee
It's rumoured to be 8GB but they could potentially put in 32GB in the Edition....we just don't know
Well if the Edition has 32GB, then it will still be limited to the same 2GB of mp3s as the Sport model as specified by Apple. Wonder what the other 30GB will be used for? Either way, that's a hell of a premium, for RAM.
And if you don't have enough money to start a business you can just ask your parents to borrow the startup capital.
For the average middle class family, swimming in debt, there is a vast difference between $5,000 and $10,000, especially for an extravagance.
I mean if you can afford $600 you can afford $1200 right? Yet for some reason there are always empty seats in first class when coach is jammed. Or to put it in Apple terms, why does Apple even make two tiers of MacBooks? If you can afford $1299, you can afford $1599, right? I mean who actually wants a slower processor and less built-in storage when a measly $300 stands between the top of the line specs? /s
The average middle class family isn't spending $5k on a watch when they're in DEBT. that's the stupidest scenario I've read. Ever.
The average middle class family isn't spending $5k on a watch when they're in DEBT. that's the stupidest scenario I've read. Ever.
Riiiiiiight. They also don't buy BMW's and Mercedes Benz with car payments they can't afford, and take vacations they have to take second mortgages out on the house for, as well as buying houses they can't afford in the first place. And buy $5,000 barbecue grills, and hot tubs. Or buy each other diamond and gold jewelry for anniversaries, birthdays, Christmas and Valentines day. Or buy $4,000 70" LED TVs, or $2,000 Macs, etc. /s
Most middle class families are in debt for a reason, and this is why. Yet somehow it doesn't curb their ability to keep up with the Joneses.
And again, there is a vast difference between justifying a $5,000 gold watch (Apple or otherwise), and a $10,000+ one. But what a wonderful place you must live in where the American consumer lives within their means, and makes purely responsible and practical financial decisions.
And if you don't have enough money to start a business you can just ask your parents to borrow the startup capital.
For the average middle class family, swimming in debt, there is a vast difference between $5,000 and $10,000, especially for an extravagance.
I mean if you can afford $600 you can afford $1200 right? Yet for some reason there are always empty seats in first class when coach is jammed. Or to put it in Apple terms, why does Apple even make two tiers of MacBooks? If you can afford $1299, you can afford $1599, right? I mean who actually wants a slower processor and less built-in storage when a measly $300 stands between the top of the line specs? /s
"average middle class family, swimming in debt," totally deserves the Darwin award if they consider buying a $5,000 watch. Period. Neither Apple nor any other manufacturer has any responsibility to save morons from themselves. Culling the herd improves it.
Riiiiiiight. They also don't buy BMW's and Mercedes Benz with car payments they can't afford, and take vacations they have to take second mortgages out on the house for, as well as buying houses they can't afford in the first place. And buy $5,000 barbecue grills, and hot tubs. Or buy each other diamond and gold jewelry for anniversaries, birthdays, Christmas and Valentines day. Or buy $4,000 70" LED TVs, or $2,000 Macs, etc. /s
Most middle class families are in debt for a reason, and this is why. Yet somehow it doesn't curb their ability to keep up with the Joneses.
And again, there is a vast difference between justifying a $5,000 gold watch (Apple or otherwise), and a $10,000+ one. But what a wonderful place you must live in where the American consumer lives within their means, and makes purely responsible and practical financial decisions.
I'm with JM on this. I don't think he's saying that zero middle-class families buy those expensive luxuries, he's insinuating that the vast majority do not. And I think that's on target.
There will be very few exceptions of middle-class even considering the $5,000 aWatch...the vast majority considering it will be the affluent (who can afford these extravagant items)...and those same people will just as much consider a $10,000 aWatch if quality and desire-factor is there.
I agree with you that there are far too many Americans getting into debt for moronic reasons.
Riiiiiiight. They also don't buy BMW's and Mercedes Benz with car payments they can't afford, and take vacations they have to take second mortgages out on the house for, as well as buying houses they can't afford in the first place. And buy $5,000 barbecue grills, and hot tubs. Or buy each other diamond and gold jewelry for anniversaries, birthdays, Christmas and Valentines day. Or buy $4,000 70" LED TVs, or $2,000 Macs, etc. /s
Most middle class families are in debt for a reason, and this is why. Yet somehow it doesn't curb their ability to keep up with the Joneses.
