On an emotional level, you can't compare [Apple Watch and mechanical watches], and that is why I don't believe many serious watch lovers (who, again, would normally be racing to spend their cash on an Apple release) will go for this.
I suspect that the "serious watch lover" market is one that doesn't really figure in Apple's market estimates at all. On the contrary, Apple has traditionally tried to go contrary to the expectations of the archetypal "serious lover of X" user when entering the market of X.
The Macintosh was not for "serious microcomputer lovers". The iPod was not for "serious MP3 lovers". The iPhone was not for "serious smartphone lovers". (Those did exist back in early 2007 -- they were the rare people who actually knew how to install stuff on their geeked-out Nokia N95 devices, or were in love with the BlackBerry keyboard. They hated the iPhone almost unanimously.)
Personally I'm not going to get a smartwatch because I hate interruptions. I hate OS X notifications; I hate it when the phone rings; I hate reading Twitter (but it's an addiction that's sometimes hard to overcome). I certainly don't want a blob on my wrist endlessly buzzing and tapping away, trying to figure out my heart rate and mood and generally being a bothersome noisy little electronic snoop.
But at the same time, I can imagine that the younger crowd wants exactly that. I think the Apple Watch will be a hit, but maybe about 1 year after the launch once the price of the low-end model comes down and a few millimetres get trimmed off.
This "serious watch lovers won't go for this" is debatable. I'm one.
He compares the Patek Philippe 3940G, along with a photograph. I have and used to wear the rarer top model of that series, with several more complications and digits in the price. I love and collect complication watches. I hate digital watches -- I've kept only one in 25 years.
Since getting the Pebble Steel with leather band (preordered and meant to cancel when I decided I wouldn't use it), I haven't worn the Patek or any of the other mechanicals during my business day.
The moment to moment difference liberating me from "devices" during my business day is too valuable. I don't love it. But it changes my day.
Given your comment, it's an interesting contrast: I no longer wear any other watch besides the Pebble Steel because I hate interruptions even more than I love mechanical watches. The Pebble's soft vibration and glance-ability is so much less intrusive than checking a device, I'm unwilling to trade it.
Couple the manufacturing detail described here with the benefit to the flow of one's day, and I'd argue the Apple Watch is the first digital likely to appeal to mechanical watch lovers in highly connected jobs.
+1 re: phone nerds. I had an HTC Apache (AKA Verizon XV6700) at the time, and I wouldn't give up on the idea of a physical keyboard. I was running my customized ppc kitchen BuildOS image (Win Mobile 6.1 stripped down iirc) before upgrading to the original Droid because of the much-higher-res screen. I ran Bugless Beast on the Droid and painstakingly updated it usually within 24 hours of a new release. Before the Apache, I had a Nokia 6600 with Symbian S60, and even as a kid I wrote VB5 for my 3Com Palm Pilot Professional.
I'm typing this on an iPhone 5, and I'll be pre-ordering the 6+ as soon as I can. This is my second iPhone; I started with a 4S. Fighting with Android became less and less appealing over time, and I currently only jailbreak iOS to get bluetooth / wifi tethering and because my physical mute switch is broken after a swim in the sink which I've worked around using Activator to toggle silent with a long-press on the status bar.
> Personally I'm not going to get a smartwatch because I hate interruptions.
I hate those things too, but I'm still chomping at the bit for the Apple Watch (and plan to disable all notifications except SMS). Why?
- Wrist GPS while driving
- Siri without taking phone from pocket
- Music remote control (hopefully video, too)
- NFC payments
- Heart monitor (QS)
- Other cool apps as yet unimagined
I certainly don't blame anyone who doesn't want one; it's a bulky, expensive frivolity. But its UI affordances create opportunities for active use cases beyond the passive notifications that have characterized smartwatch functionality until recently.
> But at the same time, I can imagine that the younger crowd wants exactly that.
