I don't think the Apple Watch will be upgradeable personally.
You can't really upgrade your Macbook any more, or your iPhone. Apple's trend is to seal their gear shut so you can't change it. The Apple Phone, I think, will be a disposable item: buy it ,use it, sell it, get a new one.
You can't be serious, not in this case.
A watch is a personal item - and typically we have deep personal attachments to such items - especially if they are the $6,000 USD gold version ;-) Accordingly, I doubt Apple will make these watches a throw-away item because they understand that in the big investor / big spender market, failure is not trivial.
I expect these devices to go through a variety of physical modifications into the future, while continually being S/W upgradable all the time.
Think of your car. You're not going to trade-in your current model to get the next software upgrade . . .
I understand and your comments made me sit back and think for a minute. While it may not be hard to convince someone to buy a new Apple Watch every year, it would be hard to convince someone to buy a gold plated watch every year. Apple designed the S1 definitely adds fuel to the theory and makes a lot of sense.
PS: I currently have no intention of buying an ?Watch. I'm still leaning more heavily toward the Fitbit Charge HR, which should be out some time early next year. However, I'll wait for the ?Watch to get completely finalized before I make a final, purchase decision.
Seems to me that this whole issue of upgrading is irrelevant given that the resale value of the AppleWatch is what matters. I just sold back my iPhone 5 to Apple for $180 over two years after I bought it. Apple will refurbish it and sell it for more, thus making a profit. I'm happy because I got two years of use and still had something worth almost a third of its original cost - a cost which I paid over time. And if I were to buy a gold AppleWatch for, say, $2,000, the gold part is going to be on a different resale track from the internals. After two years, I'd bet I could trade it in and pay only a couple of hundred for the latest model. Who would turn up their nose at that?
First: you will be able to upgrade your AppleWatch capability -- just upgrade your iPhone!
Second: the AppleWatch for the multitudes costs $350 ... it should be viable for 3-4 years ...
So, the monthly cost of the AppleWatch will be between $7-$10 per month ...
My argument for making the battery and SIP upgradable is, how can I maximize sales and profits of a "smartwatch" that others won't be able to match? I could do what Sony, Samsung, et al. are doing by selling a device with a limited life span, but that limits both unit sales and expensive, jewelry-like purchases because CE is an inherent part of the experience.
This will mean Apple can't tackle the collectible part of the market because those devices, need to be usable after many years. You maximize the profits by creating a new external design every year but allow the functionality to be the same or similar, like with traditional watches. This all depends on your ability to engineer the CE aspect in such a way that the jewelry aspect will have a long shelf life. This is clearly a major undertaking, but it's the undertaking that I don't think I would ignore before announcing my "smartwatch" if I were running Apple. Could that be what Ive met by this being the most difficult product he's had to develop since he needs the SIP (and other components) to be designed around many years of advancements?
If you can accomplish this you then get more people that will purchase your device, more people that will purchase a more expensive version of your device, and more people that will purchase multiple versions of your device, just as they do now with traditional watches. If anyone can pull that of it's Apple, but I'm not sure anyone can.
I agree with most of that!
I think the battery replacement could be mitigated by including the battery in [some of] the watchbands. IDK if the AppleWatch 1 is engineered to do that -- but the connections between the band and watch appear to be precision engineered and could easily handle that ...
I'm wondering how much work the SoC in the Apple Watch actually does. The Apple Watch is supposedly an extension of your iPhone... so would it need to be replaced as often as the Phone?
It may be, that except for a few things, the S1 chip is mainly used for Presentation Services and User [inter]Action detection while the heavy lifting in done on an iPhone.
When, the AppleWatch was announced, many here, including myself, looked at it as a 1.0 stepping stone to a AppleWatch that will replace the iPhone in, say, 2-3 years.
The more I think about this, it seems this would be expensive, unnecessary and undesirable ...
The question then becomes about the lifespan of the battery. How many years is a multi-thousand dollar device supposed to hold a charge?
Interesting discussion. I'm pretty sure Apple knows the Watch will evolve and get better with time (!). There is an alternative to user upgradable: perhaps the Watch Edition that will go for thousands will include a guaranteed resale price back to Apple on a future version of the Edition? Not sure how aggressive Apple will be, or feels they need to be.
