Seems like all this is set up for fairly easy removal and replacement. This seems to me to lend credence to the idea that the Appl Watch will be upgradable by a simple replacement of its internals. That will reduce the price of upgrading significantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I think a Gen. 2 model will be much slimmer which should serve as an incentive to replace the whole watch not just the guts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallenjt
I don't want it slimmer. Just keep the same thickness and double/triple battery life.
I'm with you, fallenjt. And just because Apple, as many others have said, has never done it before doesn't mean they won't do it this time. Now, to be clear, I don't think it will necessarily be a situation where you get your same Watch back. And it may only be for the more expensive stainless steel and gold models. IOW, it might be more akin to a trade-in program. On the other hand, they may give you a "loaner" low-end watch while your actual watch is being upgraded.
I don't see why the Watch needs to get "thinner". It's already quite acceptable. I'd much rather see improvements in internals, batteries, and sensors than in the geometry of the Watch. Also, perhaps there will be a continuation of the old model and a new thinner model for those interested in that.
Apple continually reinvents itself. Just because it's "always" done something doesn't mean it can't change if it sees a good reason to do so.
And that's what Apple try to avoid: user upgradable hardware especially main board and CPU. They never did that before and never will. The only component that Apple allowed to upgrade was RAM in computers, but it's been gone lately too. I don't see why they will do this to harm the profit margin. Instead, they just make sure the new release of iOS backward compatible with 3-4 generations of Apple watch.
You are completely and totally wrong. Apple allows or had allowed RAM, graphics card, and processor upgrades.
That is not the Apple way. They will determine how long the battery should last for an average user and then make the watch as thin as possible and still retain that battery life. You might get a slight battery life improvement in a slimmer design, but If you want to predict the future of the ?Watch just look at the history of iPhone and iMac and Macbook. Thinner taken to the extreme.
One thing you're wrong when you compare the watch with phone and computer but forget about the competitors. iPhone and Macbook battery lives are either on par or exceed industry standard or competitors' products. Watch is a different story. If android stops making junks but starts to make decent watches with a week or longer battery life, I don't see Apple will stay at 18 hrs. Currently, android watches probably have 2 days or less on 1 full charge.
You are completely and totally wrong. Apple allows or had allowed RAM, graphics card, and processor upgrades.
HAD? Yes, on high end computers at the beginning, not mobile devices. Oh, tell me that Apple will change the gut of the iPhone first...yeah, it's more expensive than watch. Don't even mention the Edition watch in here because whoever can afford it doesn't give the shi.t about upgrading. If Apple update watch iOS and backward compatible with last 3 generations, there's no reason that they even think of the gut upgrade. It just doesn't make any business sense.
I love how some people (not here) are all of sudden chip experts suggesting Apple could have used something better but purposely chose not to just because. I'd love them to tell us what exactly what Apple should be using instead.
HAD? Yes, on high end computers at the beginning, not mobile devices. Oh, tell me that Apple will change the gut of the iPhone first...yeah, it's more expensive than watch. Don't even mention the Edition watch in here because whoever can afford it doesn't give the shi.t about upgrading. If Apple update watch iOS and backward compatible with last 3 generations, there's no reason that they even think of the gut upgrade. It just doesn't make any business sense.
I love how after being proven wrong that certain people try to change the subject and then filibuster on their new subject. That might work with some people, but it doesn't work with me.
Apple went with 28nm because there's isn't enough manufacturing capacity at 20nm. Why do you think nVidia had to stay at 28nm and make Maxwell Gen 2? Apple's hogging almost all of TSMC's 20nm fab capacity.
That is not the Apple way. They will determine how long the battery should last for an average user and then make the watch as thin as possible and still retain that battery life. You might get a slight battery life improvement in a slimmer design, but If you want to predict the future of the ?Watch just look at the history of iPhone and iMac and Macbook. Thinner taken to the extreme.
as watch is subject to more severe wear abuse than iPhone normal use abuse, it is not a 'very good' idea to make it as thin as possible. Watch Should Be Made As Thin As Possible, But Not Thinner.
just because Apple, as many others have said, has never done it before doesn't mean they won't do it this time.
Also, perhaps there will be a continuation of the old model and a new thinner model for those interested in that.
Apple continually reinvents itself. Just because it's "always" done something doesn't mean it can't change if it sees a good reason to do so.
This isn't about Apple changing their behavior. Certainly they have already changed they way they marketed and launched the ?Watch. This is about the realities of the watch itself. It's cost prohibitive to upgrade the watch. And, there's nothing of value in the stainless to make it worth trading in for the new model. The gold Edition however, has around $1-2K in gold Apple can credit against the next gen model and melt down to reuse for the next Edition. Does Apple give you anything for recycling your old Apple products at the Apple Store? No. So if Apple does this for the watch, then they're going too start doing this for all of their products? It just doesn't make financial sense, except for the Edition as I have stated. As a stockholder, I would be appalled if Apple offered such a low margin upgrade program.
