User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Apple Products »

Apple Watch


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Apple Watch
Page 3 of 11 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next Last Thread Tools
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-12, 00:19

Uh oh. I just noticed I've gone from "interesting, looks to be nicely engineered, I wonder if it will sell well?" to mentally picking one out. Either Space black stainless steel with the black leather band or stainless steel with the brown "modern buckle" leather.

That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-09-12, 00:37

That's funny, because for the first time since Tuesday, I actually spent time at the Apple Watch section tonight, reading and looking at everything. I still have no interest, and it would't really do much for me, but I did indeed play "okay, if I had to get one, which would it be..." earlier (if, say, someone threw $400 at me and said "you have to get an Apple Watch or we're going to shoot you in the face..." or something), then I decided that the silver aluminum sport one was my favorite body style, even though I'm not a sporty guy, and wouldn't use it to track my (nonexistent) runs.

And I guess I'd get the black sport band for it? Or maybe the white one?

Basically just something that looked vaguely Apple-ish (like a MacBook Air, iPad or iPhone (matte silver with black or white accent). I don't like glossy, shiny metal, leather bands or all those chain-looking metal ones, so the stainless steel line is out (I don't wear a watch, never have, so I have no particular fondness or loyalty to any of the traditional "watch-y" looks or styles). And the gold is a definite no-go. The sport line is the only one that even remotely appeals to me, after looking over everything tonight.
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-12, 00:42

I'm picturing you at the Apple Store..... "Well, I guess it wouldn't hurt to try one one....wow, that's really.....nice. Really, really nice... (beads of sweat form on your brow).... I could always return it......"

That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-09-12, 01:02

Ha...nah, I don't think that's any sort of risk for me. The biggest thing is the fact that I just can't stand wearing anything like that on me (any sort of watch, rings, necklace, etc.). I just never have. So that would be the biggest barrier/hurdle, just me wanting to even wear something like that (regardless of the maker or design).

I wore a $19 Timex from Target about 20 years ago, for about 3-6 months. And I wore my wedding band when I was married, of course. But in 45 years, that's been it. I just hate stuff on me like that.
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-12, 01:11

Yeah, I sort of have that. I can barely stand to wear long sleeve shirts, and then only with the sleeves rolled up. I have no idea how people do the suit and tie thing. When I can't avoid it it makes me feel nuts.

That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated
  quote
Brave Ulysses
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2014-09-12, 01:24

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post
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.
The sport uses high strength but light weight custom aluminum alloy..... typically if you want something to be lighter and of the same or greater strength it costs more.

The way Apple has been presenting the watches certainly falls in line with their Good, Better, Best strategy as well, so I have to believe that if they are putting the Apple Watch Sport consistently in the middle, that it costs more than the Apple Watch.


I'm not convinced the bands are even included in the base price.
  quote
Brave Ulysses
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2014-09-12, 01:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post
Yeah, I sort of have that. I can barely stand to wear long sleeve shirts, and then only with the sleeves rolled up. I have no idea how people do the suit and tie thing. When I can't avoid it it makes me feel nuts.
Ditto. Going to be interesting getting use to a watch.... because I am definitely getting one.
  quote
Noel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
 
2014-09-12, 01:57

The impression I get is that you'll only be able to buy one of the 22 watch/band combinations shown on the gallery page. I think it's ludicrous to think Apple would advertise a price for a band-less watch.
  quote
Brave Ulysses
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2014-09-12, 02:26

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noel View Post
The impression I get is that you'll only be able to buy one of the 22 watch/band combinations shown on the gallery page. I think it's ludicrous to think Apple would advertise a price for a band-less watch.
so which band is the base band then?
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-12, 02:53

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noel View Post
The impression I get is that you'll only be able to buy one of the 22 watch/band combinations shown on the gallery page. I think it's ludicrous to think Apple would advertise a price for a band-less watch.
Yeah, it kind of looks like that, and then I guess they sell all of the bands as accessories as well? So you get the combo you want, then buy an additional band or bands to customize. But then I wonder how the combo pricing will work? Watch, Sport and Edition make a typically Apple three tiered offering, and I could see prices stepping up accordingly. But surely a Watch with Milanese Loop isn't going to be priced the same as one with a sport band? But a zillion price points isn't very Apple. Interesting.

