I honestly don’t see how people are going to spend that much for an accessory to the iPhone if the tech will be outdated every year. The only way I see that happening is by making their S-series computer-on-a-chip replaceable, like a watch batter, so that you can update the performance and capabilities, without buying a new device.
That is very difficult engineering, but I think it would have the added bonus of allowing Apple to create completely new looks each year that many would want to collect. I really have to think Apple knows that a luxury item that is also jewelry can’t effectively be repurchased every year, losing support in 3 years, and teetering on being obsolete within 5 years, so I am going to say that is part of the ?Watch design.
Mechanical watches have to be sent for service every few years. Movement is checked, parts are replaced, everything cleaned and lubed, etc...costs a few hundred dollars. I wonder if Apple is thinking of some sort of maintenance schedule for the AppleWatch, as well. Buy a $5000 watch now, in 3 years when all the internal components have been updated, you can have it rebuilt with new internals for $300, or so.
I agree with others here. No way is Apple going to sell a $5K watch and expect you to upgrade it every year or two. Seems to me the computer on a chip was designed the way it was for a reason. I think it's an engineering marvel (along with the taptic engine) that no one else is going to be able to match.
You know, in my experience, when someone buys something they don't really give a shit when it's going to be "outdated". It's not something on most people's minds. They buy based on desire at the time. It's only the tech geeks and are always obsessed about when something will become "obsolete" and resale value.
I don't think that's the case for a watch, though. Most people now are in the habit of replacing their phone every couple of years based on typical contract cycles. Even in the case of top-tier phones like iPhone 6 Plus, this proposition isn't too prohibitive for many people especially with the deals that are available.
An Apple Watch would be different if it were to cost around $5,000 or whatever. Generally watch-buyers are only worried about having to replace the battery after a few years, but smart watches are inherently different because of their use of apps and their reliance on a broader ecosystem.
It'll be fascinating to see this play out, because it really does represent a new challenge from a product life cycle perspective.
An Apple Watch would be different if it were to cost around $5,000 or whatever. Generally watch-buyers are only worried about having to replace the battery after a few years, but smart watches are inherently different because of their use of apps and their reliance on a broader ecosystem.
Not if you buy a $5000 watch.
Almost all of those on the market are mechanical watches and incur significant repair/maintenance costs over the long term.
If you want a stylish watch to last for decades, you're probably better off buying a Seiko quartz model, and just pay for a new $20 battery every 4-5 years.
Also, leather bands wear out. I have two watches with leather bands and I end up changing them every five years or so. A metal band will outlive me.
Mechanical watches have to be sent for service every few years. Movement is checked, parts are replaced, everything cleaned and lubed, etc...costs a few hundred dollars. I wonder if Apple is thinking of some sort of maintenance schedule for the AppleWatch, as well. Buy a $5000 watch now, in 3 years when all the internal components have been updated, you can have it rebuilt with new internals for $300, or so.
Exactly what I was thinking. Mechanical movements aren't maintenance free as a lot of people think.
It amazes me how some folks think the people running Apple are so stupid that they wouldn't have thought about and addressed all the issues raised here about pricing, obsolescence, value retention, etc.
Almost all of those on the market are mechanical watches and incur significant repair/maintenance costs over the long term.
If you want a stylish watch to last for decades, you're probably better off buying a Seiko quartz model, and just pay for a new $20 battery every 4-5 years.
You're right that the watches in this price category can incur significant repair/maintenance costs over the long term, I'm not disputing that at all.
But that's very, very different than buying a $5,000 watch that becomes largely obsolete in only a couple of years because its hardware can't keep up with constantly-updating apps. This becomes especially problematic when software developers need to begin focusing support on newer hardware and ceasing support for older models.
So this is a fundamentally new question, and a fundamentally new concern for what is itself a new product category. I don't think that smart watch creators have really addressed this question yet (which makes sense, given the relative newness of these devices in the market).
Apple might also have floated the rumors so that when they announce the price at $3K, it's going to sound like a fantastic deal. They're kind of sneaky that way.
But that's very, very different than buying a $5,000 watch that becomes largely obsolete in only a couple of years because its hardware can't keep up with constantly-updating apps. This becomes especially problematic when software developers need to begin focusing support on newer hardware and ceasing support for older models.
Wouldn't be surprised if on the gold models, you can bring it in and have the innards and display upgraded every few years for maybe the price of the sport line. If you listen to Jony Ive, they did a deep dive into the whole design and ownership philosophy of high-end watches. They know that people buy and keep (for a lifetime in most cases) more than one watch, so they will probably design full and permanent upgradability into the more expensive line. They also know that there are classic design themes that never go away and the emphasis that they put on the 'digital crown' tells me that this (along with the adjacent button) is going to be a permanent signature motif for ?Watch. (Much like Rolex's screw-down crown.) With the physical parameters for the display, crown and button nailed down, building in upgradability of the interior component assembly is going to be much easier.