If anyone can build a market from scratch it is Apple, but why would the younger crowd want a watch at all? Unless you are older than 30 (or perhaps even older), you likely aren't in the habit of wearing a watch. What is going to compel the younger crowd to do so?
> Personally I'm not going to get a smartwatch because I hate interruptions. I hate OS X notifications; I hate it when the phone rings; I hate reading Twitter (but it's an addiction that's sometimes hard to overcome). I certainly don't want a blob on my wrist endlessly buzzing and tapping away, trying to figure out my heart rate and mood and generally being a bothersome noisy little electronic snoop.
I agree with the sentiment, but, based on my interactions with OSX and iOS, I assume it's not essential that the watch buzz and interrupt you all the time. I have all popups & notifications disabled in OSX and iOS, and they're still great tools when you're ready to pay attention to them.
I won't be getting an Apple Watch v1 (because it's not waterproof, and well, v1), but it wouldn't surprise me if I bought one down the line. I think there's a lot of interesting things that can be done with all the new sensors, and UX.
I was negative on the Apple Watch until my wife mentioned something interesting: she wants one so she can doesn't have to constantly check her phone for important work emails during family time. Its a huge boon for the Blackberry crowd--people like my wife and I who would otherwise put their phone on the table during dinner to keep an eye on it.
She's also pretty fashion conscious and while she isn't happy with the design, I think it passes the bar. She really would prefer something with Apple guts and external design by her favorite fashion brands, however.
A lot of the article talks about the manufacturing process being so precise and sophisticated as a reason why the 'old school' watches are popular among his crowd.
It would be great to see apple release a video similar to the 'making the mac pro' that shows just how sophisticated and precise their manufacturing for the watch would be.. it might even get a few more people on board that have an interest in production quality.
I'm not a serious watch lover, but I imagine members of that group have larger collections than your typical microcomputer lover or smartphone lover, and place a high value on finding one that's different from any they already have.
The problem is there's no ecosystem and no added value.
The iPhone and iPad had apps, the iPod had podcasting and iTunes. WATCH has nothing equivalent. It seems to be a drastically cut-down iPhone you wear on your wrist, with a few haptic doodads added to create a USP.
It's aiming for a weird market that Apple has traditionally done well in - emotional spending and evangelism - but it's trying to cultivate desire by attempting to be explicitly fashionable, instead of offering 'magical' user benefits that lead indirectly to the perception of being fashionable. ('Show, don't tell.')
Obvious conclusion is that it's not a Jobsian coup like the last few revolutions were.
Maybe it could be with more thought about where it fits as a product, and what makes it unique. But currently 'small iOS wrist device for semi-fashionable people' seems like a challenging place to succeed in.
Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just ugly?
A big clunky square box with a rubber strap. Some dim electronic display on top. That's what it looks like at a distance. Honestly it looks like something Samsung or Sony might turn out.
Even the Samsung offering looks better - we can finally do curved displays, and is there a better place to put them than in a wristwatch? http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/gears/
I have played with a prototype of the new samsung watch. I think it already gave a good idea of where they wanted to go. Considering their phone designs, it is not bad, but not a work of art either. Samsung watches are plasticky things.
I have conflicted thoughts on Apple Watch. On one hand, I can see that Apple has put a LOT of thought on its appearance (as with most of their products) and on the little details. On the other hand, I don't think the final design look good. I would need to try it first hand to confirm it but my first impression is that I don't want that big rectangular clunky thing on my hand.
And a circular watchface in a rectangular frame with a lot of whitespace (well blackspace actually) ? I just can't get over it.
If I had to guess what Apple Watch would look like before its reveal, I would have bet on something very similar to the Moto360.
>Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just ugly?
If you think it's ugly, it's ugly. I'd prefer a round watch, personally, but to each his own. However, the watch looks really well made and the straps look great. Two downsides for me: iPhone-only (I'm not going leave Android) and (potentially) battery life.
