|
On March 29 2015 13:57 QuantumTeleportation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 13:30 oBlade wrote:On March 29 2015 12:58 QuantumTeleportation wrote:On March 28 2015 20:57 SixStrings wrote: I was pretty optimistic about smart watches because I figured they could replace my phone. Apparently they can't, so meh.
I don't understand how you would think that smartwatches could "replace" phones. What do you mean, you can't understand how he would think that? There are smartwatches that take SIM cards. Is that such an alien thought? On the other hand, I have a problem understanding why my phone needs a helping device. My phone, that's already on my person... I can't get to it fast enough, I need something on my wrist to connect me faster? I'm not saying smartwatches aren't capable of great things (they are a unique digital replacement for a functional piece of jewelry along with glasses - everything else is decorative, you wouldn't expect a smartring or a smartnecklace or smartearrings), but I haven't seen any hints of their greatness yet. It looks like James Bond already but what's the functionality? I'm not sure what kind of smartwatch we're talking about here. A smartwatch is supposed to be small and lightweight, something that has a display size of only 1.5" or 2" max. How is that supposed to replace smartphones? Again, we don't want anything heavy, so folding mechanisms are not feasible. The only feasible option would be foldable displays but that's still under development. Now I'm the one that doesn't understand what you're asking. Such watches aren't already on the market? They take SIM cards. If you're thinking that everyone who uses a smartphone wants to watch lots of videos and play Minecraft, then yes, a smartwatch alone can't meet their needs. But you may be misunderstanding the market and there's a lot of people who would like having an accessory that basically makes phone calls and tells time from their wrist - and is sexy. And they would probably welcome the change from having to put a brick in their pocket every day and take it out to do anything. Much less handcuffing themselves with something that has no functionality and needs to be in range of a brick that's always in their pocket, acting as a base station for their sphere of yuppie influence. You are thinking in terms of the phone can do so much stuff better than the watch, but that's thinking in the old paradigm, and in that case we can already agree the watch is redundant anyway. But if you erase the phone, think about what's the most you could squeeze out of a watch? I think it could be awesome and I don't think whether there's a folding screen is part of the issue.
You don't need some kind of inspector gadget hardware solution to make a compelling smartwatch experience. Isn't a touchscreen sized to fit on a wrist big enough for a whole qwerty keyboard? There's already bluetooth, you don't need to hold your phone or watch to your face to talk through it. Plus put your music on it, and the iPod is where this shit all came from anyway right?
I mean, would you ask "How are smartphones ever going to replace tablets?" "How are tablets supposed to replace laptops?" "How are laptops supposed to replace desktops?" "How are desktops supposed to replace mainframes?" Clearly there's overlap.
On March 29 2015 14:07 QuantumTeleportation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 14:05 oBlade wrote: That's probably especially important with watches because they really are just luxury products right, a $5 watch vs a $5000 watch, is there really a 1000x difference in quality, or what functionality is added? Maybe I'm a serf and should read the watch thread, but even if the functionality is wanting, the Apple watch will be a great product for brand reasons. You're definitely correct. Although, in expensive watches, there is definitely more advanced engineering and technical specifications that make those watches desirable, there isn't really a 1000X difference in quality. Most of the costs of expensive luxury watches are just due to brand power. The Apple iWatch will sell well for this very reason. I don't think it's called the iWatch. + Show Spoiler +
I would be interested to see who handles the styling of the watch face. Knowing Apple, only proprietary options comes to mind, but they would probably be missing out if they don't monetize third party faces eventually.
|
^ I think you are talking about the minority, not the majority.
The majority of people would rather buy a smartphone rather than a smartwatch that replaces the functionality of a smartphone. And I'm confused as to what you're trying to argue. Smartphones are smartphones, and smartwatches are smartwatches. Neither of them are replacing one another,
Until smartwatches have flexible displays that offer the versatility of smartphones, they will only function as an accessory.
On March 29 2015 14:36 oBlade wrote:I don't think it's called the iWatch. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cux9T9wvERs I would be interested to see who handles the styling of the watch face. Knowing Apple, only proprietary options comes to mind, but they would probably be missing out if they don't monetize third party faces eventually.
