How many are getting an Apple watch?

[cmdrdredd]

Back to topic: Apple Watch

Why would anyone want aluminum construction? There is a good reason real watches don't use aluminum. The minimal weight saving does not justify durability sacrifice. Is it an "Apple Prestige" that they won't use plastic? Look at Casio G-Shock, a real "sports" watch used widely in the military/police force.

My watch is made of titanium which is much more of a premium material but much more expensive obviously.

 

[Commodus]

The problem with the iPhone 5c was that Apple was selling a mid-tier phone using designs that you'd associate with a budget phone. It wasn't strictly a disaster (sales picked up in the months after launch), but Apple was way too optimistic about demand for what amounted to an iPhone 5 with a plastic shell. Right now, it's a better deal than when it launched -- it's the iPhone for folks who only get phones when they're free on contract.

As for the Watch... simply put, Apple is treating these as both smartwatches and fashion items. And while you can certainly argue that the Watch isn't a stunner (at least, not in Sport trim), that aluminum looks and feels miles better than the plastic watches we've seen so far. It should also be more resilient against typical scratches.

 

[Oyeve]

Only when you put the extra "i" in it.

That's how it is spelled and how it should be spoken but most people (mostly US of A) are to lazy to do either.

 

[ponyo]

I paid $150 for my gear 2. Bought it used from a coworker who thought his wife would like it. She didnt, so I offered him 150, which is pretty good. I only use it when I actually run or walk for long periods. Otherwise I use a traditional seiko or citizen. But 350 for the smallest cheapest apple watch is pretty steep. Im sure most sales are for the larger watch so 400 minimal. Man, thats kinda hard to swallow.

The way I justified it was I bought a luxury item. $350-400 for electronic watch is expensive. $350-400 for fashion is cheap. It's matter of perspective and lying to yourself.

 

[openwheel]

The way I justified it was I bought a luxury item. $350-400 for electronic watch is expensive. $350-400 for fashion is cheap. It's matter of perspective and lying to yourself.

Bingo, this is what I have been saying for years. People buy Apple because they think they are getting "luxury tech". This is a really bazaar phenomenon.

 

[ControlD]

That's how it is spelled and how it should be spoken but most people (mostly US of A) are to lazy to do either.

I know, just having a little fun.

But technically, both spellings/pronunciations are accepted as correct.

http://grammarist.com/spelling/aluminium-aluminum/

 

[Ns1]

Bingo, this is what I have been saying for years. People buy Apple because they think they are getting "luxury tech". This is a really bazaar phenomenon.

how is a $350/base apple watch NOT luxury tech?

 

[Commodus]

Bingo, this is what I have been saying for years. People buy Apple because they think they are getting "luxury tech". This is a really bazaar phenomenon.

It is and it isn't.

Some of its parts are things you can find in other devices, but its big deal has been its design-centric approach. That's why it comes across as luxury -- whatever you think of the hardware inside, the outside is usually well-made and attractive. And there's often some goal behind that design that catches your eye, whether it's ease of setup (think iMac) or sheer portability (MacBooks).

This strategy locks Apple out of certain markets -- it may never have a proper gaming PC or a cheap smartphone. But this also makes it an "aspirational" brand for a lot of people, and that definitely works in its favor for smartwatches. LG, Motorola and the like have to fight to get the kind of cachet Apple already has, especially in countries like China.

 

[Rottie]

No, because Apple Watch is NOT deaf friendly idevice!!

 

[Ramses]

The way I justified it was I bought a luxury item. $350-400 for electronic watch is expensive. $350-400 for fashion is cheap. It's matter of perspective and lying to yourself.

Interesting point. It must be a challenge marketing this sort of thing. I'm a genX'r and $350 isn't much for tech at all, but that much for luxury, clothes, jewelry, etc, is all but unthinkable.

 

[openwheel]

Here is a difference between me and the typical Apple diehards. I would never describe any laptop, phone, or smart watch using words like "luxury", " design centric", "aspirational brand". I want to puke just reading such description. Are we on Anandtech or Sixteen Magazine?

Whatever happened to Rolex, Ferrari, Brioni as aspirational brands? If my son wants this ugly cheap looking Apple Watch as an aspirational purchase I would smack his head instead.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Whatever happened to Rolex, Ferrari, Brioni as aspirational brands?

I am sure on some senior citizen's forum or an upper class forum they still are. This community is not representative of any real segment of the population except sexless working age nerds.

 

[Ramses]

After working on a few Ferrari, I can tell you what happened to that one with me...


One of the things I always found interesting and pleasant about computer-ish stuff, and to a lesser degree electronics, was that you could have 90% or better of the features/quality with a reasonable priced example of any given thing as the elite would with the crazy high end stuff(that I could never afford). And also, even if it is out of reach, just wait awhile and it'll become mainstream and affordable.

 

[Oyeve]

I am sure on some senior citizen's forum or an upper class forum they still are. This community is not representative of any real segment of the population except sexless working age nerds.

