I know I didn't buy one. Bought a Seiko SARB065 instead. If Apple produces a smart watch that looks good on my wrist I'll consider buying it. I'm a big detractor of Apple Watch's current design, with the exception of the band, which is the only part the Watch's design I consider innovative or attractive. And will always till My DATEJUST!
I am not opposed to a round face for the Apple Watch. But, I think your comment on frivolity and whims of taste and style speaks more to your particular point of view on the Watch geometry, than what the engineering of the ideal functionalal parameters of the Apple Watch presented to its creators. As the ability to fit more in less space increases, the options in exterior appearance will broaden.
The IDC report spans the entire third quarter, inclusive of the retail Apple Watch sales Gen 1 and 2 release in limited quantities, yes.
but Apple does not release Watch sales numbers. These numbers from IDC are total bullshit based on bullshit
Apple is not publishing figures, but the suppliers of the components do release figures, and some reseller shops do as well. IDC is not only taking figures from the watch manufacturers into account but also from suppliers, resellers and customers, so the figures are not completely bullshit. These figures are, of course, not perfect and have a significant margin of error but they are definitely good enough to detect trends from quarter to quarter.
The first gen watch was a little off target, but I think they righted the ship with version 3 of the OS and the current hardware lineup.
If they can just keep pushing the product forward I think they'll do fine.
The problem is -- that's a big "if". It seems difficult for Apple to continuously push multiple product lines forward at once. Only the iPhone consistently gets annual updates.
While I agree, I do think it took too long to get a second model out. We've been looking at the exact same design since September 2014, which despite being a substantial improvement over Series 1, nevertheless lends to the perception it's an old model offering nothing new. And, I have believed since the beginning that the Apple Watch did too much, and things that most people are clearly not buying smart watches for, requiring a more complicated interface for some. Combined with a relatively high price compared to the fitness trackers most people seem to be opting for, and it becomes something of a luxury for the mass markets Apple needs to woo in order to make this thing as successful as their other product lines. But they are laying the groundwork for a big leap forward. If rumors are accurate, and the Apple Watch gains LTE and independence from the iPhone, it will likely take on a whole new life for some. A round watch, as alluded to by patent filings, will also help put the spotlight back on design as well, and keep pushing the innovation factor, over the fitness bands which seem to carry the bulk of the focus. And let's not forget Apple's health factor. The Trump presidency might well help Apple in that regulatory barriers to adding health features to the watch could be dropped, allowing them to bring truly useful features to the watch. I would generally trust Apple to thoroughly test their devices more than most vendors given the resulting lack of government regulation, and that will give Apple a leg up too in that area, since obviously Fitbit will benefit from the same deregulation.
Oh lord. More people who think design is how something looks, rather than how it works. And a rectangular display works better for information, which is why computer monitors, train/plane schedule displays, hell even just books, aren't round. Watches were round because of swinging arms, which, surprise, ain't dere no more.
People have expectations about what things should look like. I remember my mother making mashed potatoes and fresh bread for Easter, using food coloring to make the potatoes orange and the bread green. She had what she thought was a good reason too, celebrating spring and its colors. The taste probably didn't change at all but no one liked either of them. They didn't look like what they were expected to. No doubt there's a significant percentage of watch wearers that when they think of what a quality watch should look like one of the basics is that its round. A rectangular one doesn't look right to them.
That's fine, because those people are into watches as ornaments. In other words, form. But when it comes to function over form, rectangular won. See: books.
People always bitch that apple is too into form over function, but here's proof that they aren't. And yet still the people bitch. Therein lies the lesson.
Right, because there's nothing like reading a good book on your wrist, or watching a movie, or analyzing a spreadsheet?
Jony Ive couldn't have been more clear -- the watch was designed for glances. Anything more and he suggests one pull out their iPhone. Round or square works just fine for such purposes. Something worn on a person's body is subject to the frivolities and whims of taste and style -- and most people are going to want what they want regardless of the ability to most efficiently display the contents of a document. If Apple doesn't address that need, then they will lose some market share. It's as simple as that.
Are you really that daft? Nowhere did I suggest one read books on a wrist and never mentioned documents. But the display use case remains the same -- rendering blocks of content. This works best in a rectangle and not a circle; in the case of the watch it's text, lists, stacked content, etc... It makes the most sense for the same reason it makes sense in a book. Obviously that does not mean I'm saying "Read books on wrist!", so no idea what you're talking about.