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
 
2014-09-12, 07:53

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post
Yeah, it kind of looks like that, and then I guess they sell all of the bands as accessories as well? So you get the combo you want, then buy an additional band or bands to customize. But then I wonder how the combo pricing will work? Watch, Sport and Edition make a typically Apple three tiered offering, and I could see prices stepping up accordingly. But surely a Watch with Milanese Loop isn't going to be priced the same as one with a sport band? But a zillion price points isn't very Apple. Interesting.
Im guessing that each tier of watch comes with one band of your choice within its range, and the additional band would be up to the buyer to pay for. The band is likely included in the cost of the watch, so maybe the cheapest possible option is $349 (an Apple Watch in the smaller size with the rubberized band)?

I'm guessing that the Apple Watch Sport will set me back close to $500, band included.

"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
Mugge
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
 
2014-09-12, 10:40

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
(...)

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.
What would be really interesting here is a third party band packed with extra batteries and an inducer that would fit on the back of the watch without blocking the fitness sensors. Actually, before the Watch was announced, I was entertaining the thought of using the band to fit components such as batteries and antennae because the physical space is so cramped on any smart watch design.

I'm not quite sure if this is possible for a number of reasons:

1) The Apple inducer looks kinda bulky. Yet all it takes is a magnetic coil which could in theory be very thin, so maybe a third party inducer could be made to be worn under the watch?

2) Maybe the inducer would need to be placed in such a manner that it can't avoid blocking the LED sensors?

3) Maybe the Watch will enter a special charging mode when receiving power, thus rendering it fully or partly un-usable while charging?

4) Maybe the inducer will trigger Pays security measures?

5) Maybe Apple will take issue with such a device and try to hinder it's use?

If none of those point turn out to be true, then I would love such a band. And to hell with being fashionable!

Also, do you guys think that the 42 mm model might have a better battery life seeing how it has more internal capacity? The screen is as far as I understand the only other electrical component that is scaled up.

Quote:
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.
Now that would be a real dick move! However, I suspect the design revisions might follow the same pattern as the iPhone, which should result in the physical design only changing for every two or so revisions. But since most people don't upgrade their device at every revision, that should also be enough to put a stop to any re-use.

Btw. do you guys think we are going to see any gold bands for the Edition? Apparently gold sells, so why not milk it for all that it's worth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post
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 aluminium, "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.
I get the aluminium, but I don't get the glass thing. I thought sapphire was only second to diamond, so why use something supposedly inferior for the "better" model?
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2014-09-12, 13:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
The sport uses high strength but light weight custom aluminum alloy..... typically if you want something to be lighter and of the same or greater strength it costs more.

The way Apple has been presenting the watches certainly falls in line with their Good, Better, Best strategy as well, so I have to believe that if they are putting the Apple Watch Sport consistently in the middle, that it costs more than the Apple Watch.


I'm not convinced the bands are even included in the base price.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I can't possibly see how the Apple Watch Sport, with its glass screen, aluminum case, and "composite" (read: plastic) back is supposed to cost more than the Apple Watch, with its sapphire crystal screen, polished stainless steel case, and ceramic back, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

It's nice that they found the lightweight/sport angle, which saves them from having to say "this is the cheap model!" but it is pretty transparently an entry level model made from cheaper materials, only available with the cheaper bands, coming in 5C-esque youthful colors, &c.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
so which band is the base band then?
The sport band, which is the only one available in all the "collections" and is made from a please-don't-call-it-plastic material instead of leather or steel…?

I feel like maybe you're starting with an incorrect assumption — the Apple Watch Sport has to be more expensive than the Apple Watch, because reasons — and that's what's making you confused when the truth of the line-up just seems so obvious to me. Just look at the products. Look at the colors, and the language that Apple is using to describe the different collections, look at how much virtual ink they spill on the stainless steel and the sapphire crystal display and then on the Apple Watch Sport they're just like, well, it's lighter!

The Sport being the entry level really could not be clearer to me. But again, we'll just have to agree to disagree (because I sure as hell aren't going to change your mind).

