Would it really be such a surprise if the new version didn't come out 6 months after the last round of watches were launched, and less than a year after the watches actually made it into the hands of the masses? Most stores didn't receive stock till much later (quite recently actually), and then to replace it with a new version already, could happen, but I wasn't expecting a new version quite so soon, rendering all those $10K watches and the rest of the gen 1s obsolete in mere months.
I get the point about it seeming like less than a year. However, I remember a good number of people pointing out that these people buying $10k+ watches might feel a bit put off when they became obsolete a year later. Responses mostly were in the vein of "people who can afford those don't care," "the actual gold will retain most of that value (it won't)," and so on.
...
This is just it. People who assert that "rich people don't care" don't know rich people. Drug dealers, 20-year-old professional athletes, and lottery winners may not care, but people who have money and know how to use it care very much. The owner of a loaded Mac Pro system would not generally consider replacing it after only one year. Apple sells Watch Editions at twice the price of a loaded Mac Pro.
The Watch Edition priced $18,000 is functionally identical to a Watch Sport priced at $400. The price premium of the Edition is perceived value, not intrinsic value. The few $1000 of gold used to fabricate the Edition's gold case does not account for the price premium over the Sport. If Apple replaces the Watch with a functionally more capable Watch 2, then the perceived value of the Edition drops to zero. Its resale price drops below that of a gold billet of the same mass. It also caps the price of a Watch 2 Edition to that of the current SS Watch.
If the Watch had been engineered with replaceable internals, then Apple could place it on a fairly rapid refresh schedule. However, its internals can be upgraded only by purchasing a new Watch. It cannot be emphasized enough that the Watch features upgradeable software. The OS is currently at watchOS 2.1. For years to come, I believe that Hermes edition and (PRODUCT)RED versions are the types of hardware updates that we can expect.
I love my Sport 42. I wear it everyday, and I use it often in about a dozen different ways.
I don't really care if an Apple Watch 2 comes soon or not. Whenever it comes, I'll get one, though.
Me too! I am growing more and more tired I'd the whining and criticism of why this revolutionary product is so bad. Just a few years ago, this simply a pipe dream, and now that it is here so many people complain it isn't perfect. Well, welcome to the world of innovative technology.
This is just it. People who assert that "rich people don't care" don't know rich people. Drug dealers, 20-year-old professional athletes, and lottery winners may not care, but people who have money and know how to use it care very much. The owner of a loaded Mac Pro system would not generally consider replacing it after only one year. Apple sells Watch Editions at twice the price of a loaded Mac Pro.
The Watch Edition priced $18,000 is functionally identical to a Watch Sport priced at $400. The price premium of the Edition is perceived value, not intrinsic value. The few $1000 of gold used to fabricate the Edition's gold case does not account for the price premium over the Sport. If Apple replaces the Watch with a functionally more capable Watch 2, then the perceived value of the Edition drops to zero. Its resale price drops below that of a gold billet of the same mass. It also caps the price of a Watch 2 Edition to that of the current SS Watch.
If the Watch had been engineered with replaceable internals, then Apple could place it on a fairly rapid refresh schedule. However, its internals can be upgraded only by purchasing a new Watch. It cannot be emphasized enough that the Watch features upgradeable software. The OS is currently at watchOS 2.1. For years to come, I believe that Hermes edition and (PRODUCT)RED versions are the types of hardware updates that we can expect.
The same can be said for those $100k mechanical watches, the value is only perceived. But then wouldn't we be surprise that the $10k Apple Watch is made different from the rest.
September 2014:announces Apple Watch march 2015: announced Apple Watch is a month from shipping April 2015:Sales of Apple Watch begin September 2015: version 2 of the software I can guess there will be a software update to it this spring(major or minor). But this might not be a yearly product, like the Apple TV which had a 5 in a half year period between major updates. 3 in a half if you consider the Atv 3.
