User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Apple Products »

Apple Watch


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Apple Watch
Page 2 of 11 Previous 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next Last Thread Tools
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2014-09-10, 13:28

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post
As I was saying in another thread, when I think about it I'm not sure there's even that much of a downside for the Watch to need an iPhone. The one use case I've seen where that's a problem is running-- but a lot of the functionality is still there, just not GPS.

So given that a watch is never going to replace your phone outright (the fact that Apple was obliged to make bigger phones should be proof enough of that), how often are you going to be wearing a smart watch but inexplicably not want to have your phone?
The lack of GPS when running is troubling though. How does it track distance? The FitBit is pretty bad at it. Another thing is that listening to music while running is a key feature for me. The larger iPhones won't be good for that. What to do???

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-10, 13:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by torifile View Post
The lack of GPS when running is troubling though. How does it track distance? The FitBit is pretty bad at it. Another thing is that listening to music while running is a key feature for me. The larger iPhones won't be good for that. What to do???
From Apple's Watch features page:

Quote:
Music. Control the music on your iPhone without taking it out of your pocket. And when you leave iPhone at home to go for a jog, listen to music directly on Apple Watch.
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-10, 13:58

The more I look at it, the more I think Apple sat down and said "A watch is a personal, intimate thing, even more so than the phone. How can we make it feel like an extension of your personality? What can we do to make it an engaging experience that people will actually want to use?"

When you look at the features page, one of the very first things is customizability. All those finishes and bands, plus all those watch faces, plus the "complications", which I am pleased to learn is a term from traditional watchmaking, that allow you to put your choice of widget things into the corners of your watch face.

Next is "more immediate ways to connect." They put a dedicated button on the thing for contacts, and contacts are shown with little head shots. You silence incoming phone calls by covering it with your hand. What could be more natural? There's that person to person walkie-talkie thing. Those weird little person to person doodle things, or "sharing" heartbeats.

There's the "taptics" notifications, that keep things entirely between you and your watch without the irritating buzzing or dinging. The new pressure and velocity aware touch, which I predict will rapidly become second nature to anyone using this, and open up a whole new world of access to functionality.

Is some of it gimmicky? Maybe, but there sure seems to have been a lot of thought around how a device like this could feel warm. Not some techno whiz bang digital life unit, but fun. Human. Genuinely personal.

Add in the sensors that allow health and exercise tracking, the ability to do the Pay trick, and maybe, just maybe, Apple is figuring out why you would want a smart watch. Not because of features or specs, but because you like it. It feels right. It feels good. After a while, you wonder how you ever got along without it.

That's the Apple X-factor, isn't it? We see some hardware and some demos and it's easy to go "yeah, I guess, but why?" And then it turns out all the little things, all the little choices and details and the way it all works together, that's the innovation. That's the product. And you don't know what that really is until you use one.

So of course that all might be the worst kind of fan boy rationalization. This could be a bit of a miss for Apple, especially at the announced price points. But if there's a huge new category defining hit here for Apple, its appeal is going to be in the coolness of the experience, and the way that coolness connects to something more than just the gadget hound in you, not in the specs or hardware design or even any given "feature." Just like always.

That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2014-09-10, 14:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post
From Apple's Watch features page:
Interesting. I wonder if there will be some way to keep something like a Beats playlist offline for when you're not connected to the device. Sounds like Beats will be getting into the bluetooth headphones business ASAP.

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-09-10, 14:05

Quote:
Originally Posted by torifile View Post
The lack of GPS when running is troubling though. How does it track distance? The FitBit is pretty bad at it. Another thing is that listening to music while running is a key feature for me. The larger iPhones won't be good for that. What to do???
You get a arm/bicep case for your iPhone, you put the watch on your wrist, and then you clip an iPod shuffle to your shirt (or ear), have the Beats headphones connected to the nano in your pocket (for the FM radio). Simple...what's the problem?
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-10, 14:06

Yeah, you'd have to assume that Apple isn't putting a huge amount of storage on this thing, so I'm guessing the music on the go part is largely a matter of selecting playlists before hand.

Still, they've mentioned that the watch can use the new Continuity feature, so I imagine it will be super easy to move seamlessly from iPhone or Mac to Watch.

