I have this dream about the iWatch. The band could be where certain sensors are incorporated. So a diabetic would buy the iWatch body/face with the diabetic sensor band. That band might cost a pretty penny and be subsidized by insurance. A fitness junkie or athlete buys the sports band. Someone who merely wants an iWatch for its notifications capabilities and ability to run their iPhone Apps remotely would get the band with no special sensors. And some folks will get multiple bands, sports band for the daytime, dress band for evening, different colors, etc. and perhaps all the bands incorporate the battery, so when you switch bands you get a full charge (presumably your extra bands are stored atop your included inductive charger).
Well done you. Got the separate bands part right, maybe not about the separate batteries in each band....but hey you never know, as I don't see there being a problem fitting a small GPS in the band or extra battery.
But what are we talking about here? Smartphones and tablets? As so many defenders of the ?Watch keep espousing with respect to how Apple will handle the watch -- it's a whole new product category for them, so all bets are off with respect to Apple's previous behavior: 'Maybe they WILL build the watch so the internals can be easily upgraded'. 'Maybe they won't upgrade the case design for years'. So why can't the watch makers be able to maybe compete with Apple in the smart or "semi-smart" watch area unlike any previous device competitor has been able to with Apple ( a far more likely scenario than upgradable smart watches IMO).
Apple seems to be gambling that fitness bands alone don't excite people, but add in the ability to pay with it, play mp3s, view photos, interact with your phone, and share your heartbeat, will. That or "if Apple builds it, they will come". And if either is true, and eventually a "swiss army" smart watch can unlock your door, and start your car, and be your gym access, work ID, drivers license, grocery club pass, tickets to the theater, and transportation, etc. And no one ever needs anything else to get through their day, then the watch makers are screwed if no one can at least keep up with Apple.
So I disagree. Most people will opt for personal style over mass produced homogeny that is the current ?Watch. But they will also likely eventually give it up if it means wearing one device on their wrist can make their life so much easier. So the watch makers have to find ways to integrate smart technologies into their traditional designs, or get out of the market completely now, leaving traditional watchmaking to the elite craftsman who create $100,000+ functional art pieces for horologists.
Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. Who's going to buy a watch that's equally, if not higher, priced than the Apple Watch with some smart watch capabilities?
These companies don't have the chops to design, and build one like Apple does. Mark my words, any smart watch from these makers will get ridiculed, called ugly, and will be too little, too late.
Quote:
As can be seen on the image above. The Apple Watch has six pins slots under the bottom strap connector channel. These ae supposedly a six-dot brass contact.
I thought this had been ruled out in the production models as viewed after the announcement last week?
Either way, the presence of these pins would make a greater water resistance rating more difficult, not to mention corrosion potential.
I see that the latest iOS8.2 automatically installs an un-removeable app for the iWatch. Apple has taken liberties that I did not want. I do not plan to buy the rather absurdly priced Apple watch. I do not know how much of my expensively scant 16GB of memory the iWatch app is taking, if it is turned on or off nor why Apple took the arcane idea that those who use an iPhone would even consider an iWatch.
In the 8.2 upgrade note, Apple did not even bother to mention the iPhone app being installed. Apple is up to their ass in attitude with their "we know better than you idiots" schemes.
Another sneaky Apple trick. I am getting somewhat tired of Apples new tricks. It is becoming a clown circus and we are all suckers for thinking they have some "user benefit in mind".
Suggestion; Don't install iOS 8.2 unless you are OK with being an Apple suckupper.
Nope, just complainers who have nothing better to do.
I guess you can move to Android where there aren't any un-deletable apps. Oh wait, that doesn't exist.
Btw, ios 8.2 does list the new Watch app in the details.
Nope, just complainers who have nothing better to do.
I guess you can move to Android where there aren't any un-deletable apps. Oh wait, that doesn't exist.
Btw, ios 8.2 does list the new Watch app in the details.
The difference being is that Google doesn't force feed you all of their apps. The core ones are included in the OS, and yes cannot be deleted, but one has to download the others from the Play Store.
The difference being is that Google doesn't force feed you all of their apps. The core ones are included in the OS, and yes cannot be deleted, but one has to download the others from the Play Store.
Google just force feed their users malware instead LOL
Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. Who's going to buy a watch that's equally, if not higher, priced than the Apple Watch with some smart watch capabilities?
