I think you might be jumping the gun a bit there. Teens won't be thinking past what they want for Christmas and the watch won't be available until after that. Plus this is only a survey of one demographic. This is the same strategy that was used to say the 5c would be a complete flop and it then turned out to be one of the top selling phones for 2013/14. The fact that the watch needs to be tied to an iPhone means it won't be as big of a seller as an iPhone/iPad but that doesn't mean it will be a flop or that there won't be high demand even among the teen demographic who own iPhones.
This morning I overheard 4 of my colleagues discussing the AppleWatch. 3 of the 4 said they would be buying one when it launches. The 4th owns a Samsung Galaxy S5. I could try and use that as an argument to say that the AppleWatch will be a huge success but that would also be ridiculous.
The issue with a wearable device is that some people won't like the look of it while others do. I think you may end up being surprised by the number of people that do like the look of it and will be lining up to buy it at launch.
I certainly don't understand it. It looks just awful in that side view. I don't care if it is made out of gold, silver, stainless steel or diamond encrusted platinum, it is just ugly... but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Agreed. It is butt ugly. I don't care who designed it. Looks like Hi Tech Brutalism.
As expected, making his victory lap, because of a random, historically meaningless online survey of a product months before it's launch- and here's the kicker- which was done even before the product was unveiled. The product has already failed, in your mind, months before launch. Will he re-assess his conclusion a few months after the actual product goes on sale, at which point we will have real, verifiable sales data? Of course not, because people like him prefer to make assertions in which they cannot be disproven by any existing data. Well played. Your "gloating" at this point, is beyond pathetic, and telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost
You were mistaken.
Was I? Every 2nd article was "Why is this needed?", to "Who would get this instead of a netbook"? Every single tech blog and Apple centric site was aflame with hateful, vitriolic comments and articles about how we got a jumbo iPod touch instead of a touchscreen mac. Steve jobs went to bed depressed that night. Many were predicting complete failure, and many were demanding Steve step down because of this massive dissapointment of a product. But hey, that reality doesn't fit your current agenda, so sure, I'm "mistaken", and the iPad was received with jubilance and celebration by all at its unveiling, and everyone guaranteed its success. Its fun to twist history for the sake of your intellectual dishonesty, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost
Even if the beholder is sorely deluded. ????
So anyone who thinks the iWatch doesn't "look like shit" is "deluded"? Even those that buy watched 10X as expensive, who have written articles about how impressed they were with the look? Yeah, everyone at Apple was in a state of collective insanity when they designed this thing- and clearly, you're the only one who's right. I guess millions of "deluded" will end up buying this, but at least you can feel smug knowing how "deluded" they are, while bashing the product on online forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu
Agreed. It is butt ugly. I don't care who designed it. Looks like Hi Tech Brutalism.
From your posts, you're the last person on the planet that I would to for an opinion on taste of style. You've shown time and time again you take glee in bashing everything that Apple does, so stop pretending as if anyone gives a shit what you think. Your opinions are as predictable as Benjamin Frosts- ie, utter and complete trash. It takes quite a vapid person to declare as fact that Ive's design is "butt ugly", a childish, closed mind that can't see beyond their own unrealistic fantasies. You can't say it's not your cup of tea, no, in your mind, it's an absolute fact that the most well known and accomplished designer of our time designed something that was "but-ugly".
Could it be because teens don't regularly spend $350 on a watch? Most ADULTS I know don't spend that kind of money on a watch.
Im sure it will sell phenomenally well regardless of this data.
Well then your demographic defines your perception. There are millions of well-off adults who spend big bucks on watches just like they spend big bucks on Coach or Dolce and Gabbana purses. Why someone would spend $900 for a purse may be unfathomable to you but it’s just a question of your socio economic stratum.
Teens are not really the market for the ?Watch, and Apple doesn't need any teens to make the ?Watch a successful product.
For starters, having an ?Watch also means having an iPhone and for the majority of teens, that's probably much more than they can afford. When I was a teen, I was happy with my $25-30 Casio watch.
?Watch will be a hit, with or without any teens.
Who says that all products must be for teens anyway? I'm glad that it's priced out of the range of most teens. Apple should cater to adults with money, not to the current generation wuss.
This is the problem with today's youth. They don't understand how to apply technology. ?Watch is the culmination of thousand's of years of technology distilled into a single device nearly perfected for academic dishonesty.
No, he's correct. The survey's of the yet unreleased iPad caused a lot of "meh" reactions before it became Apple's fastest selling product in their history.
Apple Watch Sport: $349.