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong

Last edited by Robo : 2014-09-12 at 13:31.
  quote
ronmexico
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2014-09-12, 14:28

So if the sapphire screen is supposed to be the second strongest transparent materal, why would the sports watch use plastic and the other versions use sapphire?
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-09-12, 14:45

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronmexico View Post
So if the sapphire screen is supposed to be the second strongest transparent materal, why would the sports watch use plastic and the other versions use sapphire?
Because (1) while sapphire is extraordinarily hard, i.e. it doesn’t scratch, it’s also quite brittle and easier to shatter than toughened glass (none of them use plastic), and (2) Sport is a synonym for entry-level here, as Robo explained.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-09-12, 23:08

High-end gold Apple Watch could cost $1,200?



I know that pales in comparison to what people pay for traditional high-end or luxury watches, but still...day-ummm.

Someone will pay that, of course (assuming it's true). I have zero doubt.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2014-09-12, 23:29

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
High-end gold Apple Watch could cost $1,200?



I know that pales in comparison to what people pay for traditional high-end or luxury watches, but still...day-ummm.

Someone will pay that, of course (assuming it's true). I have zero doubt.
I believe it. Apple once charged $200 extra for black plastic on a laptop, they're not going to make an actual gold watch and then sell it for only a few hundred more than the stainless steel model. Even not knowing anything about the price of gold I was expecting it to be about a grand, at least.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Bryson
Rocket Surgeon
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Whitby
 
2014-09-12, 23:36

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
The math in that article doesn't add up. The case would cost $600. Ok. And then the internals would double that? How, if I can get a different case and the same internals for $350? My guess is the top end watch will be just under $1k.
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2014-09-12, 23:41

That would be insanity, and people would literally laugh Apple off of the smartwatch totem. Nobody would even consider an aWatch after seeing how utterly crass Apple has become. It's like Apple said "fuck you, we're Apple, plebs" and then jumped in a hovercar and sped off.

If Tim Cook thinks his first foray into "one more thing" entails a grand-and-a-half golden watch, and he expects it to sell like hotcakes...

So it goes.
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-13, 00:03

Quote:
Originally Posted by 709 View Post
That would be insanity, and people would literally laugh Apple off of the smartwatch totem. Nobody would even consider an aWatch after seeing how utterly crass Apple has become. It's like Apple said "fuck you, we're Apple, plebs" and then jumped in a hovercar and sped off.

If Tim Cook thinks his first foray into "one more thing" entails a grand-and-a-half golden watch, and he expects it to sell like hotcakes...
But here's the thing: $1000 watches in the watch world typically have stainless steel cases, or at best gold plate. They have high quality Swiss or Japanese movements for accuracy's sake, but the Watch is more accurate. With analog watches you pay for cool "complications" but the Watch can go them one better by allowing you to customize your watch face with anything you like. The bands for the Edition Watch, and how they attach and how they buckle, are arguably as good or better than what you'd expect on the average $1000 mechanical.

Now, that doesn't mean Apple is going to take over the middling premium watch segment. Watch ownership is an old school thing, with a lot of intangibles having to do with the perception of elegance and quality and what it says about you. But look at Tesla. They're selling to people who might be expected to be cross shopping Jaguar and Mercedes and the like, with a decidedly futuristic, possibly even "sterile" car. But the upsides are so compelling that they can sell all they can make, with waiting lists.

It's not the smart watch totem that they're looking at, any more than Tesla was looking to compete with other electric cars. They wanted to make a great car, period. I think Apple wants this to be a great watch.

The one thing I wonder about is the fact that the internals are no different than the cheapest one they make. In mechanical watch land, going up the price ladder gets you nicer mechanisms. It would be helpful if Apple could add premium features to the Edition, to further differentiate it from those sweaty Sports people.

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
 
2014-09-13, 00:36

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryson View Post
The math in that article doesn't add up. The case would cost $600. Ok. And then the internals would double that? How, if I can get a different case and the same internals for $350?
The internals and markup would double it. I'm guessing Apple's looking to make more on each Edition watch than they do in each Sport.

709: I don't think Apple cares about the smartwatch totem (is there such a thing?). I think they care about watches, period, and what watches could be. They never used the term smartwatch. "Smartwatch" sounds geeky, like a Casio Data Bank. This is about the intersection of technology and fashion, because that's the only way a smarter watch is ever going to be desirable to any but the most Linuxy of neckbeards.

That's why they didn't call it the iWatch. iWatch sounds like a techy gadget, and Apple wanted to make something that wasn't "just" a techy gadget.