Let's speak plainly.
I see your point to be that the existing watch market will not be impacted by the smart watch, I.e there will always be a significant demand for a traditional mechanical watch to keep the industry alive without addressing smart watches in any way. Further you seem to be saying that if they attempt to enter the smart watch market they will surely fail possibly bankrupting themselves in the process. Is that about right?
What I'm saying is that if the ?Watch is the the leading edge of a change to move all manner of personal IDs, payment systems, and security access to a wrist worn device, how can traditions watch makers ignore at least that aspect of it? If the billionaire no longer needs to carry his car key because he can program his ?Watch to start it, as well as never having to carry his wallet, or drivers license, or house keys ... Doesn't that mean he's going to be far less inclined to wear his $250,000 Rolexes? And eventually stop buying them?
The inclusion of some kind of embedded programmable chip to provide these kinds of things doesn't seem beyond the grasp of the watch makers to compete with Apple. Indeed if they can't offer some basics like this, then I don't see how they won't go straight our of business. The addition of fitness sensors or MP3 players are pretty basic things that merely need an app to control. Not everyone needs full integration with their smartphone from their wrist, nor all of the features ?Watch offers, nor do I think the watch makers should try.
I've already ceded to you that the watch makers will not likely be able to compete with Apple head to head, but I don't see how they can survive at all if they can't effectively include some of the key technologies.
As for how a traditional watch maker could compete with Apple, how about a smart display that is projected onto the otherwise clear crystal offering the best of both worlds? Perhaps put the CPU, radios and battery inside the bands leaving the mechanical housing untouched? Granted, I think it will be an uphill climb, but Appe needs competitors, and there's an infinite market for personal jewelry tech. And who is better motivated to redefine themselves than the people most threatened by it?
The main difference I see between smartphones and computers and the watch, is that Apple created the Mac, and a cheap knockoff company copied it badly for Windows. Apple created the iPhone and a cheap knockoff company copied it, badly. For the first time, Apple is up against an industry that has design and build standard that's equal, if not higher than its own. Tech is cheap, and all it takes is a bright engineering team that can adopt the concepts, not copy the ?Watch, And be just as innovative with their own products as Apple has been. And few in the world are as innovative as the Swiss and Germans as a whole. All I'm saying is that this is a different ballgame, and not to discount the ability of one of the oldest manufacturing businesses in the world, with the highest of standards, to meet the challenge.
I suspect Apple won't get Keurig'd (reference to the many unlicensed cups that work in the company's coffee makers).
Well even Kuerig's DRM has been easily defeated, and created a lot of ill will. Plus they are being sued over it, and considering their market dominance they will probably lose.
There are manufacturers in China that have reverse engineered lightning technology and jumped this hurtle without a license from Apple. I suspect the same would be true of the ?Watch, which folks are going to try to jail-break from the day it goes on sale (then we'll see what the thing is truly capable of without being thethered to the iPhone).
I see your point to be that the existing watch market will not be impacted by the smart watch, I.e there will always be a significant demand for a traditional mechanical watch to keep the industry alive without addressing smart watches in any way. Further you seem to be saying that if they attempt to enter the smart watch market they will surely fail possibly bankrupting themselves in the process. Is that about right?
What I'm saying is that if the ?Watch is the the leading edge of a change to move all manner of personal IDs, payment systems, and security access to a wrist worn device, how can traditions watch makers ignore at least that aspect of it? If the billionaire no longer needs to carry his car key because he can program his ?Watch to start it, as well as never having to carry his wallet, or drivers license, or house keys ... Doesn't that mean he's going to be far less inclined to wear his $250,000 Rolexes? And eventually stop buying them?
The inclusion of some kind of embedded programmable chip to provide these kinds of things doesn't seem beyond the grasp of the watch makers to compete with Apple. Indeed if they can't offer some basics like this, then I don't see how they won't go straight our of business. The addition of fitness sensors or MP3 players are pretty basic things that merely need an app to control. Not everyone needs full integration with their smartphone from their wrist, nor all of the features ?Watch offers, nor do I think the watch makers should try.
I've already ceded to you that the watch makers will not likely be able to compete with Apple head to head, but I don't see how they can survive at all if they can't effectively include some of the key technologies.