Apple Watch: $549 (my optimistically low guess.)
Apple Watch Edition: $1999 (my optimistically low guess.)
And those prices don't include fancy bands.
So, no, most Apple Watch models aren't targeted at the teen demographic.
Raw 24K gold is about $1200 per ounce.
Apple Watch Edition is either 18K yellow gold or 18K rose gold.
My $1999 guess is probably waaaay low.
Apple watch would cost way more than $599. The steeless band itself probably cost $599. I would get the sport space gray one. Want it and want it yesterday!
I certainly don't understand it. It looks just awful in that side view. I don't care if it is made out of gold, silver, stainless steel or diamond encrusted platinum, it is just ugly... but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Virtually everyone who has seen the ?Watch in person, excepting a few competitors, has stated that the ?Watch is elegantly designed.
Frankly, everyone here should know better. The reaction to the ?Watch has been similar to both iPhone and iPad. That alone should tell you everything you need to know about the future of the ?Watch.
Apple Watch Sport: $349.
Apple Watch: $549 (my optimistically low guess.)
Apple Watch Edition: $1999 (my optimistically low guess.)
And those prices don't include fancy bands.
So, no, most Apple Watch models aren't targeted at the teen demographic.
Raw 24K gold is about $1200 per ounce.
Apple Watch Edition is either 18K yellow gold or 18K rose gold.
My $1999 guess is probably waaaay low.
I'm seeing estimates for the SS version as anywhere between $600-$1,000.
For the gold models, between $1,200-$5,000.
There are two sizes, so the prices could be different, particularly for the gold model.
But watch cases can be thick or thin, heavy or light. How thick and heavy is the gold edition?
One of my watches is a small, square, fairly thin Baum Mercier, with a gold case, face and hands. It was $1,650 new, when I bought it 25 years ago.
Could it be because teens don't regularly spend $350 on a watch? Most ADULTS I know don't spend that kind of money on a watch.
Im sure it will sell phenomenally well regardless of this data.
Well then your demographic defines your perception. There are millions of well-off adults who spend big bucks on watches just like they spend big bucks on Coach or Dolce and Gabbana purses. Why someone would spend $900 for a purse may be unfathomable to you but it’s just a question of your socio economic stratum.
Right, but how much adults spend on watches was a side note - the issue here is teens, and I would agree that it is unlikely that a large proportion of them would see that as $350 well spent, especially if the focus is health and fitness which is probably not a cool or important subject in that demographic.
Another thing to note is in most situations a teen won't be wearing a smartwatch(for people won't allow them to) and watches aren't a trend at any rate,just an occasional part.
Gene Munster did a survey... enough said. Apple Watch is going to appeal to Baby Boomers and X Gen, who actually have worn watches and are comfortable with them. Oh, yes, it will do just fine. Don't worry.
Comments
The beholder reserves the right to be sorely deluded.
I think you might be jumping the gun a bit there. Teens won't be thinking past what they want for Christmas and the watch won't be available until after that. Plus this is only a survey of one demographic. This is the same strategy that was used to say the 5c would be a complete flop and it then turned out to be one of the top selling phones for 2013/14. The fact that the watch needs to be tied to an iPhone means it won't be as big of a seller as an iPhone/iPad but that doesn't mean it will be a flop or that there won't be high demand even among the teen demographic who own iPhones.
This morning I overheard 4 of my colleagues discussing the AppleWatch. 3 of the 4 said they would be buying one when it launches. The 4th owns a Samsung Galaxy S5. I could try and use that as an argument to say that the AppleWatch will be a huge success but that would also be ridiculous.
The issue with a wearable device is that some people won't like the look of it while others do. I think you may end up being surprised by the number of people that do like the look of it and will be lining up to buy it at launch.
Agreed. It is butt ugly. I don't care who designed it. Looks like Hi Tech Brutalism.
So a MacRumors report said the survey was done before the Apple Watch was demonstrated. If true, it would partly invalidate the results.
It requires a new survey.
Peace,
Gene
It's too easy to say, "I told you so," but:
I told you so.
As expected, making his victory lap, because of a random, historically meaningless online survey of a product months before it's launch- and here's the kicker- which was done even before the product was unveiled. The product has already failed, in your mind, months before launch. Will he re-assess his conclusion a few months after the actual product goes on sale, at which point we will have real, verifiable sales data? Of course not, because people like him prefer to make assertions in which they cannot be disproven by any existing data. Well played. Your "gloating" at this point, is beyond pathetic, and telling.
You were mistaken.