So true, except I get sex.

 

[sm625]

So after 60 days, 4% are getting it, and 4% are thinking about it. That translates into $3.6 billion more for apple. Not a bad racket considering the fact that almost no one wears a watch and virtually no one needs a watch for anything anymore. $3.6 billion? Why not. May as well pull out an extra benjamin and set it on fire while you're at it.

 

[touchstone]

No, because Apple Watch is NOT deaf friendly idevice!!

I 100% disagree with this statement. If anything, the apple watch would be the most useful iDevice yet for deaf people because it has both Force touch and the taptic engine. It literally touches you so you don't have to hear it.


Here is a review by a deaf (and partially blind) person who got the Apple watch. I think this watch would be HUGE for a deaf person, if only because of the taptic engine. I can already think of a use: Apple maps has audible cues that tell you to turn so you don't have to see your screen, well, now you can FEEL what other people can hear.

http://www.mollywatt.com/blog/entry/my-apple-watch-after-5-days



Don't let the haters here discourage you, this forum is not known for a good track record on predicting apple product success.

 

[Commodus]

Here is a difference between me and the typical Apple diehards. I would never describe any laptop, phone, or smart watch using words like "luxury", " design centric", "aspirational brand". I want to puke just reading such description. Are we on Anandtech or Sixteen Magazine?

Whatever happened to Rolex, Ferrari, Brioni as aspirational brands? If my son wants this ugly cheap looking Apple Watch as an aspirational purchase I would smack his head instead.

"Luxury" and "aspirational" make me gag a bit as well, but I'm not describing what I think -- I'm saying that's what the reality is. There's a good reason why Xiaomi, Huawei and tiny knock-off companies tend to borrow Apple design cues or just rip it off directly... it's often what Chinese buyers are looking for. No, Apple doesn't have the cachet of Rolex or Ferrari, but it doesn't have to get that reputation to move units.

And what exactly is offensive about "design-centric?" That's just a statement of fact. Ever since the 1998 iMac came out, it's been obvious that the company has made design a centerpiece of its products. I used the term to contrast it with vendors who put more of a focus on the guts of their devices, like your typical desktop PC tower or many of Samsung's pre-GS6 phones.

 

[Commodus]

Sorry to post so quickly again, but Consumer Reports posted its study of the smartwatch market:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...n-consumer-reports-smartwatch-tests/index.htm

http://www.zdnet.com/article/consumer-reports-apple-watch-is-the-best-current-smartwatch/

Not totally surprising that the Apple Watch leads based on the criteria chosen (ease of use, display, resistance to abuse), and that Samsung's clunky Gear S was near the back. What caught me off guard was the Sony Smartwatch 3's poor water resistance. You'd think that the watch virtually designed for sweat and splashes would fare the best... nope.

 

[ultimatebob]

I'd consider looking at the 2nd gen Apple Watch device. I'd bet that it will be cheaper, thinner, faster, have better apps, and have a better battery life.

In other words, it will be like the 2nd gen iPhone or iPad.

 

[WelshBloke]

Only when you put the extra "i" in it.

Unashamedly overvoweled.






:biggrin:

 

[Shlong]

Here is a difference between me and the typical Apple diehards. I would never describe any laptop, phone, or smart watch using words like "luxury", " design centric", "aspirational brand". I want to puke just reading such description. Are we on Anandtech or Sixteen Magazine?

Whatever happened to Rolex, Ferrari, Brioni as aspirational brands? If my son wants this ugly cheap looking Apple Watch as an aspirational purchase I would smack his head instead.

A person who owns and can afford a Rolex, Audemars Piguet, Patek Philippe will not be trading in their watches for an Apple Watch. However, someone wearing a Seiko may look into getting an Apple Watch.

 

[Oyeve]

If they made the watch for lefties and righties I may not hate it as much as I do. I'm lefty. Having the button on top and the crown on bottom feels whack. I prefer the feel of my gear 2.

 

[openwheel]

A person who owns and can afford a Rolex, Audemars Piguet, Patek Philippe will not be trading in their watches for an Apple Watch. However, someone wearing a Seiko may look into getting an Apple Watch.

Exactly, but somehow people believes they are buying luxury with Apple, but not Seiko. This is why I consider Apple as "cheap luxury". They are cheap to obtain. $1000 laptop, $200 iPhone, and $400 watch are "relatively" affordable in today's standards. I guess anyone can consider anything "luxury".

Is "hipster" the proper term? There are a lot of "hipster wanna be" too, but I consider them all the same.

 

[Ramses]

Hipster Luxury. I like it. That might need to be a new term.

 

[boomhower]

I'd consider looking at the 2nd gen Apple Watch device. I'd bet that it will be cheaper, thinner, faster, have better apps, and have a better battery life.

In other words, it will be like the 2nd gen iPhone or iPad.

I'd say your spot on other than the price part. I don't see it getting any cheaper unless sales are just atrocious.