Every time Apple makes a device that's further on the continuum away from a traditional PC, the same criticisms pop up. It's dismissed as a toy, every time. It's not important or disruptive until suddenly it is, until suddenly we can't imagine living without it. I'm not saying I'm convinced the Apple Watch will be the next iPhone. Nothing is — the only product that's as profitable as the iPhone is, like, oil. But I'm not going to dismiss it. I think Apple views it as the next step on that continuum, away from traditional PCs and toward more personal, intimate technology.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Mugge
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
 
2014-09-13, 08:10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
Because (1) while sapphire is extraordinarily hard, i.e. it doesn’t scratch, it’s also quite brittle and easier to shatter than toughened glass (none of them use plastic), and (2) Sport is a synonym for entry-level here, as Robo explained.
I wouldn't mind it at all if the Sport version turned out to be the cheap one. I kinda think it's the best looking one because it looks more true to what the Watch is under the surface - an electronic device, not a piece of bling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
High-end gold Apple Watch could cost $1,200?



I know that pales in comparison to what people pay for traditional high-end or luxury watches, but still...day-ummm.

Someone will pay that, of course (assuming it's true). I have zero doubt.
It just screams "mug me" like no other Apple product ever before it! Maybe they should sell it with a complimentary pepper spray?
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2014-09-13, 12:26

Elastomer means rubbery, stretchy plastic. Fluoroelastomer just seems to be a specific class of plastics that is particularly inert when exposed to other chemicals.

Last edited by Eugene : 2014-09-13 at 12:53.
  quote
Brave Ulysses
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2014-09-13, 12:35

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo View Post
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I can't possibly see how the Apple Watch Sport, with its glass screen, aluminum case, and "composite" (read: plastic) back is supposed to cost more than the Apple Watch, with its sapphire crystal screen, polished stainless steel case, and ceramic back, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

It's nice that they found the lightweight/sport angle, which saves them from having to say "this is the cheap model!" but it is pretty transparently an entry level model made from cheaper materials, only available with the cheaper bands, coming in 5C-esque youthful colors, &c.



The sport band, which is the only one available in all the "collections" and is made from a please-don't-call-it-plastic material instead of leather or steel…?

I feel like maybe you're starting with an incorrect assumption — the Apple Watch Sport has to be more expensive than the Apple Watch, because reasons — and that's what's making you confused when the truth of the line-up just seems so obvious to me. Just look at the products. Look at the colors, and the language that Apple is using to describe the different collections, look at how much virtual ink they spill on the stainless steel and the sapphire crystal display and then on the Apple Watch Sport they're just like, well, it's lighter!

The Sport being the entry level really could not be clearer to me. But again, we'll just have to agree to disagree (because I sure as hell aren't going to change your mind).
I am starting with that assumption (which remains to be proven correct or incorrect) because Apple has marketed the watches in typical Apple fashion...... Good, Better, Best. Every time Apple shows the three models together they are in order. If the Sport was to be the cheapest, or the entry level model, why would Apple have not just chosen to show the watches in Sport, Watch, Edition order?

I agree that the Apple Watch model is the showpiece model. It's the one that they revealed in the Reveal film. However, it also seems like a pretty shitty move to highlight the beautiful stainless steel model with sapphire glass, and say the watches will start at $349... and that iconic model not be the one you can get for that price.


I suspect Apple will charge more for the Sport for reasons that remain to be shared. Perhaps it will be waterproof, hence the one photo of that watch in water, and no photos of the other watches in water. Maybe it will have more sport specific features. Who knows?
  quote
Brave Ulysses
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2014-09-13, 12:38

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugge View Post

Now that would be a real dick move! However, I suspect the design revisions might follow the same pattern as the iPhone, which should result in the physical design only changing for every two or so revisions. But since most people don't upgrade their device at every revision, that should also be enough to put a stop to any re-use.
You indirectly bring up an interesting point.... will Apple sell bandless Apple Watches for Rev 2, Rev 3, and so on? How much value will Apple attach to the basic band that it comes with?

Why spend money on a band when replacing your Apple Watch if you already spent money on a beautiful band when you bought your first Apple Watch?
  quote
Kickaha
Likes his boobies blue.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hell
 
2014-09-13, 13:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugge View Post
...it looks more true to what the watch is under the surface - a timekeeping device, not a piece of bling.
Which explains why cheap watches thrive while high end expensive watches have disappeared, and...

