The shape of the watch is fashion, and fashion is fickle. I will be shocked if Apple doesn't release a round model at some point themselves, depending on how committed they are to the "fashion" angle of this product. People want what they want, and while there will be those who will want people to know they are one of the few lucky enough to have an ?Watch, there are plenty of others who want their watch to coordinate with their outfit and jewelry. And still more who won't be interested in a homogenous wrist watch that brings no unique style, or personality to their choice.
Apple designed a beautiful smart watch, but there's a lot more to it than one-size fits all.
good thing apple is the only one so far to offer more than one size. oops!
there wont be a round model for many years, if ever. if youd bother to read the Ive interview youd know he said they built it around the pragmatic need of reading lists on a screen. form follows function. how many round TVs do see?
Problem is, no-one wants to read lists on their watch. That's the fundamental mistake that Ive has made in his thinking. The reasons for a round watch are much more compelling than a square one.
So now we're left with not two, but three critical dates.
The release date.
The pre-order/try-on date.
The try-on reservation date.
So, the 24th, the 10th, and... ?
no. there are two dates -- the pre-order date, and the ship date. i fully plan to wait until the first date, order my watch, and receive it on the second date.
making a try-on date is strictly optional, and is no different than making a genius appt for something.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Apple designed a beautiful smart watch, but there's a lot more to it than one-size fits all.</span>
Then it's a good thing they're offering something like 28 "sizes," before you even get into mixing and matching bands on your own. The obsessors over the shape are missing the forest for the trees.
There's still only one watch design. Just different materials. Fatal blow.
Then it's a good thing they're offering something like 28 "sizes," before you even get into mixing and matching bands on your own. The obsessors over the shape are missing the forest for the trees.
This is your opinion. Counting the bands on each watch does not the watch make. This is how every ?Watch will look without the band, in either silver or gold:
While this may work for you, it remains to be seen how people feel about wearing the same black square on their wrist as everyone else, only distinguishable by their flair for the available watch bands. Now this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that if everybody were happy wearing the same traditional watch face, there wouldn't be the thousands of options available in the marketplace today. Since the ?Watch is taking the place of the traditional watch on the wrist, it stands to reason people will expect similar physical variation from it, regardless of what it else it can do that a traditional watch can't. The "forest" you describe must consist of a world where people compliment each other wearing the ?Watch, on their great taste in watch bands.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Then it's a good thing they're offering something like 28 "sizes," before you even get into mixing and matching bands on your own. The obsessors over the shape are missing the forest for the trees.</span>
This is your opinion. Counting the bands on each watch does not the watch make. This is how every ?Watch will look without the band, in either silver or gold:
While this may work for you, it remains to be seen how people feel about wearing the same black square on their wrist as everyone else, only distinguishable by their flair for the available watch bands. Now this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that if everybody were happy wearing the same traditional watch face, there wouldn't be the thousands of options available in the marketplace today. Since the ?Watch is taking the place of the traditional watch on the wrist, it stands to reason people will expect similar physical variation from it, regardless of what it else it can do that a traditional watch can't. The "forest" you describe must consist of a world where people compliment each other wearing the ?Watch, on their great taste in watch bands.
Which is partly why I don't think it will catch on.
It would be better for Apple to offer Watch Kit to everyone so that they could incorporate it into their watch designs, like Car Play.
This is your opinion. Counting the bands on each watch does not the watch make. This is how every ?Watch will look without the band, in either silver or gold:
While this may work for you, it remains to be seen how people feel about wearing the same black square on their wrist as everyone else, only distinguishable by their flair for the available watch bands. Now this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that if everybody were happy wearing the same traditional watch face, there wouldn't be the thousands of options available in the marketplace today. Since the ?Watch is taking the place of the traditional watch on the wrist, it stands to reason people will expect similar physical variation from it, regardless of what it else it can do that a traditional watch can't. The "forest" you describe must consist of a world where people compliment each other wearing the ?Watch, on their great taste in watch bands.