The Watch will work as a standalone device, but of course it will lose much of its functionality. It will still look and function like a Watch, along with some other features.
Choosing to buy the Watch isn't like choosing to buy the iPhone. iPhone is essentially useless without a carrier connection, and that means at least a monthly fee. Watch is an iPhone accessory first and foremost. But - while it retains Watch like appears and functionality, I doubt Apple will spend much effort trying to sell Editions (or the other models) to non-iPhone owners. At least not in 2015.
Subsidies on a watch? Who would subsidize it, doesn't make any sense. The iPad has been successful without subsidies, don't see why the Watch will be any different.
Carrier subsidies. This could mean a standalone subsidy (something T-Mobile is doing with Android watches) or include the watch and an iPhone within one subsidized plan.
Without some sort of up front discounting I don't see many average joe's spending another $400 on top of the cost of an iPhone for what is little more than an accessory. And no one will buy an Apple Watch without an iPhone, as it is pretty much useless without the phone.
Carrier subsidies. This could mean a standalone subsidy (something T-Mobile is doing with Android watches) or include the watch and an iPhone within one subsidized plan.
Without some sort of up front discounting I don't see many average joe's spending another $400 on top of the cost of an iPhone for what is little more than an accessory. And no one will buy an Apple Watch without an iPhone, as it is pretty much useless without the phone.
What I think will come quickly is an improvement in the tech to allow the Watch to have a GPS/WiFi/Cell chip installed on the system chip, but it to be *very* restricted on use (kinda like the NFC chip in the iPhone6.) First to come would be a emergency 911/ location system. I see this as highly desirable. And that would be *all* it could do. Then perhaps as batteries get better and power requirements drop, perhaps it becomes more of a standalone device.
Saying it is "useless" without an iPhone is patently false. It simply loses many of its desirable, powerful features. It still looks and acts like a watch, and has a few other things it can do. But I would agree that without an iPhone there is little to make it attractive as a stand alone purchase, as its value is clearly ties to it being an iPhone accessory.
Wonder how long it will take for it to sport a camera?
I think the battery replacement could be mitigated by including the battery in [some of] the watchbands. IDK if the AppleWatch 1 is engineered to do that -- but the connections between the band and watch appear to be precision engineered and could easily handle that ...
As @Michael Scrip pointed out:
It may be, that except for a few things, the S1 chip is mainly used for Presentation Services and User [inter]Action detection while the heavy lifting in done on an iPhone.
When, the AppleWatch was announced, many here, including myself, looked at it as a 1.0 stepping stone to a AppleWatch that will replace the iPhone in, say, 2-3 years.
The more I think about this, it seems this would be expensive, unnecessary and undesirable ...
1) The only way the same HW will be doable is if Apple actively keeps supporting the S1 much longer than any of their other products. Will this be a headache for developers to, say, keep supporting the S1 HW in a 6 years?
2) I don't think anyone reasonable thinks a wrist-based device will replace the iPhone any more than the iPhone replaces the Mac. There may be some functions it does better and gets some functions not previously feasible for other product categories, but that's about it.
Then. What's its job? [LIST] [*] a fashion or technology statement [*] a piece of jewelry [*] a watch [*] a phone [*] a music player [*] a web browser [*] a social/messaging/email/texting device [*] a camera [*] a TV Controller [*] a home hub monitor/controller [*] a ApplePay eWallet purchasing device [*] a health monitoring/recommendation device [*] a GPS/Cell/WiFi/BLE Locator/Tracker [*] [/LIST]
It's all of these things (or has the potential to be) ... kinda' ...
But it can't do any of these things very well!
IMO, the AppleWatch is a [B][I] power/convenience [COLOR=blue]enabler[/COLOR] ...[/I][/B]
Tim says he uses his iWatch with his AppleTV -- does that mean he's streaming video or photos from his AppleWatch ... Nah! The AppleWatch enables the iPhone, iPad, Mac, home server, iCloud, Whatever -- to stream to the AppleTV ...