I know but I don't know why you're being so pedantic about this :/
The term "Apple Watch" and "iWatch" are used interchangeably in most news sites and technology websites/blogs. Even the Wall Street Journal calls it the iWatch. http://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-s-malone-behind-the-meh-response-to-the-iwatch-1426113738
I'm not an Apple employee so I couldn't care less what I called it.
Just like how I don't call the Samsung Galaxy S6, "Samsung Galaxy S6" every time. I call it the Galaxy S6, the S6, the SGS6, etc.
However since the OP title is "Apple Watch" I will call it the "Apple Watch".
|
I'm not being pedantic, I linked a comedy video. What specifically do you think a flexible display offers, what problem does it solve that a rigid screen can't?
|
My question is why wouldn't they just call it the iWatch? They have iPad, iPhone, iMac... why the departure from their signature brand name?
|
On March 29 2015 14:53 ElMeanYo wrote: My question is why wouldn't they just call it the iWatch? They have iPad, iPhone, iMac... why the departure from their signature brand name?
Yeah, you would think so. But they named their TV, the Apple TV. So it's their 2nd departure from the "i" nomenclature.
|
On March 29 2015 14:07 QuantumTeleportation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 14:05 oBlade wrote: That's probably especially important with watches because they really are just luxury products right, a $5 watch vs a $5000 watch, is there really a 1000x difference in quality, or what functionality is added? Maybe I'm a serf and should read the watch thread, but even if the functionality is wanting, the Apple watch will be a great product for brand reasons. You're definitely correct. Although, in expensive watches, there is definitely more advanced engineering and technical specifications that make those watches desirable, there isn't really a 1000X difference in quality. Most of the costs of expensive luxury watches are just due to brand power. The Apple iWatch will sell well for this very reason.
no the apple watch will sell because of it's marketing, NOT because it's programming and engineering is somehow the "spear head" of it's time. apple watches will sell more based on the previous successes of the past and NOT because apple has invented something no other company can compete with let's get this straight. there is not a single specification in the iwatch that cannot be bested by the likes of samsung, HTC, android, LG, microsoft, etc.
apple's innovation sadly died when steve job's died. they regurgitate product launches every 3-6 months of the same existing product in order to stay afloat. steve did a good enough job to create such a wide enough fanbase that die hard fans would buy it for it's aesthetic value regardless of how technologically good it is. i'm not going to lie apple has the majority of people blind. they've legitimately built a cult with their marketing. their products are essentially spraying turd with perfume and then having their marketers convince you what they are selling to you isn't inferior.
it's blasphemous that people can sit here in this day and age, and actually attempt to argue with you about how a smart watch is superior to the modern day watch, when the battery cannot last past 18 hours without charging. these guys even have the audacity of selling the product for double of what you would pay for a modern day good watch. there's absolutely no excuse in this day and age that a watch battery can't last for more than 24 hours. if tesla can create motor vehicles that run on electricity in this day and age, apple has no excuse.
|
I have a Moto 360 already. I treat it like an accessory above all. Probably the most useful feature is the ability to change the watch face with very little effort and you can get fancy with the designs because it's all software as opposed to mechanical.
That's about it. It's a watch after all. It's like buying a luxury branded watch that has some other features.
|
On March 29 2015 14:53 ElMeanYo wrote: My question is why wouldn't they just call it the iWatch? They have iPad, iPhone, iMac... why the departure from their signature brand name? I think at least partially for IP reasons. Some other company is probably sitting on the rights to "iWatch," and Apple doesn't want to hassle with paying them for the name, hence "Apple Watch."
Personally, I probably won't be getting a 1st gen Apple Watch. Anyone watching the Neptune Hub concept wristphone / watch / band?
|
On March 29 2015 15:43 Neo7 wrote: I have a Moto 360 already. I treat it like an accessory above all. Probably the most useful feature is the ability to change the watch face with very little effort and you can get fancy with the designs because it's all software as opposed to mechanical.