Round watches exist because of swinging arms. The AW has no arms, thus it's not round -- it is function over form. So you keep waiting for your round AW...Meanwhile, I'll utilize the value I get from my actual product every day.
Still 2.5 weeks wait time on apple website for 42mm Sport in aluminum....Best Buy has been unavailable since launch except for spurts of a few hours before going out of stock.
Comparing sales of the Apple Watch to fitness trackers is like comparing iTunes to Netflix. Sure, Fitbit does a few things the Apple Watch does, but at the end of the day, totally different products.
That's 'a' market, not 'the' market. Series 2 has the GPS and waterproofing so those HW features are being marketed as the new changes, which were heavily requested as the "smart"-aspect had been taken care of with Series 0 and with continued efforts with watchOS 1, 2 and 3.
Three additional things to note:
Even on that very page they say that health isn't all about fitness so they are clearly not only focusing on fitness. Go even further and they mention the other features, but, again, that's about Series 2, which is thicker and heavier than Series 0 and Series 1, yet still with watchOS 3.
That's 'a' market, not 'the' market. Series 2 has the GPS and waterproofing so those HW features are being marketed as the new changes, which were heavily requested as the "smart"-aspect had been taken care of with Series 0 and with continued efforts with watchOS 1, 2 and 3.
Three additional things to note:
Even on that very page they say that health isn't all about fitness so they are clearly not only focusing on fitness. Go even further and they mention the other features, but, again, that's about Series 2, which is thicker and heavier than Series 0 and Series 1, yet still with watchOS 3.
The Hermes and steal band are clearly not for fitness.
You're correct it's not the only use case mentioned. But it certainly is the very first one promoted, Sports watch, with the second most important use as a fitness tracker. The health and connected apps get relatively little mention. and generally only well down the page. Looks clear to me that Apple would like the Apple Watch perceived as a sports watch/fitness tracker with added features that traditional fitness devices might not offer. It's not until you get down to the fifth page before you hit features that Fitbit doesn't offer. Isn't Apple encouraging buyers to make comparisons to Garmin and Fitbit sports watches/fitness trackers? IDC doing so makes sense based on Apple's marketing doesn't it?
That's 'a' market, not 'the' market. Series 2 has the GPS and waterproofing so those HW features are being marketed as the new changes, which were heavily requested as the "smart"-aspect had been taken care of with Series 0 and with continued efforts with watchOS 1, 2 and 3.
Three additional things to note:
Even on that very page they say that health isn't all about fitness so they are clearly not only focusing on fitness. Go even further and they mention the other features, but, again, that's about Series 2, which is thicker and heavier than Series 0 and Series 1, yet still with watchOS 3.
The Hermes and steal band are clearly not for fitness.
You're correct it's not the only use case mentioned. But it certainly is the very first one promoted, and gets much more play than the others that follow much further down the page. Looks clear to me that Apple would like the Apple Watch perceived as a fitness tracker with added features that traditional fitness devices might not offer.
As shown by the watchOS page, I think the reason the Series 2 watch gets that placed prominently is because that edition's new HW features are most useful for fitness. "Better water-resistance if you're washing dishes" or "more accurately track your daughter after she's kidnapped by Albanians when she visits France with a sexually adventurous friend" are good selling points for the water-resistance and GPS, respectively.
Go to the Series 1 page and they mention briefly the fitness aspect, but improved device performance comse first, because that's the most significant change over Series 0.
If Series 3's primary HW bump is week-long battery life I'm certain that will be the primary selling point over the previous HW. If it's better health functions—of which fitness is just a subset—then you'll have that being most prominent. It's hard to think what they could add to the HW besides seniors for health and fitness, and performance, size and weight benefits. Everything else is pretty much SW. I guess if they add a camera or Touch ID, then that would be prominent, but I'm doubtful we'll see that soon. I also don't want it to have a camera.
The IDC report spans the entire third quarter, inclusive of the retail Apple Watch sales Gen 1 and 2 release in limited quantities, yes.
but Apple does not release Watch sales numbers. These numbers from IDC are total bullshit based on bullshit
Apple is not publishing figures, but the suppliers of the components do release figures, and some reseller shops do as well. IDC is not only taking figures from the watch manufacturers into account but also from suppliers, resellers and customers, so the figures are not completely bullshit. These figures are, of course, not perfect and have a significant margin of error but they are definitely good enough to detect trends from quarter to quarter.