But, as you allude, not offering an upgrade path allows them to continue to market the first gen watch, as they have with all of their other iOS products, at a lower entry price, while the 2nd gen watch gets premium prices. And the 2nd gen will need to be more than the same case with a faster processor.
I don't see why the Watch needs to get "thinner". It's already quite acceptable. I'd much rather see improvements in internals, batteries, and sensors than in the geometry of the Watch. Also, perhaps there will be a continuation of the old model and a new thinner model for those interested in that.
Apple continually reinvents itself. Just because it's "always" done something doesn't mean it can't change if it sees a good reason to do so.
I don't want it slimmer. Just keep the same thickness and double/triple battery life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
That is not the Apple way. They will determine how long the battery should last for an average user and then make the watch as thin as possible and still retain that battery life. You might get a slight battery life improvement in a slimmer design, but If you want to predict the future of the ?Watch just look at the history of iPhone and iMac and Macbook. Thinner taken to the extreme.
I thought it seemed a bit bulky from looking at the pictures online, but seeing it in person, and now wearing one since the 'launch' date, it does not seem bulky at all. It actually seems extremely well proportioned to me (I have the 42mm, I'm a medium build, 5'11" male).
The battery life is fantastic. I'm coming up on almost 12 hours of use and I'm at 78% battery. The only time I approach 30% by the time I go to sleep is if I've done an hour workout during the day. Charging every night seems like a natural routine and I'm not bothered by it one bit. I don't think sleep monitoring is an issue because this would be much more effectively done by a chest strap type monitor that includes pulse oximetry and respiration monitoring.
Trust me, when you're using the watch you don't give a rat's about it's processor specs, just like any other device. Of course the 2nd gen model will be faster and better, they always are! But if you can benefit from the current model then why wait for the next model (which will in turn be put out to pasture by the 3rd gen model a year or so later).
I'm surprised by the 28 nanometre process. That seems an obvious place to improve power consumption. Based on the complexity of iFixit's teardown I doubt that this is intentionally a modular component.
It will be interesting to see what the refresh cycle is like with this. I have a hunch Apple will be more likely to maintain the internals for the time-being and refresh the bands.
I'm surprised by the 28 nanometre process. That seems an obvious place to improve power consumption. Based on the complexity of iFixit's teardown I doubt that this is intentionally a modular component.
It will be interesting to see what the refresh cycle is like with this. I have a hunch Apple will be more likely to maintain the internals for the time-being and refresh the bands.
The hardware probably got frozen a while back to ensure that the software got developed properly (that was the key to the whole thing after all). The watch is getting pretty good performance already, probably from the tight integration with hardware; doesn't seem to be hurting right now. Also, the biggest consumer of power on the watch is not the CPU, it is the Screen, and probably also the communication part of the device (the light used for heart monitoring seems to also be a very big energy user).
I agree that's their MO, but considering the price and materials, this may be different. For instance, they could swap out the original internals for a small SoC and a larger battery since people would be unlikely to upgrade every few years.
Trust me, when you're using the watch you don't give a rat's about it's processor specs, just like any other device. Of course the 2nd gen model will be faster and better, they always are! But if you can benefit from the current model then why wait for the next model (which will in turn be put out to pasture by the 3rd gen model a year or so later).
Apple hasn't bragged about the recyclability of the Watch like they have with their computers. Think about that for a minute.
I love how some people (not here) are all of sudden chip experts suggesting Apple could have used something better but purposely chose not to just because. I'd love them to tell us what exactly what Apple should be using instead.
Last week they were business and supply chain experts.
Comments
see computers.
buy something when youll get value from it, because there will always be improvements. until youre dead.
Seems like all this is set up for fairly easy removal and replacement. This seems to me to lend credence to the idea that the Appl Watch will be upgradable by a simple replacement of its internals. That will reduce the price of upgrading significantly.
I think a Gen. 2 model will be much slimmer which should serve as an incentive to replace the whole watch not just the guts.
I don't want it slimmer. Just keep the same thickness and double/triple battery life.
I'm with you, fallenjt. And just because Apple, as many others have said, has never done it before doesn't mean they won't do it this time. Now, to be clear, I don't think it will necessarily be a situation where you get your same Watch back. And it may only be for the more expensive stainless steel and gold models. IOW, it might be more akin to a trade-in program. On the other hand, they may give you a "loaner" low-end watch while your actual watch is being upgraded.
I don't see why the Watch needs to get "thinner". It's already quite acceptable. I'd much rather see improvements in internals, batteries, and sensors than in the geometry of the Watch. Also, perhaps there will be a continuation of the old model and a new thinner model for those interested in that.
Apple continually reinvents itself. Just because it's "always" done something doesn't mean it can't change if it sees a good reason to do so.