If you fixed certain physical parameters of a smartphone like that, you would be yelled at by the industry. But nobody buys a phone with the intention of keeping and using it their whole life. With luxury watches, actually committing that you are not going to be changing the physical design drastically is a good thing. Customers don't want to buy a faddish design that will look embarrassingly dated in five years. (This is what Cadillac doesn't seem to get.)
?Watch is a pioneering product in that it stands the tech industry on its head by designing a product to be owned and used for a lifetime while keeping the technology current. This is thoroughly fascinating. If Jony Ive and Apple pulls this off, they would have done something so audacious, so contrary to conventional notions, and so unprecedented that I could only describe it as Steve Jobsian.
$5,000 for an Apple Watch? Just watch them fly off the shelf. Maybe then the market will begin to realize just who Apple is: a transcendent luxury brand that delivers tangible value far beyond Nike shoes or Louis Vutton bags.
And, yes, they deliver fantastically well made, beautiful and utterly functional, profoundly useful technology and software, at fair prices. So they have a much deeper brand value and a much deeper and broader market, from their aspirational customers in developing markets to those at the very peak of global affluence.
Exactly what I was thinking. Mechanical movements aren't maintenance free as a lot of people think.
It amazes me how some folks think the people running Apple are so stupid that they wouldn't have thought about and addressed all the issues raised here about pricing, obsolescence, value retention, etc.
It could also be trade-in type of transaction. Send us your gold Apple Watch and we will send you the new gold model for x amount of dollars. The thing is.. someone paying $5k for a watch will not have a problem paying another $5k for a new one a year later.
It amazes me how some folks think the people running Apple are so stupid that they wouldn't have thought about and addressed all the issues raised here about pricing, obsolescence, value retention, etc.
I fully acknowledge your most recent post about this; I think you raised some good points. And I have no doubt that Apple have deeply considered these issues.
However, people are not "stupid" to think that Apple haven't addressed all of these issues. As far as we know, at the moment, they have not. They might - and they probably will - but at this point we don't know anything about how Apple will handle something as crucially important to a smart watch as obsolescence.
So let's wait to see what is announced in this regard. Although I have every confidence in Apple, this doesn't negate the very real problems that I and others have raised. Let's hope that Apple really do address these elements in a way that makes the product category workable in the long term - in many respects, I think Apple will not only do this, but this could be the element that really differentiates them from others who are trying to throw products out there to beat Apple Watch to the punch.
The only thing I have a complaint about is the name 'Edition'. It seems incomplete. Call it the 'Gold Edition', the 'Limited Edition', some edition.
I was blown away by the presentation and I intend to pick up a couple of them - one for me and one for the significant other. Not the Edition one, but the stainless steel one. I actually wished there were more health-related sensors on the thing but I guess it will come in the next release.
As for buying an Apple Watch every year, why not? I buy an iPhone and an iPad every year. A watch would just mean budget more wisely for it!!
OT: Does anyone know if iOS 8.1.1 beta now has the diabetes monitoring options back in the Health App?
Comments
For that price, I want the battery to last at least 5 days.
I will buy at least one.
(The rumor, not the watch)
I probably will get one eventually, but no way am I going to buy the first gen of this thing.
You know, in my experience, when someone buys something they don't really give a shit when it's going to be "outdated". It's not something on most people's minds. They buy based on desire at the time. It's only the tech geeks and are always obsessed about when something will become "obsolete" and resale value.
I don't think that's the case for a watch, though. Most people now are in the habit of replacing their phone every couple of years based on typical contract cycles. Even in the case of top-tier phones like iPhone 6 Plus, this proposition isn't too prohibitive for many people especially with the deals that are available.
An Apple Watch would be different if it were to cost around $5,000 or whatever. Generally watch-buyers are only worried about having to replace the battery after a few years, but smart watches are inherently different because of their use of apps and their reliance on a broader ecosystem.
It'll be fascinating to see this play out, because it really does represent a new challenge from a product life cycle perspective.
An Apple Watch would be different if it were to cost around $5,000 or whatever. Generally watch-buyers are only worried about having to replace the battery after a few years, but smart watches are inherently different because of their use of apps and their reliance on a broader ecosystem.
Not if you buy a $5000 watch.
Almost all of those on the market are mechanical watches and incur significant repair/maintenance costs over the long term.
If you want a stylish watch to last for decades, you're probably better off buying a Seiko quartz model, and just pay for a new $20 battery every 4-5 years.
Also, leather bands wear out. I have two watches with leather bands and I end up changing them every five years or so. A metal band will outlive me.
Mechanical watches have to be sent for service every few years. Movement is checked, parts are replaced, everything cleaned and lubed, etc...costs a few hundred dollars. I wonder if Apple is thinking of some sort of maintenance schedule for the AppleWatch, as well. Buy a $5000 watch now, in 3 years when all the internal components have been updated, you can have it rebuilt with new internals for $300, or so.
Exactly what I was thinking. Mechanical movements aren't maintenance free as a lot of people think.
It amazes me how some folks think the people running Apple are so stupid that they wouldn't have thought about and addressed all the issues raised here about pricing, obsolescence, value retention, etc.
Not if you buy a $5000 watch.