>Most of the guesswork 'prototypes' were far more compelling
Really? Most of them aren't possible with current technology (or ever). I'm also not a big bracelet guy.
It's subjective - there's a reason if you go to a regular watch shop they have as many different watches as they do.
Apple have made a start on trying to work with different preferences with the interchangable straps and clasps and so on but something like this is never going to please everyone.
Personally I wouldn't go as far as ugly but I'm certainly not wow-ed by it in terms of how it looks. It seems to be well designed and well made but lots of things are and it doesn't mean I want to strap them to my wrist.
> Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just ugly?
I think build quality will really make or break it here. On paper, it's not that attractive, but if--as an object--it's machined very precisely and out of attractive materials, I think it can overcome that. It certainly seems to be what they're hoping for.
I think the litmus test will be how the face feels (without strap) just in your hand. Does it feel like a premium object or not?
I doubt you're alone, but i think the apple watches look good, especially worn (vs. on their own). The smaller size also makes them look elegant, even compared to the Moto 360 (which I otherwise prefer as a physical object). After seeing Ars Technica's side-by-side comparison of screenshots, the round screen of the 360 seems both ridiculous and poorly used (although the Apple UI designers might have done better with a round display).
That said, I don't find the device compelling. One more gadget to charge.
A Timex might last over a decade if you replace the battery occasionally. A mechanical watch will offer inferior time keeping accuracy but, if maintained, can operate well for centuries. A quality mechanical watch is an heirloom item, which is one reason why watch aficionados can rationalize spending thousands on a single watch.
The Apple watch will be totally obsolete and incompatible with everything inside of five years. It's soldered-on and nearly impossible to replace battery will likely run out of charges in far less time than that. These are not heirloom items. They're disposable. As such, I don't expect the same kind of build quality from an Apple watch that I would from a mechanical watch. That they do offer good build quality for the money is therefore totally unexpected and rather nice.
That being said, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want one of these. As a fitness tracker and GPS watch they're inferior to what's out there (chiefly because the Apple watch relies on your iPhone's GPS). I don't do workouts with a phone in my pocket. Also, so far it's unclear if the Apple watch is waterproof, and it had better be to have any use at all in this market! For almost all other applications, the effort of working with such a tiny screen and different interface outweighs the trouble of reaching into your pocket and pulling out your phone. If I want eye candy on my wrist, I'll dust off a mechanical instead of buying something that will be junk in a few years.
I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes
me want one of these.
Triaging notifications without taking your phone out of your pocket. Who's calling me; do I need to pick up? Is this buzz an sms, calendar reminder, etc? That's what makes me want one.
A rotary phone will be bolted to the wall and work for 100 years. An iPhone needs to be replaced in a few years once the battery starts to go.
This is essentially the same scenario, people wont care about them being disposable, because they wont necessarily be using it as a watch as the main feature any more. (Just like how people hardly use their phones for talking any more)
> That being said, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want one of these.
Haptic walking directions for me. I travel a lot and walk a lot, and to be able to find my way without having to looking at a phone screen would be lovely (not to mention it means I can then keep my attention on my surroundings rather than being distracted).
We here on HN are mostly looking at Apple Watch as Android Wear vs. Apple Watch. This article is interesting since it shows that Apple is successful at completely ignoring these competitors and promoting Watch in a totally different market and environment, where all that matters is Brand, Design and Build. No matter if Android Wear is as good or even better, none of their manufacturers can compete in the luxury space as well as Apple may be able to.
Wow, what a crazy review. No mention of materials, which seems odd for a 'watch guy' review. I have to go to apple.com to read: A new aluminum alloy? "that’s 60 percent stronger than standard alloys"?? No mention of the sapphire crystals? Or the strengthened Ion-X glass? As a watch guy, that's what I want to hear about. Is it lighter than titanium, or heavy like a stainless watch? Is the crystal domed? Reflective? What is the ceramic back? I'll be honest, this reads like a crap review.