Will you be listening to music on your AppleWatch ... Nah! The AppleWatch enables streaming between your iPhone (or whatever) and your BLE Earphones, AppleTV ...
You can go through every item listed above (except maybe the first two) and the current iPhone can do the job better ... but the AppleWatch enables [B][I] [COLOR=blue]you[/COLOR] to do the job easier! [/I][/B]
[B][I]That's its job![/I][/B]
... Would you like Power Steering with your iPhone ...
I think the battery replacement could be mitigated by including the battery in [some of] the watchbands. IDK if the AppleWatch 1 is engineered to do that -- but the connections between the band and watch appear to be precision engineered and could easily handle that ...
As @Michael Scrip pointed out:
It may be, that except for a few things, the S1 chip is mainly used for Presentation Services and User [inter]Action detection while the heavy lifting in done on an iPhone.
When, the AppleWatch was announced, many here, including myself, looked at it as a 1.0 stepping stone to a AppleWatch that will replace the iPhone in, say, 2-3 years.
The more I think about this, it seems this would be expensive, unnecessary and undesirable ...
1) The only way the same HW will be doable is if Apple actively keeps supporting the S1 much longer than any of their other products. Will this be a headache for developers to, say, keep supporting the S1 HW in a 6 years?
2) I don't think anyone reasonable thinks a wrist-based device will replace the iPhone any more than the iPhone replaces the Mac. There may be some functions it does better and gets some functions not previously feasible for other product categories, but that's about it.
What I think will come quickly is an improvement in the tech to allow the Watch to have a GPS/WiFi/Cell chip installed on the system chip, but it to be *very* restricted on use (kinda like the NFC chip in the iPhone6.) First to come would be a emergency 911/ location system. I see this as highly desirable. And that would be *all* it could do. Then perhaps as batteries get better and power requirements drop, perhaps it becomes more of a standalone device.
Saying it is "useless" without an iPhone is patently false. It simply loses many of its desirable, powerful features. It still looks and acts like a watch, and has a few other things it can do. But I would agree that without an iPhone there is little to make it attractive as a stand alone purchase, as its value is clearly ties to it being an iPhone accessory.
Ok, maybe 'useless' is to strong a word. It can still tell the time. Of course, without an iPhone the time won't update when you change time zones, or during daylight savings or maintain the time based on cell tower transponders. Basically, the equivalent of a $15 Seiko at that point.
And without the iPhone, no notifications, health data updating, or app interactions. Kind of pointless to buy an Apple Watch without the iPhone. Especially at the cost Apple is charging and only a 24 hour battery.
The question then becomes about the lifespan of the battery. How many years is a multi-thousand dollar device supposed to hold a charge?
It's not really an heirloom but a fashion accessory that collects health data to seamlessly give the phone more context about what the user is doing. Though I think a day one purchase kept it in mint condition could very well appreciate in value, spending thousands on a "disposable" device is an intentional indicator of wealth. The gold with red leather classic buckle will be the most expensive model and is blatantly oriented to the Chinese palate.
The gold edition versions will probably be few and far between and appeal primarily to the kind of person that flies international first class without batting an eyelid - as well as those that aspire to be them.
This is a completely new phase for Apple. I think they had this in mind when they started flirting with watch faces on the iPod nano, but Tim had a larger vision.
Listen : Apple's stock is simply doing a gap up and will eventually start rolling up and down between support and resistance. It will be very hard to determine what that is until we see a pullback (for a breather) and a roll or two. Stocks never just keep rising or falling in a straight line for long. What is happening right now is the experts are reassessing their positions (i/e. running the numbers on projected low and high earnings) and loading up based on those before the next trend develops be it up, sideways or perhaps down - for 3 rolls. Looking at the chart I think the next top will be about 125 or so and will pull back down to 110-115 perhaps, The old resistance which was around 110 becomes the new support and a new top probably around 120 or 125 will develop. The stock is hugely overbought and of course Apple is doing a massive buyback which is causing the stock to to rise too. After this consolidation phase the Jan earnings initially and Apple watch will drive the stock up /down in 2015. Right now there is a lot of greed in the stock going on. I unloaded 33% of my position at $115 (+90% gain) . I will wait and see if it goes back down again. Also the US market is way overbought and the world economy is teetering at -ve growth all except the US. So I wouldn't get too greedy if I were you! It;s better to take some profit off the table than wait too long and lose because you held on to long. All this talk of trillion Dollar company is just nonsense, great for the talking heads, but is not going to happen any time soon, certainly not without real quantitative earnings results and margins, otherwise it's pure speculation.