As for how a traditional watch maker could compete with Apple, how about a smart display that is projected onto the otherwise clear crystal offering the best of both worlds? Perhaps put the CPU, radios and battery inside the bands leaving the mechanical housing untouched? Granted, I think it will be an uphill climb, but Appe needs competitors, and there's an infinite market for personal jewelry tech. And who is better motivated to redefine themselves than the people most threatened by it?
The main difference I see between smartphones and computers and the watch, is that Apple created the Mac, and a cheap knockoff company copied it badly for Windows. Apple created the iPhone and a cheap knockoff company copied it, badly. For the first time, Apple is up against an industry that has design and build standard that's equal, if not higher than its own. Tech is cheap, and all it takes is a bright engineering team that can adopt the concepts, not copy the ?Watch, And be just as innovative with their own products as Apple has been. And few in the world are as innovative as the Swiss and Germans as a whole. All I'm saying is that this is a different ballgame, and not to discount the ability of one of the oldest manufacturing businesses in the world, with the highest of standards, to meet the challenge.
I agree, that prestige Watch-makers will probably have to move in the same direction and provide at least one smartwatch option in their range.
I agree that Apple is up against an industry (Watch-makers) that can design and build as good as or even better than Apple, but I do not agree with the "Tech is cheap". The kind of "Tech" than Apple uses is not cheap. It becomes cheaper because they can produce chips in the tens of millions, and generally everything they put into their devices from hardware to software to build materials becomes cheaper to them as a company because they have the ability to buy or make in huge quantities. Other companies including Tech companies and traditional Watch-making companies do not have that strength.
Apple has the ability to plough millions/billions into research of new hardware, software and materials along with design. We know that existing "Tech" companies struggle to do the same and have Watch-making companies like Rolex, Cartier, Omega got the same spending power to put this kind of investment into research. Well I can't answer that, but we will surely find out.
Quote:
but I do not agree with the "Tech is cheap". The kind of "Tech" than Apple uses is not cheap.
Fair enough. That's a careless statement which does not accurately reflect the situation with which I am in full agreement. Apple's high profit margins aren't just going to build lavish buildings and super yachts for the late Steve jobs. They put that money right back into the company.
Clearly the watch makers will have to partner with the tech industry, and if I were them I would do exactly what Apple did when they were rebuilding and turn to Intel. But whatever they do, it will be interesting to see how they approach this problem.
Fair enough. That's a careless statement which does not accurately reflect the situation with which I am in full agreement. Apple's high profit margins aren't just going to build lavish buildings and super yachts for the late Steve jobs. They put that money right back into the company.
Clearly the watch makers will have to partner with the tech industry, and if I were them I would do exactly what Apple did when they were rebuilding and turn to Intel. But whatever they do, it will be interesting to see how they approach this problem.
Yes, this is an exciting time for wearable tech. The next few years "could" shape the future as we know it.
I see your point to be that the existing watch market will not be impacted by the smart watch, I.e there will always be a significant demand for a traditional mechanical watch to keep the industry alive without addressing smart watches in any way. Further you seem to be saying that if they attempt to enter the smart watch market they will surely fail possibly bankrupting themselves in the process. Is that about right?
What I'm saying is that if the ?Watch is the the leading edge of a change to move all manner of personal IDs, payment systems, and security access to a wrist worn device, how can traditions watch makers ignore at least that aspect of it? If the billionaire no longer needs to carry his car key because he can program his ?Watch to start it, as well as never having to carry his wallet, or drivers license, or house keys ... Doesn't that mean he's going to be far less inclined to wear his $250,000 Rolexes? And eventually stop buying them?
The inclusion of some kind of embedded programmable chip to provide these kinds of things doesn't seem beyond the grasp of the watch makers to compete with Apple. Indeed if they can't offer some basics like this, then I don't see how they won't go straight our of business. The addition of fitness sensors or MP3 players are pretty basic things that merely need an app to control. Not everyone needs full integration with their smartphone from their wrist, nor all of the features ?Watch offers, nor do I think the watch makers should try.
I've already ceded to you that the watch makers will not likely be able to compete with Apple head to head, but I don't see how they can survive at all if they can't effectively include some of the key technologies.
As for how a traditional watch maker could compete with Apple, how about a smart display that is projected onto the otherwise clear crystal offering the best of both worlds? Perhaps put the CPU, radios and battery inside the bands leaving the mechanical housing untouched? Granted, I think it will be an uphill climb, but Appe needs competitors, and there's an infinite market for personal jewelry tech. And who is better motivated to redefine themselves than the people most threatened by it?