And again, there is a vast difference between justifying a $5,000 gold watch (Apple or otherwise), and a $10,000+ one. But what a wonderful place you must live in where the American consumer lives within their means, and makes purely responsible and practical financial decisions.
Therefore Apple's doing them a favor by pricing it out their financially irresponsible spending habits.
Well, I think that would put Apple behind the 8-ball. All the smart watch makers are racing since Apple's unveil last year to copy all of Apple's features. Apple cannot wait until the end of 2016 to make improvements, even if it's just battery life. Besides, an April introduction is no accident. Watches are one of the top gifts given at graduation, over any other time of the year. So it makes sense that if Apple wants to capitalize on that they will use April as an annual update cycle date. Moreover, it's already rumored they will be offering new colors before this year is out.
Well if the Edition has 32GB, then it will still be limited to the same 2GB of mp3s as the Sport model as specified by Apple. Wonder what the other 30GB will be used for? Either way, that's a hell of a premium, for RAM.
I just don't see it. Especially if they release extra versions later this year.
At the moment, I think the Watch is considerably ahead of the competition. With the market leading display, small overall form factor, decent enough battery life compared to the competition (apart from Pebble) and outstanding build quality. I would be very surprised if any of the leading firms (LG, Motorola, Sony, Samsung) can come close this year at all. Once they realise that circular touchscreens just don't feel natural with regards to display information correctly then they just may be able to compete.
I just don't see it. Especially if they release extra versions later this year.
At the moment, I think the Watch is considerably ahead of the competition. With the market leading display, small overall form factor, decent enough battery life compared to the competition (apart from Pebble) and outstanding build quality. I would be very surprised if any of the leading firms (LG, Motorola, Sony, Samsung) can come close this year at all. Once they realise that circular touchscreens just don't feel natural with regards to display information correctly then they just may be able to compete.
Adding to your point…
iPod announcement to 2nd gen iPhone release was 268 days.
iPhone announcement to 2nd gen iPhone release was 516 days.
iPad announcement to 2nd gen iPad release was 409 days.
Apple TV announcement to 2nd gen Apple TV release was 1451 days.
As we can see the Apple TV, which I'd argue was the easiest to copy, was the one that went the longest time between reveal and HW update. The only anomaly being the iPod, which was also developed in under a year and much simpler compared to their other product releases which means it could be radically updated much faster. On average we're well over a year apart between the release and 2nd gen device.
I'd be shocked if Apple scraped their current design later this year because of some invented fear that others will catch up. Apple has gotten father ahead of the competition every year. There is no CE company that can match Apple's dedication to exquisite HW, and there is no traditional watch maker that can match Apple with SW or integrated services. This is 4 decades in the making.
I'd be shocked if Apple scraped their current design later this year because of some invented fear that others will catch up. Apple has gotten father ahead of the competition every year. There is no CE company that can match Apple's dedication to exquisite HW, and there is no traditional watch maker that can match Apple with SW or integrated services. This is 4 decades in the making.
4 decades in the making LOL. Anyway, yes I agree. For years Apple has led in aesthetics and build quality. Look at the recently announced Samsung S6, now with full metal body (and yes you've guessed it, no ability for battery replacement or expansion of storage). The first properly beautiful iPhone in 2010 with the iPhone 4 using excellent materials. we are now 5 years later and Samsung have realised that they need to build a beautiful phone with excellent materials, too little too late if you ask me.
This will be the same with the Watch. How long will it take the other Companies to catch up Apple with regards to having excellent build quality? What is amazing here is the form size. The Watch is small overall compared to the others on the market. It has decent battery life and good tech inside and out. The only way forward for Apple is to make a better performing battery, more tech and slightly smaller form. This wont necessarily be acheived or even wanted annually.
It will be interesting to see what other companies do later this year and next, but I fully expect them to go down the route they have done with their phones. Faster processors, more gimmicks and larger higher quality screens. If this the way forward for them, then they may struggle to adapt to the SmartWatch marketplace.
Comments
I agree. That's why I think we will see a few variants of the Watch later this year. I fully expect a gold variant of the Sport, similar to the finish of a gold aluminium iPhone, which will look different enough from the proper gold Edition Watches. I also reckon we may see a plastic Watch as well, this would be possibly $50-$100 cheaper than the Sport. Although this will be depending on how the Watch sells over the next 3 months. Not sure what it would be called....possibly just a Watch Sport Color and will probably be available in the typical colourings like White, Blue, Green, Pink and Red.
