So Apple will have to, and I presume are already planning to, make sure the longevity of the watch is comparable to $5k watches. Short of utter destruction, an investment in a $5-10k traditional watch will last owners decades - crystals, crowns, movements can all be serviced.
For Apple to stand firmly in that echelon of retail, there will need to be legitimate sense of longevity and serviceability for the watch. This is then more than a new branch on the product tree...it's more like a new sapling completely.
Maybe the $5000 version will include lifetime free updates for the internals (like every 2 years or something).
At the very least, lifetime battery replacements. Though thinking about it for a moment, I realize that would be an order of magnitude more expensive to continue making Li-ion batteries once next gen tech is here.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Be careful, smart people have predicted similar sensible sounding things about Apple products and have turned out to catastrophically wrong.</span>
True! I just don't see an angle for this one. No killer app, no differentiating form factor or battery life, no independence from iPhone. I can see sales to those who want to stick with the 5s but want NFC payments, and to the sycophants, but not much else.
I don't view ugradeability as much as an issue as serviceability.
In my view, Apple paradoxically and purposefully designed a dumb smart watch. Yes, there is most certainly a lot of tech in the watch, but sensors aside, most of the computational power comes from the IPhone and uses the watch as a wireless display with user feedback control. So unless there is a need for better near field wireless speed (which I doubt since there is not a lot of data you need to push to a tiny screen at any given time), whatever performance upgrades one may need will com with the next iPhone. But essentially, the power is in your pocket (excuse the potentially disgusting metaphor)
The battery and sensors are the caveat...there could be advances or new sensors that would need to be upgraded to keep the investment sound. it will be interesting to see if Apple designed the back sensor disc and battery as a relatively easily replaceable modules.
I think the other thing being implied here is we are on the downward side of the performance bell curve. I just got a new Retina iMac, and it's fast, but it doesn't feel oodles faster than the early 2010 model it replaced. iPhone 6 is very powerful -future performance upgrades will be incremental for handheld devices (battery is hopefully another story), so the overall issue of performance improvements for the Apple Watch ecosystem is probably less of an issue than if everything were a nascent technology. If it does all daily tasks and functions in real time now, which we can presume it does, you can't do better even with new hardware.
So it still comes down to meeting the expectations of a luxury brand - quality, design, customization, sales channel,, warranty, service, and customer sat experience - more than future tech (battery and sensors outside of that assessment).
Apple is using a gold alloy that uses 18K gold but that is 2x harder than 18k gold. So how much gold is actually in there and how does affect the value since it's not pure gold?
Apple would have to put at least 75% pure gold into the Watch so they can sell it as 18kt gold.
So it won't effect the value since its real 18kt gold, just 2x harder.
Usually copper makes up the rest of the alloy mix to make yellow gold, adding a little silver will make it pink/rose gold.
I wonder if Apple added a different metal than copper to make it 2x harder, or is it made 2x harder via the manufacturing process
True! I just don't see an angle for this one. No killer app, no differentiating form factor or battery life, no independence from iPhone. I can see sales to those who want to stick with the 5s but want NFC payments, and to the sycophants, but not much else.
Yup. Sensible. Like what people said about the iPhone (and iPod, and iPad) when they were announced.
I don't view ugradeability as much as an issue as serviceability.
In my view, Apple paradoxically and purposefully designed a dumb smart watch. Yes, there is most certainly a lot of tech in the watch, but sensors aside, most of the computational power comes from the IPhone and uses the watch as a wireless display with user feedback control. So unless there is a need for better near field wireless speed (which I doubt since there is not a lot of data you need to push to a tiny screen at any given time), whatever performance upgrades one may need will com with the next iPhone. But essentially, the power is in your pocket (excuse the potentially disgusting metaphor)
The battery and sensors are the caveat...there could be advances or new sensors that would need to be upgraded to keep the investment sound. it will be interesting to see if Apple designed the back sensor disc and battery as a relatively easily replaceable modules.
I think the other thing being implied here is we are on the downward side of the performance bell curve. I just got a new Retina iMac, and it's fast, but it doesn't feel oodles faster than the early 2010 model it replaced. iPhone 6 is very powerful -future performance upgrades will be incremental for handheld devices (battery is hopefully another story), so the overall issue of performance improvements for the Apple Watch ecosystem is probably less of an issue than if everything were a nascent technology. If it does all daily tasks and functions in real time now, which we can presume it does, you can't do better even with new hardware.
So it still comes down to meeting the expectations of a luxury brand - quality, design, customization, sales channel,, warranty, service, and customer sat experience - more than future tech (battery and sensors outside of that assessment).