Listen :
It's HIGH TIME for Every Sovereign Country on This Planet to ABOLISH & EXPEL Market Mal-Practice " Short Sell " For GOOD !
Short Sell is Main Culprit and Cause of Distortion of Modern Capitalism and ALLOW VILLAINS TO CONDUCT THEIR WRONGDOINGS !
As Long As Stock Price Fractuates According to Natural Course of Real Sell & Buy Transactions, There's NO PROBLEM.
But Nowaday IT IS NOT THE CASE.
There's SHENANIGANS?Like YOU? in The Market !
Market is Rigged !
Do You Know MORE THAN 90% of High Frequency Traders' - Such As KCG ( Getco & Night Capital Merger ) and Vertu - Orders Are FAKE !
KCG Traders Have Created A False Appearance of Buy- or Sell-Side Pressure.
Once Their Orders Were Filled, the KCG Traders Would Then Immediately Cancel Their Orders That Had Only Been Designed To Create The False Appearance of Market Activity. As A Result of This Improper High Frequency Trading Strategy, KCG's Traders Obtained Advantageous Prices That Otherwise Would Not Have Been Available To Them On More Than100,000 Occasions.
KCG Entered Numerous Layered, Non-Bona Fide Market Moving Orders To Generate Selling or Buying Interest In Specific Stocks Such As " AAPL ".
By Entering The Non-Bona Fide Orders, Often In Substantial Size Relative To A Stock's Overall Legitimate Pending Order Volume, KCG traders Created A False Appearance of Buy- or Sell-Side Pressure.
This Trading Strategy Induced Other Market Participants to Enter Orders to Execute Against Limit Orders Previously Entered by the KCG Traders. Once Their Orders Were Filled, the KCG Traders Would Then Immediately Cancel Orders That Had Only Been Designed to Create The False Appearance of Market Activity. As A Result of This Improper High Frequency Trading Strategy, KCG's Traders Obtained Advantageous Prices that Otherwise Would Not Have Been Aavailable to Them on More Than 100,000 Occasions.
And, Of Course, Behind The Noted High Frequency Traders There Exist Villains Such As Numerous Banks, Hedge Funds etc.
As Long as " Short Sell " is Allowed As A Normal Practice in The Market, VILLAINS Always Try to Manipulate The Market.
We've Seen The Most Atrocious Case of Stock Manipulation in The Movement of AAPL Since Sept. 2012 to Mid-Term of 2014.
After AAPL Hitting All Time High ?Then?of $705 on Sept. 12 in 2012 on Its Way to $1,000, Its Stock Price LITERALLY Collapsed Having Plunged More Than 44% to $390.53 on Apr. 19 in 2013 WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE PROPER REASONS TO EXPLAIN IT, Despite Each Quarter's Renewing Breathtaking and Jaw-dropping RECORD BREAKING EARNING CALLS !
Analysts ?Many of Whom Are Lackeys of VILLAINS? and Pundits?SAME !? Were Desperate to Cover Up and Justify VILLAIN's WRONGDOINGS Saying that AAPL's Drastic Plunge Was Caused Because " Apple Will Be Forced to Drive Sales by Lowering Its Prices And in Turn Hampering Its Profits.
NEVER HAD Apple BEEN FORCED to DRIVE SALES by LOWERING THEIR PRICES ONCE !
COMPLETELY FALSE and IRRELEVANT ACCUSATION For The SAKE of VILLAIN's MANIPULATING AAPL !
