How many are getting an Apple watch?

[openwheel]

Its hilarious that people who don't wear watches suddenly can tell a watch is "well built" and worth "$X00"

 

[touchstone]

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000369656

Well Nilay Patel of the verge agrees with you so you must be right.




I must admit I agree with the reporter , Patel does sound like he polishes a lot of knobs.

 

[Artdeco]

I want one, but JB'ing iOS 8.3 is a looooong way off, if ever. I won't use iOS without it being Jailbroken.

Yep, that's why I'm listing mine on eBay, profit should cover the Pebble Time Steel I've backed on kickstarter.

 

[touchstone]

Yep, that's why I'm listing mine on eBay, profit should cover the Pebble Time Steel I've backed on kickstarter.

Why don't you do what I'm doing and buy a Galaxy S6 (or other phone) and just use your iphone to interface with the Apple watch? You won't get to use the notifications but if you are getting it for just health and to tell time it will work fine.

 

[Red Storm]

Why don't you do what I'm doing and buy a Galaxy S6 (or other phone) and just use your iphone to interface with the Apple watch? You won't get to use the notifications but if you are getting it for just health and to tell time it will work fine.

Not sure if serious...

 

[Artdeco]

Why don't you do what I'm doing and buy a Galaxy S6 (or other phone) and just use your iphone to interface with the Apple watch? You won't get to use the notifications but if you are getting it for just health and to tell time it will work fine.

Yeah, not going there... Will likely use a Pebble till AW gen II comes out.

 

[openwheel]

Are you guys actually wearing the iWatch? Or just reselling for a quick buck? Why bother for a few bucks?

 

[ControlD]

Not sure if serious...

I sure hope not.

 

[Red Storm]

So I got to try on the watch today and check it out in person. I was in the Apple store for around 20 minutes and in that time I only saw one other person checking out the watches. Everyone else was huddled around the iPads as usual.

In terms of looks and design, I do think the Apple watch is the best looking square smartwatch, but it doesn't quite hold up to nice round ones like the Moto 360. One thing I immediately noticed and could not shake, is how thick the watch looks. As far as I know it's about the same thickness as the M360, however because the Apple watch is much smaller when it comes to length and width, keeping that same thickness doesn't look very attractive on the smaller watch. I'm talking about the 42mm here, on the even smaller 38mm it looks even worse. Going with a smaller length and width is fine, but to keep that same thickness just looks bad. It looks like a giant speed bump on your wrist.

Out of all the different bands, my favorite for the stainless steel model was the Milanese band. I think the Leather Loop bands are really ugly, the leather on the M360 looks and feels more premium in my eyes.

As for the software on the watch, they did have demo units that were actually interactive, so I got to mess with that a bit. I wasn't a fan of the digital crown back when it was announced, and I'm still not a fan of it. It works fine, but I don't think it's necessary, and having this big wheel on the side of your watch does not look good IMHO. Apple pay is activated by double pressing the button below the crown, and that I do like. I expect NFC payments via watch to be standard on Android very soon. The different vibrations were neat, they felt "smooth", didn't make a lot of noise (some phones have vibrations that are louder than they feel, which is bad), and weren't too soft that you wouldn't notice it.

When factoring in the actual price, I just don't see it. But then, there's no real competition because it's iOS. The Pebble is cute but I think it needs another iteration or two to get rid of those monstrous bezels. The Sport with the black band is $400, $50 more than the others for no discernible reason. $500-$1000 for the stainless steel model is just... ridiculous. Anybody paying that much for a smartwatch (especially a gen 1 product) is just being conned. The sport model needs to be $300 at least, and the stainless steel should be around $400 or so. Right now there is a LOT of Apple Tax in these prices, but just like the iPhone 6 forcing everyone to fork over an extra hundred to go from 16GB to 64GB, this is just par for the course for Apple. I don't blame them, they've got fans who will gladly buy their products no matter the price.

 

[Commodus]

When factoring in the actual price, I just don't see it. But then, there's no real competition because it's iOS. The Pebble is cute but I think it needs another iteration or two to get rid of those monstrous bezels. The Sport with the black band is $400, $50 more than the others for no discernible reason. $500-$1000 for the stainless steel model is just... ridiculous. Anybody paying that much for a smartwatch (especially a gen 1 product) is just being conned. The sport model needs to be $300 at least, and the stainless steel should be around $400 or so. Right now there is a LOT of Apple Tax in these prices, but just like the iPhone 6 forcing everyone to fork over an extra hundred to go from 16GB to 64GB, this is just par for the course for Apple. I don't blame them, they've got fans who will gladly buy their products no matter the price.

