Rumor: Gold Apple Watch Edition priced up to $5,000, steel version at $500, will debut on Feb. 14

17891113

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 247
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by foggyhill View Post

     

     

    While the SOC will be upgradable for awhile, I'd doubt you will be promised and upgradability of some other functions like sensors which need tight integration with the body, unless you can replace the entire underbody in those high end watches. Some communication functions may need a body redesign too if they come to the watch, say WIFI/GPS/CELL.

     

    So, when you buy it, I'd expect some upgradability, but not forever upgradability. Past a certain point it becomes impossible for Apple to predict how tech will evolve to fit inside the watch and they wouldn't want to support an out of date physical interface for 20 years. 

     

    A 6 year garanteed upgradibility of hardware and 10 year software would make sense for those watches.  At the end of that cycle, you'd have something much better than you started from and could probably sell it for 70-75% of the initial cost if you kept it up to date. Considering how much more useful than a normal watch those things are, the slight decrease in value could be considered the cost of ownership.


    It's not an SOC, it's a COC. (Computer on a Chip).  The sensor on the back?  It's on the back cover, so to update the censor, replace the whole back cover.  I would think Apple could design things so that everything except the Gold case itself can be upgraded.  I mean, they have to be replaceable for repairs right?  The thing is, the gold case harkens back to the case of a DiY Windows PC  --just keep upgrading the components as you need or desire.  

     

    The thing about watches as jewelry is that thinness is just a style or design theme, it's not a marker for quality or technological advancement the way it is for phones, tablets, and laptops.  Look, are Rolexes today any thinner than they were 80 years ago?  No.  As much as people complain that the ?Watch is so thick, they're about as thick as some Rolexes.  

     

    It just doesn't make sense to apply the design aesthetics used for the iPhone to the ?watch.   A manufacturer might want to design its new phone so that the previous model looks quite dated thus providing additional impetus for owners to upgrade.  For a prestige watchmaker, if you do that, you alienate your customers, --not good if you want them to buy several expensive watches from you.

  • Reply 202 of 247
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    Selling fewer than 10 million in the first year. However, Cook has already said he's not going to report numbers. First sign of defeat.



    No, it's choosing not to play by the ridiculous rules set by bloggers and analysts and folks like you for whom nothing but insane eye-popping sales figures can be considered a success and who are ready to start propagating, at the drop of a hat, the buzz that the watch is a failure.

     

    This is uncharted territory, trying to marry the design longevity required of prestige watches with the rapid turnover of technology inherent in the computer business.  Until Apple, no one has even raised the idea, even as farfetched conjecture.  It's just so counterintuitive.  Will Apple succeed?  Who knows?  But this is Apple harnessing all their corporate resources to take a stab at it so I wouldn't write the idea off.

     

    One thing I know for sure, it won't fail just because it doesn't pass your personal opinion about how a well-designed watch should look.

  • Reply 203 of 247
    tundraboy wrote: »
    foggyhill wrote: »
     

    While the SOC will be upgradable for awhile, I'd doubt you will be promised and upgradability of some other functions like sensors which need tight integration with the body, unless you can replace the entire underbody in those high end watches. Some communication functions may need a body redesign too if they come to the watch, say WIFI/GPS/CELL.

    So, when you buy it, I'd expect some upgradability, but not forever upgradability. Past a certain point it becomes impossible for Apple to predict how tech will evolve to fit inside the watch and they wouldn't want to support an out of date physical interface for 20 years. 

    A 6 year garanteed upgradibility of hardware and 10 year software would make sense for those watches.  At the end of that cycle, you'd have something much better than you started from and could probably sell it for 70-75% of the initial cost if you kept it up to date. Considering how much more useful than a normal watch those things are, the slight decrease in value could be considered the cost of ownership.
    It's not an SOC, it's a COC. (Computer on a Chip).  The sensor on the back?  It's on the back cover, so to update the censor, replace the whole back cover.  I would think Apple could design things so that everything except the Gold case itself can be upgraded.  I mean, they have to be replaceable for repairs right?  The thing is, the gold case harkens back to the case of a DiY Windows PC  --just keep upgrading the components as you need or desire.  

    The thing about watches as jewelry is that thinness is just a style or design theme, it's not a marker for quality or technological advancement the way it is for phones, tablets, and laptops.  Look, are Rolexes today any thinner than they were 80 years ago?  No.  As much as people complain that the ?Watch is so thick, they're about as thick as some Rolexes.  

    It just doesn't make sense to apply the design aesthetics used for the iPhone to the ?watch.   A manufacturer might want to design its new phone so that the previous model looks quite dated thus providing additional impetus for owners to upgrade.  For a prestige watchmaker, if you do that, you alienate your customers, --not good if you want them to buy several expensive watches from you.

    Well-reasoned post.