To Our Surprise, The Share of AAPL Had Declined MORE THAN 44% from Its Peak and Had Been MISERABLY Hoverring Under $500 For So Long WITHOUT ANY PROPER REASONING Despite Every Quarter's Renewing RECORD BREAKING Earning Call IN CAHOOTS of VILLAINS' Drawn Scenario of " AAPL Niagara FALL Plunge Scheme "
It's HIGH TIME for ALL THE NORMAL HEALTHY LONG-TERM AAPL OWNERS ALL OVER THE WORLD to Be AWAKENING and TAKE ACTION In Doing " CLASS ACTION SUIT Against High Frequency Traders Such As KCG and Against FINRA When It's Needed !
This is not really a new product category. It is for Apple, but it's not quite the same as with mobile phones. The market is already saturated with smart-watches, and they aren't really catching on. So far, aside from fit and finish I haven't really seen Apple offering anything that the others aren't -- at least in terms of what the marketplace seems to be demanding. They're offering ?Pay, and that's about it (and that requires a current iPhone). I'm not even sure if the ?Watch is waterproof at this point. There's definitely going to be a small pool of early adopters who buy anything Apple offers, but unlike the iPhone, and the iPad, there just doesn't seem to be horde of consumers clamoring for something better in this category, at least not to pay a premium for it.
I've no doubt that eventually as the ?Watch matures, and developers find indispensable ways to integrate it into our lives it might morph into another powerhouse product for Apple. But at the moment, they're really just one more entry into a crowded field for a product general consumers don't really seem to be demanding. The Rolex-wearing guy isn't going to toss it for an ?Watch. He might buy one as an option, but he's got the disposable income to do it. Most people have to seriously consider purchases like this, and I just don't see them opting for something their phones already largely do -- phones which are required to use the ?Watch. So, no this won't be the iPhone launch, I'm not even sure it will do as well as the iPad launch. Maybe something akin to the Apple TV launch.
Apologies for quoting the entire post, but I'm filing this one for future reference.
It's interesting we still have zero insight into exactly how or where Apple Watches will be displayed, demonstrated and sold in the Apple Stores. Obviously with the myriad variations and decisions that must be made by the customer, these sales are going to require far more time, attention and salesperson interaction than an iPhone or iPad. Also, theft will be a bigger concern.
It's interesting we still have zero insight into exactly how or where Apple Watches will be displayed, demonstrated and sold in the Apple Stores. Obviously with the myriad variations and decisions that must be made by the customer, these sales are going to require far more time, attention and salesperson interaction than an iPhone or iPad. Also, theft will be a bigger concern.
Perhaps they will do what they did with the initial demo. That seems to work for iPhones which can be both expensive and small enough to be easily stolen if desired. The only problem I foresee in that regard is the number of SKUs Apple will have to display, which is well beyond any other product, especially at launch, as well as each SKU being unique HW that may need to be seen in person before a purchase. I think it's not reasonable to think Apple will have all 6 of the Gold watches in both sizes on display. The size to cost ratio will just be too inviting for thieves, and I haven't heard anything about Apple selling directly to stores that sell higher-end watches so they can displayed in jewelry cases.
Comments
I don't think the Apple Watch will be upgradeable personally.
You can't really upgrade your Macbook any more, or your iPhone. Apple's trend is to seal their gear shut so you can't change it. The Apple Phone, I think, will be a disposable item: buy it ,use it, sell it, get a new one.
You can't be serious, not in this case.
A watch is a personal item - and typically we have deep personal attachments to such items - especially if they are the $6,000 USD gold version ;-) Accordingly, I doubt Apple will make these watches a throw-away item because they understand that in the big investor / big spender market, failure is not trivial.
I expect these devices to go through a variety of physical modifications into the future, while continually being S/W upgradable all the time.
Think of your car. You're not going to trade-in your current model to get the next software upgrade . . .
PS: I currently have no intention of buying an ?Watch. I'm still leaning more heavily toward the Fitbit Charge HR, which should be out some time early next year. However, I'll wait for the ?Watch to get completely finalized before I make a final, purchase decision.
People need to keep their eye on the puck....
I agree with most of that!
I think the battery replacement could be mitigated by including the battery in [some of] the watchbands. IDK if the AppleWatch 1 is engineered to do that -- but the connections between the band and watch appear to be precision engineered and could easily handle that ...