One thing I can't get my head around with the Apple watch and one area where I think they have miscued badly is that the $17,000 top of the line edition watch is the exact same guts as the $350, you're just paying for the gold and higher quality band.
Nope. Most estimates put the gold content at about $2000. You're paying for the privilege to own a limited and exclusive offering, crafted in gold. you're paying for the engineering to create a process that allows Apple to "use as little gold as possible" while still claiming 18k gold. You're paying for the specialized manufacturing process to produce the gold watch and accessories. But most of all you're paying for bragging rights to the most expensive product Apple has ever sold. Unlike the $10,000 20th Anniversary Macintosh which was delivered to your door in a limo and setup by a guy wearing a tux and white gloves, you'll actually have to go into a store to buy it.
Yeah I get all of that, and I'm not disagreeing with you with regards to the specialised engineering to produce the gold and the extra cost involved in smaller production run and I understand that the cost is reasonable considering that Apple have said it will only be in a limited edition. That's all fine, I'm just saying that because the bottom line is that the guts of the watch is just the normal mass produced bottom rung watch, that they'd maybe have been better off not making it a limited edition and spreading the cost of development over more watches at a cheaper price.
What this does is stick the finger up at it's normal loyal customers, enough of whom I'm sure would be willing to pay say 4 or 5 grand for a gold watch which would be exclusive enough anyway and worth the price, and instead selling it on 'exclusivity' alone, thus making it a limited edition. So if you like Apple and if you like gold then you can't have this watch because the price is silly. But if you are a fashionista wanker then, sure, you can have this watch. Gold is not diamonds.
Gold is not diamonds.
True. And I'm in complete agreement, I think they are doing themselves a disservice by not offering a mid-priced gold edition, especially when Apple's product line is loaded with gold-tone products now, and average consumers who grab them up.
Perhaps this is a way to limit early-adopters and actually slow the roll-out so they can better address the myriad of issues that are sure to crop up once the thing hits the streets.
As I see it, they're significantly limiting who will buy the watch in cutting out people who will only want a gold watch, but can't afford $10,000. People who want a water-resistant watch for swimming, and working around water. People who don't own an iPhone, but have an iPad or Mac, and would otherwise be able to use the watch (and in that respect it's almost like dangling a carrot to drive already amazing iPhone sales). And then there's a smaller group of people who aren't going to be interested in a watch they have to charge everyday, and some of the other minor complaints about this watch.
But we will see.
Gold is not diamonds.
True. And I'm in complete agreement, I think they are doing themselves a disservice by not offering a mid-priced gold edition, especially when Apple's product line is loaded with gold-tone products now, and average consumers who grab them up.
Perhaps this is a way to limit early-adopters and actually slow the roll-out so they can better address the myriad of issues that are sure to crop up once the thing hits the streets.
As I see it, they're significantly limiting who will buy the watch in cutting out people who will only want a gold watch, but can't afford $10,000. People who want a water-resistant watch for swimming, and working around water. People who don't own an iPhone, but have an iPad or Mac, and would otherwise be able to use the watch (and in that respect it's almost like dangling a carrot to drive already amazing iPhone sales). And then there's a smaller group of people who aren't going to be interested in a watch they have to charge everyday, and some of the other minor complaints about this watch.
But we will see.
The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It’s just so tacky.
I generally don't go for gold, though it can look beautiful on well-made watches and jewellery.
The Apple Watch Edition (and, indeed, all the Apple Watch versions) is not jewellery in my eyes, any more than a solid gold iPhone would be. It’s the equivalent of having gold taps; only the tasteless need apply.
Yeah I get all of that, and I'm not disagreeing with you with regards to the specialised engineering to produce the gold and the extra cost involved in smaller production run and I understand that the cost is reasonable considering that Apple have said it will only be in a limited edition. That's all fine, I'm just saying that because the bottom line is that the guts of the watch is just the normal mass produced bottom rung watch, that they'd maybe have been better off not making it a limited edition and spreading the cost of development over more watches at a cheaper price.
What this does is stick the finger up at it's normal loyal customers, enough of whom I'm sure would be willing to pay say 4 or 5 grand for a gold watch which would be exclusive enough anyway and worth the price, and instead selling it on 'exclusivity' alone, thus making it a limited edition. So if you like Apple and if you like gold then you can't have this watch because the price is silly. But if you are a fashionista wanker then, sure, you can have this watch. Gold is not diamonds.
You're approaching this as a techy would to a PC. This is a luxury product; a fashion accessory, not a PC. We are not their target audience.