The main difference I see between smartphones and computers and the watch, is that Apple created the Mac, and a cheap knockoff company copied it badly for Windows. Apple created the iPhone and a cheap knockoff company copied it, badly. For the first time, Apple is up against an industry that has design and build standard that's equal, if not higher than its own. Tech is cheap, and all it takes is a bright engineering team that can adopt the concepts, not copy the ?Watch, And be just as innovative with their own products as Apple has been. And few in the world are as innovative as the Swiss and Germans as a whole. All I'm saying is that this is a different ballgame, and not to discount the ability of one of the oldest manufacturing businesses in the world, with the highest of standards, to meet the challenge.
You make valid points, but how many R&D dollars did Apple spend developing the Watch? Can the watch makers spend the same amount with an uncertain ROI?
An engineering team alone isn't enough. How about the components? Off the shelf or custom made? How about the OS? Can't use Apple's, and using Android would be suicidal. It's not a uphill battle, it's more like what Sisyphus was tasked to do.
I'm curious how you arrive at that figure and I mean a real fully functioning smart watch not a silly fit band trinket or similar. After all the comparison would have to compare like with like fair enough. The CEA projects that shipments of smart watches will increase from 600,000 units and $95 million in sales in 2013 to 960,000 units and $177 million of revenue in 2014. Long term, Gartner Research predicts that by 2018 smart watch sales will reach 214 million devices with revenue of $60 billion.
whoa what an intelligence LOL, you should be in mensa
No need to be sarcastic, and if you had taken the time to read what we were talking about you would have realised what I was talking about and it what context. Hence the first line "Yes, this is an exciting time for wearable tech."....this gave the game away.
I thought this had been ruled out in the production models as viewed after the announcement last week?
Either way, the presence of these pins would make a greater water resistance rating more difficult, not to mention corrosion potential.
The holes for those pins are clearly shown in at least one of Apple's videos that show how the three metals are engineered. I was looking for them and saw them in one of those videos; I think the video on the Stainless Steel watch, but I can't be sure. Watch all three and you'll see them.
No need to be sarcastic, and if you had taken the time to read what we were talking about you would have realised what I was talking about and it what context. Hence the first line "Yes, this is an exciting time for wearable tech."....this gave the game away.
Comments
I had a dream...
About Apple incorporating smart watch bands into the Watch design. Here's my post from April 2014 on the topic:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178071/apple-to-sell-two-sizes-of-iwatch-with-flexible-amoled-displays-this-fall-prices-to-reach-thousands-of-dollars#post_2513582
In full:
I have this dream about the iWatch. The band could be where certain sensors are incorporated. So a diabetic would buy the iWatch body/face with the diabetic sensor band. That band might cost a pretty penny and be subsidized by insurance. A fitness junkie or athlete buys the sports band. Someone who merely wants an iWatch for its notifications capabilities and ability to run their iPhone Apps remotely would get the band with no special sensors. And some folks will get multiple bands, sports band for the daytime, dress band for evening, different colors, etc. and perhaps all the bands incorporate the battery, so when you switch bands you get a full charge (presumably your extra bands are stored atop your included inductive charger).
Well done you. Got the separate bands part right, maybe not about the separate batteries in each band....but hey you never know, as I don't see there being a problem fitting a small GPS in the band or extra battery.
Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. Who's going to buy a watch that's equally, if not higher, priced than the Apple Watch with some smart watch capabilities?
These companies don't have the chops to design, and build one like Apple does. Mark my words, any smart watch from these makers will get ridiculed, called ugly, and will be too little, too late.
Either way, the presence of these pins would make a greater water resistance rating more difficult, not to mention corrosion potential.
Nope, just complainers who have nothing better to do.
I guess you can move to Android where there aren't any un-deletable apps. Oh wait, that doesn't exist.
Btw, ios 8.2 does list the new Watch app in the details.
The difference being is that Google doesn't force feed you all of their apps. The core ones are included in the OS, and yes cannot be deleted, but one has to download the others from the Play Store.
I thought this had been ruled out in the production models as viewed after the announcement last week?
Either way, the presence of these pins would make a greater water resistance rating more difficult, not to mention corrosion potential.
I haven't seen any official notes on that. Just looking at the videos on show and they show the pins.