I'm impressed by the sweeping, of course. The display looks very nice for a watch at any price range. I wish the author actually compared some $350 mechanical watches, instead of a $28,000 hourglass, a $15,000 watch too big for his cuff, a $150 mechanical Swatch, and a $700 mechanical Tissot. Instead, we get vague, non-specific swaths of comparisons:
> Apple got more details right on their watch than the vast majority of Swiss and Asian brands do with similarly priced watches
> In many cases, its offerings make what is coming out of Switzerland (or Asia) look amateurish.
Again, no specific mention of better-than-X. Too bad. I do like that Tissot he mentioned.
I'm quite impressed by Apple's (relatively) vast array of superb finishes: other watch manufacturers could step their game up in this regard, but they would have to consolidate their designs. Also, the bracelets look quite nice and I hope that competition improves things analog-side.
"Market Leader In A Category No One Really Asked For" -
Thats what I feel when I hear about any tech company launching a watch, be it Samsung or Apple. Maybe its just me, but since owning a smartphone, I feel I don't really need a watch. None I know wears a watch anymore. Werent watches one of the main things replaced by smartphones. Also, how many more screens can I handle? Laptops for work, tablets for browsing, smartphones for on the go tech.... and a smartwatch to do what exactly?
Maybe I am missing the whole point of smart watches. I am hoping its just not me.
Apple is historically the kind of company that says "you can have it in any color you like, so long as it's black" for new products... and then when the product has been around for awhile, they start accessorizing it.
The iPhone is a good example: it wasn't until last year that you could have more than 2 versions (black and white)... and the 5c added many possible combinations with the off color cases. That's a product that had been on the market 6 years at that point!
So, actually offering all these different variations is quite a departure for them.
One argument for the Beats acquisition I heard was that Beats did this as well- they had many SKUs and many color combinations for each model of headphone and the argument went that managing selling a product line like that took a lot of special skill.
I wonder if this is the thing that Apple was really buying with Beats? (or more realistically, a big part of Beats value to Apple.)
My issue with the watch is the crown control. It just feels lazy to me to take a control mechanism made 100+ years ago for winding mechanical watches off your wrist, and repurpose it for digital control of a watch on your wrist.
Is it possible that the best possible UX solution for winding a mechanical watch and controlling a digital OS is exactly the same? Perhaps. But that seems improbable to me. It's hard to know until the thing is out in the wild, but I would expect a lot of people fiddling awkwardly with the top half of that tiny little dial as the bottom of the dial digs into their wrist. Doesn't seem terribly fun.
Or to look at it differently, both of Apple's other consumer hits (iPod, iPhone) introduced a navigation interface that was completely novel and way better than anything else on the market (iPhone => finger navigated multi-touch screen, iPod => rotary dial). A crown on a watch is definitely not novel, and I'm thoroughly skeptical it will be way better than its competition.
That being said, it's unlikely that this thing bombs. But as a test of innovation post-Steve, I'm just not seeing it. And over time, the luster of Apple will fade if there's no innovation.
"But for me, it's all about the Milanese bracelet, baby. The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it."
Specifically "The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable."
Apple knows?
Obviously Apple didn't develop the watch in a vacuum. And they have the money and resources to hire and consult with the best people in the world. So the surprise isn't that they did this what's surprising is how other equally rich companies don't tend to do things like this. In other words they seem to be lacking the motivation and creativity to even hire the right individuals.
The smartwatch represents the beginning of a new era: the unbundling of the smartphone. Like Marc Andreessen pointed out with his last tweet in this storm (https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/481554165454209027), "Unbundle X from Y, but then use the liberation of X as leverage to do amazing new things with X."
This thought framework has me convinced that watch-like wearables have a place, but I think the fact that the Apple Watch doesn't "fit beneath the shirtsleeve" as OP points out is a major ding: form is as important as function for such a jewelry/tech hybrid. A 2x slimmer second generation of the Apple Watch will get /everyone/ on board.