Here's a thought, maybe Apple is planning on a scheme which they have not made public yet, whereby owners of the Edition watch, can return the watch to Apple to have the guts replaced with an updated watch in two years into the same casing, for a small cost.
Nope. If you afford to spend $5k on a watch, you can spend $10k.
Here's a thought, maybe Apple is planning on a scheme which they have not made public yet, whereby owners of the Edition watch, can return the watch to Apple to have the guts replaced with an updated watch in two years into the same casing, for a small cost.
I personally don't think this makes much sense for Apple either financially, or from a marketing perspective. It not only forces Apple to design two motherboards, or constrains them to make improvements within fixed dimensions, but it diminishes their ability to drive focus for the latest model when watch owners know they can get their old models upgraded.
This idea also relies on the idea that this watch is irreplaceable. Which it's not -- it's not a classic limited edition Rolex to be preserved for that ages; it's a square block of gold with a black glass screen. And the bands will most likely be transferrable to next years model, so they won't have to spend as much as the first time (unless Apple introduces a new must-have diamond inlaid band). And finally, it overlooks the fact that anyone who is willing to spend $17,000 for a $350 smart watch, can easily afford to do it every year if that kind of thing is important to them, and write it off as a business expense, while handing down their 1G Edition to their children, or less well-healed relatives.
Also why is the concencus about 2G? I don't think it will appear until the end of next year at the earliest. Taking into account the amount of time it's taken to come to market as well as the fact that Apple have managed to cram quite a bit of tech in a very small form. It's one the smaller smartwatches on the market.
Also although everyone is assuming that the Apple Sport has the same insides as the Apple Edition. We cannot confirm this as we don't know what storage is gonna be in the devices. It's rumoured to be 8GB but they could potentially put in 32GB in the Edition....we just don't know
Nope. If you afford to spend $5k on a watch, you can spend $10k.
And if you don't have enough money to start a business you can just ask your parents to borrow the startup capital.
For the average middle class family, swimming in debt, there is a vast difference between $5,000 and $10,000, especially for an extravagance.
I mean if you can afford $600 you can afford $1200 right? Yet for some reason there are always empty seats in first class when coach is jammed. Or to put it in Apple terms, why does Apple even make two tiers of MacBooks? If you can afford $1299, you can afford $1599, right? I mean who actually wants a slower processor and less built-in storage when a measly $300 stands between the top of the line specs? /s
Also why is the concencus about 2G? I don't think it will appear until the end of next year at the earliest.
Well, I think that would put Apple behind the 8-ball. All the smart watch makers are racing since Apple's unveil last year to copy all of Apple's features. Apple cannot wait until the end of 2016 to make improvements, even if it's just battery life. Besides, an April introduction is no accident. Watches are one of the top gifts given at graduation, over any other time of the year. So it makes sense that if Apple wants to capitalize on that they will use April as an annual update cycle date. Moreover, it's already rumored they will be offering new colors before this year is out.
It's rumoured to be 8GB but they could potentially put in 32GB in the Edition....we just don't know
Well if the Edition has 32GB, then it will still be limited to the same 2GB of mp3s as the Sport model as specified by Apple. Wonder what the other 30GB will be used for? Either way, that's a hell of a premium, for RAM.
The average middle class family isn't spending $5k on a watch when they're in DEBT. that's the stupidest scenario I've read. Ever.
The average middle class family isn't spending $5k on a watch when they're in DEBT. that's the stupidest scenario I've read. Ever.
Riiiiiiight. They also don't buy BMW's and Mercedes Benz with car payments they can't afford, and take vacations they have to take second mortgages out on the house for, as well as buying houses they can't afford in the first place. And buy $5,000 barbecue grills, and hot tubs. Or buy each other diamond and gold jewelry for anniversaries, birthdays, Christmas and Valentines day. Or buy $4,000 70" LED TVs, or $2,000 Macs, etc. /s
Most middle class families are in debt for a reason, and this is why. Yet somehow it doesn't curb their ability to keep up with the Joneses.
And again, there is a vast difference between justifying a $5,000 gold watch (Apple or otherwise), and a $10,000+ one. But what a wonderful place you must live in where the American consumer lives within their means, and makes purely responsible and practical financial decisions.
And if you don't have enough money to start a business you can just ask your parents to borrow the startup capital.
For the average middle class family, swimming in debt, there is a vast difference between $5,000 and $10,000, especially for an extravagance.