Almost all of those on the market are mechanical watches and incur significant repair/maintenance costs over the long term.
If you want a stylish watch to last for decades, you're probably better off buying a Seiko quartz model, and just pay for a new $20 battery every 4-5 years.
You're right that the watches in this price category can incur significant repair/maintenance costs over the long term, I'm not disputing that at all.
But that's very, very different than buying a $5,000 watch that becomes largely obsolete in only a couple of years because its hardware can't keep up with constantly-updating apps. This becomes especially problematic when software developers need to begin focusing support on newer hardware and ceasing support for older models.
So this is a fundamentally new question, and a fundamentally new concern for what is itself a new product category. I don't think that smart watch creators have really addressed this question yet (which makes sense, given the relative newness of these devices in the market).
Apple might also have floated the rumors so that when they announce the price at $3K, it's going to sound like a fantastic deal. They're kind of sneaky that way.
But that's very, very different than buying a $5,000 watch that becomes largely obsolete in only a couple of years because its hardware can't keep up with constantly-updating apps. This becomes especially problematic when software developers need to begin focusing support on newer hardware and ceasing support for older models.
Wouldn't be surprised if on the gold models, you can bring it in and have the innards and display upgraded every few years for maybe the price of the sport line. If you listen to Jony Ive, they did a deep dive into the whole design and ownership philosophy of high-end watches. They know that people buy and keep (for a lifetime in most cases) more than one watch, so they will probably design full and permanent upgradability into the more expensive line. They also know that there are classic design themes that never go away and the emphasis that they put on the 'digital crown' tells me that this (along with the adjacent button) is going to be a permanent signature motif for ?Watch. (Much like Rolex's screw-down crown.) With the physical parameters for the display, crown and button nailed down, building in upgradability of the interior component assembly is going to be much easier.
If you fixed certain physical parameters of a smartphone like that, you would be yelled at by the industry. But nobody buys a phone with the intention of keeping and using it their whole life. With luxury watches, actually committing that you are not going to be changing the physical design drastically is a good thing. Customers don't want to buy a faddish design that will look embarrassingly dated in five years. (This is what Cadillac doesn't seem to get.)
?Watch is a pioneering product in that it stands the tech industry on its head by designing a product to be owned and used for a lifetime while keeping the technology current. This is thoroughly fascinating. If Jony Ive and Apple pulls this off, they would have done something so audacious, so contrary to conventional notions, and so unprecedented that I could only describe it as Steve Jobsian.
And, yes, they deliver fantastically well made, beautiful and utterly functional, profoundly useful technology and software, at fair prices. So they have a much deeper brand value and a much deeper and broader market, from their aspirational customers in developing markets to those at the very peak of global affluence.
Exactly what I was thinking. Mechanical movements aren't maintenance free as a lot of people think.
It amazes me how some folks think the people running Apple are so stupid that they wouldn't have thought about and addressed all the issues raised here about pricing, obsolescence, value retention, etc.
It could also be trade-in type of transaction. Send us your gold Apple Watch and we will send you the new gold model for x amount of dollars. The thing is.. someone paying $5k for a watch will not have a problem paying another $5k for a new one a year later.
Unless you're saying that gold will have seriously dropped in value by then, you'd be mistaken.
Does it matter? That amount of gold on that watch doesn't exceed the initial cost in the future.
It amazes me how some folks think the people running Apple are so stupid that they wouldn't have thought about and addressed all the issues raised here about pricing, obsolescence, value retention, etc.
I fully acknowledge your most recent post about this; I think you raised some good points. And I have no doubt that Apple have deeply considered these issues.
However, people are not "stupid" to think that Apple haven't addressed all of these issues. As far as we know, at the moment, they have not. They might - and they probably will - but at this point we don't know anything about how Apple will handle something as crucially important to a smart watch as obsolescence.
So let's wait to see what is announced in this regard. Although I have every confidence in Apple, this doesn't negate the very real problems that I and others have raised. Let's hope that Apple really do address these elements in a way that makes the product category workable in the long term - in many respects, I think Apple will not only do this, but this could be the element that really differentiates them from others who are trying to throw products out there to beat Apple Watch to the punch.
Sorry, but as an Android user, I do not pay for apps, and would only pay up to $49.99 for a watch.
$49.99? That's breaking the bank a bit, isn't it?
The only thing I have a complaint about is the name 'Edition'. It seems incomplete. Call it the 'Gold Edition', the 'Limited Edition', some edition.
I was blown away by the presentation and I intend to pick up a couple of them - one for me and one for the significant other. Not the Edition one, but the stainless steel one. I actually wished there were more health-related sensors on the thing but I guess it will come in the next release.
As for buying an Apple Watch every year, why not? I buy an iPhone and an iPad every year. A watch would just mean budget more wisely for it!!
OT: Does anyone know if iOS 8.1.1 beta now has the diabetes monitoring options back in the Health App?
OTT: Is @SolipsismY = @SolipsismX? If not, then Y Solipsism, SolipsismY?
Yea - I think you may have missed the sarcasm there, Paul.
Mac didn't tag it, but ... it's apparent.