This is just it. People who assert that "rich people don't care" don't know rich people. Drug dealers, 20-year-old professional athletes, and lottery winners may not care, but people who have money and know how to use it care very much. The owner of a loaded Mac Pro system would not generally consider replacing it after only one year. Apple sells Watch Editions at twice the price of a loaded Mac Pro.
The Watch Edition priced $18,000 is functionally identical to a Watch Sport priced at $400. The price premium of the Edition is perceived value, not intrinsic value. The few $1000 of gold used to fabricate the Edition's gold case does not account for the price premium over the Sport. If Apple replaces the Watch with a functionally more capable Watch 2, then the perceived value of the Edition drops to zero. Its resale price drops below that of a gold billet of the same mass. It also caps the price of a Watch 2 Edition to that of the current SS Watch.
If the Watch had been engineered with replaceable internals, then Apple could place it on a fairly rapid refresh schedule. However, its internals can be upgraded only by purchasing a new Watch. It cannot be emphasized enough that the Watch features upgradeable software. The OS is currently at watchOS 2.1. For years to come, I believe that Hermes edition and (PRODUCT)RED versions are the types of hardware updates that we can expect.
The same can be said for those $100k mechanical watches, the value is only perceived. But then wouldn't we be surprise that the $10k Apple Watch is made different from the rest.
I agree completely that the value of a $100K mechanical watch is largely perceived. The same is true of a $350K mechanical watch. In my not so humble opinion, every mechanical watch irrespective of price is obsolete. They have been obsolete for decades. The primary function of every watch is the same--to tell time. Most quartz watches irrespective of price perform this function better than most mechanical watches irrespective of price. Before I switched to the Watch, I wore a series of Casio G-Force watches. My Casio G-Force watches tell time better than every mechanical watch ever made.
Oddly enough, this obsolescence allows the well-crafted mechanical watch to maintain its perceived value. The owner does not expect it to be the best available timepiece. If it is broken, then it can be repaired. It can't be any less obsolete than it is now. The Watch has the exact opposite problem. No wrist-worn timepiece keeps better time. However, it has many other functions. If a new Watch is introduced that included functions not available on the older model, then the older model has the same perceived value as yesterday's newspaper.
The Watch Edition is Apple's most expensive consumer product ever. If Apple were to adopt the iPhone upgrade cycle for the Watch, then it would also have to adopt the iPhone pricing model for the Watch. In that event, the Watch Edition would be priced much, much less.
Would it really be such a surprise if the new version didn't come out 6 months after the last round of watches were launched, and less than a year after the watches actually made it into the hands of the masses? Most stores didn't receive stock till much later (quite recently actually), and then to replace it with a new version already, could happen, but I wasn't expecting a new version quite so soon, rendering all those $10K watches and the rest of the gen 1s obsolete in mere months.
Isn't it interesting that Wal-Mart and Target got the watch just in time for the holidays? And isn't it also interesting that despite Tim Cook explicitly stating that the Edition would be sold in "very limited" quantities, it's still on sale and readily available, 10 months after it went on sale, and Apple partners like Colette sold them for 50% off? Would it really be that surprising that Apple is clearing stock, and making the most of late start sales prior to the launch of a second generation product, that will boost renewed interest for new customers just in time for graduation gifts and anniversary presents? Apple isn't just selling to the reported 8 million people who bought the first gen watch -- there's 300 million iPhones out there, and over 290 million NEW customers for the watch. It's kind of myopic to base Apple's product cycle on the feelings of Apple's first gen customers, whose money they already have ... Unless of course you think the Watch is a failure and Apple will be depending exclusively on that group of 8 million customers to justify the product.
Of course I don't think it's a failure, just as I don't think they're (only) selling to the people who bought gen 1. That said, they just launched a few new versions of the watch (gen 1) a few months ago. Given that Apple never seems to want to bunch launches up too close to one other (of the same product), unless special circumstances occur (and this could certainly be one), they like to give a full 'unit of duration' between launches, normally never less than 1 year.