This is your opinion, so it no more stands to reason than mine. I wasn't aware that "everybody" would be wearing an Apple Watch (a doubtful outcome, even in Apple's most optimistic imagination), and I also wasn't aware that simply using the word "watch" utterly changes the rules about what is expected for the device. And since when has Apple ever been interested in competing with "the thousands options available in the marketplace?" Exactly never. The deja vu moment a lot of us are having right now is these critiques sound eerily like the ones we've heard about every Apple product from time immemorial: they are predicted to fail because they don't meet a specific geek criterion unique to the person issuing the critique.
The forest you aren't seeing for the trees is called Apple. A lot of people do it. They are generally wrong.
I also wasn't aware that simply using the word "watch" utterly changes the rules about what is expected for the device. And since when has Apple ever been interested in competing with "the thousands options available in the marketplace?" Exactly never. The deja vu moment a lot of us are having right now is these critiques sound eerily like the ones we've heard about every Apple product from time immemorial: they are predicted to fail because they don't meet a specific geek criterion unique to the person issuing the critique.
This is Apple's first foray into a hybrid product that straddles the rules of tech and fashion. And yes in this case using the word "watch" does change the rules for this device. We don't know what Apple intends to do here yet, they've designed 21 different watch bands -- when have they ever designed 21 different accessories for any of their products? You would suggest that all of the things Apple has done with this product, which are unlike anything else they've ever done before, are nevertheless predictable business as usual for Apple. Even Tim Cook is telling us this is the most personal product they've ever made. When you talk deja vu moments where critics predict failure because they don't meet a specific "geek" criterion, they're talking about electronic devices. Not fashion statements. They're still making those arguments, no GPS, battery life too short, et al ... but now there's something new to discuss that geeks never have had before.
So we can either discuss the ?Watch as a marvelous technological interface and ignore the fashion and aesthetic concerns, or we can acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is the fashion aspect of this product. I wouldn't dare for a minute suggest this watch will fail because Apple only offers one design they update every two years like the iPhone. But I don't really think that's why Apple has invested so much in courting and hiring top fashion industry people, nor expanded their retail operations into department stores and jewelers, and pursued haute couture publications and endorsements. No I don't think they have done all of this for a one-sized-fits-all smart watch, with some interchangeable wrist bands. And if I'm right, then in order to compete within the fashion industry and the watch business for wrist real-estate, they will need to do more than offer a single model, in two sizes, and two colors, with an array of bands to secure it -- and what's MORE ... I'm sure they are already way ahead of me.
The deja vu moment I'm having is from all the people who say things like 'Apple will never do a 5.5" iPhone'. Apple may never do a round watch, but given the apparent aspirations they have of competing in the world of fashion, I would never rule it out, especially based on what they did before with other products.
This is Apple's first foray into a hybrid product that straddles the rules of tech and fashion. And yes in this case using the word "watch" does change the rules for this device. We don't know what Apple intends to do here yet, they've designed 21 different watch bands -- when have they ever designed 21 different accessories for any of their products? You would suggest that all of the things Apple has done with this product, which are unlike anything else they've ever done before, are nevertheless predictable business as usual for Apple. Even Tim Cook is telling us this is the most personal product they've ever made. When you talk deja vu moments where critics predict failure because they don't meet a specific "geek" criterion, they're talking about electronic devices. Not fashion statements. They're still making those arguments, no GPS, battery life too short, et al ... but now there's something new to discuss that geeks never have had before.
So we can either discuss the ?Watch as a marvelous technological interface and ignore the fashion and aesthetic concerns, or we can acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is the fashion aspect of this product. I wouldn't dare for a minute suggest this watch will fail because Apple only offers one design they update every two years like the iPhone. But I don't really think that's why Apple has invested so much in courting and hiring top fashion industry people, nor expanded their retail operations into department stores and jewelers, and pursued haute couture publications and endorsements. No I don't think they have done all of this for a one-sized-fits-all smart watch, with some interchangeable wrist bands. And if I'm right, then in order to compete within the fashion industry and the watch business for wrist real-estate, they will need to do more than offer a single model, in two sizes, and two colors, with an array of bands to secure it -- and what's MORE ... I'm sure they are already way ahead of me.
The deja vu moment I'm having is from all the people who say things like 'Apple will never do a 5.5" iPhone'. Apple may never do a round watch, but given the apparent aspirations they have of competing in the world of fashion, I would never rule it out, especially based on what they did before with other products.
