Teens 'tepid' on Apple Watch as iPhone and iPad steal Android marketshare

17810121315

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 284
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,600member
    imagladry wrote: »
    If you%u2019re a teen and ever wore a watch, raise your hand?

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    No one. Strange, teens are tepid on the new Apple Watch. Teens are tepid on all watches. Their generation has never put stuff on their wrist until the Fitbit.

    Unless they're into sports, I doubt they wear the Fitbit either. But girls do wear bracelets. I do see that all the time, particularly when dressing up for something.
  • Reply 182 of 284
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    melgross wrote: »
    Or carry them in your pocket, on on your belt. I suppose you have no cell phone at all, because all of them can be tracked. If you have a car, I suppose you are also afraid of EasyPass as well.

    Correct. I already have one electronic device. Why would I carry 2 and make twice as easy?I don't have a car living in NYC so I have no idea what you're referring to.
  • Reply 183 of 284
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    To be clear, you're saying that you could poll random people on the street today between the ages of 13 and 19 years old that would have no idea what a wrist watch is if you said the term and them to point one out in a group of pictures or if you showed them a picture and asked them to say one of the various, common terms that refer to a watch. That's fucking ridiculous! :no:

    Jay Leno wouldn't think so. :rolleyes:
  • Reply 184 of 284
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Oh please! Longevity is the 600 year old church clock I get to tell time with for free looking out my studio window. Yet, in all it's glory, tradition and immense cultural worth... I doubt it will ever be able to do anything other than tell time and look pretty. Kinda like your grandfather's watch.

    I guess the main thing that we can say now about the ?Watch is... they should've never called it a watch in the first place... because telling time is probably the last thing that people will be using it for.

    After the fascination of having a new gadget wears off I truly believe that most will just loose interest. The display is just to small to be of any real use and people will definitely get tired of having too constantly charge the darn thing. These things are ultimately destined for a drawer, I would actually bet money on it. Not to say that there aren't people out there who will trully use it but I bet that number is small.
  • Reply 185 of 284
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    relic wrote: »
    After the fascination of having a new gadget wears off I truly believe that most will loose interest real quick. The display is just to small on these things to be of any real use and people will definitely get tired of having too constantly charge the darn thing, I would bet money on it. These things are ultimately destined for a drawer. Not to say that there aren't people out there who will trully use it but I bet that number is small.

    Exactly - people have been trending towards phat screens. Why take 5 steps backwards and use this iPod classic (discontinued) sized screen? :no:
  • Reply 186 of 284
    hans01hans01 Posts: 12member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iPhonethere4Iam View Post

     

    Gene Munster did a survey... enough said



    You do not sound typical then to me. Again, with just over 100 million potential customer between Boomer and X Gen (just in the US), I think they will do very well. Apple does not go into something like this half hearted. They spent at least 3 years and who knows how much R&D funds on this. Especially when we see what all the possibilities of such a device are.




    Believe me, I have about every gadget I can get. I am also very active, bicycling 25 miles/day. When on the bike i listen to music on my iPhone. I'm not interested in heart rate, pulse etc.  It's just not for me. As a lover of all things Apple I hope I'm wrong and the Watch is a huge success.

  • Reply 187 of 284
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I'm laughing because I see wearables as the next major era in computing.

    I think the iWatch will be to Apple what the Edsel was to Ford.

  • Reply 188 of 284
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,600member
    pazuzu wrote: »
    Correct. I already have one electronic device. Why would I carry 2 and make twice as easy?I don't have a car living in NYC so I have no idea what you're referring to.

    You've never been in a car with someone who had to pay a toll? It's either cash, or the puck on your windshield. I live in NYC as well, but I do travel with people.

    I don't get the making it twice as easy though. They can track you, and that's that.
  • Reply 189 of 284
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    I think the iWatch will be to Apple what the Edsel was to Ford.

    That too was produced after the founding company creator had passed.
    Also comparable would be Disney's Robin Hood.
  • Reply 190 of 284
    r00fusr00fus Posts: 245member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Trubador View Post



    Not surprising that teens are "tepid" to the Apple Watch. Most have no need to wear a watch (especially one $350+) as their iPhones & iPads & iPods are always within arm's reach with the time, as well as the fact that they are much more functional.



    Now if the Apple Watch was like the Todd Hamilton concept/mockup, then the watch/band would have much more functionality and would entice the under-25 crowd to start wearing the device:



    http://toddham.com/blog/iwatch-concept/



    I believe Apple Watch 3.0 may head down that road. But version 1.0? Umm... not so much.



    That concept, while beautiful looks horribly unwearable.  What happens when I rotate my wrist?  If the bracelet is loose, will my display keep shifting around my wrist?  

     

    Forget about it.  I'm happy with plastic (sport band), leather or the drool-worthy milanese bracelet.

     

    Apple Watch is a move upstream - they're not going to be things teens know they want until big celebs start wearing the more expensive ones everywhere.   Then they'll be on everyone's list to Santa.

  • Reply 191 of 284
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I think the iWatch will be to Apple what the Edsel was to Ford.

    I don't know what that is suppose to mean.
    • They'll lose millions of dollars on it?
    • It'll only sell for 3 years before being shitcanned?
    • They'll only make 100,000 of them?
  • Reply 192 of 284
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    We have to stop thinking that this is a watch. Yes, it tells time, but it's a computer. It's just about as powerful as the first iPhone, to be sure. It's also more independent than most other smart watches, of the phone its paired with. That will likely continue to evolve.