As @Michael Scrip pointed out:
It may be, that except for a few things, the S1 chip is mainly used for Presentation Services and User [inter]Action detection while the heavy lifting in done on an iPhone.
When, the AppleWatch was announced, many here, including myself, looked at it as a 1.0 stepping stone to a AppleWatch that will replace the iPhone in, say, 2-3 years.
The more I think about this, it seems this would be expensive, unnecessary and undesirable ...
The question then becomes about the lifespan of the battery. How many years is a multi-thousand dollar device supposed to hold a charge?
Interesting discussion. I'm pretty sure Apple knows the Watch will evolve and get better with time (!). There is an alternative to user upgradable: perhaps the Watch Edition that will go for thousands will include a guaranteed resale price back to Apple on a future version of the Edition? Not sure how aggressive Apple will be, or feels they need to be.
The Watch will work as a standalone device, but of course it will lose much of its functionality. It will still look and function like a Watch, along with some other features.
Choosing to buy the Watch isn't like choosing to buy the iPhone. iPhone is essentially useless without a carrier connection, and that means at least a monthly fee. Watch is an iPhone accessory first and foremost. But - while it retains Watch like appears and functionality, I doubt Apple will spend much effort trying to sell Editions (or the other models) to non-iPhone owners. At least not in 2015.
Without some sort of up front discounting I don't see many average joe's spending another $400 on top of the cost of an iPhone for what is little more than an accessory. And no one will buy an Apple Watch without an iPhone, as it is pretty much useless without the phone.
Carrier subsidies. This could mean a standalone subsidy (something T-Mobile is doing with Android watches) or include the watch and an iPhone within one subsidized plan.
Without some sort of up front discounting I don't see many average joe's spending another $400 on top of the cost of an iPhone for what is little more than an accessory. And no one will buy an Apple Watch without an iPhone, as it is pretty much useless without the phone.
What I think will come quickly is an improvement in the tech to allow the Watch to have a GPS/WiFi/Cell chip installed on the system chip, but it to be *very* restricted on use (kinda like the NFC chip in the iPhone6.) First to come would be a emergency 911/ location system. I see this as highly desirable. And that would be *all* it could do. Then perhaps as batteries get better and power requirements drop, perhaps it becomes more of a standalone device.
Saying it is "useless" without an iPhone is patently false. It simply loses many of its desirable, powerful features. It still looks and acts like a watch, and has a few other things it can do. But I would agree that without an iPhone there is little to make it attractive as a stand alone purchase, as its value is clearly ties to it being an iPhone accessory.
Wonder how long it will take for it to sport a camera?
1) The only way the same HW will be doable is if Apple actively keeps supporting the S1 much longer than any of their other products. Will this be a headache for developers to, say, keep supporting the S1 HW in a 6 years?
2) I don't think anyone reasonable thinks a wrist-based device will replace the iPhone any more than the iPhone replaces the Mac. There may be some functions it does better and gets some functions not previously feasible for other product categories, but that's about it.
For anyone who purchases an expensive mechanical wristwatch, you are expected to have it serviced every 5 years. This can often cost $500~800.
Apple could adapt this model where you take your watch in for service after let's say 3 years and get a new CPU, battery and screen.
OK?
Then. What's its job?
[LIST]
[*] a fashion or technology statement
[*] a piece of jewelry
[*] a watch
[*] a phone
[*] a music player
[*] a web browser
[*] a social/messaging/email/texting device
[*] a camera
[*] a TV Controller
[*] a home hub monitor/controller
[*] a ApplePay eWallet purchasing device
[*] a health monitoring/recommendation device
[*] a GPS/Cell/WiFi/BLE Locator/Tracker
[*]
[/LIST]
It's all of these things (or has the potential to be) ... kinda' ...
But it can't do any of these things very well!
IMO, the AppleWatch is a [B][I] power/convenience [COLOR=blue]enabler[/COLOR] ...[/I][/B]
Tim says he uses his iWatch with his AppleTV -- does that mean he's streaming video or photos from his AppleWatch ... Nah! The AppleWatch enables the iPhone, iPad, Mac, home server, iCloud, Whatever -- to stream to the AppleTV ...