I am fully aware of the category-straddling nature of this product, and I would never completely rule anything out for future iterations (though I would say round is highly unlikely). What I am saying is this product is being criticized in ways that sound more than slightly familiar. In addition to the usual tech geek critique (it must have a specific geek feature, or it's a fail), we now add the fashion snob critique. The latter is somewhat new to me, but it seems to follow precisely the same line of reasoning. In this case, Apple Watch is a fail right out of the box because any device called a watch must be round. This impresses me as being at least equally silly.
Even more to the point: Apple doesn't need either tech geeks or fashion snobs to succeed with this product. They are now influential enough to make their products into fashion statements without having to kowtow to traditions. Apple Watch is different than previous Apple products in some important ways, well worth discussing, but it is also similar in equally important ways.
Problem is, no-one wants to read lists on their watch. That's the fundamental mistake that Ive has made in his thinking. The reasons for a round watch are much more compelling than a square one.
Your statement is idiotic.
I want to read lists on my watch.
Shut up and stop telling people what I want or don't want.
Your statement is idiotic.
I want to read lists on my watch.
Shut up and stop telling people what I want or don't want.
Ben is right, particularly with such tiny screens - besides, the more I look at those Ive-designed watch faces, the more I feel like reiterating: what a FUGLY watch. Not even "Turlington Burns" (who had no Burns when she was a top model) makes it look any better.
Now when can we have those new Mac Pros or xMacs, please?
The Edition could be an exception (though I doubt it) but for certain the bands are interchangeable. Apple wants you to buy more than one band.
I agree the bands should physically be interchangeable. Not that anyone would do it based on cost alone, but I do wonder if there will be some kind of restriction on the Edition watch bands, since it is available in very "limited" quantities, so that they cannot be purchased except by someone already with an Edition? Again, doubtful, because then you wouldn't be able to give them as gifts. And I don't see the stainless watch owners going for a two-toned look anyway (though some do like that). And I really don't see an Edition owner going for a two-toned look.
But here's another question ... in the Burlington article, we saw a picture of the disassembled band, which has a metal slug in the middle which aligns with the release button. The question is whether that's purely structural, or if it serves some other purpose, like a "DRM" confirmation that it's a legitimate Apple band?
I do understand from a pragmatic point of view why they wouldn't want customers to swap bands during the :15 demo, but as a customer, I'd want to see how that worked, especially if I were planning to order multiple bands at the same time I buy the watch. Combined with the fact no reviewers have been given access to the remove the bands, I do wonder if Apple is trying to delay the fact that maybe they are using some sort of DRM restriction with the bands as long as possible to not only thwart counterfeiters, but also make their deals for designer licenses, giving them time to reach the market.
And that raises another issue -- licensees for watch bands, will have to necessarily replicate the same finish as the watch case itself for many watch bands. But we know Apple has patented formulations for the alloys and process. So will they license the formulas to third party band designers, or will they produce the necessary parts for the licensees? It's going to be very interesting to see how the third party aftermarket band sales develops.
I agree the bands should physically be interchangeable. Not that anyone would do it based on cost alone, but I do wonder if there will be some kind of restriction on the Edition watch bands, since it is available in very "limited" quantities, so that they cannot be purchased except by someone already with an Edition? Again, doubtful, because then you wouldn't be able to give them as gifts. And I don't see the stainless watch owners going for a two-toned look anyway (though some do like that). And I really don't see an Edition owner going for a two-toned look.
All good questions, soon to be answered. I'd be shocked if the bands were not readily interchangeable. Apple has shown this feature in their promo videos, and prices for bands were leaked, so it seems certain. Earlier on I was holding out some hope that the watch and bands would be sold entirely a la carte but it seems this was a mere pipe dream on my part. Apple will require you to buy at least one Apple band with the watch. The question remains whether third parties will be able to sell compatible bands, either under license or without. My guess is for awhile at least Apple will discourage third party bands, but I don't see how they can prevent it in the long run, unless they plan on suing every company in China that jumps on the wagon.
My guess is for awhile at least Apple will discourage third party bands, but I don't see how they can prevent it in the long run, unless they plan on suing every company in China that jumps on the wagon.