    There are two problems I have with the Apple Watch:

    Fashion is fickle and very personal. I happen not to like the watch, though many others may. But I think Apple have a tough job attracting a high number of punters with such a personal preference. It's not like the iPhone or iPad, where everyone likes them, because they are just a slab of metal and glass you hold in your hand. But with the watch, if you don't care for the style, that's it! Unless Apple decide to put out dozens of different designs, it will be impossible for them to cater to more than a small percentage of tastes—and that's iPhone users only, who feel compelled to own a third mobile device that largely duplicates some of the functions of their iPhone and iPad on a tiny screen.

    Wearable technology. I just don't want to wear electronic technology, at least, not in the form of a bright, glaring screen, and that's that. It's too much. Too much complication.
  • Reply 204 of 247
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member

    Be happy what you own.

  • Reply 205 of 247
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

     

    It's not an SOC, it's a COC. (Computer on a Chip).  


     

    CoC is not a term (okay, it is a term but it means chip on chip).  Even if it was it's not a computer on a chip anyway.  It's a SIP or System In Package.  There are multiple chips in the package that compose the S1 and the whole thing is filled with resin to make one package.  

     

    And SoC is a computer system on a chip.  Which the S1 isn't.  Because it's not one chip.

  • Reply 206 of 247
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    nht wrote: »
    CoC is not a term (okay, it is a term but it means chip on chip).  Even if it was it's not a computer on a chip anyway.  It's a SIP or System In Package.  There are multiple chips in the package that compose the S1 and the whole thing is filled with resin to make one package.  

    And SoC is a computer system on a chip.  Which the S1 isn't.  Because it's not one chip.

    Apple or anyone else can use whatever they term they want to describe their products. System in Package means nothing to most people, but Computer makes sense. You don't have to like it but you should accept when others use Computer-on-Chip or CoC in regrrds to the S-series chip and ?Watch. Apple surely isn't against renaming something if a better term grows out of the community. iOS was originally referred to as firmware, then as OS X iPhone, and finally iOS in 2009(?). I implore you think of a better term that works better.
  • Reply 207 of 247
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    Well-reasoned post.



    There are two problems I have with the Apple Watch:



    Fashion is fickle and very personal. I happen not to like the watch, though many others may. But I think Apple have a tough job attracting a high number of punters with such a personal preference. It's not like the iPhone or iPad, where everyone likes them, because they are just a slab of metal and glass you hold in your hand. But with the watch, if you don't care for the style, that's it! Unless Apple decide to put out dozens of different designs, it will be impossible for them to cater to more than a small percentage of tastes—and that's iPhone users only, who feel compelled to own a third mobile device that largely duplicates some of the functions of their iPhone and iPad on a tiny screen.



    Wearable technology. I just don't want to wear electronic technology, at least, not in the form of a bright, glaring screen, and that's that. It's too much. Too much complication.



    Exactly. It's not only too complicated; it is also incompatible with the principle of "naturally wearing" something (like a wrist watch), at least UNTIL the technology allows us to:

     

    (i) use it without having to recharge it every day;

    (ii) not be tied to soon-to-be-obsolete OS implementations (à la Android);

    (iii) again, be able to check time and other basic things WITHOUT having to worry about the next power outlet.

     

    My RADO looks fine and perfectly functional after more than five years, having changed batteries only once so far - until the Apple Watch does the same, it's just a useless and expensive experiment.

  • Reply 208 of 247
    apple ][ wrote: »
    Sounds good to me!

    This watch is obviously not made for Android users.

    The gold version should cost many thousands of dollars!

    Wait a second. Let me get this straight.

    You honestly think that the apple watch - designed to only work in apples ecosystem - isn't made for android users?

    Look out everybody, we have a regular sherlock holmes on our hands.
  • Reply 209 of 247
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    techlover wrote: »
    Wait a second. Let me get this straight.

    You honestly think that the apple watch - designed to only work in apples ecosystem - isn't made for android users?

    Look out everybody, we have a regular sherlock holmes on our hands.
    This is Apple][ you're talking to. He lives in a world where paying $200 for an iPhone on a 2 year contract or paying $200 for an Android phone on a 2 year contract is the difference between having money or being poor. The same world where getting an iPhone for free on a 2 year contract means you have superior beliefs and lifestyle to someone who gets an Android phone for free on a 2 year contract. You're not likely to get very far by bringing logic and common sense into things.
  • Reply 210 of 247
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    foggyhill wrote: »
    So, you admit to stealing and being here, for god knows what reason? Good for you... I guess....

    Wonder why Sony is going under despite decent phones and Samsung will be approaching zero profit in Q1 2015 on phones, well people like you are the reason.  The only one whose profit went up a little last years was LG and they're making 1/100 of Apple's profit last quarter....

    If you think that you'll continue getting nice device when everyone's taking a financial bath, you are mistaken.
    Your $50 watch will look and perform like a POS, nice if your touring bathrooms, but nothing you'd want on your wrist.

    I think the OP was be facetious.
  • Reply 211 of 247

    I would pay $5,000 for a gold Apple Watch. How many luxury gold watches can you buy for $5,000? Especially a luxury watch with real world functionality. It simply doesn't exist.