I'd be happy if they developed a gen 2 and are ready to launch it 1H, but my gut tells me not to be surprised if they don't have it all ready to go until later in the year. Maybe this last autumn introduction of new Watch options was just another touch of the Watch to keep interest up and going, or perhaps it was their establishing a point in the calendar marking the date one year in advance of the launch of gen 2. Who's to say? Just don't be surprised if it's the latter and not the former, that's I'm saying.
Since we're close either way I convinced myself to wait till gen 2 launch to pick up one for myself, whether it's 1H or 2H of this year.
It surprises me that no one seems to realize that the electronics of the Apple Watch are really simple to swap out: the computer-on-a-chip makes it easy. I think Apple will make it possible to upgrade the internals for a fraction of the prize of the Watch. Maybe even free for the Edition buyers. Faster internals, smaller electronics and bigger battery, GPS, etc.: it could all be realized in the future. Maybe even a camera, considering the small space between the bezel and the screen side. Add the already mentioned smart band upgrades, and the upgrade possibilities would be endless.
Alongside this, Apple could also add an upgraded Apple Watch: it wouldn't be more 'modern'; just another model added to an existing fashion line.
They are gonna have to sell a lot of watches to pay for that new headquarters spaceship building ! And once the fad of iPhone/iThing wears off, how are they going to continue to pay for that huge white elephant ? It is beautiful, absolutely, but are they simply going to transform into a car company?
I would really love to see a program for the Sport and SS models where you can trade in just the watch (no bands) towards the purchase of a new watch. The biggest problem with the Watch right now is how slow it is. If it was just a software issue you'd like it would have been fixed by now. Which leads me to believe Apple has some major improvement coming for the S2 chip.
They are gonna have to sell a lot of watches to pay for that new headquarters spaceship building ! And once the fad of iPhone/iThing wears off, how are they going to continue to pay for that huge white elephant ? It is beautiful, absolutely, but are they simply going to transform into a car company?
It's already paid for. You do know they're making 150B in profits a years.... And they got 200B in cash stashed. While this building costs 2.5B... Do the math... They only need to make maybe 0.25B in profit a year to pay for it (if they're not paying for it all upfront). They're done that much profit for the last 17 years.
A camera, really? What about GPS (did I mention GPS), or a watch that's always on, and visible in bright daylight and has a battery life of a week ...
Not going to happen with current battery constraints.
The competition has GPS and (dimmed) screens always on. Battery life for a week is maybe not possible currently, but half a week might be achievable. Apple's research and huge resources should be enough to let this be the specs of AW2.
It surprises me that no one seems to realize that the electronics of the Apple Watch are really simple to swap out: the computer-on-a-chip makes it easy. I think Apple will make it possible to upgrade the internals for a fraction of the prize of the Watch. Maybe even free for the Edition buyers. Faster internals, smaller electronics and bigger battery, GPS, etc.: it could all be realized in the future. Maybe even a camera, considering the small space between the bezel and the screen side. Add the already mentioned smart band upgrades, and the upgrade possibilities would be endless.
Alongside this, Apple could also add an upgraded Apple Watch: it wouldn't be more 'modern'; just another model added to an existing fashion line.
Um-m-m-m-m, no. Before the Watch was released, there was some speculation that its internals would be swappable or upgradeable. As soon as the Watch was released, it was clear to all the people on Earth and all the ships at sea that the Watch's internals are not swappable or upgradeable.
It so happens that I have personal experience with this. The software in my 42 mm Space Black SS Watch went sideways. Apple tech support and I did everything that we could to solve the problem. After exhausting all standard measures, Apple replaced my Watch with a new one, new serial number and all. You can say that the internals were replaced. They were replaced--along with the case.
I get the point about it seeming like less than a year. However, I remember a good number of people pointing out that these people buying $10k+ watches might feel a bit put off when they became obsolete a year later. Responses mostly were in the vein of "people who can afford those don't care," "the actual gold will retain most of that value (it won't)," and so on.
...