> The fact that the Apple Watch doesn't "fit beneath the shirtsleeve" as OP points out is a major ding: form is as important as function for such a jewelry/tech hybrid. A 2x slimmer second generation of the Apple Watch will get /everyone/ on board.
I agree. I think they will sell a boatload of the first generation, but two or three years down the track it will get its equivalent of the iPod-on-Windows or App-store-for-iPhone moment and take off. Everything will suddenly click and everyone will want one.
Here's one thing I realized about the famous Apple "reality distortion field" with the release of this watch.
The reality distortion doesn't start with the consumer once the product is released. It starts within Apple while the product is being developed. I mean they really believed when they were building the Apple Watch "We are building a $350 device". Wheter you love the design or hate it, it's hard to deny the effort that went into designing this device, from getting the dimensions right, to the curvature of the screen and bezel camouflage to the bracelet selection. This reality distortion field only then gets transfered to the RIGHT customer who has no problem paying $350.
I still think it'll be a tough slog to get the watch through the early adopter curve and over the early majority hump simply because it has no compelling features as of yet, but that might change with a wider ecoaystem. As of right now, the main selling feature of this watch is the built in reality distortion field.
With the right offer though it might have an easier time. If you got the watch for $100 extra when upgrading your iPhone anyways that might be an easier pill to swallow than paying $350 outright. Whatever the offer may be, Apple needs to find the equivalent of the carrier subsidies which propelled smartphone adoption at the end of last decade.
TL'DR: What Apple realizes is that the way to sell their watch is to communicate to their customers that they want to wear the watch because they'll enjoy wearing it - no other reasons or features are needed. In fact many of the truly novel features (payment, identification, keyless entry...) will only scare away mainstream users. Just put in on their wrist first.. And show them the true functionality slowly and in stages.
Apple doesn't really sell early-adopter products. They sell to the early-majority segment, who then persuade the late majority eventually. [1]
You can tell because they don't do anything particularly novel. The early Mac innovations were taken from Xerox PARC. The first iPod came out 3 years after the first MP3 player. The first iPhone came out 6 years after the first smartphone. The Pebble was part of the YC 2011 class.
This is a smart approach. Apple lets other people pioneer a product space to figure out what works, and then use their immense design talent and their even more immense cash reserves to turn a good-but-geeky product into something that the bulk of the market will actually buy and use. And then they scoop up enormous amounts of money.
A watch which does need charging once a day with a special charger, which is not very robust, very clunky, with a UI for kids for 350+?
No way.
Apple targets the fashion market. Material might be great, but the form factor is horrible: big, clunky, ...
Basically Apple tries to sell a very tiny computer add-on in a jewelry case.
Currently I'm only using watches for training a Garmin 310xt and now most of the time a Suunto Ambit2 S. The latter is the more modern and it does the training stuff very well. I can swim with it, it has GPS and it has very good heart rate monitoring functionality (it gets the oxygen consumption and energy using heart rate variability data).
For Apple I would hope that the new Apple Watch is the equivalent of the first iPhone, which also wasn't very good on the hardware level (slow, limited connectivity, ...).
Imagine a man who grew up in the middle class, went do a decent school, got an okay job, lives in a nice apartment in some metropolitan town, maybe drives a German car and occasionally splurges on something nice for himself. Do you see him wearing the Apple Watch? I don't.
I honestly don't think Apple are too concerned about not selling a watch to that man. The watch is targeted at the hundreds of millions of teens and 20 year olds that are already attached to their iPhone, and want another gadget to connect to it and play with.
Market Leader In A Category No One Really Asked For
Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.
"It's directly competing for the same real estate (i.e wrist), where as if we had seen a bracelet of some kind announced yesterday, those early adapters, myself included, would be begging Apple to take their pre-pre-pre-order"
I really did want the apple watch to be more of a bracelet and something that could be complimentary to an analog watch with all the messaging, notification, health aspects in tact. More than anything, the health tracking seems to be the most relevant for myself, and for that, I see a JawBone Up or something comparable that I can rest next to my analog watch as a potentially better option.