That's about it. It's a watch after all. It's like buying a luxury branded watch that has some other features.
This. I think the Apple Watch was designed to be an accessory of the iPhone 6 rather than a stand-alone Apple product.
|
On March 29 2015 13:57 QuantumTeleportation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 13:30 oBlade wrote:On March 29 2015 12:58 QuantumTeleportation wrote:On March 28 2015 20:57 SixStrings wrote: I was pretty optimistic about smart watches because I figured they could replace my phone. Apparently they can't, so meh.
I don't understand how you would think that smartwatches could "replace" phones. What do you mean, you can't understand how he would think that? There are smartwatches that take SIM cards. Is that such an alien thought? On the other hand, I have a problem understanding why my phone needs a helping device. My phone, that's already on my person... I can't get to it fast enough, I need something on my wrist to connect me faster? I'm not saying smartwatches aren't capable of great things (they are a unique digital replacement for a functional piece of jewelry along with glasses - everything else is decorative, you wouldn't expect a smartring or a smartnecklace or smartearrings), but I haven't seen any hints of their greatness yet. It looks like James Bond already but what's the functionality? I'm not sure what kind of smartwatch we're talking about here. A smartwatch is supposed to be small and lightweight, something that has a display size of only 1.5" or 2" max. How is that supposed to replace smartphones? Again, we don't want anything heavy, so folding mechanisms are not feasible. The only feasible option would be foldable displays but that's still under development.
Well, I don't know about you, but if I had a 1,5" smart watch that could respond to calls and SMS / iMessage / WhatsApp through dictation and had GPS, I could leave my phone at home and respond to lengthy conversations when I get home.
Perhaps that's unique to my own usage, but my iPhone is basically a dumb phone that does WhatsApp. For everything else I have my laptop.
|
On March 29 2015 16:16 Descent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 14:53 ElMeanYo wrote: My question is why wouldn't they just call it the iWatch? They have iPad, iPhone, iMac... why the departure from their signature brand name? I think at least partially for IP reasons. Some other company is probably sitting on the rights to "iWatch," and Apple doesn't want to hassle with paying them for the name, hence "Apple Watch." Personally, I probably won't be getting a 1st gen Apple Watch. Anyone watching the Neptune Hub concept wristphone / watch / band?
Say it out loud and you know why they don't call it iWatch.
|
http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/30/8311709/apple-watch-edition-stores-luxury-treatment
Apple will let you cut the line if you're buying a $10,000 Apple Watch Edition Customers thinking of buying the Apple Watch Edition will be pampered in Apple's stores and receive free, round-the-clock tech support for two years, according to a report from 9to5Mac. Would-be Edition owners — who could be shelling out as much as $17,000 for a 38mm, 18-karat gold case with a bright red, modern buckle — will skip the queues in Apple's stores and receive private consultations lasting up to one hour with a dedicated Apple Watch expert. The demo stations for the Edition will also be separate to those for the Watch and Watch Sport, while staff will be advised to "assess store conditions" before bringing out more than two watches simultaneously for fear of theft. Apple is reportedly telling its employees that the "journey" for buying an Edition "is intended to be extremely personal, elegant, and purposeful."
$10,000 for a smartwatch? I can see how this appeals to those who would buy a Rolex but are interested in a digital alternative.
Would you buy a $10,000 Apple Watch that has pretty much the luxurious feel of a luxury watch over a Rolex or similar?
|
Apple products have already established themselves as a luxury brand, especially outside of the US. I don't think it's that far out of question comparing Apple watches to Rolexes. They're also building it with 18k gold and...everyone loves gold.
|
My uncle wears a rolex my grandfather bought when he was 40. That was sixty-something years ago.
I don't think that even millionaires buy a watch that will be obsolete within two years for 10k without flinching.
|
On March 31 2015 11:50 SixStrings wrote: My uncle wears a rolex my grandfather bought when he was 40. That was sixty-something years ago.
I don't think that even millionaires buy a watch that will be obsolete within two years for 10k without flinching.