That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated
  quote
Mugge
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
 
2014-09-10, 15:29

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle View Post
One thing that wasn't clear was using the watch as a phone. Am I going to be talking to this thing like Penny in Inspector Gadget?
Her computer watch is actually what I have been considering the ideal smart watch all along. We'll, if we take out the ridiculously powerful laser and hacking tools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post
As I was saying in another thread, when I think about it I'm not sure there's even that much of a downside for the Watch to need an iPhone. The one use case I've seen where that's a problem is running-- but a lot of the functionality is still there, just not GPS.

So given that a watch is never going to replace your phone outright (the fact that Apple was obliged to make bigger phones should be proof enough of that), how often are you going to be wearing a smart watch but inexplicably not want to have your phone?
I don't think that is a given at all. Why bother with two devices when you can just have one. Sure there are many things that the Apple Watch presently can't do that the iPhone can. But Apple just showed us a lot new UI innovations that made the current Apple Watch practical, so why stop here? In the future there may even be some way of browsing the internet on it and then smart phones might just be reduced to some sort of tethered screen like headphones are for sound today.

To take another page from Inspector Gadget, Penny always wore her watch, but when she needed to some something more fancy she brought along her bigger computer book for such purposes. Sort of like having an Apple Watch for the usual things to do and then an iPad for the tasks that do require a big screen. Having in-between devices are just wasteful clutter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
You get a arm/bicep case for your iPhone, you put the watch on your wrist, and then you clip an iPod shuffle to your shirt (or ear), have the Beats headphones connected to the nano in your pocket (for the FM radio). Simple...what's the problem?
Now that is so not the Apple way!
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-10, 16:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugge View Post
I don't think that is a given at all. Why bother with two devices when you can just have one. Sure there are many things that the Apple Watch presently can't do that the iPhone can. But Apple just showed us a lot new UI innovations that made the current Apple Watch practical, so why stop here? In the future there may even be some way of browsing the internet on it and then smart phones might just be reduced to some sort of tethered screen like headphones are for sound today.
I went into it further in the other thread, but basically I'm looking at the reasons that people demanded a bigger iPhone-- because they like to watch movies, look at pictures, read more of a web page at once, play games with more immersion, etc.

For the foreseeable future, watches can't do any of that. Not do it somewhat less well so you can weigh the tradeoff, but can't. At all. No one in their right mind is going to try to browse the web on a 1.7" screen. Or watch a movie. Or watch streaming video. Or try to read anything more than a few lines of text.

So sure, at some point there might be some kind of virtual screen technology that isn't repellent to the average person like Google Glass, but if the question is "why bother with two devices when you can just have one" the answer is "because you can't." Not now and not anytime soon. By the time magic brain implant (literally) heads up displays happen, we can see what Apple does with it, but for this watch and these phones, and what people want to do with phones, today, there's no such thing as a wrist sized replacement.

That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2014-09-10, 18:18

I Iiked this overview of the watch. I think the author nailed what seems to be my internal debate about the watch. I have a watch I absolutely love and I have a hard time seeing myself displacing it for the apple watch. But considering I am a complete tech geek, I will probably end up buying one.

That said, I hope that someone comes out with some retro watch games. I loved those things when I was younger.
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-10, 20:15

Quote:
Originally Posted by torifile View Post
I Iiked this overview of the watch. I think the author nailed what seems to be my internal debate about the watch. I have a watch I absolutely love and I have a hard time seeing myself displacing it for the apple watch. But considering I am a complete tech geek, I will probably end up buying one.

That said, I hope that someone comes out with some retro watch games. I loved those things when I was younger.
Really interesting perspective. Couple of takeaways: Despite looking a bit thick in the standalone shots, every time I see it shown on a wrist it looks fine. Not sure if that's just an angle or what. Also, I'm really struck by how impressed the watch guy is with the fit and finish and attention to detail. He heaps praise on the clasp systems, how the band swap-out works, how you can adjust length without tools on the linked bands, and just generally how it feels like a more expensive watch that it is, even compared to the incumbents in the industry. Pretty impressive stuff for a first try.

His only concerns seem to be entirely centered around the Watch's cache as a watch-- that compared to the highly desirable analog timepieces that watch people covet, it just can't evoke that sense of old world quality.