And this in my mind goes to how completely Apple intends to get into the fashion aspect of the watch business. They've got 21 unique bands now, across 7 distinct styles (with 3 in multiple lengths). The rumor is more case materials coming this Fall, which means at a minimum existing bands with matching metal. But what is it Apple plans to do? Release two dozen new and unique bands every year to stay relevant with fashion trends, or will they license out that burden substantially to designer labels like Gucci, D&G (well Cook probably wouldn't license to them on principle now), Coach, Louis Vuitton, et al.
And if they do that, what about licensing the software out to watch makers? Rolex designs the case, Apple supplies the software? Because again, if they don't do this, then they have to carry the fashion burden alone -- OR, just ignore it and offer the one design, in two sizes, 6 finishes, and 21 bands, with the expectation that customers either compromise their fashion demands for superior function, or buy something else, as Apple does with all of their products. Or is there another option I'm overlooking?
Comments
Sounds like Windows versions to me.
Problem is, no-one wants to read lists on their watch. That's the fundamental mistake that Ive has made in his thinking. The reasons for a round watch are much more compelling than a square one.
So now we're left with not two, but three critical dates.
The release date.
The pre-order/try-on date.
The try-on reservation date.
So, the 24th, the 10th, and... ?
no. there are two dates -- the pre-order date, and the ship date. i fully plan to wait until the first date, order my watch, and receive it on the second date.
making a try-on date is strictly optional, and is no different than making a genius appt for something.
There's still only one watch design. Just different materials. Fatal blow.
There's still only one watch design. Just different materials. Fatal blow.
And this is important to...?
Us. The general public.
Us. The general public.
You, a specific person.
Then it's a good thing they're offering something like 28 "sizes," before you even get into mixing and matching bands on your own. The obsessors over the shape are missing the forest for the trees.
This is your opinion. Counting the bands on each watch does not the watch make. This is how every ?Watch will look without the band, in either silver or gold:
While this may work for you, it remains to be seen how people feel about wearing the same black square on their wrist as everyone else, only distinguishable by their flair for the available watch bands. Now this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that if everybody were happy wearing the same traditional watch face, there wouldn't be the thousands of options available in the marketplace today. Since the ?Watch is taking the place of the traditional watch on the wrist, it stands to reason people will expect similar physical variation from it, regardless of what it else it can do that a traditional watch can't. The "forest" you describe must consist of a world where people compliment each other wearing the ?Watch, on their great taste in watch bands.
I speak for everyone.
Which is partly why I don't think it will catch on.
It would be better for Apple to offer Watch Kit to everyone so that they could incorporate it into their watch designs, like Car Play.
This is your opinion. Counting the bands on each watch does not the watch make. This is how every ?Watch will look without the band, in either silver or gold:
While this may work for you, it remains to be seen how people feel about wearing the same black square on their wrist as everyone else, only distinguishable by their flair for the available watch bands. Now this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that if everybody were happy wearing the same traditional watch face, there wouldn't be the thousands of options available in the marketplace today. Since the ?Watch is taking the place of the traditional watch on the wrist, it stands to reason people will expect similar physical variation from it, regardless of what it else it can do that a traditional watch can't. The "forest" you describe must consist of a world where people compliment each other wearing the ?Watch, on their great taste in watch bands.
This is your opinion, so it no more stands to reason than mine. I wasn't aware that "everybody" would be wearing an Apple Watch (a doubtful outcome, even in Apple's most optimistic imagination), and I also wasn't aware that simply using the word "watch" utterly changes the rules about what is expected for the device. And since when has Apple ever been interested in competing with "the thousands options available in the marketplace?" Exactly never. The deja vu moment a lot of us are having right now is these critiques sound eerily like the ones we've heard about every Apple product from time immemorial: they are predicted to fail because they don't meet a specific geek criterion unique to the person issuing the critique.
The forest you aren't seeing for the trees is called Apple. A lot of people do it. They are generally wrong.
I speak for everyone.
If this was meant to be an ironic comment, it isn't working.
No irony intended, so it should keep working.