Unrelated to the watch, but of course rich people spend much more than that without flinching. 10k is the equivalent of two nights in the cheapest suite in an exclusive hotel (in which some prefer to book the whole floor just to be on their own). Or the amount they spend just on tires, lapping the Nurburgring for a few hours (and they might buy a new Porsche for that weekend).
|
On March 31 2015 11:50 SixStrings wrote: My uncle wears a rolex my grandfather bought when he was 40. That was sixty-something years ago.
I don't think that even millionaires buy a watch that will be obsolete within two years for 10k without flinching.
Good point.
The Apple Watch will likely be obsolete within 2 years if it goes along with the same trend as smartphones. By then, there will be Apple Watch 2.
Anyway more news:
http://www.gsmarena.com/the_apple_watch_will_be_available_for_instore_pickup_at_launch-news-11790.php
The Apple Watch will be available for in-store pickup at launch.The Apple Watch is now inching toward its release date and excitement is at an all-time high. The Cupertino tech giant has set preorders for its smart wearable for April 10 and the first batch of units should be made available to eager consumers on April 24. The aforementioned set of dates has been known for quite some time now, but there has been a lot of speculation regarding the way distributing the devices will be handled.
|
On March 31 2015 11:50 SixStrings wrote: My uncle wears a rolex my grandfather bought when he was 40. That was sixty-something years ago.
I don't think that even millionaires buy a watch that will be obsolete within two years for 10k without flinching.
Clubs sell $75,000 bottles of champagne. I think you underestimate wealthy peoples ability to burn money (particularly their kids who spend millions without working a day in their lives).
|
On April 05 2015 12:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 11:50 SixStrings wrote: My uncle wears a rolex my grandfather bought when he was 40. That was sixty-something years ago.
I don't think that even millionaires buy a watch that will be obsolete within two years for 10k without flinching. Clubs sell $75,000 bottles of champagne. I think you underestimate wealthy peoples ability to burn money (particularly their kids who spend millions without working a day in their lives).
I think I just tend to forget that Apple's main market is the USA, where rich people are proper rich.
|
Despite poor reviews, the Apple Watch is selling like hotcakes.
>3 million Apple Watches Sold with >$2 billion in profits in less than 24 hours on April 10th. Apple is forecast to overtake Samsung this year in smartwatch profits and market share.
http://carlhowe.com/blog/apple-watch-an-overnight-multi-billion-dollar-business/
Apple Watch: An Overnight Multi-Billion Dollar Business
It was just three years in the making
Quick look
Here’s the quick summary for those of you who don’t have time to read the next 3,000 words.
The Apple Watch went on sale for pre-orders on April 10, 2015, and the Apple Store tells us that delivery dates for all orders now stretch into summer and beyond. We know that the initial production run of Apple Watch has sold out; what we don’t know is how many Apple Watches that represents. I’ve built a simple model that predicts that the initial run of watches was more than 3 million units and will yield Apple Watch revenues of over $2 billion for the first two weeks of sales. While this figure is smaller than first weekend sales of iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, it dwarfs all other smartwatch sales to date and represents a milestone in wearable sales. The model suggests that while Sport Watch will lead sales in volume, selling 1.8 million units through May 8, Apple Watch will actually lead in revenue during that period, garnering about $900 million versus Sport’s $675 million. I also believe that Apple’s decision to introduce the Edition will be validated by $500 million in sales on only 40,000 units.
While I believe that these figures will be considerably below the number of pre-orders for Apple Watch, I believe Apple did this for an important reason. Apple is offering 38 different models of Apple Watch and it has no order history to go on. Instead of guessing at the right mix of models to manufacture, I believe that while Apple has manufactured a large number of Apple Watch electronics modules, it will perform the final assembly of actual products—the unique combinations of module, case, and band—to order. This approach will allow it to keep inventory costs low and satisfy as many consumers as possible.
|
Am I the only person who thinks the Apple Watch looks ugly?
It will sell well of course because Apple will always come up with a way to trick consumers into thinking that they have developed a revolutionary product.
|
|
|
|