The design is brilliant, it's just not for me. However, iPhone 6 looks great so not like Apple won't be taking my money :)
I'm sure the author is very knowledgeable on the watch industry and by no means I'm challenging his taste and feel of fashion.
I'm just curious that when he made claim of "The Apple Watch is by far the best smartwatch", what is this claim based on? Did he try all the other high end smart watch like Moto 360 or G watch R? If not, is it really fair to make a strong public claim like this?
One thing the author is missing: the prices begin at 350$. The milanaise strap he shows might be worth as much alone. For 350$ you probably get the cheap sport watch, while the beautiful ones might cost a good 1000. Which makes the wealth argument less strong. But let's see how this comes out.
Apple is a marketing/sales retail machine. This watch is just another thing for them to sell with a high-end, glossy look and feel that fits with their strategy of dominating the sectors they want to control. I'm not surprised it doesn't do all the things HN folks were looking for (e.g. requires pairing with iPhone, not a standalone device with its own internet connectivity/gps).
On the other hand, I think they delivered a nice product that will fit perfectly in an Apple store, engaging swarms of shoppers with lots of disposable income.
Another site with an always-present header that completely fails keyboard paging. It is really frustrating how many pages break such a basic function. Forcing the user to manually adjust the positioning every time they page is a really great way to make them lose interest and go somewhere else.
I like this, because it dispenses with the "Apple lover" angle and instead focuses on the existing watch market at the $350 price point. It should be clarified, though, that $350 is the base price and some configurations are probably going to go up to double and triple that.
[+] [-] pavlov|11 years ago|reply
On an emotional level, you can't compare [Apple Watch and mechanical watches], and that is why I don't believe many serious watch lovers (who, again, would normally be racing to spend their cash on an Apple release) will go for this.
I suspect that the "serious watch lover" market is one that doesn't really figure in Apple's market estimates at all. On the contrary, Apple has traditionally tried to go contrary to the expectations of the archetypal "serious lover of X" user when entering the market of X.
The Macintosh was not for "serious microcomputer lovers". The iPod was not for "serious MP3 lovers". The iPhone was not for "serious smartphone lovers". (Those did exist back in early 2007 -- they were the rare people who actually knew how to install stuff on their geeked-out Nokia N95 devices, or were in love with the BlackBerry keyboard. They hated the iPhone almost unanimously.)
Personally I'm not going to get a smartwatch because I hate interruptions. I hate OS X notifications; I hate it when the phone rings; I hate reading Twitter (but it's an addiction that's sometimes hard to overcome). I certainly don't want a blob on my wrist endlessly buzzing and tapping away, trying to figure out my heart rate and mood and generally being a bothersome noisy little electronic snoop.
But at the same time, I can imagine that the younger crowd wants exactly that. I think the Apple Watch will be a hit, but maybe about 1 year after the launch once the price of the low-end model comes down and a few millimetres get trimmed off.
[+] [-] Terretta|11 years ago|reply
He compares the Patek Philippe 3940G, along with a photograph. I have and used to wear the rarer top model of that series, with several more complications and digits in the price. I love and collect complication watches. I hate digital watches -- I've kept only one in 25 years.
Since getting the Pebble Steel with leather band (preordered and meant to cancel when I decided I wouldn't use it), I haven't worn the Patek or any of the other mechanicals during my business day.
The moment to moment difference liberating me from "devices" during my business day is too valuable. I don't love it. But it changes my day.
Given your comment, it's an interesting contrast: I no longer wear any other watch besides the Pebble Steel because I hate interruptions even more than I love mechanical watches. The Pebble's soft vibration and glance-ability is so much less intrusive than checking a device, I'm unwilling to trade it.