Will you be listening to music on your AppleWatch ... Nah! The AppleWatch enables streaming between your iPhone (or whatever) and your BLE Earphones, AppleTV ...
You can go through every item listed above (except maybe the first two) and the current iPhone can do the job better ... but the AppleWatch enables [B][I] [COLOR=blue]you[/COLOR] to do the job easier! [/I][/B]
[B][I]That's its job![/I][/B]
... Would you like Power Steering with your iPhone ...
^^^ This!
And without the iPhone, no notifications, health data updating, or app interactions. Kind of pointless to buy an Apple Watch without the iPhone. Especially at the cost Apple is charging and only a 24 hour battery.
I didn't jump into the iPhone until the 4S or the iPad until version 2.
The question then becomes about the lifespan of the battery. How many years is a multi-thousand dollar device supposed to hold a charge?
It's not really an heirloom but a fashion accessory that collects health data to seamlessly give the phone more context about what the user is doing. Though I think a day one purchase kept it in mint condition could very well appreciate in value, spending thousands on a "disposable" device is an intentional indicator of wealth. The gold with red leather classic buckle will be the most expensive model and is blatantly oriented to the Chinese palate.
The gold edition versions will probably be few and far between and appeal primarily to the kind of person that flies international first class without batting an eyelid - as well as those that aspire to be them.
This is a completely new phase for Apple. I think they had this in mind when they started flirting with watch faces on the iPod nano, but Tim had a larger vision.
Listen :
It's HIGH TIME for Every Sovereign Country on This Planet to ABOLISH & EXPEL Market Mal-Practice " Short Sell " For GOOD !
Short Sell is Main Culprit and Cause of Distortion of Modern Capitalism and ALLOW VILLAINS TO CONDUCT THEIR WRONGDOINGS !
As Long As Stock Price Fractuates According to Natural Course of Real Sell & Buy Transactions, There's NO PROBLEM.
But Nowaday IT IS NOT THE CASE.
There's SHENANIGANS?Like YOU? in The Market !
Market is Rigged !
Do You Know MORE THAN 90% of High Frequency Traders' - Such As KCG ( Getco & Night Capital Merger ) and Vertu - Orders Are FAKE !
KCG Traders Have Created A False Appearance of Buy- or Sell-Side Pressure.
Once Their Orders Were Filled, the KCG Traders Would Then Immediately Cancel Their Orders That Had Only Been Designed To Create The False Appearance of Market Activity. As A Result of This Improper High Frequency Trading Strategy, KCG's Traders Obtained Advantageous Prices That Otherwise Would Not Have Been Available To Them On More Than100,000 Occasions.
KCG Entered Numerous Layered, Non-Bona Fide Market Moving Orders To Generate Selling or Buying Interest In Specific Stocks Such As " AAPL ".
By Entering The Non-Bona Fide Orders, Often In Substantial Size Relative To A Stock's Overall Legitimate Pending Order Volume, KCG traders Created A False Appearance of Buy- or Sell-Side Pressure.
This Trading Strategy Induced Other Market Participants to Enter Orders to Execute Against Limit Orders Previously Entered by the KCG Traders. Once Their Orders Were Filled, the KCG Traders Would Then Immediately Cancel Orders That Had Only Been Designed to Create The False Appearance of Market Activity. As A Result of This Improper High Frequency Trading Strategy, KCG's Traders Obtained Advantageous Prices that Otherwise Would Not Have Been Aavailable to Them on More Than 100,000 Occasions.
And, Of Course, Behind The Noted High Frequency Traders There Exist Villains Such As Numerous Banks, Hedge Funds etc.
As Long as " Short Sell " is Allowed As A Normal Practice in The Market, VILLAINS Always Try to Manipulate The Market.
We've Seen The Most Atrocious Case of Stock Manipulation in The Movement of AAPL Since Sept. 2012 to Mid-Term of 2014.