Was I? Every 2nd article was "Why is this needed?", to "Who would get this instead of a netbook"? Every single tech blog and Apple centric site was aflame with hateful, vitriolic comments and articles about how we got a jumbo iPod touch instead of a touchscreen mac. Steve jobs went to bed depressed that night. Many were predicting complete failure, and many were demanding Steve step down because of this massive dissapointment of a product. But hey, that reality doesn't fit your current agenda, so sure, I'm "mistaken", and the iPad was received with jubilance and celebration by all at its unveiling, and everyone guaranteed its success. Its fun to twist history for the sake of your intellectual dishonesty, eh?
Even if the beholder is sorely deluded. ????
So anyone who thinks the iWatch doesn't "look like shit" is "deluded"? Even those that buy watched 10X as expensive, who have written articles about how impressed they were with the look? Yeah, everyone at Apple was in a state of collective insanity when they designed this thing- and clearly, you're the only one who's right. I guess millions of "deluded" will end up buying this, but at least you can feel smug knowing how "deluded" they are, while bashing the product on online forums.
Agreed. It is butt ugly. I don't care who designed it. Looks like Hi Tech Brutalism.
From your posts, you're the last person on the planet that I would to for an opinion on taste of style. You've shown time and time again you take glee in bashing everything that Apple does, so stop pretending as if anyone gives a shit what you think. Your opinions are as predictable as Benjamin Frosts- ie, utter and complete trash. It takes quite a vapid person to declare as fact that Ive's design is "butt ugly", a childish, closed mind that can't see beyond their own unrealistic fantasies. You can't say it's not your cup of tea, no, in your mind, it's an absolute fact that the most well known and accomplished designer of our time designed something that was "but-ugly".
Could it be because teens don't regularly spend $350 on a watch? Most ADULTS I know don't spend that kind of money on a watch.
Im sure it will sell phenomenally well regardless of this data.
Well then your demographic defines your perception. There are millions of well-off adults who spend big bucks on watches just like they spend big bucks on Coach or Dolce and Gabbana purses. Why someone would spend $900 for a purse may be unfathomable to you but it’s just a question of your socio economic stratum.
Screw the teens!
Teens are not really the market for the ?Watch, and Apple doesn't need any teens to make the ?Watch a successful product.
For starters, having an ?Watch also means having an iPhone and for the majority of teens, that's probably much more than they can afford. When I was a teen, I was happy with my $25-30 Casio watch.
?Watch will be a hit, with or without any teens.
Who says that all products must be for teens anyway? I'm glad that it's priced out of the range of most teens. Apple should cater to adults with money, not to the current generation wuss.
Apple Watch Sport: $349.
Apple Watch: $549 (my optimistically low guess.)
Apple Watch Edition: $1999 (my optimistically low guess.)
And those prices don't include fancy bands.
So, no, most Apple Watch models aren't targeted at the teen demographic.
Raw 24K gold is about $1200 per ounce.
Apple Watch Edition is either 18K yellow gold or 18K rose gold.
My $1999 guess is probably waaaay low.
Let alone that teens aren't the target market. I'm sure that iPhone 6+ is not getting a high Q score among 2nd graders. Are we reading about that?
Give them about 10 years to mature and think about fashion and their mortality. And a high paying job.
... but it does show that the Apple Watch has a more limited market than other products made by Apple.
No, he's correct. The survey's of the yet unreleased iPad caused a lot of "meh" reactions before it became Apple's fastest selling product in their history.
Virtually everyone who has seen the ?Watch in person, excepting a few competitors, has stated that the ?Watch is elegantly designed.
Frankly, everyone here should know better. The reaction to the ?Watch has been similar to both iPhone and iPad. That alone should tell you everything you need to know about the future of the ?Watch.
I'm seeing estimates for the SS version as anywhere between $600-$1,000.
For the gold models, between $1,200-$5,000.
There are two sizes, so the prices could be different, particularly for the gold model.
But watch cases can be thick or thin, heavy or light. How thick and heavy is the gold edition?
One of my watches is a small, square, fairly thin Baum Mercier, with a gold case, face and hands. It was $1,650 new, when I bought it 25 years ago.
Right, but how much adults spend on watches was a side note - the issue here is teens, and I would agree that it is unlikely that a large proportion of them would see that as $350 well spent, especially if the focus is health and fitness which is probably not a cool or important subject in that demographic.
Gene Munster did a survey... enough said. Apple Watch is going to appeal to Baby Boomers and X Gen, who actually have worn watches and are comfortable with them. Oh, yes, it will do just fine. Don't worry.