The battery is the key issue, though. There really isn't any way around that at the moment, which is why the Watch relies so much on the iPhone. Computing power is less of an issue, but still likely present. That being said, the iPhone was originally much less capable than the one of today. It didn't even take videos until the 3GS, and yet today that's a major selling point. And it used to rely exclusively on iTunes.
Can't imagine buying one, even at $350. I predict this launch will be humbling for Apple.
Not likely humbling. But I doubt it will match relative levels of sales compared to the iPhone and iPad launch. They will sell out, but after the initial hype dies, I doubt it will sustain similar volume as their other devices.
Either way I would gladly pay $350 for a true Sport watch that is fully water proof that does everything else the Apple Watch does. But so far I'm hearing it's merely water resistant, which means I may be good if I sweat on it, but not so much if I go for a swim. Without that, it's pointless as a sports watch, I'd rather buy a Microsoft band. If the point it to keep my phone safe while I still have access to it, then not being water proof is a fail.
Perhaps the most astounding piece of information is that the sports watch has the least resilient crystal. Makes no sense. so $350 begins to look less and less like a good deal to me.
You should have noticed by now, after all the announcements and revelations, that the ?Watch is unlike every other Apple product.
Does Rolex or Omega make their watches thinner year after year? No, they have some classic design themes or parameters that they maintain pretty much in perpetuity for at least a couple of reasons, parts and components availability and to avoid design faddishness.
My guess is that down the line Apple might introduce a new family of thinner watches as the technology allows it, but they will keep offering the current lines, and any wins in component miniaturization and compactness will be used to increase/enhance the existing models' functions and battery capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Wow, that's a brave prediction. Though I thought SolipsismY had a good point about jewellery norms, it's still Jony Ive doing the design and ever increasing thinness is one of his themes, a reflection of his minimalist aesthetic. I will be really surprised if the 2nd gen Apple Watch isn't thinner than the 1st gen.
As early as March of last year I predicted that Apple is going to go whole hog down the high fashion road with the watch. That they will be rubbing elbows with the big fashion names, houses, and publications, and will market the watch in a way that will be alien to Apple's traditional customers but very much in line with the way high end fashion accessories are marketed. It will be the first product that is as much a fashion item as a tech device. So far, I've been proven right. If you looked at the hires (especially Deneve & Ahrendts) it wasn't really that big a stretch of a prediction as long as you were willing to entertain the idea of Apple changing their ways drastically for one product. When they announced the hiring of (Dame) Ahrendts and her high-powered rep in the fashion industry, I knew that she wouldn't just give up a CEO job unless Tim offered her something completely new and challenging.
Then if you read the latest articles about the Jony Ive interview where he described the development of the watch and how he and the dev team studied the watch industry in depth, its history and design traditions, then you begin to understand that Apple's adoption of watch industry terminology during the ?Watch unveiling was not a surface affectation: They really are trying to find a way to fuse classic watch making and high tech. And one of the hallmarks of prestige watch marques is that watches that were manufactured decades ago retain their currency, they remain repairable and usable today. It's completely the opposite of high tech as we know it.
Of course my prediction might be totally wrong (they might not have chosen to go that far in emulating watch industry practice & tradition), but if Apple is as serious as they sound about playing in the world of thousand dollar watches, then I think they can't have expensive watches that become useless and dated after a few years. You can do that if you want to play Swatch, but not if you want to play Rolex, Omega or TAG.
Oh, and I'm not saying the 2nd gen ?Watch won't be thinner. I'm saying whatever the 2nd gen watch is, the 1st gen watch won't disappear, instead it will be kept up-to-date technology-wise.
This watch is obviously not made for Android users.
The gold version should cost many thousands of dollars!
Yeah, it's obviously for the leased BMW and Porsche crowd. Most millionaires buy Seiko-level watches, including those of us in my immediate family. One brother-in-law paid cash for his mom's new house, paid cash for his Porsche, still has a 12-year-old Highlander, and uses a Note 3, and this is a guy who pays over $1M in taxes each year.
Not likely humbling. But I doubt it will match relative levels of sales compared to the iPhone and iPad launch. They will sell out, but after the initial hype dies, I doubt it will sustain similar volume as their other devices.
I expect the development of this market will be more like iPod than iPhone. Took Apple a few years ('01-'04) to nail the design, feature set, and ecosystem before iPod really took off.
It's easily $400 to service a Rolex, needs it every 4 years or so.
Swapping the battery on an Apple Watch is going to be a lot easier (and cheaper).
I can see Apple updating the computer+battery for something near the price of the Apple Watch Sport.