I get your point about water resistance, although I'm sure the watch straps are pretty snug when in place.
The difference being is that Google doesn't force feed you all of their apps. The core ones are included in the OS, and yes cannot be deleted, but one has to download the others from the Play Store.
Google just force feed their users malware instead LOL
I see your point to be that the existing watch market will not be impacted by the smart watch, I.e there will always be a significant demand for a traditional mechanical watch to keep the industry alive without addressing smart watches in any way. Further you seem to be saying that if they attempt to enter the smart watch market they will surely fail possibly bankrupting themselves in the process. Is that about right?
What I'm saying is that if the ?Watch is the the leading edge of a change to move all manner of personal IDs, payment systems, and security access to a wrist worn device, how can traditions watch makers ignore at least that aspect of it? If the billionaire no longer needs to carry his car key because he can program his ?Watch to start it, as well as never having to carry his wallet, or drivers license, or house keys ... Doesn't that mean he's going to be far less inclined to wear his $250,000 Rolexes? And eventually stop buying them?
The inclusion of some kind of embedded programmable chip to provide these kinds of things doesn't seem beyond the grasp of the watch makers to compete with Apple. Indeed if they can't offer some basics like this, then I don't see how they won't go straight our of business. The addition of fitness sensors or MP3 players are pretty basic things that merely need an app to control. Not everyone needs full integration with their smartphone from their wrist, nor all of the features ?Watch offers, nor do I think the watch makers should try.
I've already ceded to you that the watch makers will not likely be able to compete with Apple head to head, but I don't see how they can survive at all if they can't effectively include some of the key technologies.
As for how a traditional watch maker could compete with Apple, how about a smart display that is projected onto the otherwise clear crystal offering the best of both worlds? Perhaps put the CPU, radios and battery inside the bands leaving the mechanical housing untouched? Granted, I think it will be an uphill climb, but Appe needs competitors, and there's an infinite market for personal jewelry tech. And who is better motivated to redefine themselves than the people most threatened by it?
The main difference I see between smartphones and computers and the watch, is that Apple created the Mac, and a cheap knockoff company copied it badly for Windows. Apple created the iPhone and a cheap knockoff company copied it, badly. For the first time, Apple is up against an industry that has design and build standard that's equal, if not higher than its own. Tech is cheap, and all it takes is a bright engineering team that can adopt the concepts, not copy the ?Watch, And be just as innovative with their own products as Apple has been. And few in the world are as innovative as the Swiss and Germans as a whole. All I'm saying is that this is a different ballgame, and not to discount the ability of one of the oldest manufacturing businesses in the world, with the highest of standards, to meet the challenge.
There are manufacturers in China that have reverse engineered lightning technology and jumped this hurtle without a license from Apple. I suspect the same would be true of the ?Watch, which folks are going to try to jail-break from the day it goes on sale (then we'll see what the thing is truly capable of without being thethered to the iPhone).
Quote:
Let's speak plainly.
I see your point to be that the existing watch market will not be impacted by the smart watch, I.e there will always be a significant demand for a traditional mechanical watch to keep the industry alive without addressing smart watches in any way. Further you seem to be saying that if they attempt to enter the smart watch market they will surely fail possibly bankrupting themselves in the process. Is that about right?
What I'm saying is that if the ?Watch is the the leading edge of a change to move all manner of personal IDs, payment systems, and security access to a wrist worn device, how can traditions watch makers ignore at least that aspect of it? If the billionaire no longer needs to carry his car key because he can program his ?Watch to start it, as well as never having to carry his wallet, or drivers license, or house keys ... Doesn't that mean he's going to be far less inclined to wear his $250,000 Rolexes? And eventually stop buying them?
The inclusion of some kind of embedded programmable chip to provide these kinds of things doesn't seem beyond the grasp of the watch makers to compete with Apple. Indeed if they can't offer some basics like this, then I don't see how they won't go straight our of business. The addition of fitness sensors or MP3 players are pretty basic things that merely need an app to control. Not everyone needs full integration with their smartphone from their wrist, nor all of the features ?Watch offers, nor do I think the watch makers should try.
I've already ceded to you that the watch makers will not likely be able to compete with Apple head to head, but I don't see how they can survive at all if they can't effectively include some of the key technologies.