A few things on the cost:

The $50 difference between 38mm and 42mm is because you're not just getting a larger case (which does add to the cost), but also a higher-resolution display and slightly longer battery life.

The steel pricing is actually pretty realistic, if you've seen a polished stainless steel mechanical watch with a sapphire cover. It's a question of whether or not it's worth paying that much for any smartwatch, at least in a first generation product where you're not clear if you'll like it... or if you'll have buyer's remorse when the second generation comes out. That's why I'm getting a Sport model for now. It looks good enough, and I'll only splurge if/when I know I really want to go all-out.

 

[touchstone]

So I got to try on the watch today and check it out in person. I was in the Apple store for around 20 minutes and in that time I only saw one other person checking out the watches. Everyone else was huddled around the iPads as usual.

In terms of looks and design, I do think the Apple watch is the best looking square smartwatch, but it doesn't quite hold up to nice round ones like the Moto 360. One thing I immediately noticed and could not shake, is how thick the watch looks. As far as I know it's about the same thickness as the M360, however because the Apple watch is much smaller when it comes to length and width, keeping that same thickness doesn't look very attractive on the smaller watch. I'm talking about the 42mm here, on the even smaller 38mm it looks even worse. Going with a smaller length and width is fine, but to keep that same thickness just looks bad. It looks like a giant speed bump on your wrist.

Out of all the different bands, my favorite for the stainless steel model was the Milanese band. I think the Leather Loop bands are really ugly, the leather on the M360 looks and feels more premium in my eyes.

As for the software on the watch, they did have demo units that were actually interactive, so I got to mess with that a bit. I wasn't a fan of the digital crown back when it was announced, and I'm still not a fan of it. It works fine, but I don't think it's necessary, and having this big wheel on the side of your watch does not look good IMHO. Apple pay is activated by double pressing the button below the crown, and that I do like. I expect NFC payments via watch to be standard on Android very soon. The different vibrations were neat, they felt "smooth", didn't make a lot of noise (some phones have vibrations that are louder than they feel, which is bad), and weren't too soft that you wouldn't notice it.

When factoring in the actual price, I just don't see it. But then, there's no real competition because it's iOS. The Pebble is cute but I think it needs another iteration or two to get rid of those monstrous bezels. The Sport with the black band is $400, $50 more than the others for no discernible reason. $500-$1000 for the stainless steel model is just... ridiculous. Anybody paying that much for a smartwatch (especially a gen 1 product) is just being conned. The sport model needs to be $300 at least, and the stainless steel should be around $400 or so. Right now there is a LOT of Apple Tax in these prices, but just like the iPhone 6 forcing everyone to fork over an extra hundred to go from 16GB to 64GB, this is just par for the course for Apple. I don't blame them, they've got fans who will gladly buy their products no matter the price.

Thanks for the review. The Apple Watch is 10.5mm, so actually thinner than the moto360. If you saw them next to each other the 360 is gigantic.

http://9to5mac.com/2015/03/12/look-how-much-sleeker-apple-watch-is-compared-to-android-wear-watches/

Did you even try it on, or pick it up? It sounds like you just diddled one of the review units. I think you would have a different outlook if you had tried it on, especially if you saw the back of the SS version. You would definitely not complain about the extra $200.

I had totally opposite perceptions to you, beyond agreeing that it is the best looking smartwatch. The milanese loop looked flimsy and feminine, wasn't very comfortable either. The other bands were alright, some like the modern buckle and leather loop are really very nice.

What do you mean about the black band costing $50 more? The band colors are all the same price, there are two case sizes (38 and 42mm) and the smaller one is $50 cheaper. I find it odd that you say it is a ripoff and cite $300 as the price you think it should cost, considering it costs $349. For that, you get the EXACT same functionality as Drake who payed $18500 for his edition.

If you are getting ripped off at $349, you should give him a call and offer your financial consultant services because he just got apple raped. I'm sure he will agree that $349 is a ripoff once he speaks to you about it.


One thing not one single person has mentioned is the fact that the Apple watch uses a suite of sensors that is on another level in terms of quality and quantity of information. The heart rate monitor alone would cost you hundreds were you to buy it in a medical catalog. All other heart rate monitors require extremely high pressure compared to how somebody normally wears a watch, which is why none of the actual 'watches' even try to include one before the AW. I don't think you even understand how advanced this technology is, it has never been done before.

I want this for the health aspect and nothing more, and personally I find it pretty ridiculous to see people discount my decisions I make with my money like they know better. I personally think its worth it to spend $874 on a sapphire crystal apple watch and a nice band. If that bothers you then I am curious what other things that are sold today in the world bother you when people buy them. Yatchs? Large houses? Pools? Yes I agree, who could possibly need that crap

 

[MongGrel]

I still have my fathers old watch my sister in law just had the jewelery department she works in getting working right again.