I mean if you can afford $600 you can afford $1200 right? Yet for some reason there are always empty seats in first class when coach is jammed. Or to put it in Apple terms, why does Apple even make two tiers of MacBooks? If you can afford $1299, you can afford $1599, right? I mean who actually wants a slower processor and less built-in storage when a measly $300 stands between the top of the line specs? /s
"average middle class family, swimming in debt," totally deserves the Darwin award if they consider buying a $5,000 watch. Period. Neither Apple nor any other manufacturer has any responsibility to save morons from themselves. Culling the herd improves it.
Riiiiiiight. They also don't buy BMW's and Mercedes Benz with car payments they can't afford, and take vacations they have to take second mortgages out on the house for, as well as buying houses they can't afford in the first place. And buy $5,000 barbecue grills, and hot tubs. Or buy each other diamond and gold jewelry for anniversaries, birthdays, Christmas and Valentines day. Or buy $4,000 70" LED TVs, or $2,000 Macs, etc. /s
Most middle class families are in debt for a reason, and this is why. Yet somehow it doesn't curb their ability to keep up with the Joneses.
And again, there is a vast difference between justifying a $5,000 gold watch (Apple or otherwise), and a $10,000+ one. But what a wonderful place you must live in where the American consumer lives within their means, and makes purely responsible and practical financial decisions.
I'm with JM on this. I don't think he's saying that zero middle-class families buy those expensive luxuries, he's insinuating that the vast majority do not. And I think that's on target.
There will be very few exceptions of middle-class even considering the $5,000 aWatch...the vast majority considering it will be the affluent (who can afford these extravagant items)...and those same people will just as much consider a $10,000 aWatch if quality and desire-factor is there.
I agree with you that there are far too many Americans getting into debt for moronic reasons.
Riiiiiiight. They also don't buy BMW's and Mercedes Benz with car payments they can't afford...
To mediate further, seems like this debate started with "...if you afford...". Seems like you and JM agree on this. As do I.
If they can't afford it...well...refer to JM's 'stupidest scenario' remark.
Therefore Apple's doing them a favor by pricing it out their financially irresponsible spending habits.
I just don't see it. Especially if they release extra versions later this year.
At the moment, I think the Watch is considerably ahead of the competition. With the market leading display, small overall form factor, decent enough battery life compared to the competition (apart from Pebble) and outstanding build quality. I would be very surprised if any of the leading firms (LG, Motorola, Sony, Samsung) can come close this year at all. Once they realise that circular touchscreens just don't feel natural with regards to display information correctly then they just may be able to compete.
Adding to your point…
As we can see the Apple TV, which I'd argue was the easiest to copy, was the one that went the longest time between reveal and HW update. The only anomaly being the iPod, which was also developed in under a year and much simpler compared to their other product releases which means it could be radically updated much faster. On average we're well over a year apart between the release and 2nd gen device.
I'd be shocked if Apple scraped their current design later this year because of some invented fear that others will catch up. Apple has gotten father ahead of the competition every year. There is no CE company that can match Apple's dedication to exquisite HW, and there is no traditional watch maker that can match Apple with SW or integrated services. This is 4 decades in the making.
I'd be shocked if Apple scraped their current design later this year because of some invented fear that others will catch up. Apple has gotten father ahead of the competition every year. There is no CE company that can match Apple's dedication to exquisite HW, and there is no traditional watch maker that can match Apple with SW or integrated services. This is 4 decades in the making.
4 decades in the making LOL. Anyway, yes I agree. For years Apple has led in aesthetics and build quality. Look at the recently announced Samsung S6, now with full metal body (and yes you've guessed it, no ability for battery replacement or expansion of storage). The first properly beautiful iPhone in 2010 with the iPhone 4 using excellent materials. we are now 5 years later and Samsung have realised that they need to build a beautiful phone with excellent materials, too little too late if you ask me.
This will be the same with the Watch. How long will it take the other Companies to catch up Apple with regards to having excellent build quality? What is amazing here is the form size. The Watch is small overall compared to the others on the market. It has decent battery life and good tech inside and out. The only way forward for Apple is to make a better performing battery, more tech and slightly smaller form. This wont necessarily be acheived or even wanted annually.
It will be interesting to see what other companies do later this year and next, but I fully expect them to go down the route they have done with their phones. Faster processors, more gimmicks and larger higher quality screens. If this the way forward for them, then they may struggle to adapt to the SmartWatch marketplace.