I think Apple are marketing this watch primarily to women; hence, the interview with the model early on.
As someone else astutely pointed out here, they tend to keep their phones in their handbags, so are more likely to find a use for the watch. For us men, who keep it in our pockets, there is less to be gained. I'm happy pulling my phone out of my pocket.
The question is: for how long will these women keep interested? My guess is that they will become frustrated by the tiny screen size, and they will resort to getting their phone out anyway. What if you get a text from someone about meeting and you want to look at a map? Do you really want to scroll around a 1" screen? No. You want to look at it on your phone, because it’s so much easier and more pleasant to do so. Repeat for endless scenarios.
I see this watch as a niche fitness device and no more; hence, the marathon video.
I think it's also about triaging notifications. It doesn't replace the phone, it just replaces a few of the tasks for which you require the phone, just like the iPhone replaced many of the tasks that normally require a computer.
"At a glance" is different to "at arms reach". It's subtle but no less powerful.
Don't forget that it also contains always-on sensors that provide your phone with more context about the user. It's not being leveraged actively now but in the future Siri could provide different responses to interactions based on your heart rate etc.
Quote: "and there is no financial distinction for Edition models."
You missed some info. The 38 mm Edition is $10k, while the 42mm is $12k. Somehow adding a different band choice can cost and additional $5k, as their most expensive Edition Watch is $17k. I guess I'll only get one of those. Yikes.
It's a bit insane though that changing bands on the stainless watch can add almost $500. How does a watch band cost more than the Sport Watch? There are some great bands, but I'll stick with the sport until Watch 2 comes out at half the thickness and new bands next year.
You'Re not getting half the thickness before 6-7 years minimum if ever. Very few watches are 5.5-6mm, except dainty women's watches.
Eventually they'll get to 8mm, probably in 5 years, unless screen tech becomes much more efficient than it is right now.
They'd probably prefer adding GPS or cell communications before reducing the watch too much though.
You'Re not getting half the thickness before 6-7 years minimum if ever. Very few watches are 5.5-6mm, except dainty women's watches.
Eventually they'll get to 8mm, probably in 5 years, unless screen tech becomes much more efficient than it is right now.
They'd probably prefer adding GPS or cell communications before reducing the watch too much though.
Correct, Apple Watch v2.0 will probably be same size, better battery life and better processor. The actual size of the watch isn't the problem. It should be roughly the same size for all iterations.
Apple Watch v2.0 will probably be same size, better battery life and better processor. The actual size of the watch isn't the problem. It should be roughly the same size for all iterations.
Except this flies in the face of Apple's previous business model, in which they frequently brag about shaving off juat 1mm from one gen. to the next. Unless they completely change their M.O., unless the watches are meant to be distinguished by tech alone, there's nothing about the hardware to encourage upgrading, which is the core of Apple's business. And while exciting new tech is nice, nothing drives adoption of that tech like a shiny new package, and I don't just mean new color options. I suppose if Apple manages to prevent third party watch band makers to market, they can turn the watch into an heirloom design that earns profits from the straps (which are arguably the only real style the watch brings to the table).
In addition, one of the complaints by watch reviewers is how bulky the watch is. I've read several such reviews that complain it doesn't pass the cuff test, meaning one has to force the shirt sleeve over the watch as the cuff doesn't easily slide over it. While that may not be an issue for all, certainly it will be for some, and likely provide a goal for Apple to slim the 2G down. Keep in mind Jony Ive is on record as not caring about a users battery life.
What I see Apple doing more likely is offering the last gen. model alongside the slimmer 2G model for less, opening the experience up to a much wider audience who will learn how indispensable the device can be, maybe even keeping it around as the "classic" watch for as long as the tech remains relevant. Indeed, why should Apple operate any differently than any other watchmaker? This is their first offering. Why does this have to be the only design offered for years? Perhaps they introduce a new model every year, and the ones that achieve a certain status remain in the lineup, perhaps for years, while others come and go in one season.