This will be a lot easier and quicker than servicing a Rolex.
A lot of Apple Watch Edition owners are going to upgrade yearly.
My brother had oil service for his Submariner and it costed $700 yup. Welcome to the world of Rolex.
Yeah, it's obviously for the leased BMW and Porsche crowd. Most millionaires buy Seiko-level watches, including those of us in my immediate family. One brother-in-law paid cash for his mom's new house, paid cash for his Porsche, still has a 12-year-old Highlander, and uses a Note 3, and this is a guy who pays over $1M in taxes each year.
Your evidence, interesting as it is, is anecdotal. I wouldn't generalize about millionaires' consumption patterns based on that.
I don't think I will ever by a smart watch. My wife gave me an Exployer II 16 years ago that I can't see ever not wearing. (Well unless she traded it in for a more expensive / nicer watch!)
Just curious, but why is everyone referring to 'SolipsismY' as a newbie? <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Irony?</span>
Right now its 11/5/14 7AM where I am. If you look at all "Y's" posts, the first was 5 days and 10 hours ago.
"Solipsism X's" last post was 5 days and 11 hours ago...
Maybe we could discuss why "Y" seems the tiniest bit edgier in some posts than "X",
or whether "X" or "Y" is a better joke on the word 'solipsism', but it doesn't seem the identity is any mystery.
I was intrigued when I first spotted the change fro X to Y. Soli very kindly replied to my query as to why:
"No real reason. I just did it on a whim. No pros or cons to speak of."
Your evidence, interesting as it is, is anecdotal. I wouldn't generalize about millionaires' consumption patterns based on that.
I've read books on it that contained studies. Wealth accumulation is rarely associated with visible status. Granted, the material is old now, but everyone with more than $1M in assets accumulated it by not spending it on "stuff." Some people certainly outpace their spending on luxury/status and end up there anyway, but the majority are conservative spenders, and that is a big part of why they're wealthy.
My next door neighbor sold his Internet company that he built from the ground up. Tens of millions later, he's remained our next door neighbor in a "modest" $400K house for the ten years after the sale anyway. Drives a Yukon and a 7-year-old 4-cylinder Lexus. He's about to buy a Tesla though... he's test-driven Ferraris and just can't bring himself to write the check, even though the money would make no difference to his family's future. He doesn't spend money like that, and he's making sure he has enough to handle a health catastrophe too. He takes his family all over the world on really cool trips though -- but that's experience spending, not luxury spending, and I think it's valuable.
Tim Cook said in the keynote that the Apple Watch will start at $350. Did anybody listen or pay attention?
Start, sure. That’s for the Apple Watch Sport. The Apple Watch Edition (I love that name), being made out of actual gold, will of course cost more. Gold is, well, sort of expensive, if you hadn’t noticed.
Comments
For Apple to stand firmly in that echelon of retail, there will need to be legitimate sense of longevity and serviceability for the watch. This is then more than a new branch on the product tree...it's more like a new sapling completely.
At the very least, lifetime battery replacements. Though thinking about it for a moment, I realize that would be an order of magnitude more expensive to continue making Li-ion batteries once next gen tech is here.
Can't imagine buying one, even at $350. I predict this launch will be humbling for Apple.
Be careful, smart people have predicted similar sensible sounding things about Apple products and have turned out to catastrophically wrong.
True! I just don't see an angle for this one. No killer app, no differentiating form factor or battery life, no independence from iPhone. I can see sales to those who want to stick with the 5s but want NFC payments, and to the sycophants, but not much else.
In my view, Apple paradoxically and purposefully designed a dumb smart watch. Yes, there is most certainly a lot of tech in the watch, but sensors aside, most of the computational power comes from the IPhone and uses the watch as a wireless display with user feedback control. So unless there is a need for better near field wireless speed (which I doubt since there is not a lot of data you need to push to a tiny screen at any given time), whatever performance upgrades one may need will com with the next iPhone. But essentially, the power is in your pocket (excuse the potentially disgusting metaphor)
The battery and sensors are the caveat...there could be advances or new sensors that would need to be upgraded to keep the investment sound. it will be interesting to see if Apple designed the back sensor disc and battery as a relatively easily replaceable modules.
I think the other thing being implied here is we are on the downward side of the performance bell curve. I just got a new Retina iMac, and it's fast, but it doesn't feel oodles faster than the early 2010 model it replaced. iPhone 6 is very powerful -future performance upgrades will be incremental for handheld devices (battery is hopefully another story), so the overall issue of performance improvements for the Apple Watch ecosystem is probably less of an issue than if everything were a nascent technology. If it does all daily tasks and functions in real time now, which we can presume it does, you can't do better even with new hardware.