This is just it. People who assert that "rich people don't care" don't know rich people. Drug dealers, 20-year-old professional athletes, and lottery winners may not care, but people who have money and know how to use it care very much. The owner of a loaded Mac Pro system would not generally consider replacing it after only one year. Apple sells Watch Editions at twice the price of a loaded Mac Pro.
you're still thinking about it wrong. buying a loaded Pro (a tool used to generate income) isn't the same as buying a gold watch (jewelry used to show off income). you can't apply the same, normal, practical way of thinking about it. there are tons of wealthy people (say the rising new money in China) who desire gold status symbols. they don't buy their status symbols as investments or practical tools. they will upgrade.
It surprises me that no one seems to realize that the electronics of the Apple Watch are really simple to swap out: the computer-on-a-chip makes it easy.
it's been discussed here quite a bit. it seems unlikely.
They are gonna have to sell a lot of watches to pay for that new headquarters spaceship building ! And once the fad of iPhone/iThing wears off, how are they going to continue to pay for that huge white elephant ? It is beautiful, absolutely, but are they simply going to transform into a car company?
ah yes, the one-trick pony trope. let's take a look at apples one-tricks, shall we:
Apple II
Macintosh
iMac
iPod
iTunes Store
MacBooks
iPhone
iPad
Watch
...each of which was or is a market leader. certainly looks like Apple is a producer of serial hits to me.
Not going to happen with current battery constraints.
The competition has GPS and (dimmed) screens always on. Battery life for a week is maybe not possible currently, but half a week might be achievable. Apple's research and huge resources should be enough to let this be the specs of AW2.
er, no. money alone doesn't allow one to get past the battery chemistry of current battery tech. otherwise it'd be done by now.
Not going to happen with current battery constraints.
The competition has GPS and (dimmed) screens always on. Battery life for a week is maybe not possible currently, but half a week might be achievable. Apple's research and huge resources should be enough to let this be the specs of AW2.
Huh WTH no it doesn't BUD. Show me the god them model. The only ones that are always on are e-ink type watches, or extra low resolution. So, not the same thing at all. Got that.
GPS always on means a few hours of battery life (especially for a small watch like this); there is no miracle, except maybe in your imaginary world.
If GPS lasts a long time, the watch needs to be HUGE; so it's not competitive at all; QUIT LYING.
For some "know it all", you know not much at all. Anyone who uses self agrandisement in their name tag is usually someone in dire need of attention.
It surprises me that no one seems to realize that the electronics of the Apple Watch are really simple to swap out: the computer-on-a-chip makes it easy. I think Apple will make it possible to upgrade the internals for a fraction of the prize of the Watch. Maybe even free for the Edition buyers. Faster internals, smaller electronics and bigger battery, GPS, etc.: it could all be realized in the future. Maybe even a camera, considering the small space between the bezel and the screen side. Add the already mentioned smart band upgrades, and the upgrade possibilities would be endless.
Alongside this, Apple could also add an upgraded Apple Watch: it wouldn't be more 'modern'; just another model added to an existing fashion line.
In theory easy, in practice, not easy... Why? Because is probably not ready to commit to the external interface (sensors, GPS, Cell, etc) right now and even the internal size could change as functions are added.
When the watch is essentially mature, say in 5 years, swapping the internals may be a thing, at least to keep up with processing advances; but, not for now.
Comments
The Watch Edition priced $18,000 is functionally identical to a Watch Sport priced at $400. The price premium of the Edition is perceived value, not intrinsic value. The few $1000 of gold used to fabricate the Edition's gold case does not account for the price premium over the Sport. If Apple replaces the Watch with a functionally more capable Watch 2, then the perceived value of the Edition drops to zero. Its resale price drops below that of a gold billet of the same mass. It also caps the price of a Watch 2 Edition to that of the current SS Watch.
If the Watch had been engineered with replaceable internals, then Apple could place it on a fairly rapid refresh schedule. However, its internals can be upgraded only by purchasing a new Watch. It cannot be emphasized enough that the Watch features upgradeable software. The OS is currently at watchOS 2.1. For years to come, I believe that Hermes edition and (PRODUCT)RED versions are the types of hardware updates that we can expect.