Except this flies in the face of Apple's previous business model, in which they frequently brag about shaving off juat 1mm from one gen. to the next. Unless they completely change their M.O., unless the watches are meant to be distinguished by tech alone, there's nothing about the hardware to encourage upgrading, which is the core of Apple's business. And while exciting new tech is nice, nothing drives adoption of that tech like a shiny new package, and I don't just mean new color options. I suppose if Apple manages to prevent third party watch band makers to market, they can turn the watch into an heirloom design that earns profits from the straps (which are arguably the only real style the watch brings to the table).
In addition, one of the complaints by watch reviewers is how bulky the watch is. I've read several such reviews that complain it doesn't pass the cuff test, meaning one has to force the shirt sleeve over the watch as the cuff doesn't easily slide over it. While that may not be an issue for all, certainly it will be for some, and likely provide a goal for Apple to slim the 2G down. Keep in mind Jony Ive is on record as not caring about a users battery life.
What I see Apple doing more likely is offering the last gen. model alongside the slimmer 2G model for less, opening the experience up to a much wider audience who will learn how indispensable the device can be, maybe even keeping it around as the "classic" watch for as long as the tech remains relevant. Indeed, why should Apple operate any differently than any other watchmaker? This is their first offering. Why does this have to be the only design offered for years? Perhaps they introduce a new model every year, and the ones that achieve a certain status remain in the lineup, perhaps for years, while others come and go in one season.
Yeah, I wasn't intended it to sound literally that Apple would keep it exactly the same size. What I do expect is that Apple with keep the form factor the same so that this years bands can fit next years bands. I agree that they will probably make it slightly thinner, but IMHO battery life will be more important in v2.0 than shaving a mm here and there.
With regards to thickness of the watch, it current width dimensions sit near the smaller of those around, with the Zenwatch being less, Pebble Steel is the same and everything else is thicker.
I agree that they will definitely keep it in the market and sell it at a reduced price whe v2.0 appears. I personally think the first cycle will be 18-24 months due to the shear time involved actually getting the Watch into the market. And don't forget that it may take until Summer or even Fall to get the Watch into other countries not in the first run.
Also, although I may seem naive, but I just don't think we will see the huge wholesale changes in tech and form factor in a year on year basis. It's easier to do it with iPhones and iPads as they are much larger and it's easier to incorporate a camera and touch id etc.... it will be harder to put more in such a small device like the Watch. I forsee like you mentioned, making it slightly thinner, maybe less bezel, faster processor, more storage, better battery life, waterproof etc. Surely Apple won't want to make the device larger to accommodate a larger screen or better battery. This is why I see a longer life for each Watch iteration.
Comments
http://www.rolexforums.com/archive/index.php/t-249206.html
I think Apple are marketing this watch primarily to women; hence, the interview with the model early on.
As someone else astutely pointed out here, they tend to keep their phones in their handbags, so are more likely to find a use for the watch. For us men, who keep it in our pockets, there is less to be gained. I'm happy pulling my phone out of my pocket.
The question is: for how long will these women keep interested? My guess is that they will become frustrated by the tiny screen size, and they will resort to getting their phone out anyway. What if you get a text from someone about meeting and you want to look at a map? Do you really want to scroll around a 1" screen? No. You want to look at it on your phone, because it’s so much easier and more pleasant to do so. Repeat for endless scenarios.
I see this watch as a niche fitness device and no more; hence, the marathon video.
I think it's also about triaging notifications. It doesn't replace the phone, it just replaces a few of the tasks for which you require the phone, just like the iPhone replaced many of the tasks that normally require a computer.
"At a glance" is different to "at arms reach". It's subtle but no less powerful.
Don't forget that it also contains always-on sensors that provide your phone with more context about the user. It's not being leveraged actively now but in the future Siri could provide different responses to interactions based on your heart rate etc.
Quote: "and there is no financial distinction for Edition models."
You missed some info. The 38 mm Edition is $10k, while the 42mm is $12k. Somehow adding a different band choice can cost and additional $5k, as their most expensive Edition Watch is $17k. I guess I'll only get one of those. Yikes.
It's a bit insane though that changing bands on the stainless watch can add almost $500. How does a watch band cost more than the Sport Watch? There are some great bands, but I'll stick with the sport until Watch 2 comes out at half the thickness and new bands next year.
You'Re not getting half the thickness before 6-7 years minimum if ever. Very few watches are 5.5-6mm, except dainty women's watches.