Oh wait. The other way happened.



The Watch is getting attention from *watch people*, not just tech people. Can't say I've ever seen that before in a smart watch. Apple isn't going for the Moto360 crowd here. They're going for the Prada / Rolex crowd. $1200 is a pittance in those circles for a wrist device.

My other brain is hung like a horse too.
#IRC isn't old school.
Old school is being able to say 'finger me' with a straight face.
  quote
Mugge
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
 
2014-09-13, 13:29

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
You indirectly bring up an interesting point.... will Apple sell bandless Apple Watches for Rev 2, Rev 3, and so on? How much value will Apple attach to the basic band that it comes with?

Why spend money on a band when replacing your Apple Watch if you already spent money on a beautiful band when you bought your first Apple Watch?
I suppose they could keep the band interface the same like they did with he 30 pin connector for a decade. I also strongly suspect that there are already several goldsmiths pondering band designs that will make the price of the Watch Edition look like chump change. And they would probably hate to melt down their masterpieces every two years, even though it would mean a steady business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post
Which explains why cheap watches thrive while high end expensive watches have disappeared, and...

Oh wait. The other way happened.



The Watch is getting attention from *watch people*, not just tech people. Can't say I've ever seen that before in a smart watch. Apple isn't going for the Moto360 crowd here. They're going for the Prada / Rolex crowd. $1200 is a pittance in those circles for a wrist device.
Well, that's how I see it. I wouldn't dare to presume the rest of the word did the same. Then there would hardly be any goldsmiths at all.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-09-13, 13:56

It'll be interesting to see a) how many new companies spring up, solely to manufacture/sell Apple Watch bands, and b) how many of the existing case companies (Marware, Speck, Incase, Otterbox, etc.) will expand into the band-selling business. I doubt any of them are tooling up right now, but in a year or so if this seems like it may take off and be something, that could be an "iPhone case" type of business. As with the iPhone (and iPod) cases, Apple simply won't be able to provide all the colors, materials, styles imaginable to appeal to every customer. As long as Apple provides the specs/approval (and has the little "Made for Apple Watch" logo on this stuff), this could be a wide open market to get into.

You know you're gonna have all your hemp and hippie bead guys making funky, colorful stuff. The sports bands will come in snazzy colors (contrasting colors/patterns) and designs, you'll get your chunky, extra-tough "manly man" bands from people like Otterbox, etc. And just because it's a watch, it doesn't mean it has to follow any sort of understated, "classic timepiece" route either...if some company wanted to make bands with college football team colors/branding, you know there would be people buying it.

If it's not a standard, typical watch (and it isn't), then you also have to allow that all the standard, typical trimmings and approaches don't automatically have to apply either (they can, of course, for those who choose). But if someone wants to have a Florida Gators or camouflage Apple Watch band...let 'em. What do you care? Goodness knows there are plenty of silly-ass, "why?!" iPhone cases out in the world. But there are also some cool, clever and stylish ones that Apple has never provided.

This watch shouldn't be exempt. If this is truly to be such a "personal" device, that's going to be a big part of it...third-party bands in colors/styles that Apple could never get around to making.

Last edited by pscates2.0 : 2014-09-13 at 14:18.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-09-13, 14:29

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
I suspect Apple will charge more for the Sport for reasons that remain to be shared. Perhaps it will be waterproof, hence the one photo of that watch in water, and no photos of the other watches in water. Maybe it will have more sport specific features. Who knows?
I think they’ll all be waterproof, but as for special sports features, how about an ultra-low-power GPS receiver that’s just arriving on the market around the time the Watch goes on sale? Apple often uses enabling new technologies in its new product classes. And think about it: there isn’t much use for a GPS receiver in the Watch (as opposed to the tethered iPhone) except for the specific case of tracking movement while exercising without a phone.

It would be one mean thing to mention at the last minute, and it would explain the seeming inconsistency you see in the order of the Watches and their prices.

Personally I think the Sport model will be cheapest, but the above scenario isn’t beyond the bounds of possibility.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2014-09-13, 14:32

And your band could come with a link for getting the matching face. The hemp band could have a dial where it's always 4:20.
  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 3 of 11 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  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 06:33.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2019, AppleNova