Couple the manufacturing detail described here with the benefit to the flow of one's day, and I'd argue the Apple Watch is the first digital likely to appeal to mechanical watch lovers in highly connected jobs.
[+] [-] seanp2k2|11 years ago|reply
I'm typing this on an iPhone 5, and I'll be pre-ordering the 6+ as soon as I can. This is my second iPhone; I started with a 4S. Fighting with Android became less and less appealing over time, and I currently only jailbreak iOS to get bluetooth / wifi tethering and because my physical mute switch is broken after a swim in the sink which I've worked around using Activator to toggle silent with a long-press on the status bar.
[+] [-] lukifer|11 years ago|reply
I hate those things too, but I'm still chomping at the bit for the Apple Watch (and plan to disable all notifications except SMS). Why?
- Wrist GPS while driving
- Siri without taking phone from pocket
- Music remote control (hopefully video, too)
- NFC payments
- Heart monitor (QS)
- Other cool apps as yet unimagined
I certainly don't blame anyone who doesn't want one; it's a bulky, expensive frivolity. But its UI affordances create opportunities for active use cases beyond the passive notifications that have characterized smartwatch functionality until recently.
[+] [-] aaron-lebo|11 years ago|reply
If anyone can build a market from scratch it is Apple, but why would the younger crowd want a watch at all? Unless you are older than 30 (or perhaps even older), you likely aren't in the habit of wearing a watch. What is going to compel the younger crowd to do so?
[+] [-] arohner|11 years ago|reply
I agree with the sentiment, but, based on my interactions with OSX and iOS, I assume it's not essential that the watch buzz and interrupt you all the time. I have all popups & notifications disabled in OSX and iOS, and they're still great tools when you're ready to pay attention to them.
I won't be getting an Apple Watch v1 (because it's not waterproof, and well, v1), but it wouldn't surprise me if I bought one down the line. I think there's a lot of interesting things that can be done with all the new sensors, and UX.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
She's also pretty fashion conscious and while she isn't happy with the design, I think it passes the bar. She really would prefer something with Apple guts and external design by her favorite fashion brands, however.
[+] [-] maigret|11 years ago|reply
- The NSA won't hack into it
- Most will work decades and follow me, given I service them every 5 to 8 years
[+] [-] bobbles|11 years ago|reply
It would be great to see apple release a video similar to the 'making the mac pro' that shows just how sophisticated and precise their manufacturing for the watch would be.. it might even get a few more people on board that have an interest in production quality.
[+] [-] brlewis|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheOtherHobbes|11 years ago|reply
The iPhone and iPad had apps, the iPod had podcasting and iTunes. WATCH has nothing equivalent. It seems to be a drastically cut-down iPhone you wear on your wrist, with a few haptic doodads added to create a USP.
It's aiming for a weird market that Apple has traditionally done well in - emotional spending and evangelism - but it's trying to cultivate desire by attempting to be explicitly fashionable, instead of offering 'magical' user benefits that lead indirectly to the perception of being fashionable. ('Show, don't tell.')
Obvious conclusion is that it's not a Jobsian coup like the last few revolutions were.
Maybe it could be with more thought about where it fits as a product, and what makes it unique. But currently 'small iOS wrist device for semi-fashionable people' seems like a challenging place to succeed in.
[+] [-] sfjailbird|11 years ago|reply
A big clunky square box with a rubber strap. Some dim electronic display on top. That's what it looks like at a distance. Honestly it looks like something Samsung or Sony might turn out.
Most of the guesswork 'prototypes' were far more compelling: https://www.google.com/search?q=iwatch+prototype&tbm=isch
Even the Samsung offering looks better - we can finally do curved displays, and is there a better place to put them than in a wristwatch? http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/gears/
[+] [-] on_and_off|11 years ago|reply
I have conflicted thoughts on Apple Watch. On one hand, I can see that Apple has put a LOT of thought on its appearance (as with most of their products) and on the little details. On the other hand, I don't think the final design look good. I would need to try it first hand to confirm it but my first impression is that I don't want that big rectangular clunky thing on my hand.