I think that's a given, but given that "watch" is just one of dozens of jobs one would hire this device to do, I don't think it's a huge stumbling block for success.

That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2014-09-10, 22:01

If you've ever had to resize a standard bracelet or god forbid a mesh bracelet, you'd understand the reason for the praise. Those things are abominations of creation.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-09-11, 04:27

Yeah, that Benjamin Clymer piece is good. (Thanks for pointing it out, torifile.) He clearly articulates what I’ve vaguely felt all along.

Although there will always be people who appreciate fine mechanical watches, the risk is that the Apple Watch will prove so alluring and ultimately useful that it will squeeze everything else off the wrists of WISs across the world. And at that point, collecting watches becomes merely collecting them. Since a great part of the appeal of watch collecting is in fact wearing them and enjoying their functionality, this will indubitably reduce the number of mechanical watches sold – if it happens.

Maybe Switzerland is, after all, effed. Although it must be remembered that similar predictions were made when Quartz watches hit the scene. It will be much easier to analyse the true threat to Swiss watch brands with hindsight. For now, the more important question is whether the Apple Watch will sell to people who don’t have fine Swiss watches, which is of course the vast majority of us.

Apple does have a remarkable advantage in trying to get this adopted: its smartphone market share is disproportionately high among people who have fine watches, care about nice things generally, care about fashion, or just have more money than average.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
turbulentfurball
Right Honourable Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Québec
Send a message via ICQ to turbulentfurball Send a message via AIM to turbulentfurball Send a message via MSN to turbulentfurball  
2014-09-11, 04:36

Regarding Apple Watch and Apple Pay


Quote:
It works like this: Each time you put on your shiny new watch, you’ll be required to enter your PIN. This opens up the device for NFC payments, allowing you to use it to purchase items from stores (that support Apple Pay) as you go about your day.
The sensors on the underside of the device can detect if the watch is removed from your wrist. If this happens, you’ll have to re-enter the PIN when you put the device back on in order to re-enable its contactless payment functionality. As you can see, this should, in theory, prevent anyone other than you from using your Apple Watch to make in-store payments (unless they know your PIN, that is).
I was wondering how this was going to work without Touch ID - and this seems like a great solution. No heartbeat, no Apple Pay.
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2014-09-11, 05:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by torifile View Post
If you've ever had to resize a standard bracelet or god forbid a mesh bracelet, you'd understand the reason for the praise. Those things are abominations of creation.
The difficulty in removing a link from a standard metal watch band is the extra step of buying the tools for the job, otherwise it's actually quite a simple process that anybody can do in a couple of minutes.
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2014-09-11, 07:49

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene View Post
The difficulty in removing a link from a standard metal watch band is the extra step of buying the tools for the job, otherwise it's actually quite a simple process that anybody can do in a couple of minutes.
Unless the pin system is a pin and collar where you have to keep track of the pins and collars. Or you're between link sizes. It's not complicated but it isn't trivial especially if you've never done it before and don't want to damage your fancy watch or strap.

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tidewater Virginia
 
2014-09-11, 10:29

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbulentfurball View Post
Regarding Apple Watch and Apple Pay

...

I was wondering how this was going to work without Touch ID - and this seems like a great solution. No heartbeat, no Apple Pay.
I was wondering too, thanks for sharing this. I like the idea too. If it's stolen from you then they still can't use it. Wonder if it works the same with the room key thing.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2014-09-11, 12:18

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbulentfurball View Post
Regarding Apple Watch and Apple Pay




I was wondering how this was going to work without Touch ID - and this seems like a great solution. No heartbeat, no Apple Pay.
Just wait till someone comes up with a way to activate this system unknown to you. Yah, more ways for people to rip you off when you don't know it!
  quote
Mugge
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
 
2014-09-11, 13:22

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post
(…)

For the foreseeable future, watches can't do any of that. Not do it somewhat less well so you can weigh the tradeoff, but can't. At all. No one in their right mind is going to try to browse the web on a 1.7" screen. Or watch a movie. Or watch streaming video. Or try to read anything more than a few lines of text.