So it still comes down to meeting the expectations of a luxury brand - quality, design, customization, sales channel,, warranty, service, and customer sat experience - more than future tech (battery and sensors outside of that assessment).
...........
Apple is using a gold alloy that uses 18K gold but that is 2x harder than 18k gold. So how much gold is actually in there and how does affect the value since it's not pure gold?
Apple would have to put at least 75% pure gold into the Watch so they can sell it as 18kt gold.
So it won't effect the value since its real 18kt gold, just 2x harder.
Usually copper makes up the rest of the alloy mix to make yellow gold, adding a little silver will make it pink/rose gold.
I wonder if Apple added a different metal than copper to make it 2x harder, or is it made 2x harder via the manufacturing process
True! I just don't see an angle for this one. No killer app, no differentiating form factor or battery life, no independence from iPhone. I can see sales to those who want to stick with the 5s but want NFC payments, and to the sycophants, but not much else.
Yup. Sensible. Like what people said about the iPhone (and iPod, and iPad) when they were announced.
I can't see myself not getting one though.
I don't view ugradeability as much as an issue as serviceability.
In my view, Apple paradoxically and purposefully designed a dumb smart watch. Yes, there is most certainly a lot of tech in the watch, but sensors aside, most of the computational power comes from the IPhone and uses the watch as a wireless display with user feedback control. So unless there is a need for better near field wireless speed (which I doubt since there is not a lot of data you need to push to a tiny screen at any given time), whatever performance upgrades one may need will com with the next iPhone. But essentially, the power is in your pocket (excuse the potentially disgusting metaphor)
The battery and sensors are the caveat...there could be advances or new sensors that would need to be upgraded to keep the investment sound. it will be interesting to see if Apple designed the back sensor disc and battery as a relatively easily replaceable modules.
I think the other thing being implied here is we are on the downward side of the performance bell curve. I just got a new Retina iMac, and it's fast, but it doesn't feel oodles faster than the early 2010 model it replaced. iPhone 6 is very powerful -future performance upgrades will be incremental for handheld devices (battery is hopefully another story), so the overall issue of performance improvements for the Apple Watch ecosystem is probably less of an issue than if everything were a nascent technology. If it does all daily tasks and functions in real time now, which we can presume it does, you can't do better even with new hardware.
So it still comes down to meeting the expectations of a luxury brand - quality, design, customization, sales channel,, warranty, service, and customer sat experience - more than future tech (battery and sensors outside of that assessment).
The battery is the key issue, though. There really isn't any way around that at the moment, which is why the Watch relies so much on the iPhone. Computing power is less of an issue, but still likely present. That being said, the iPhone was originally much less capable than the one of today. It didn't even take videos until the 3GS, and yet today that's a major selling point. And it used to rely exclusively on iTunes.
Just curious, but why is everyone referring to 'SolipsismY' as a newbie? Irony?
Right now its 11/5/14 7AM where I am. If you look at all "Y's" posts, the first was 5 days and 10 hours ago.
"Solipsism X's" last post was 5 days and 11 hours ago...
Maybe we could discuss why "Y" seems the tiniest bit edgier in some posts than "X",
or whether "X" or "Y" is a better joke on the word 'solipsism', but it doesn't seem the identity is any mystery.
Either way I would gladly pay $350 for a true Sport watch that is fully water proof that does everything else the Apple Watch does. But so far I'm hearing it's merely water resistant, which means I may be good if I sweat on it, but not so much if I go for a swim. Without that, it's pointless as a sports watch, I'd rather buy a Microsoft band. If the point it to keep my phone safe while I still have access to it, then not being water proof is a fail.
Perhaps the most astounding piece of information is that the sports watch has the least resilient crystal. Makes no sense. so $350 begins to look less and less like a good deal to me.
Quote:
You should have noticed by now, after all the announcements and revelations, that the ?Watch is unlike every other Apple product.
Does Rolex or Omega make their watches thinner year after year? No, they have some classic design themes or parameters that they maintain pretty much in perpetuity for at least a couple of reasons, parts and components availability and to avoid design faddishness.
My guess is that down the line Apple might introduce a new family of thinner watches as the technology allows it, but they will keep offering the current lines, and any wins in component miniaturization and compactness will be used to increase/enhance the existing models' functions and battery capacity.
Quote:
Wow, that's a brave prediction. Though I thought SolipsismY had a good point about jewellery norms, it's still Jony Ive doing the design and ever increasing thinness is one of his themes, a reflection of his minimalist aesthetic. I will be really surprised if the 2nd gen Apple Watch isn't thinner than the 1st gen.