I also wasn't aware that simply using the word "watch" utterly changes the rules about what is expected for the device. And since when has Apple ever been interested in competing with "the thousands options available in the marketplace?" Exactly never. The deja vu moment a lot of us are having right now is these critiques sound eerily like the ones we've heard about every Apple product from time immemorial: they are predicted to fail because they don't meet a specific geek criterion unique to the person issuing the critique.
This is Apple's first foray into a hybrid product that straddles the rules of tech and fashion. And yes in this case using the word "watch" does change the rules for this device. We don't know what Apple intends to do here yet, they've designed 21 different watch bands -- when have they ever designed 21 different accessories for any of their products? You would suggest that all of the things Apple has done with this product, which are unlike anything else they've ever done before, are nevertheless predictable business as usual for Apple. Even Tim Cook is telling us this is the most personal product they've ever made. When you talk deja vu moments where critics predict failure because they don't meet a specific "geek" criterion, they're talking about electronic devices. Not fashion statements. They're still making those arguments, no GPS, battery life too short, et al ... but now there's something new to discuss that geeks never have had before.
So we can either discuss the ?Watch as a marvelous technological interface and ignore the fashion and aesthetic concerns, or we can acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is the fashion aspect of this product. I wouldn't dare for a minute suggest this watch will fail because Apple only offers one design they update every two years like the iPhone. But I don't really think that's why Apple has invested so much in courting and hiring top fashion industry people, nor expanded their retail operations into department stores and jewelers, and pursued haute couture publications and endorsements. No I don't think they have done all of this for a one-sized-fits-all smart watch, with some interchangeable wrist bands. And if I'm right, then in order to compete within the fashion industry and the watch business for wrist real-estate, they will need to do more than offer a single model, in two sizes, and two colors, with an array of bands to secure it -- and what's MORE ... I'm sure they are already way ahead of me.
The deja vu moment I'm having is from all the people who say things like 'Apple will never do a 5.5" iPhone'. Apple may never do a round watch, but given the apparent aspirations they have of competing in the world of fashion, I would never rule it out, especially based on what they did before with other products.
This is Apple's first foray into a hybrid product that straddles the rules of tech and fashion. And yes in this case using the word "watch" does change the rules for this device. We don't know what Apple intends to do here yet, they've designed 21 different watch bands -- when have they ever designed 21 different accessories for any of their products? You would suggest that all of the things Apple has done with this product, which are unlike anything else they've ever done before, are nevertheless predictable business as usual for Apple. Even Tim Cook is telling us this is the most personal product they've ever made. When you talk deja vu moments where critics predict failure because they don't meet a specific "geek" criterion, they're talking about electronic devices. Not fashion statements. They're still making those arguments, no GPS, battery life too short, et al ... but now there's something new to discuss that geeks never have had before.
So we can either discuss the ?Watch as a marvelous technological interface and ignore the fashion and aesthetic concerns, or we can acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is the fashion aspect of this product. I wouldn't dare for a minute suggest this watch will fail because Apple only offers one design they update every two years like the iPhone. But I don't really think that's why Apple has invested so much in courting and hiring top fashion industry people, nor expanded their retail operations into department stores and jewelers, and pursued haute couture publications and endorsements. No I don't think they have done all of this for a one-sized-fits-all smart watch, with some interchangeable wrist bands. And if I'm right, then in order to compete within the fashion industry and the watch business for wrist real-estate, they will need to do more than offer a single model, in two sizes, and two colors, with an array of bands to secure it -- and what's MORE ... I'm sure they are already way ahead of me.
The deja vu moment I'm having is from all the people who say things like 'Apple will never do a 5.5" iPhone'. Apple may never do a round watch, but given the apparent aspirations they have of competing in the world of fashion, I would never rule it out, especially based on what they did before with other products.
I am fully aware of the category-straddling nature of this product, and I would never completely rule anything out for future iterations (though I would say round is highly unlikely). What I am saying is this product is being criticized in ways that sound more than slightly familiar. In addition to the usual tech geek critique (it must have a specific geek feature, or it's a fail), we now add the fashion snob critique. The latter is somewhat new to me, but it seems to follow precisely the same line of reasoning. In this case, Apple Watch is a fail right out of the box because any device called a watch must be round. This impresses me as being at least equally silly.