After AAPL Hitting All Time High ?Then?of $705 on Sept. 12 in 2012 on Its Way to $1,000, Its Stock Price LITERALLY Collapsed Having Plunged More Than 44% to $390.53 on Apr. 19 in 2013 WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE PROPER REASONS TO EXPLAIN IT, Despite Each Quarter's Renewing Breathtaking and Jaw-dropping RECORD BREAKING EARNING CALLS !
Analysts ?Many of Whom Are Lackeys of VILLAINS? and Pundits?SAME !? Were Desperate to Cover Up and Justify VILLAIN's WRONGDOINGS Saying that AAPL's Drastic Plunge Was Caused Because " Apple Will Be Forced to Drive Sales by Lowering Its Prices And in Turn Hampering Its Profits.
But That Has Been ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE !
VILLAIN's " IMAGINING & FABRICATING THING " !!!!!!
Apple is NOT Such CHEAP MANUFACTURER As Samsung.
NEVER HAD Apple BEEN FORCED to DRIVE SALES by LOWERING THEIR PRICES ONCE !
COMPLETELY FALSE and IRRELEVANT ACCUSATION For The SAKE of VILLAIN's MANIPULATING AAPL !
To Our Surprise, The Share of AAPL Had Declined MORE THAN 44% from Its Peak and Had Been MISERABLY Hoverring Under $500 For So Long WITHOUT ANY PROPER REASONING Despite Every Quarter's Renewing RECORD BREAKING Earning Call IN CAHOOTS of VILLAINS' Drawn Scenario of " AAPL Niagara FALL Plunge Scheme "
It's HIGH TIME for ALL THE NORMAL HEALTHY LONG-TERM AAPL OWNERS ALL OVER THE WORLD to Be AWAKENING and TAKE ACTION In Doing " CLASS ACTION SUIT Against High Frequency Traders Such As KCG and Against FINRA When It's Needed !
This is not really a new product category. It is for Apple, but it's not quite the same as with mobile phones. The market is already saturated with smart-watches, and they aren't really catching on. So far, aside from fit and finish I haven't really seen Apple offering anything that the others aren't -- at least in terms of what the marketplace seems to be demanding. They're offering ?Pay, and that's about it (and that requires a current iPhone). I'm not even sure if the ?Watch is waterproof at this point. There's definitely going to be a small pool of early adopters who buy anything Apple offers, but unlike the iPhone, and the iPad, there just doesn't seem to be horde of consumers clamoring for something better in this category, at least not to pay a premium for it.
I've no doubt that eventually as the ?Watch matures, and developers find indispensable ways to integrate it into our lives it might morph into another powerhouse product for Apple. But at the moment, they're really just one more entry into a crowded field for a product general consumers don't really seem to be demanding. The Rolex-wearing guy isn't going to toss it for an ?Watch. He might buy one as an option, but he's got the disposable income to do it. Most people have to seriously consider purchases like this, and I just don't see them opting for something their phones already largely do -- phones which are required to use the ?Watch. So, no this won't be the iPhone launch, I'm not even sure it will do as well as the iPad launch. Maybe something akin to the Apple TV launch.
Apologies for quoting the entire post, but I'm filing this one for future reference.
On the plus side, how many have noticed that Shaw Wu no longer makes even a peep anymore. Perhaps his lousy track record finally caught up with him?
Perhaps they will do what they did with the initial demo. That seems to work for iPhones which can be both expensive and small enough to be easily stolen if desired. The only problem I foresee in that regard is the number of SKUs Apple will have to display, which is well beyond any other product, especially at launch, as well as each SKU being unique HW that may need to be seen in person before a purchase. I think it's not reasonable to think Apple will have all 6 of the Gold watches in both sizes on display. The size to cost ratio will just be too inviting for thieves, and I haven't heard anything about Apple selling directly to stores that sell higher-end watches so they can displayed in jewelry cases.
How can it fail with competition like this:
Tread 2 Murder Watch by DEVON
$10,950 USD
http://fancy.com/things/541215148400970786/Tread-2-Murder-Watch-by-DEVON?ref=ffemail
Well, this is an awesome watch. Not exactly a fashion statement, or stylish, but definitely an awesome watch to have in your collection of Retro 80's.