I'll pass on a apple I guess.

Yeah I know not the same thing, I allready have a phone I rarely carry, I don't see having the watch I guess.

 

[Red Storm]

Thanks for the review. The Apple Watch is 10.5mm, so actually thinner than the moto360. If you saw them next to each other the 360 is gigantic.

http://9to5mac.com/2015/03/12/look-how-much-sleeker-apple-watch-is-compared-to-android-wear-watches/

Did you even try it on, or pick it up? It sounds like you just diddled one of the review units. I think you would have a different outlook if you had tried it on, especially if you saw the back of the SS version. You would definitely not complain about the extra $200.

I had totally opposite perceptions to you, beyond agreeing that it is the best looking smartwatch. The milanese loop looked flimsy and feminine, wasn't very comfortable either. The other bands were alright, some like the modern buckle and leather loop are really very nice.

What do you mean about the black band costing $50 more? The band colors are all the same price, there are two case sizes (38 and 42mm) and the smaller one is $50 cheaper. I find it odd that you say it is a ripoff and cite $300 as the price you think it should cost, considering it costs $349. For that, you get the EXACT same functionality as Drake who payed $18500 for his edition.
If you are getting ripped off at $349, you should give him a call and offer your financial consultant services because he just got apple raped. I'm sure he will agree that $349 is a ripoff once he speaks to you about it.


One thing not one single person has mentioned is the fact that the Apple watch uses a suite of sensors that is on another level in terms of quality and quantity of information. The heart rate monitor alone would cost you hundreds were you to buy it in a medical catalog. All other heart rate monitors require extremely high pressure compared to how somebody normally wears a watch, which is why none of the actual 'watches' even try to include one before the AW. I don't think you even understand how advanced this technology is, it has never been done before.

I want this for the health aspect and nothing more, and personally I find it pretty ridiculous to see people discount my decisions I make with my money like they know better. I personally think its worth it to spend $874 on a sapphire crystal apple watch and a nice band. If that bothers you then I am curious what other things that are sold today in the world bother you when people buy them. Yatchs? Large houses? Pools? Yes I agree, who could possibly need that crap

I did try it on, I said I also played with the display unit because that one is actually interactive, the ones they let you try on are just running a demo. Sorry but the back of a watch is the last place that has any impact to me, it's the one area of the watch that's never in view while worn. And I said I felt it's probably the best looking square smart watch. I still think the Moto 360 looks better.

The link you posted only shows the watches from the top down, which was my point. When you look at it from any other angle, the Apple watch looks really thick because the length and width are pretty small compared to other watches. Note, they are all pretty thick, but it's more apparent on the Apple watch because of its smaller length and width.

My mistake on the price difference. When I pre-ordered I already knew which one I was getting (sport with black band) so when I saw the sport models on the store page it showed $350, but once I got to the 42mm it was $400, so I wasn't sure about that.

I could care less about Drake or any other rich person who wants to throw their money away. I noticed many reviews don't seem to get into pricing all that much, and I thought that was weird considering how much these things cost. I do not think they are worth it at their current price, that's my opinion. This is a forum after all, not a place where we only post puff pieces. Your talk of the sensors sounds like Apple marketing. Heart rate monitors were already in smartwatches before the Apple watch.

I think both Apple and Google have a ways to go with their watch OSes, but right now I think Google Now is the killer feature of smart watches in general.

 

[touchstone]

I did try it on, I said I also played with the display unit because that one is actually interactive, the ones they let you try on are just running a demo. Sorry but the back of a watch is the last place that has any impact to me, it's the one area of the watch that's never in view while worn. And I said I felt it's probably the best looking square smart watch. I still think the Moto 360 looks better.

The link you posted only shows the watches from the top down, which was my point. When you look at it from any other angle, the Apple watch looks really thick because the length and width are pretty small compared to other watches. Note, they are all pretty thick, but it's more apparent on the Apple watch because of its smaller length and width.

My mistake on the price difference. When I pre-ordered I already knew which one I was getting (sport with black band) so when I saw the sport models on the store page it showed $350, but once I got to the 42mm it was $400, so I wasn't sure about that.

I could care less about Drake or any other rich person who wants to throw their money away. I noticed many reviews don't seem to get into pricing all that much, and I thought that was weird considering how much these things cost. I do not think they are worth it at their current price, that's my opinion. This is a forum after all, not a place where we only post puff pieces. Your talk of the sensors sounds like Apple marketing. Heart rate monitors were already in smartwatches before the Apple watch.