Even more to the point: Apple doesn't need either tech geeks or fashion snobs to succeed with this product. They are now influential enough to make their products into fashion statements without having to kowtow to traditions. Apple Watch is different than previous Apple products in some important ways, well worth discussing, but it is also similar in equally important ways.
Your statement is idiotic.
I want to read lists on my watch.
Shut up and stop telling people what I want or don't want.
Ben is right, particularly with such tiny screens - besides, the more I look at those Ive-designed watch faces, the more I feel like reiterating: what a FUGLY watch. Not even "Turlington Burns" (who had no Burns when she was a top model) makes it look any better.
Now when can we have those new Mac Pros or xMacs, please?
The Edition could be an exception (though I doubt it) but for certain the bands are interchangeable. Apple wants you to buy more than one band.
I agree the bands should physically be interchangeable. Not that anyone would do it based on cost alone, but I do wonder if there will be some kind of restriction on the Edition watch bands, since it is available in very "limited" quantities, so that they cannot be purchased except by someone already with an Edition? Again, doubtful, because then you wouldn't be able to give them as gifts. And I don't see the stainless watch owners going for a two-toned look anyway (though some do like that). And I really don't see an Edition owner going for a two-toned look.
But here's another question ... in the Burlington article, we saw a picture of the disassembled band, which has a metal slug in the middle which aligns with the release button. The question is whether that's purely structural, or if it serves some other purpose, like a "DRM" confirmation that it's a legitimate Apple band?
I do understand from a pragmatic point of view why they wouldn't want customers to swap bands during the :15 demo, but as a customer, I'd want to see how that worked, especially if I were planning to order multiple bands at the same time I buy the watch. Combined with the fact no reviewers have been given access to the remove the bands, I do wonder if Apple is trying to delay the fact that maybe they are using some sort of DRM restriction with the bands as long as possible to not only thwart counterfeiters, but also make their deals for designer licenses, giving them time to reach the market.
And that raises another issue -- licensees for watch bands, will have to necessarily replicate the same finish as the watch case itself for many watch bands. But we know Apple has patented formulations for the alloys and process. So will they license the formulas to third party band designers, or will they produce the necessary parts for the licensees? It's going to be very interesting to see how the third party aftermarket band sales develops.
I agree the bands should physically be interchangeable. Not that anyone would do it based on cost alone, but I do wonder if there will be some kind of restriction on the Edition watch bands, since it is available in very "limited" quantities, so that they cannot be purchased except by someone already with an Edition? Again, doubtful, because then you wouldn't be able to give them as gifts. And I don't see the stainless watch owners going for a two-toned look anyway (though some do like that). And I really don't see an Edition owner going for a two-toned look.
All good questions, soon to be answered. I'd be shocked if the bands were not readily interchangeable. Apple has shown this feature in their promo videos, and prices for bands were leaked, so it seems certain. Earlier on I was holding out some hope that the watch and bands would be sold entirely a la carte but it seems this was a mere pipe dream on my part. Apple will require you to buy at least one Apple band with the watch. The question remains whether third parties will be able to sell compatible bands, either under license or without. My guess is for awhile at least Apple will discourage third party bands, but I don't see how they can prevent it in the long run, unless they plan on suing every company in China that jumps on the wagon.
My guess is for awhile at least Apple will discourage third party bands, but I don't see how they can prevent it in the long run, unless they plan on suing every company in China that jumps on the wagon.
And this in my mind goes to how completely Apple intends to get into the fashion aspect of the watch business. They've got 21 unique bands now, across 7 distinct styles (with 3 in multiple lengths). The rumor is more case materials coming this Fall, which means at a minimum existing bands with matching metal. But what is it Apple plans to do? Release two dozen new and unique bands every year to stay relevant with fashion trends, or will they license out that burden substantially to designer labels like Gucci, D&G (well Cook probably wouldn't license to them on principle now), Coach, Louis Vuitton, et al.
And if they do that, what about licensing the software out to watch makers? Rolex designs the case, Apple supplies the software? Because again, if they don't do this, then they have to carry the fashion burden alone -- OR, just ignore it and offer the one design, in two sizes, 6 finishes, and 21 bands, with the expectation that customers either compromise their fashion demands for superior function, or buy something else, as Apple does with all of their products. Or is there another option I'm overlooking?