As for how a traditional watch maker could compete with Apple, how about a smart display that is projected onto the otherwise clear crystal offering the best of both worlds? Perhaps put the CPU, radios and battery inside the bands leaving the mechanical housing untouched? Granted, I think it will be an uphill climb, but Appe needs competitors, and there's an infinite market for personal jewelry tech. And who is better motivated to redefine themselves than the people most threatened by it?
The main difference I see between smartphones and computers and the watch, is that Apple created the Mac, and a cheap knockoff company copied it badly for Windows. Apple created the iPhone and a cheap knockoff company copied it, badly. For the first time, Apple is up against an industry that has design and build standard that's equal, if not higher than its own. Tech is cheap, and all it takes is a bright engineering team that can adopt the concepts, not copy the ?Watch, And be just as innovative with their own products as Apple has been. And few in the world are as innovative as the Swiss and Germans as a whole. All I'm saying is that this is a different ballgame, and not to discount the ability of one of the oldest manufacturing businesses in the world, with the highest of standards, to meet the challenge.
I agree, that prestige Watch-makers will probably have to move in the same direction and provide at least one smartwatch option in their range.
I agree that Apple is up against an industry (Watch-makers) that can design and build as good as or even better than Apple, but I do not agree with the "Tech is cheap". The kind of "Tech" than Apple uses is not cheap. It becomes cheaper because they can produce chips in the tens of millions, and generally everything they put into their devices from hardware to software to build materials becomes cheaper to them as a company because they have the ability to buy or make in huge quantities. Other companies including Tech companies and traditional Watch-making companies do not have that strength.
Apple has the ability to plough millions/billions into research of new hardware, software and materials along with design. We know that existing "Tech" companies struggle to do the same and have Watch-making companies like Rolex, Cartier, Omega got the same spending power to put this kind of investment into research. Well I can't answer that, but we will surely find out.
Clearly the watch makers will have to partner with the tech industry, and if I were them I would do exactly what Apple did when they were rebuilding and turn to Intel. But whatever they do, it will be interesting to see how they approach this problem.
Fair enough. That's a careless statement which does not accurately reflect the situation with which I am in full agreement. Apple's high profit margins aren't just going to build lavish buildings and super yachts for the late Steve jobs. They put that money right back into the company.
Clearly the watch makers will have to partner with the tech industry, and if I were them I would do exactly what Apple did when they were rebuilding and turn to Intel. But whatever they do, it will be interesting to see how they approach this problem.
Yes, this is an exciting time for wearable tech. The next few years "could" shape the future as we know it.
You make valid points, but how many R&D dollars did Apple spend developing the Watch? Can the watch makers spend the same amount with an uncertain ROI?
An engineering team alone isn't enough. How about the components? Off the shelf or custom made? How about the OS? Can't use Apple's, and using Android would be suicidal. It's not a uphill battle, it's more like what Sisyphus was tasked to do.
Seeing as how Google makes more money off iOS users, it isn't force fed, it's gladly eaten.
I'm curious how you arrive at that figure and I mean a real fully functioning smart watch not a silly fit band trinket or similar. After all the comparison would have to compare like with like fair enough. The CEA projects that shipments of smart watches will increase from 600,000 units and $95 million in sales in 2013 to 960,000 units and $177 million of revenue in 2014. Long term, Gartner Research predicts that by 2018 smart watch sales will reach 214 million devices with revenue of $60 billion.
Yes, this is an exciting time for wearable tech. The next few years "could" shape the future as we know it.
"The next few years could shape the future"
- really Einstein!
whoa what an intelligence LOL, you should be in mensa
Yes I know its really cheap , only $350 , a real bargain I'd say.
"The next few years could shape the future"
- really Einstein!
whoa what an intelligence LOL, you should be in mensa
No need to be sarcastic, and if you had taken the time to read what we were talking about you would have realised what I was talking about and it what context. Hence the first line "Yes, this is an exciting time for wearable tech."....this gave the game away.
Now off you toddle.
I thought this had been ruled out in the production models as viewed after the announcement last week?
Either way, the presence of these pins would make a greater water resistance rating more difficult, not to mention corrosion potential.
The holes for those pins are clearly shown in at least one of Apple's videos that show how the three metals are engineered. I was looking for them and saw them in one of those videos; I think the video on the Stainless Steel watch, but I can't be sure. Watch all three and you'll see them.
Toddle toddle
Sorry I couldn't resist it