I think both Apple and Google have a ways to go with their watch OSes, but right now I think Google Now is the killer feature of smart watches in general.

I think you're still seeing this as a smartwatch in terms of what the moto360 or galaxy gear is. Apple is putting this in direct competition with luxury watch makers in terms of price, which is going to be a very hard sell for samsung/LG/Sony when they bring their offerings. Its just a different kind of product, just looking at the colors and finishes you can get. I don't think people who bought the moto360 are the people who will consider the apple watch. I don't see Drake or Pharell or whatever celebrity ever rocking a moto360.


The one point materially that I would make, is that you cannot find a single regular mechanical watch with a sapphire crystal display for $550, so given that , the sensors, the interface, and the fact that as an apple product we can expect it to hold SOME value (vs 360 which is a brick in 6 mo), and i would say that if anybody is getting ripped off it is the motorola customer.

Asking for ridiculous things like GPS and 4G LTE (both of which require large amounts of power to use) is pretty funny too. Really though, if something's 'value' is in people's willingness to pay a certain amount of money for it, then Apple has already succeeded. People are lining up to drop 15k on one.


Edit: Question about the digital crown: What would you suggest as an interface that can act as a home button and a scroll? Buttons are terrible, and this thing seems like a really excellent way to solve the issue. I tried it and it was very smooth. Every review I read agrees with me too. Hmm.

 

[Ramses]

Mans holding on to his junk since apple took everything else to pay for that watch.

 

[touchstone]

Preorders pass over one million in minutes. I'm actually surprised they managed to get a third of Apple watch buyers to order the stainless steel. It looks like black sport with black band is going to be the new generic watch model with over 40%


My two watch orders, one of which I'm selling, are one 38mm SS w Black Band and one 38mm SS with Black Modern Buckle.
http://qz.com/381791/apple-watch-pr...its-first-day-a-shopping-data-firm-estimates/


The average watch order is running at over $500. I hope the Swiss have something else they can learn to make. Chocolate perhaps?

 

[WelshBloke]

I think you're still seeing this as a smartwatch in terms of what the moto360 or galaxy gear is. Apple is putting this in direct competition with luxury watch makers in terms of price, which is going to be a very hard sell for samsung/LG/Sony when they bring their offerings. Its just a different kind of product, just looking at the colors and finishes you can get.

And there we have a fine example of what marketing can do.

It is exactly the same type of product that Samsung, LG, Sony et al are selling. Its a smartwatch.

Over pricing it doesn't magically turn it into a new product categorie.

 

[ControlD]

And there we have a fine example of what marketing can do.

It is exactly the same type of product that Samsung, LG, Sony et al are selling. Its a smartwatch.

Over pricing it doesn't magically turn it into a new product categorie.

No, but apparently putting an Apple logo on it does.

 

[vi edit]

One thing not one single person has mentioned is the fact that the Apple watch uses a suite of sensors that is on another level in terms of quality and quantity of information. The heart rate monitor alone would cost you hundreds were you to buy it in a medical catalog. All other heart rate monitors require extremely high pressure compared to how somebody normally wears a watch, which is why none of the actual 'watches' even try to include one before the AW. I don't think you even understand how advanced this technology is, it has never been done before.

I want this for the health aspect and nothing more, and personally I find it pretty ridiculous to see people discount my decisions I make with my money like they know better. I personally think its worth it to spend $874 on a sapphire crystal apple watch and a nice band. If that bothers you then I am curious what other things that are sold today in the world bother you when people buy them. Yatchs? Large houses? Pools? Yes I agree, who could possibly need that crap

I just have to address these comments. The sensor in the watch is an optical sensor. It's the same technology in the Fitbit HR and the MS Band. It *IS NOT* the same thing as a Polar band you wear across your chest nor are any of them as reliable.

And if I'm reading things right you are going to carry two different phones, plus go out and buy a watch...all for fitness?

I'm sorry but buy a fitbit or a MS band if that's the case. You don't need another device, some of them can actually GPS track your runs without needing a phone and most of them are good for a couple days of use and overnight sleep tracking without needing a charge. Something the Apple Watch can't do.

If you want an Apple watch because it's a trendy gadget, fine. But it's one of the worse things you can buy if you want it for fitness tracking. The MS Band has over twice as many sensors as the Apple Watch. They are slowly unlocking them as updates come out. The watch isn't the mystical device of health monitoring that you are thinking it is.

 

[Commodus]

Yeah, I wouldn't get an Apple Watch primarily for fitness, at least if you're going for accuracy. The main thing Apple has going for it is comprehensive software that covers many more activities than just walking or running. It'll take into account things like rowing machines and the need to stand up during the day, for example.