     

    Regarding product refresh cycles, I don't care if it's updated annually. There are many people who would buy it annually. The status derived from having the latest Apple Watch Edition is immeasurable. There's a huge market for it. Tons of people (and especially Asian people) who would be happy to pay $5,000 a year for the perception of being on the cusp of fashion and technology.

     

    Personally, I would.

     

    The point is the "$5,000 Apple Watch" isn't intended for the average consumer. That's a high profit niche for Apple.

  • Reply 212 of 247
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member

    The battery life question is certainly an important point for discussion.  I hope that everyone realizes there is no magic bullet here.  Apple isn't "holding back" anything (e.g. deliberately limiting V1 to have a better V2), and Apple has available to it of course all the best battery tech that money can buy.  It is simply the fact that the devices need to be small, and the more that a device does, the more battery it takes.  Of course a watch which only keeps track of time and displays it on a dim monochrome display will have much longer battery life.  Similarly, a fitness band with limited display that gathers data that infrequently transmits it back to a mobile device, will have better battery life (a week is what I have seen on the Nike).

     

    About the charging every day - while everyone wants a device that will last "a week" or more, that would required a 7x improvement in the combination of efficiency and battery density.  That simply isn't going to happen for a long time, barring a revolutionary breakthrough.  And what if the combination was tripled to going every 3 days - a significant accomplishment - would people then forget to charge many times, as it no longer is a once-a-day proposition?  I think it is more important to have a "fast charge" capability - ability to charge to full in say 1/2 hour - than waiting on a 3x better battery

  • Reply 213 of 247
    ingsocingsoc Posts: 212member

    I honestly don't think that the "charging every day" thing is a major issue here. People are very accustomed to charging stuff overnight. And the cradle for the Apple Watch looks really nice and looks very easy to use.

     

    I think the much, much bigger issue is around obsolescence of the hardware relative to newer apps that appear over time. Potentially your watch will physically become less and less usable over time due to software and OS marching forward and hardware not doing so. This is not so much an issue with phones for obvious reasons (they are replaceable every couple of years for the most part).

  • Reply 214 of 247
    shsfshsf Posts: 302member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

     

    It's not an SOC, it's a COC. 


     

    That's what I tell the ladies too when I have my big boy pants on. 

  • Reply 215 of 247
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member

    You are one sucker to spend $5000 on a watch even it is gold .I guess you have a lot of money to throw around. A Rolex at least has a good resale value.An Apple watch gimme a break.

  • Reply 216 of 247
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

     

    You are one sucker to spend $5000 on a watch even it is gold .I guess you have a lot of money to throw around. A Rolex at least has a good resale value.An Apple watch gimme a break.


    The Apple Watch will have more resale value. It is actually useful for more than flaunting your wealth. Also, for the price of having the Rolex serviced it can be upgraded to the latest tech.

  • Reply 217 of 247
    The Apple Watch will have more resale value. It is actually useful for more than flaunting your wealth. Also, for the price of having the Rolex serviced it can be upgraded to the latest tech.

    There is zero evidence to support your comments.
  • Reply 218 of 247
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    There is zero evidence to support your comments.

    It's obvious. If Apple does not do this, someone else will.

    How hard will it be to buy a new Apple Watch sports ($350) take out the internals put them into someone's old Apple Watch edition, charge the same fee Rolex owners pay to service their watch, and make some money?

    Sounds pretty easy to me.

  • Reply 219 of 247
    It's obvious.

    If it was obvious you wouldn't have to make an argument for it, especially not one that has nothing to back it up.
    If Apple does not do this, someone else will.

    Who has access to Apple's interconnects for their S-series chip? Or the components they use for their S-series chip? If Apple does allow for longterm updates to the ?Watch components, which is what I hypotheses, it would expect it to be with Apple components through Apple certified experts, likely at jewelers.
    How hard will it be to buy a new Apple Watch sports ($350) take out the internals put them into someone's old Apple Watch edition, charge the same fee Rolex owners pay to service their watch, and make some money?
    Sounds pretty easy to me.

    You can't possibly say that's easy because you don't know what's involved. You have no idea if a future display will have more pixels so the display connector won't work with an older ?Watch, if the size is different so you can't change the display, if there are more sensors, etc. You can hope, wish, and desire it to be easy, but you can't say it will be easy or even possible at this point.
  • Reply 220 of 247
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    If it was obvious you wouldn't have to make an argument for it, especially not one that has nothing to back it up.

    Who has access to Apple's interconnects for their S-series chip? Or the components they use for their S-series chip? If Apple does allow for longterm updates to the ?Watch components, which is what I hypotheses, it would expect it to be with Apple components through Apple certified experts, likely at jewelers.

    You can't possibly say that's easy because you don't know what's involved. You have no idea if a future display will have more pixels so the display connector won't work with an older ?Watch, if the size is different so you can't change the display, if there are more sensors, etc. You can hope, wish, and desire it to be easy, but you can't say it will be easy or even possible at this point.

    Yes, we'll have to see how this goes. You have no basis for assuming that the Apple Watch resale value will be worse than a Rolex though.

Sign In or Register to comment.