(…)
For the next few years I agree with you. But I’m willing to bet that there are enough people out there like me, who thinks that the independent smart watch is such a compelling idea that a decent solution eventually will emerge. And since Apple has proven that they understand that sometimes you have to cannibalise your own products lest the competition does it for you, I think it’s a reasonably safe bet that Apple also will end up offering such a device. I know that there already exist some independent smart watches, but so far the ones I have seen aren’t alll that smart. Simply sticking a SIM card in a Galaxy Gear isn’t enough to satisfy my dreams.

As of now there are really only two major hurdles, though, they are formidable: 1) Finding a substitute for the phone sized touch screen UI and 2) developing a suitably energy dense battery to drive watch. If you take away the chassis, screen and battery from an iPhone the remaining components don’t take up very much space and they could already today be crammed into a watch sized device.

The way I see it there are essentially three models:

1) A smart phone centric model where the phone is the central hub and the watch is an extension like headphones and such. This is what we have today.

2) A smart watch centric model where the watch assumes the role of the phone and phone perhaps is just a tethered screen that you carry around. This is probably unrealistic, as some/most people will still prefer smart phones over watches.

3) An equal model where both phones and watches are independent devices that either work alone or together. There was a writer at Infoworld.com who was very excited about Apples Hand off tech and thought that “liquid computing” was the future of computing. Briefly put, your data is synced over all your devices and it doesn’t matter which one you pick up or leave at home.

As I said, I would prefer a high low mix whit one device that I can always carry on me and do most tasks on and then a higher end device that can do the heavy lifting and isn’t constrained by the size of my pockets. Presently a smart phone can easily fill the low role, but a smart watch would be even more mobile and if I started wearing one anyway and it could do most of a phones tasks, then why bother with the phone?

Even if it won’t be able to do all the things a smart phone can do, it’s kinda the same argument as with the laptops and tablets: People were dismissing the iPad because it couldn’t do the same things as the laptop, but it turned out that as long as you could do most of the things and offer a more mobile package to off set the lack of features, then people were willing to buy into it. And look, today you can even get MS Office for the iPad.

I accept that some/most people might prefer to just stay with smart phones, maybe even just model no. 1, but I’m convinced independent working smart watches also will show up inside the next three to four years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by torifile View Post
I Iiked this overview of the watch. I think the author nailed what seems to be my internal debate about the watch. I have a watch I absolutely love and I have a hard time seeing myself displacing it for the apple watch. But considering I am a complete tech geek, I will probably end up buying one.

That said, I hope that someone comes out with some retro watch games. I loved those things when I was younger.
That is a really good review!

Ars also has an article about how Microsoft once tried with smart watches (and apparently coffeemakers): http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/...-smartwatches/

Well, at least they weren’t trying as hard as with tablets.
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-11, 15:44

The reenter PIN when you take off your watch and/or die is a great solution. It suggests that Apple is really putting some thought and effort into how something intimate as a watch can function as a digital interface to the activities in your life.

I wonder if at some point the biometric reads will be sophisticated enough to take a snapshot of your vitals such that they are unique as a fingerprint, and serve as a completely secure way of verifying your identity at all times, without any intervention from the user.

That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated
  quote
Messiahtosh
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-09-11, 17:15

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post
The reenter PIN when you take off your watch and/or die is a great solution. It suggests that Apple is really putting some thought and effort into how something intimate as a watch can function as a digital interface to the activities in your life.

I wonder if at some point the biometric reads will be sophisticated enough to take a snapshot of your vitals such that they are unique as a fingerprint, and serve as a completely secure way of verifying your identity at all times, without any intervention from the user.
Except there will be a lot of factors that could throw it off (chugging a red bull)...
  quote
Messiahtosh
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-09-11, 17:23

Does anyone wonder if the pricing is sort of deceiving? The $349 price might only refer to the price of the watch without a band. It also might only refer to the price of the smaller of the two options. I'm guessing an Apple Watch with a band at the full size will be $450 as the least expensive option for the larger size face/screen.

"We are reviewing some 9,000 recent UNHCR referrals from Syria. We are receiving roughly a thousand new ones each month, and we expect admissions from Syria to surge in 2015 and beyond." - Anne C. Richard, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
  quote
turbulentfurball
Right Honourable Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Québec
Send a message via ICQ to turbulentfurball Send a message via AIM to turbulentfurball Send a message via MSN to turbulentfurball  
2014-09-11, 17:33

I don't think they'll make the larger one more expensive. It's a valid assumption that most of the smaller ones will be bought by women and the larger ones by men - it'd amount to some kind of gender tax.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-09-11, 17:49

I can't wait to hear what they crazy gold one is going to go for.