The same can be said for those $100k mechanical watches, the value is only perceived.
But then wouldn't we be surprise that the $10k Apple Watch is made different from the rest.
What about GPS (did I mention GPS), or a watch that's always on, and visible in bright daylight and has a battery life of a week ...
march 2015: announced Apple Watch is a month from shipping
April 2015:Sales of Apple Watch begin
September 2015: version 2 of the software
I can guess there will be a software update to it this spring(major or minor). But this might not be a yearly product, like the Apple TV which had a 5 in a half year period between major updates. 3 in a half if you consider the Atv 3.
Oddly enough, this obsolescence allows the well-crafted mechanical watch to maintain its perceived value. The owner does not expect it to be the best available timepiece. If it is broken, then it can be repaired. It can't be any less obsolete than it is now. The Watch has the exact opposite problem. No wrist-worn timepiece keeps better time. However, it has many other functions. If a new Watch is introduced that included functions not available on the older model, then the older model has the same perceived value as yesterday's newspaper.
The Watch Edition is Apple's most expensive consumer product ever. If Apple were to adopt the iPhone upgrade cycle for the Watch, then it would also have to adopt the iPhone pricing model for the Watch. In that event, the Watch Edition would be priced much, much less.
I'd be happy if they developed a gen 2 and are ready to launch it 1H, but my gut tells me not to be surprised if they don't have it all ready to go until later in the year. Maybe this last autumn introduction of new Watch options was just another touch of the Watch to keep interest up and going, or perhaps it was their establishing a point in the calendar marking the date one year in advance of the launch of gen 2. Who's to say? Just don't be surprised if it's the latter and not the former, that's I'm saying.
Since we're close either way I convinced myself to wait till gen 2 launch to pick up one for myself, whether it's 1H or 2H of this year.
I think Apple will make it possible to upgrade the internals for a fraction of the prize of the Watch. Maybe even free for the Edition buyers.
Faster internals, smaller electronics and bigger battery, GPS, etc.: it could all be realized in the future. Maybe even a camera, considering the small space between the bezel and the screen side.
Add the already mentioned smart band upgrades, and the upgrade possibilities would be endless.
Alongside this, Apple could also add an upgraded Apple Watch: it wouldn't be more 'modern'; just another model added to an existing fashion line.
They are gonna have to sell a lot of watches to pay for that new headquarters spaceship building ! And once the fad of iPhone/iThing wears off, how are they going to continue to pay for that huge white elephant ? It is beautiful, absolutely, but are they simply going to transform into a car company?
While this building costs 2.5B... Do the math...
They only need to make maybe 0.25B in profit a year to pay for it (if they're not paying for it all upfront).
They're done that much profit for the last 17 years.
Battery life for a week is maybe not possible currently, but half a week might be achievable.
Apple's research and huge resources should be enough to let this be the specs of AW2.
It so happens that I have personal experience with this. The software in my 42 mm Space Black SS Watch went sideways. Apple tech support and I did everything that we could to solve the problem. After exhausting all standard measures, Apple replaced my Watch with a new one, new serial number and all. You can say that the internals were replaced. They were replaced--along with the case.
it's been discussed here quite a bit. it seems unlikely.
...each of which was or is a market leader. certainly looks like Apple is a producer of serial hits to me.
The only ones that are always on are e-ink type watches, or extra low resolution.
So, not the same thing at all. Got that.
GPS always on means a few hours of battery life (especially for a small watch like this); there is no miracle, except maybe in your imaginary world.
If GPS lasts a long time, the watch needs to be HUGE; so it's not competitive at all; QUIT LYING.
For some "know it all", you know not much at all.
Anyone who uses self agrandisement in their name tag is usually someone in dire need of attention.
When the watch is essentially mature, say in 5 years, swapping the internals may be a thing, at least to keep up with processing advances; but, not for now.