It's been funny to see how the blogosphere largely doesn't get it. Patel at the Verge is trying to act like having two buttons on the ?Watch is the most complicated thing in the history of computers (even the commenters are mocking him), people still don't get that ?Watch will become so much more in future generations, and you've got idiots whining how the new MacBook "has too much bezel", which is patently stupid.
I read the Patel piece. Churlish, childish nonsense. Most of these (gutless) guys feel like they have to say something negative about Apple, or they'll be accused of being fanboys. The Manjoo article in NYT was similar in tone.
Very disappointed in the steel prices.. I expected ~$400-500 - I had a steel link style watch for years and had my heart set on that. but I'm not spending $1000 on it..
Even the $700 for Watch Milanese loop is over my $600 max budget.. and I really don't want to spend that kind of money for a watch with a plastic band..
Guess I'll pass for now. Maybe they'll come down in a few years.
I refuse to spend more on this than I did my iPhone though...
Perhaps the problem is that your reach exceeds your grasp? For instance, I think that the Edtion at $17,000 is a bit much for me for a watch, but I am not 'disappointed' in the least.
One other thing I failed to mention in my earlier post, is that I am not happy with the US$ to UK£ convertion Apple are applying to the Apple Watch.
Comparing like for like with other Apple products (iPhone/iPad), the $349 starting price for the Sport should have been £279, although I can understand why they upped it to £299.
The Apple Watch starting at $549 should have been £439, but they've made it £479 and upgrading to the 42mm version puts the UK cost to £519. I'm surprised they just didn't place the cost for the 42mm Watch at £499.
Perhaps the problem is that your reach exceeds your grasp? For instance, I think that the Edtion at $17,000 is a bit much for me for a watch, but I am not 'disappointed' in the least.
I agree. Apple have an ability to price products just beyond the edge of what consumers are prepared to pay, thus creating a desire. The Apple Watch is certainly a product like that. At $549, it's $200 more than the Sport version, and realistically all you get (that we know of at the moment), is Stainless Steel, Sapphire Screen and Ceramic Back. Is that worth $200? Well no it isn't, but it is a very nice looking watch and matches perfectly with the bands available. Apple know they will hook people with this version.
I agree. Apple have an ability to price products just beyond the edge of what consumers are prepared to pay, thus creating a desire. The Apple Watch is certainly a product like that. At $549, it's $200 more than the Sport version, and realistically all you get (that we know of at the moment), is Stainless Steel, Sapphire Screen and Ceramic Back. Is that worth $200? Well no it isn't...
How do you seem so sure it's not worth $200 more? There's no accurate way of measuring that; it's subjective.
Just heard a brilliant comment from Michelle Caruso-Cabrera on CNBC (I don't normally say that): she pointed out that AppleWatch will be a huge hit among women because, unlike men, they don't carry the phone with them on their person/pockets. It's often just lying around at home or in a handbag. So, to have a device that you can use as a phone on the wrist when you're, say, cooking or running around with the kids, could be a real plus.
She's on to something.
It also tells us how stupidly male-dominated the tech reporting/reviewing world is, and why they would not get something as basic as that (I certainly did not think about something like that)!
How do you seem so sure it's not worth $200 more? There's no accurate way of measuring that; it's subjective.
Of course it's subjective. Personally, I feel that Apple has priced the Apple Watch intentionally at $549. It may only be $50 more expensive at the most to make compared to the Sport version, but they have come to realise that 3rd parties WILL produce bands for the device and they will lose out on sales for their own bands.
Initially, I thought Apple may have priced it slightly cheaper, accounting for owners intending on buying an extra 1 or 2 straps over a 2 year period. They cannot guarantee that especially when 3rd parties will come in with some really good looking reasonably cheap bands within a month or so of it being released. Hence then reason why they have made it $549.
Do you think it's worth an extra $200 for the Stainless Steel version?
One other thing I failed to mention in my earlier post, is that I am not happy with the US$ to UK£ convertion Apple are applying to the Apple Watch.