 

[Mopetar]

Even if it is the best smartwatch, I still don't think there's a compelling enough reason to purchase one yet and I have a feeling that version available in two years is going to be substantially better both in terms of features and battery life so investing now would be a stretch.

Yet, even if they did have a great product that I thought was more than worth the $350 price of admission, it would still necessitate buying an iPhone to go along with it, so for a lot of people (especially on this forum) the cost is closer to $1000.

 

[touchstone]

I just have to address these comments. The sensor in the watch is an optical sensor. It's the same technology in the Fitbit HR and the MS Band. It *IS NOT* the same thing as a Polar band you wear across your chest nor are any of them as reliable.

And if I'm reading things right you are going to carry two different phones, plus go out and buy a watch...all for fitness?

I'm sorry but buy a fitbit or a MS band if that's the case. You don't need another device, some of them can actually GPS track your runs without needing a phone and most of them are good for a couple days of use and overnight sleep tracking without needing a charge. Something the Apple Watch can't do.

If you want an Apple watch because it's a trendy gadget, fine. But it's one of the worse things you can buy if you want it for fitness tracking. The MS Band has over twice as many sensors as the Apple Watch. They are slowly unlocking them as updates come out. The watch isn't the mystical device of health monitoring that you are thinking it is.

It is not the same as the fitbit or MS band and you would understand that clearly if you had tried it on. I don't get why people on this forum have to lie to put down Apple products just because they are made by Apple. This isn't an iphone and you don't have the option to just get something equivalent with android wear, there is nothing even remotely close to the feature set of the Apple watch.


More to the point, the Apple watch is physically in a whole different catagory. The lightest Apple watch is 25 GRAMS. Guess how heavy a Gear S is? 84 grams, over THREE TIMES AS HEAVY. Even the lightest possible smartwatch you can get (A pebble with a fraction of the functionality) is OVER 50% HEAVIER AT 47 GRAMS. How are you not understanding this as a huge feat of human engineering? I can guarantee you that there won't be anything made by samsung/android/pebble in 2015 and probably not in 2016. Its not even physically possible for a company like pebble to compete here. The only one with a chance is Samsung, hopefully they pull through but I'm really not seeing it.


To make it clear I will list the feature set you get with a 25 Gram 38mm Apple watch, the smallest, lightest, most attractive smartwatch available BY FAR:

Force Touch
Haptics
Same size a normal watch
Same weight as normal watch
Sapphire Crystal Display
Wifi connectivity when not in bluetooth range
Retina display
Heart rate monitor


You can find an android or pebble that has maybe two or three of these features. Some, like the Gear S, have barely one. How are you even coming close to comparing these products? The level of self deception here is absurd, I don't even use apple software and I can appreciate and understand how tranformative this product is. You are blinded by your somewhat rational hatred for Apple. Nobody is arguing that they are ethical or a good software company, what I am doing is laying bias aside and looking at this from a material standpoint. And yes I do think it is worth it to carry a second phone in my bag in order to be on the cutting edge of technology. A Pebble with zero functionality beyond tracking and that sensor is boring and has been around for a decade.


It is already obvious how terrible anandtech is at predicting public interest in this watch. 92% of us said it would fail, millions of pre-orders and the biggest apple product launch yet. Funny how that works.

 

[ControlD]

Force Touch
Haptics
Same size a normal watch
Same weight as normal watch
Sapphire Crystal Display
Wifi connectivity when not in bluetooth range
Retina display
Heart rate monitor

How is any of that stuff except the heart rate monitor useful as a fitness device? I mean, a FitBit is much smaller and lighter than any smart watch to start with and works fine as a fitness device.

I think people are shocked anyone would drop this kind of money on a smart watch to only use it as a fitness device. You are giving up almost everything that makes a smart watch ... smart. It's your money, so if it makes you happy more power to you. It just seems strange to people that find $600+ more than a trivial investment.

I also think you will find most on these forums are negative about smart watches in general. I like mine, but most seem skeptical at best. That isn't exclusive to the Apple Watch.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I think many here thought it would succeed even if they didn't buy one.

Don't kid yourself though, this thing will be 90% Xeroxed by the end of 2016. That is how China rolls with iStuff.

Apple is going to make a killing no matter what.

 

[openwheel]

92% of this poll (in a sub-forum of mobile device) says "no". Pretty good indication. However, we all know Apple will have incredible high profit and douche bags will be showing off their new watch every chance they get. It's a sign of the times. History will repeat itself again when Apple Watch 2 comes out next Spring