That is not the Apple way. They will determine how long the battery should last for an average user and then make the watch as thin as possible and still retain that battery life. You might get a slight battery life improvement in a slimmer design, but If you want to predict the future of the ?Watch just look at the history of iPhone and iMac and Macbook. Thinner taken to the extreme.
One thing you're wrong when you compare the watch with phone and computer but forget about the competitors. iPhone and Macbook battery lives are either on par or exceed industry standard or competitors' products. Watch is a different story. If android stops making junks but starts to make decent watches with a week or longer battery life, I don't see Apple will stay at 18 hrs. Currently, android watches probably have 2 days or less on 1 full charge.
You are completely and totally wrong. Apple allows or had allowed RAM, graphics card, and processor upgrades.
HAD? Yes, on high end computers at the beginning, not mobile devices. Oh, tell me that Apple will change the gut of the iPhone first...yeah, it's more expensive than watch. Don't even mention the Edition watch in here because whoever can afford it doesn't give the shi.t about upgrading. If Apple update watch iOS and backward compatible with last 3 generations, there's no reason that they even think of the gut upgrade. It just doesn't make any business sense.
Nice try, though.
Apple went with 28nm because there's isn't enough manufacturing capacity at 20nm. Why do you think nVidia had to stay at 28nm and make Maxwell Gen 2? Apple's hogging almost all of TSMC's 20nm fab capacity.
just because Apple, as many others have said, has never done it before doesn't mean they won't do it this time.
Also, perhaps there will be a continuation of the old model and a new thinner model for those interested in that.
Apple continually reinvents itself. Just because it's "always" done something doesn't mean it can't change if it sees a good reason to do so.
This isn't about Apple changing their behavior. Certainly they have already changed they way they marketed and launched the ?Watch. This is about the realities of the watch itself. It's cost prohibitive to upgrade the watch. And, there's nothing of value in the stainless to make it worth trading in for the new model. The gold Edition however, has around $1-2K in gold Apple can credit against the next gen model and melt down to reuse for the next Edition. Does Apple give you anything for recycling your old Apple products at the Apple Store? No. So if Apple does this for the watch, then they're going too start doing this for all of their products? It just doesn't make financial sense, except for the Edition as I have stated. As a stockholder, I would be appalled if Apple offered such a low margin upgrade program.
But, as you allude, not offering an upgrade path allows them to continue to market the first gen watch, as they have with all of their other iOS products, at a lower entry price, while the 2nd gen watch gets premium prices. And the 2nd gen will need to be more than the same case with a faster processor.
So what did need to get thinner?
I don't want it slimmer. Just keep the same thickness and double/triple battery life.
That is not the Apple way. They will determine how long the battery should last for an average user and then make the watch as thin as possible and still retain that battery life. You might get a slight battery life improvement in a slimmer design, but If you want to predict the future of the ?Watch just look at the history of iPhone and iMac and Macbook. Thinner taken to the extreme.
I thought it seemed a bit bulky from looking at the pictures online, but seeing it in person, and now wearing one since the 'launch' date, it does not seem bulky at all. It actually seems extremely well proportioned to me (I have the 42mm, I'm a medium build, 5'11" male).
The battery life is fantastic. I'm coming up on almost 12 hours of use and I'm at 78% battery. The only time I approach 30% by the time I go to sleep is if I've done an hour workout during the day. Charging every night seems like a natural routine and I'm not bothered by it one bit. I don't think sleep monitoring is an issue because this would be much more effectively done by a chest strap type monitor that includes pulse oximetry and respiration monitoring.
Trust me, when you're using the watch you don't give a rat's about it's processor specs, just like any other device. Of course the 2nd gen model will be faster and better, they always are! But if you can benefit from the current model then why wait for the next model (which will in turn be put out to pasture by the 3rd gen model a year or so later).
It will be interesting to see what the refresh cycle is like with this. I have a hunch Apple will be more likely to maintain the internals for the time-being and refresh the bands.
I'm surprised by the 28 nanometre process. That seems an obvious place to improve power consumption. Based on the complexity of iFixit's teardown I doubt that this is intentionally a modular component.
It will be interesting to see what the refresh cycle is like with this. I have a hunch Apple will be more likely to maintain the internals for the time-being and refresh the bands.
The hardware probably got frozen a while back to ensure that the software got developed properly (that was the key to the whole thing after all). The watch is getting pretty good performance already, probably from the tight integration with hardware; doesn't seem to be hurting right now. Also, the biggest consumer of power on the watch is not the CPU, it is the Screen, and probably also the communication part of the device (the light used for heart monitoring seems to also be a very big energy user).
Hi there,
Apple Store employee here, we actually do recycle previous generation Apple Devices at the Apple Store; including iPhones, iPads, and iPods for value.
We also have a Mac trade-in recycling program at apple.com/recycling
Apple hasn't bragged about the recyclability of the Watch like they have with their computers. Think about that for a minute.
Apple wants you to enjoy your watch.
Last week they were business and supply chain experts.