We've had this discussion many a time on AI. It's a combination of factors that justifies the non-US price: VAT, exchange rate uncertainty (and hence hedging costs), higher costs of retailing (labor, benefits, distribution, logistics, inventory), additional costs associated with end-of-life "take-back" environmental regulations, and finally pricing-to-market.
These issues are similar for all CE makers, not just Apple.
Just heard a brilliant comment from Michelle Caruso-Cabrera on CNBC (I don't normally say that): she pointed out that AppleWatch will be a huge hit among women because, unlike men, they don't carry the phone with them on their person/pockets. It's often just lying around at home or in a handbag. So, to have a device that you can use as a phone on the wrist when you're, say, cooking or running around with the kids, could be a real plus.
She's on to something.
It also tells us how stupidly male-dominated the tech reporting/reviewing world is, and why they would not get something as basic as that (I certainly did not think about something like that)!
Totally agree. I think this is wear consumers will realise very quickly how it can help. Seeing as the Watch will be attached to your arm there is less chance of harm coming to it than to your iPhone. If you continually need to take it out of your pocket to look at messages/emails/notifications etc, then its likely to get dropped etc. Personally, being able to skip music tracks without bring my phone out my pocket is a huge plus. Seeing message alerts quickly as well, bonus. Us in colder country's where we wear gloves, this will be huge. Quick glances on my arm rather than rattling around in my pocket...brilliant.
And what you mentioned about women...this is especially true. The bonus is if you are in your house and your phone is charging in the wall and you are upstairs, you can still get calls and messages on your watch. So no need to miss out.
One thing we are getting is totally connected all the time.
We've had this discussion many a time on AI. It's a combination of factors that justifies the non-US price: VAT, exchange rate uncertainty (and hence hedging costs), higher costs of retailing (labor, benefits, distribution, logistics, inventory), additional costs associated with end-of-life "take-back" environmental regulations, and finally pricing-to-market.
These issues are similar for all CE makers, not just Apple.
I understand that, but you can pick up an iPad Air 2 64Gb for $599 in the US, whereas this costs £479 in the UK. So how come the Apple Watch is $549 in the US, $50 cheaper than the iPad Air 2 64Gb, yet still costs £479 in the UK.
There is no standardization of Apple costs throughout their inventory.
The pricing of the mid level watches is way too high. This is not really a watch, let alone a piece of jewelry. It's a tech item that will be outdated every 2 years. Apple has made a huge mistake with these price points.
I understand that, but you can pick up an iPad Air 2 64Gb for $599 in the US, whereas this costs £479 in the UK. So how come the Apple Watch is $549 in the US, $50 cheaper than the iPad Air 2 64Gb, yet still costs £479 in the UK.
There is no standardization of Apple costs throughout their inventory.
Yes, true. That's why I added 'pricing-to-market' as an additional factor.
I thought the production quality of the event was superb. Audio was perfect, everything worked flawlessly as far as I could tell. Way better than that mess last fall. Plus I kinda like the products!
Just heard a brilliant comment from Michelle Caruso-Cabrera on CNBC (I don't normally say that): she pointed out that AppleWatch will be a huge hit among women because, unlike men, they don't carry the phone with them on their person/pockets. It's often just lying around at home or in a handbag. So, to have a device that you can use as a phone on the wrist when you're, say, cooking or running around with the kids, could be a real plus.
She's on to something.
It also tells us how stupidly male-dominated the tech reporting/reviewing world is, and why they would not get something as basic as that (I certainly did not think about something like that)!
Totally agree. I think this is wear consumers will realise very quickly how it can help. Seeing as the Watch will be attached to your arm there is less chance of harm coming to it than to your iPhone. If you continually need to take it out of your pocket to look at messages/emails/notifications etc, then its likely to get dropped etc. Personally, being able to skip music tracks without bring my phone out my pocket is a huge plus. Seeing message alerts quickly as well, bonus. Us in colder country's where we wear gloves, this will be huge. Quick glances on my arm rather than rattling around in my pocket...brilliant.
And what you mentioned about women...this is especially true. The bonus is if you are in your house and your phone is charging in the wall and you are upstairs, you can still get calls and messages on your watch. So no need to miss out.
One thing we are getting is totally connected all the time.