Eventually they'll get to 8mm, probably in 5 years, unless screen tech becomes much more efficient than it is right now.
They'd probably prefer adding GPS or cell communications before reducing the watch too much though.
Correct, Apple Watch v2.0 will probably be same size, better battery life and better processor. The actual size of the watch isn't the problem. It should be roughly the same size for all iterations.
In addition, one of the complaints by watch reviewers is how bulky the watch is. I've read several such reviews that complain it doesn't pass the cuff test, meaning one has to force the shirt sleeve over the watch as the cuff doesn't easily slide over it. While that may not be an issue for all, certainly it will be for some, and likely provide a goal for Apple to slim the 2G down. Keep in mind Jony Ive is on record as not caring about a users battery life.
What I see Apple doing more likely is offering the last gen. model alongside the slimmer 2G model for less, opening the experience up to a much wider audience who will learn how indispensable the device can be, maybe even keeping it around as the "classic" watch for as long as the tech remains relevant. Indeed, why should Apple operate any differently than any other watchmaker? This is their first offering. Why does this have to be the only design offered for years? Perhaps they introduce a new model every year, and the ones that achieve a certain status remain in the lineup, perhaps for years, while others come and go in one season.
Except this flies in the face of Apple's previous business model, in which they frequently brag about shaving off juat 1mm from one gen. to the next. Unless they completely change their M.O., unless the watches are meant to be distinguished by tech alone, there's nothing about the hardware to encourage upgrading, which is the core of Apple's business. And while exciting new tech is nice, nothing drives adoption of that tech like a shiny new package, and I don't just mean new color options. I suppose if Apple manages to prevent third party watch band makers to market, they can turn the watch into an heirloom design that earns profits from the straps (which are arguably the only real style the watch brings to the table).
In addition, one of the complaints by watch reviewers is how bulky the watch is. I've read several such reviews that complain it doesn't pass the cuff test, meaning one has to force the shirt sleeve over the watch as the cuff doesn't easily slide over it. While that may not be an issue for all, certainly it will be for some, and likely provide a goal for Apple to slim the 2G down. Keep in mind Jony Ive is on record as not caring about a users battery life.
What I see Apple doing more likely is offering the last gen. model alongside the slimmer 2G model for less, opening the experience up to a much wider audience who will learn how indispensable the device can be, maybe even keeping it around as the "classic" watch for as long as the tech remains relevant. Indeed, why should Apple operate any differently than any other watchmaker? This is their first offering. Why does this have to be the only design offered for years? Perhaps they introduce a new model every year, and the ones that achieve a certain status remain in the lineup, perhaps for years, while others come and go in one season.
Yeah, I wasn't intended it to sound literally that Apple would keep it exactly the same size. What I do expect is that Apple with keep the form factor the same so that this years bands can fit next years bands. I agree that they will probably make it slightly thinner, but IMHO battery life will be more important in v2.0 than shaving a mm here and there.
With regards to thickness of the watch, it current width dimensions sit near the smaller of those around, with the Zenwatch being less, Pebble Steel is the same and everything else is thicker.
I agree that they will definitely keep it in the market and sell it at a reduced price whe v2.0 appears. I personally think the first cycle will be 18-24 months due to the shear time involved actually getting the Watch into the market. And don't forget that it may take until Summer or even Fall to get the Watch into other countries not in the first run.
Also, although I may seem naive, but I just don't think we will see the huge wholesale changes in tech and form factor in a year on year basis. It's easier to do it with iPhones and iPads as they are much larger and it's easier to incorporate a camera and touch id etc.... it will be harder to put more in such a small device like the Watch. I forsee like you mentioned, making it slightly thinner, maybe less bezel, faster processor, more storage, better battery life, waterproof etc. Surely Apple won't want to make the device larger to accommodate a larger screen or better battery. This is why I see a longer life for each Watch iteration.
Thanks for asking - here are my answers:
Which size? None.
Which material? None.
That's great, thanks for your input. We can all sleep better tonight knowing that you've graced us with your tuppence worth.
Thanks for asking - here are my answers:
Which size? None.
Which material? None.
That's great, thanks for your input. We can all sleep better tonight knowing that you've graced us with your tuppence worth.
Agreed.