Do you have a list of the component suppliers and resellers that have released sales figures? These numbers are always highly questionable but rumor sites publish them because they're good click bait.
I am more enamoured with the many use cases that are in process or may be created in the health care/patient care/after care avenues of growth. Medical research, Dr. Office, hospital and post hospital follow up, senior care and off site medical supervision of patients and known multi need citizens are some of the nascent opportunities still being considered and worked through in Appleland. Only the obvious use cases have been overtly developed. But many other opportunities lie ahead for the Apple Watch by my civilian estimation!
In my opinion, the Apple Watch is trying to be too many things, and have too many features (some of which are downright silly and awkward: sending someone your heartbeat?). Think of the ipod, did some things really well, did not try to be too many things. I recently purchased a fitbit charge 2, and I like that is cheaper than the Apple Watch and has longer battery life. It is also smaller. I don't need hi res screen on my wrist. Another thing, who goes jogging with a watch without a phone? What if there is an emergency? How about listening to music? So, Apple should have specialized the Apple watch more, and cut some features. Too late now, they'll probably just wait for the battery life and technology to catch up, and barring Ive's not trying to make it thinner than it is, in a few years, the battery will be acceptable, for all the features it has. I definitely would have taken an Apple watch, cheaper, led screen, and much longer battery life, and more simple. Remember the "people don't want a computer on their TV"? Well, people don't want a computer on their wrist.
"Combined with a relatively high price compared to the fitness trackers most people seem to be opting for, and it becomes something of a luxury for the mass markets Apple needs to woo in order to make this thing as successful as their other product lines. "
I agree that Apple Watch's price is far higher than fitness trackers. I also agree people see Apple Watch as a luxury but I think this is accessible/aspirational luxury pricing that has a good precedent for working in the mass-market: iPods. Mid-line iPods have typically been about $200 (for example, the third generation iPod Nano 8GB or the original iPod Mini 4GB at $250). Apple Watch starts at $269 (for 8GB). So Apple Watch seems to be in the right pricing zone for the "gift" segment of the Apple line up. It will simply take some time for people to realize the Edition was an aberration. The Apple Watch is Apple's replacement for the iPod.
For more on watch pricing, see: http://q10a1.blogspot.com/2015/03/apple-watch-pricing.html
Well, when you're market share went south by over 70%, it means that the market begs to differ.
Fitbit's offer is more solid. You know what capabilities you're buying and battery life is better... and I'll be moving to the Alta A smartwatch is just so-so in every category.
Such devices will come and go, people will just buy out of curiosity, but eventually only one (competing few) device(s) will prevail. There is only one spot on the wrist a device can go permanently, all compete for that spot. Apple's conception of the Watch is correct. It is a solid product, competing directly with a century old watch tradition. Their placement (fitness first) of the Watch 2 is too limiting and I hope when the dust settles in a month or so they may develop a different narration that would emphasize the total value of the Apple Watch as a whole.
Such devices will come and go, people will just buy out of curiosity, but eventually only one (competing few) device(s) will prevail. There is only one spot on the wrist a device can go permanently, all compete for that spot. Apple's conception of the Watch is correct. It is a solid product, competing directly with a century old watch tradition. Their placement (fitness first) of the Watch 2 is too limiting and I hope when the dust settles in a month or so they may develop a different narration that would emphasize the total value of the Apple Watch as a whole.
Comments
These figures are, of course, not perfect and have a significant margin of error but they are definitely good enough to detect trends from quarter to quarter.
Round watches exist because of swinging arms. The AW has no arms, thus it's not round -- it is function over form. So you keep waiting for your round AW...Meanwhile, I'll utilize the value I get from my actual product every day.
Take a look at Apple's product page for it.
http://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-2/
Three additional things to note:
Go to the Series 1 page and they mention briefly the fitness aspect, but improved device performance comse first, because that's the most significant change over Series 0.
If Series 3's primary HW bump is week-long battery life I'm certain that will be the primary selling point over the previous HW. If it's better health functions—of which fitness is just a subset—then you'll have that being most prominent. It's hard to think what they could add to the HW besides seniors for health and fitness, and performance, size and weight benefits. Everything else is pretty much SW. I guess if they add a camera or Touch ID, then that would be prominent, but I'm doubtful we'll see that soon. I also don't want it to have a camera.
A smartwatch is just so-so in every category.
Apple is definitely in it for the long haul.
I feel like Apple and fitbit will be the main players in the end.
P.S. People are still buying Samsung watches??