I don't want to be totally connected all the time.
The pricing of the mid level watches is way too high. This is not really a watch, let alone a piece of jewelry. It's a tech item that will be outdated every 2 years. Apple has made a huge mistake with these price points.
Comments
I read the Patel piece. Churlish, childish nonsense. Most of these (gutless) guys feel like they have to say something negative about Apple, or they'll be accused of being fanboys. The Manjoo article in NYT was similar in tone.
Perhaps the problem is that your reach exceeds your grasp? For instance, I think that the Edtion at $17,000 is a bit much for me for a watch, but I am not 'disappointed' in the least.
One other thing I failed to mention in my earlier post, is that I am not happy with the US$ to UK£ convertion Apple are applying to the Apple Watch.
Comparing like for like with other Apple products (iPhone/iPad), the $349 starting price for the Sport should have been £279, although I can understand why they upped it to £299.
The Apple Watch starting at $549 should have been £439, but they've made it £479 and upgrading to the 42mm version puts the UK cost to £519. I'm surprised they just didn't place the cost for the 42mm Watch at £499.
Anyway just a wee gripe.
Perhaps the problem is that your reach exceeds your grasp? For instance, I think that the Edtion at $17,000 is a bit much for me for a watch, but I am not 'disappointed' in the least.
I agree. Apple have an ability to price products just beyond the edge of what consumers are prepared to pay, thus creating a desire. The Apple Watch is certainly a product like that. At $549, it's $200 more than the Sport version, and realistically all you get (that we know of at the moment), is Stainless Steel, Sapphire Screen and Ceramic Back. Is that worth $200? Well no it isn't, but it is a very nice looking watch and matches perfectly with the bands available. Apple know they will hook people with this version.
Nilay Patel is a jerk and known Apple hater.
Known Apple hater? I'm not 100% on that.
I suspect most people will think of the button as "?Pay Button" and that's about it.
I don't agree with that. It's the contact button first and I think a number of things one does on ? watch will be via their contacts.
I agree. Apple have an ability to price products just beyond the edge of what consumers are prepared to pay, thus creating a desire. The Apple Watch is certainly a product like that. At $549, it's $200 more than the Sport version, and realistically all you get (that we know of at the moment), is Stainless Steel, Sapphire Screen and Ceramic Back. Is that worth $200? Well no it isn't...
How do you seem so sure it's not worth $200 more? There's no accurate way of measuring that; it's subjective.
Just heard a brilliant comment from Michelle Caruso-Cabrera on CNBC (I don't normally say that): she pointed out that AppleWatch will be a huge hit among women because, unlike men, they don't carry the phone with them on their person/pockets. It's often just lying around at home or in a handbag. So, to have a device that you can use as a phone on the wrist when you're, say, cooking or running around with the kids, could be a real plus.
She's on to something.
It also tells us how stupidly male-dominated the tech reporting/reviewing world is, and why they would not get something as basic as that (I certainly did not think about something like that)!
How do you seem so sure it's not worth $200 more? There's no accurate way of measuring that; it's subjective.
Of course it's subjective. Personally, I feel that Apple has priced the Apple Watch intentionally at $549. It may only be $50 more expensive at the most to make compared to the Sport version, but they have come to realise that 3rd parties WILL produce bands for the device and they will lose out on sales for their own bands.
Initially, I thought Apple may have priced it slightly cheaper, accounting for owners intending on buying an extra 1 or 2 straps over a 2 year period. They cannot guarantee that especially when 3rd parties will come in with some really good looking reasonably cheap bands within a month or so of it being released. Hence then reason why they have made it $549.
Do you think it's worth an extra $200 for the Stainless Steel version?
Not as bad as Brad Molen at Engadget, surely.
What's Engadget?
One other thing I failed to mention in my earlier post, is that I am not happy with the US$ to UK£ convertion Apple are applying to the Apple Watch.
We've had this discussion many a time on AI. It's a combination of factors that justifies the non-US price: VAT, exchange rate uncertainty (and hence hedging costs), higher costs of retailing (labor, benefits, distribution, logistics, inventory), additional costs associated with end-of-life "take-back" environmental regulations, and finally pricing-to-market.