On those bands, I see that they slide in from the side (and that many - all? - of the clasps are magnetic). Do either of those seem like iffy, "less than" approaches? Granted, we don't know so much. But all I've been able to think is "what would keep that face from wanting to slide or scoot around over time (or with any strong movement/force)"? Does it lock or snap into place, or is it just held there via friction, being so exquisitely-crafted and engineered? What keeps it in that slot, once you slide a band into the face housing? And the magnet thing, vs. a locked-in buckle or cinched type of closure...if you ran your wrist across a railing a certain way, or if you're engaging in some horseplay or whatever, would it be easy to undo and fall off?

Hope they're very strong magnets, because we don't need some sort of ugly backlash/scandal brewing.

Quote:
Dear Mr. Cook,

I just spent $479 on a particular watch/band combo. I high-fived a co-worker (long story) while walking back from lunch this afternoon, and the damn thing popped loose and fell into a storm grate. Really?!

Signed,
A Crestfallen First-Worlder in Boston

Quote:
Dear Crestfallen,

You're wearing it wrong.

Best,
Tim

PS - Go Sox!
  quote
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2014-09-11, 18:02

I think grabbing 1 set of white and 1 set of black bands, then mixing them on the watch could be fun. Have one half of the watch face be black on white and the other white on black. Then attach the contrasting band to each side. Or have a face with that yin/yang swirl, paired with the black/white band combo.

But mostly, I want that Milanese-chain mail armor band, and one of the classic link bands.

These things may come out smack in the middle of tax-return season!

Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents!
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-09-11, 18:15

I didn't think about that. You could mix and match the bands, assuming the connection was the same? But different colors or whatever.

Everyone's got $349 in mind (that's all I thought/heard on Tuesday), but that's just the starting price. It could get up there pretty quick.

I'd have to believe, referring to Messiah's question above, that you buy a watch and it'll come with a basic band that pairs nicely with that style (maybe just black). But if you want something special or funky, that's where the extra money comes in? Because it would be a gazillion times easier for Apple to just ship all these things out with a black (or silver, depending) band for each of the three styles. But the accessory rack at the Apple Store, Target, Best Buy, etc. is where you'd see all the various bands for sale. I can't imagine the logistics and hassle of shipping these many sport ones, with this many green, that many blue, then the gold one with various combinations, etc. They're better off just providing a barebones, but nice, one...and then raking in all the money from everyone looking to customize. I imagine there will be users who may own multiple bands for different looks or moods (assuming they're reasonably priced).

What about third parties? Will Apple Watch bands be the iPhone cases of 2015 and beyond? As long as you can make connector that slides into that groove on the watch, I assume third-party bands are possible? There are no electronics or sensors in the bands themselves, as far as I know. Imagine that industry, should these things truly take off.

Apple could always stay one step ahead of it all by slightly tweaking the connection specs with each revision (a third-party band from 2015 wouldn't fit the 2016 Rev. B iWatch because Apple changed the size and shape of how the band connects to the watch, etc.
  quote
Messiahtosh
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-09-11, 18:30

I think many people who do buy one will go for a sports-oriented band for sports and casual wear and one for more formal settings like work or going out. If I was seeing it properly, it looked like the bands kind of snap into the underside of the watch body, and it looks pretty secure. It seems that it would require a concerted effort to disconnect the band.

Also, the logistics of this thing are serious:
3 separate lines with two finishes in each, and then numerous bands. Cook is the master of supply-chain, so i'm sure it'll be worked out but it looks as nuts as any iPod mini lineup they've ever had and then some.

"We are reviewing some 9,000 recent UNHCR referrals from Syria. We are receiving roughly a thousand new ones each month, and we expect admissions from Syria to surge in 2015 and beyond." - Anne C. Richard, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-11, 19:33

My guess is that each model will come with a "base" band (baseband, ha) that's the least expensive option that works with the finish and you can upgrade from there. Maybe the Watch Sport will be the $349 model and be available off the shelf in a variety of band colors, like iPods have been. The Watch will come with, maybe, the link bracelet? And cost, what, another $50? Or would it be $100? Then the Watch Edition would come with a poor person to carry your watch and tell you what it says.