As early as March of last year I predicted that Apple is going to go whole hog down the high fashion road with the watch. That they will be rubbing elbows with the big fashion names, houses, and publications, and will market the watch in a way that will be alien to Apple's traditional customers but very much in line with the way high end fashion accessories are marketed. It will be the first product that is as much a fashion item as a tech device. So far, I've been proven right. If you looked at the hires (especially Deneve & Ahrendts) it wasn't really that big a stretch of a prediction as long as you were willing to entertain the idea of Apple changing their ways drastically for one product. When they announced the hiring of (Dame) Ahrendts and her high-powered rep in the fashion industry, I knew that she wouldn't just give up a CEO job unless Tim offered her something completely new and challenging.
Then if you read the latest articles about the Jony Ive interview where he described the development of the watch and how he and the dev team studied the watch industry in depth, its history and design traditions, then you begin to understand that Apple's adoption of watch industry terminology during the ?Watch unveiling was not a surface affectation: They really are trying to find a way to fuse classic watch making and high tech. And one of the hallmarks of prestige watch marques is that watches that were manufactured decades ago retain their currency, they remain repairable and usable today. It's completely the opposite of high tech as we know it.
Of course my prediction might be totally wrong (they might not have chosen to go that far in emulating watch industry practice & tradition), but if Apple is as serious as they sound about playing in the world of thousand dollar watches, then I think they can't have expensive watches that become useless and dated after a few years. You can do that if you want to play Swatch, but not if you want to play Rolex, Omega or TAG.
Oh, and I'm not saying the 2nd gen ?Watch won't be thinner. I'm saying whatever the 2nd gen watch is, the 1st gen watch won't disappear, instead it will be kept up-to-date technology-wise.
Sounds good to me!
This watch is obviously not made for Android users.
The gold version should cost many thousands of dollars!
Yeah, it's obviously for the leased BMW and Porsche crowd. Most millionaires buy Seiko-level watches, including those of us in my immediate family. One brother-in-law paid cash for his mom's new house, paid cash for his Porsche, still has a 12-year-old Highlander, and uses a Note 3, and this is a guy who pays over $1M in taxes each year.
Not likely humbling. But I doubt it will match relative levels of sales compared to the iPhone and iPad launch. They will sell out, but after the initial hype dies, I doubt it will sustain similar volume as their other devices.
I expect the development of this market will be more like iPod than iPhone. Took Apple a few years ('01-'04) to nail the design, feature set, and ecosystem before iPod really took off.
Yeah, it's obviously for the leased BMW and Porsche crowd. Most millionaires buy Seiko-level watches, including those of us in my immediate family. One brother-in-law paid cash for his mom's new house, paid cash for his Porsche, still has a 12-year-old Highlander, and uses a Note 3, and this is a guy who pays over $1M in taxes each year.
Your evidence, interesting as it is, is anecdotal. I wouldn't generalize about millionaires' consumption patterns based on that.
I don't think I will ever by a smart watch. My wife gave me an Exployer II 16 years ago that I can't see ever not wearing. (Well unless she traded it in for a more expensive / nicer watch!)
I was intrigued when I first spotted the change fro X to Y. Soli very kindly replied to my query as to why:
"No real reason. I just did it on a whim. No pros or cons to speak of."
Your evidence, interesting as it is, is anecdotal. I wouldn't generalize about millionaires' consumption patterns based on that.
I've read books on it that contained studies. Wealth accumulation is rarely associated with visible status. Granted, the material is old now, but everyone with more than $1M in assets accumulated it by not spending it on "stuff." Some people certainly outpace their spending on luxury/status and end up there anyway, but the majority are conservative spenders, and that is a big part of why they're wealthy.
My next door neighbor sold his Internet company that he built from the ground up. Tens of millions later, he's remained our next door neighbor in a "modest" $400K house for the ten years after the sale anyway. Drives a Yukon and a 7-year-old 4-cylinder Lexus. He's about to buy a Tesla though... he's test-driven Ferraris and just can't bring himself to write the check, even though the money would make no difference to his family's future. He doesn't spend money like that, and he's making sure he has enough to handle a health catastrophe too. He takes his family all over the world on really cool trips though -- but that's experience spending, not luxury spending, and I think it's valuable.
Tim Cook said in the keynote that the Apple Watch will start at $350. Did anybody listen or pay attention?
Start, sure. That’s for the Apple Watch Sport. The Apple Watch Edition (I love that name), being made out of actual gold, will of course cost more. Gold is, well, sort of expensive, if you hadn’t noticed.