These issues are similar for all CE makers, not just Apple.
Just heard a brilliant comment from Michelle Caruso-Cabrera on CNBC (I don't normally say that): she pointed out that AppleWatch will be a huge hit among women because, unlike men, they don't carry the phone with them on their person/pockets. It's often just lying around at home or in a handbag. So, to have a device that you can use as a phone on the wrist when you're, say, cooking or running around with the kids, could be a real plus.
She's on to something.
It also tells us how stupidly male-dominated the tech reporting/reviewing world is, and why they would not get something as basic as that (I certainly did not think about something like that)!
Totally agree. I think this is wear consumers will realise very quickly how it can help. Seeing as the Watch will be attached to your arm there is less chance of harm coming to it than to your iPhone. If you continually need to take it out of your pocket to look at messages/emails/notifications etc, then its likely to get dropped etc. Personally, being able to skip music tracks without bring my phone out my pocket is a huge plus. Seeing message alerts quickly as well, bonus. Us in colder country's where we wear gloves, this will be huge. Quick glances on my arm rather than rattling around in my pocket...brilliant.
And what you mentioned about women...this is especially true. The bonus is if you are in your house and your phone is charging in the wall and you are upstairs, you can still get calls and messages on your watch. So no need to miss out.
One thing we are getting is totally connected all the time.
We've had this discussion many a time on AI. It's a combination of factors that justifies the non-US price: VAT, exchange rate uncertainty (and hence hedging costs), higher costs of retailing (labor, benefits, distribution, logistics, inventory), additional costs associated with end-of-life "take-back" environmental regulations, and finally pricing-to-market.
These issues are similar for all CE makers, not just Apple.
I understand that, but you can pick up an iPad Air 2 64Gb for $599 in the US, whereas this costs £479 in the UK. So how come the Apple Watch is $549 in the US, $50 cheaper than the iPad Air 2 64Gb, yet still costs £479 in the UK.
There is no standardization of Apple costs throughout their inventory.
The pricing of the mid level watches is way too high. This is not really a watch, let alone a piece of jewelry. It's a tech item that will be outdated every 2 years. Apple has made a huge mistake with these price points.
I understand that, but you can pick up an iPad Air 2 64Gb for $599 in the US, whereas this costs £479 in the UK. So how come the Apple Watch is $549 in the US, $50 cheaper than the iPad Air 2 64Gb, yet still costs £479 in the UK.
There is no standardization of Apple costs throughout their inventory.
Yes, true. That's why I added 'pricing-to-market' as an additional factor.
The guy was reciting details (incorrectly) and offering inane commentary,
"Gold costs money"
Really?
Just heard a brilliant comment from Michelle Caruso-Cabrera on CNBC (I don't normally say that): she pointed out that AppleWatch will be a huge hit among women because, unlike men, they don't carry the phone with them on their person/pockets. It's often just lying around at home or in a handbag. So, to have a device that you can use as a phone on the wrist when you're, say, cooking or running around with the kids, could be a real plus.
She's on to something.
It also tells us how stupidly male-dominated the tech reporting/reviewing world is, and why they would not get something as basic as that (I certainly did not think about something like that)!
Totally agree. I think this is wear consumers will realise very quickly how it can help. Seeing as the Watch will be attached to your arm there is less chance of harm coming to it than to your iPhone. If you continually need to take it out of your pocket to look at messages/emails/notifications etc, then its likely to get dropped etc. Personally, being able to skip music tracks without bring my phone out my pocket is a huge plus. Seeing message alerts quickly as well, bonus. Us in colder country's where we wear gloves, this will be huge. Quick glances on my arm rather than rattling around in my pocket...brilliant.
And what you mentioned about women...this is especially true. The bonus is if you are in your house and your phone is charging in the wall and you are upstairs, you can still get calls and messages on your watch. So no need to miss out.
One thing we are getting is totally connected all the time.
I don't want to be totally connected all the time.
The pricing of the mid level watches is way too high. This is not really a watch, let alone a piece of jewelry. It's a tech item that will be outdated every 2 years. Apple has made a huge mistake with these price points.
I agree.