    If you spend $350 on this, there is no reason why you would need to get another ever year, or every other year. So while newer features and hardware will come out, so what? Do we always have to get the latest right away? So three and even four years would be a decent run for one of these. If Apple did offer an upgrade to the hardware for a price that's in line with the cost of the cases, then that would be a dream, but don't expect it for the $350 model, as it wouldn't pay.



    Surely, I would want that for a gold model, particularly if it were north of the minimum $1,200 I see mentioned. Heck, if you buy a high end watch for several thousand dollars, it will cost to have it cleaned and adjusted every couple of years too, and I can tell you that it can cost a fair buck to get that done.

     

    Only time will tell...

  • Reply 193 of 284
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I'm laughing because I see wearables as the next major era in computing.

     

    I wonder, though, if Apple stayed too close to the watch metaphor.

     

    ... but I guess this watch more closely resembles the Mac 128 than the latest iMac.

     

    I really want to see 5-7 years down the road to see if the watch still resembles a watch as we have always known it.

  • Reply 194 of 284
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I wonder, though, if Apple stayed too close to the watch metaphor.

    ... but I guess this watch more closely resembles the Mac 128 than the latest iMac.

    I really want to see 5-7 years down the road to see if the watch still resembles a watch as we have always known it.

    You could say that about the iPhone and yet overwhelmingly it's their most profitable product. I'd say it makes more sense to call something on your wrist a watch than calling your pocketable supercomputer a phone.
  • Reply 195 of 284
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    You could say that about the iPhone and yet overwhelmingly it's their most profitable product. I'd say it makes more sense to call something on your wrist a watch than calling your pocketable supercomputer a phone.

     

    Hmmm... interesting... because I felt that the iPhone broke with tradition so greatly that it almost bankrupted the leading seller and caused one large corporation to change its plan of what a phone should be.

     

    The Apple Watch on the other hand seems to follow in the path of existing manufacturers, albeit with different features.

  • Reply 196 of 284
    It's a matter of function. iPods, iPhones and iPads offer functions that people use continually on an everyday basis. The "want" factor is much higher in my opinion... and I already addressed that. I just can't see the same "want" factor in a watch... yet.

    As far as your second point... I call that the iPad syndrome. People are satisfied with their old iPad that functions perfectly fine... so they don't bother to upgrade... therefore a decrease in sales. Not a good thing to happen in itself.

    As far as upgrades etc. I thought we were talking about the here and now. What is being offered by Apple on the Apple site. I see nothing yet about how the watch is being upgraded in the future.

    Yet... we see no price, we see no availability, we see no app list, we don't see a lot of things.... yet.

    At want point did we move this discussion from speculation to facts and only the facts?

    Should have told the guys that wrote this article, about the speculative article regarding teens being tepid... and then we could have just done away with this speculative discussion and waited until this time next year to have FACTS on the table. But next year is not this year... yet. :no:

    And yet... fact is you still have a 90 year old piece of mechanical nostalgia that does ONE thing and does it well. You just keep it tickin'.... cool! What a future.

    I would much prefer Apple to quietly abandon the ?Watch and give all Apple iPhone, iPad and Mac buyers a $100 iTunes voucher as a thank you for buying an Apple product.
  • Reply 197 of 284
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    melgross wrote: »
    We have to stop thinking that this is a watch. Yes, it tells time, but it's a computer. It's just about as powerful as the first iPhone, to be sure. It's also more independent than most other smart watches, of the phone its paired with. That will likely continue to evolve.

    If you spend $350 on this, there is no reason why you would need to get another ever year, or every other year. So while newer features and hardware will come out, so what? Do we always have to get the latest right away? So three and even four years would be a decent run for one of these. If Apple did offer an upgrade to the hardware for a price that's in line with the cost of the cases, then that would be a dream, but don't expect it for the $350 model, as it wouldn't pay.

    Surely, I would want that for a gold model, particularly if it were north of the minimum $1,200 I see mentioned. Heck, if you buy a high end watch for several thousand dollars, it will cost to have it cleaned and adjusted every couple of years too, and I can tell you that it can cost a fair buck to get that done.

    solipsismx wrote: »
    You could say that about the iPhone and yet overwhelmingly it's their most profitable product. I'd say it makes more sense to call something on your wrist a watch than calling your pocketable supercomputer a phone.

    Hmmm... interesting... because I felt that the iPhone broke with tradition so greatly that it almost bankrupted the leading seller and caused one large corporation to change its plan of what a phone should be.

    The Apple Watch on the other hand seems to follow in the path of existing manufacturers, albeit with different features.


    It has a 1.5" screen with a crown.
  • Reply 198 of 284
    It's an inherently flawed idea.  People will not want to wear technology.  We are at the beginning of a backlash against being tracked, people knowing too much about us, technology making life less self-reliant.  "Low Tech" is the next "High Tech".  Watch for a huge resurgence in analogue.  You might laugh now, but it's coming.  

    Bingo.

    This is the problem with the iWatch. People don't want to wear technology. A mechanical watch? Fine, for the few who still like to. But an annoying screen on your wrist! Nein.
  • Reply 199 of 284
    old-wiz wrote: »
    I haven't even seen a teenager wearing a watch in I don't know how long.
    How strange because I see it all the time. However it seems to follow a single path - male teen wearing a large clunky watch that seems to be screaming for attention. Actually I notice the watch first and then look to see what kind of person would wear such a thing.
  • Reply 200 of 284
    bluefire1bluefire1 Posts: 1,309member



    OMG!! I used the term that has been repeatedly used by the media for over a year instead of the name "Apple Watch". How irresponsible of me. 

    Okay, enough sarcasm on my part. Let's see what the market determines next year when the device goes public. 

Sign In or Register to comment.