That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2014-09-11, 20:03

Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiahtosh View Post
Does anyone wonder if the pricing is sort of deceiving? The $349 price might only refer to the price of the watch without a band. It also might only refer to the price of the smaller of the two options. I'm guessing an Apple Watch with a band at the full size will be $450 as the least expensive option for the larger size face/screen.
I think all Apple Watches will come with a band, especially since they don't work with standard watch bands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbulentfurball View Post
I don't think they'll make the larger one more expensive. It's a valid assumption that most of the smaller ones will be bought by women and the larger ones by men - it'd amount to some kind of gender tax.
I wrestled with this, in the predictions I posted above. But I decided that I think they will be different prices, just because it's the only way I could make the odd $349 starting price make sense. It's just such a weird price to launch a major new initiative at—it feels sort of leaving-money-on-the-table-y, since they could either bump it up to $399 with minimal impact on volume or drop it to $299 for much higher volumes.

The only way I could make the price make sense to me was assuming that the larger model would be $50 more. That works out nicely—it puts their likely volume sellers at $399 and (assuming a $100 bump for the stainless steel/sapphire "main" model) $499. I think Apple really wanted to get that particular model at the magic $499 point.

And a gender tax? If ladies make 70 cents on the dollar compared to men, a $50 discount is the least Apple can do. And note that they never call them women's and men's sizes. I might get the 38mm, just because I have small wrists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post
My guess is that each model will come with a "base" band (baseband, ha) that's the least expensive option that works with the finish and you can upgrade from there. Maybe the Watch Sport will be the $349 model and be available off the shelf in a variety of band colors, like iPods have been. The Watch will come with, maybe, the link bracelet? And cost, what, another $50? Or would it be $100? Then the Watch Edition would come with a poor person to carry your watch and tell you what it says.
I see the "main" Watch costing more than $50 more than the Sport, and I think the cheapest option will still include the same sport band as the Apple Watch Sport. If it was just $50 difference, it's almost like why would they bother. The Apple Watch Sport definitely has the vibe of a cheaper, cut-down model — "Sport" is almost like "mini" or "lite" in this case. It very deliberately says, this is the entry level, without the shiny steel or sapphire crystal.

I think it definitely says something that this middle Apple Watch is just called Apple Watch. I think Apple views it as their volume seller, at least at first. The Apple Watch with white sport band is the most commonly pictured watch on Apple's site, and it's the one in the front page. I'd bet my ass that exact model is going to be $499 (and $449 for the small one), and then go up as you move to leather or metal bands.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Brave Ulysses
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2014-09-11, 23:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo View Post
I think it definitely says something that this middle Apple Watch is just called Apple Watch. I think Apple views it as their volume seller, at least at first. The Apple Watch with white sport band is the most commonly pictured watch on Apple's site, and it's the one in the front page. I'd bet my ass that exact model is going to be $499 (and $449 for the small one), and then go up as you move to leather or metal bands.
What are you referring to as the "middle" watch?

Everything I have seen from Apple has it Apple Watch -> Apple Watch Sport -> Apple Watch Edition

I suspect the Apple Watch Sport will be more expensive than the Apple Watch.
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-12, 00:12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
What are you referring to as the "middle" watch?

Everything I have seen from Apple has it Apple Watch -> Apple Watch Sport -> Apple Watch Edition

I suspect the Apple Watch Sport will be more expensive than the Apple Watch.
I see that they're ordered that way on the product page, but the Watch is stainless steel and sapphire glass with stainless steel and leather bands, whereas the sport is aluminum, "ion strengthened" glass, and "fluoroelastomer" (which means brightly colored plastic?) bands. From a bill of materials standpoint, I can't see how the Sport would be the more expensive model.

That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 2 of 11 Previous 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Watch bikingolson Speculation and Rumors 18 2013-12-20 11:56
apple's watch? Cybermonkey General Discussion 13 2004-09-13 23:07
What watch do you wear? propellerhead AppleOutsider 39 2004-08-07 14:41


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:46.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2020, AppleNova