And a circular watchface in a rectangular frame with a lot of whitespace (well blackspace actually) ? I just can't get over it.
If I had to guess what Apple Watch would look like before its reveal, I would have bet on something very similar to the Moto360.
[+] [-] prawks|11 years ago|reply
http://static.squarespace.com/static/4fa14d3ce4b08a53fa26468...
I think as with most watches, it's a piece of your outfit. It doesn't look good on its own, and it's not supposed to.
[+] [-] macspoofing|11 years ago|reply
If you think it's ugly, it's ugly. I'd prefer a round watch, personally, but to each his own. However, the watch looks really well made and the straps look great. Two downsides for me: iPhone-only (I'm not going leave Android) and (potentially) battery life.
>Most of the guesswork 'prototypes' were far more compelling
Really? Most of them aren't possible with current technology (or ever). I'm also not a big bracelet guy.
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|11 years ago|reply
Apple have made a start on trying to work with different preferences with the interchangable straps and clasps and so on but something like this is never going to please everyone.
Personally I wouldn't go as far as ugly but I'm certainly not wow-ed by it in terms of how it looks. It seems to be well designed and well made but lots of things are and it doesn't mean I want to strap them to my wrist.
[+] [-] realo|11 years ago|reply
Only 2.7 _million_ dollars...
[+] [-] Osmium|11 years ago|reply
I think build quality will really make or break it here. On paper, it's not that attractive, but if--as an object--it's machined very precisely and out of attractive materials, I think it can overcome that. It certainly seems to be what they're hoping for.
I think the litmus test will be how the face feels (without strap) just in your hand. Does it feel like a premium object or not?
[+] [-] broolstoryco|11 years ago|reply
As does the iPhone 6
edit: and this is coming from quite the apple fanboy
[+] [-] Tloewald|11 years ago|reply
That said, I don't find the device compelling. One more gadget to charge.
[+] [-] Cookingboy|11 years ago|reply
http://i.imgur.com/qGvqIqK.png
Would you still call those ugly? Either way it's definitely not just some dim display with a rubber strap.
[+] [-] usaphp|11 years ago|reply
1. The Samsung offering looks huge on that men's wrist, never mind women's wrist.
2. Why would you put a curved watch on a wrist, if the top part of the wrist is flat?
[+] [-] y0ghur7_xxx|11 years ago|reply
On the internet you are never the only one. I don't like it either, but it's just subjective opinion. I'm sure a lot of people will like it.
[+] [-] fastball|11 years ago|reply
I think you missed something.
[+] [-] beloch|11 years ago|reply
The Apple watch will be totally obsolete and incompatible with everything inside of five years. It's soldered-on and nearly impossible to replace battery will likely run out of charges in far less time than that. These are not heirloom items. They're disposable. As such, I don't expect the same kind of build quality from an Apple watch that I would from a mechanical watch. That they do offer good build quality for the money is therefore totally unexpected and rather nice.
That being said, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want one of these. As a fitness tracker and GPS watch they're inferior to what's out there (chiefly because the Apple watch relies on your iPhone's GPS). I don't do workouts with a phone in my pocket. Also, so far it's unclear if the Apple watch is waterproof, and it had better be to have any use at all in this market! For almost all other applications, the effort of working with such a tiny screen and different interface outweighs the trouble of reaching into your pocket and pulling out your phone. If I want eye candy on my wrist, I'll dust off a mechanical instead of buying something that will be junk in a few years.
[+] [-] marze|11 years ago|reply
A. They will do future upgrades to the internals of the watch to make it current with the latest model.
B. They will allow trade-in for a small fee to the latest version with the same case material (and recycle the gold in the case into a new watch).
If they didn't one of these, a customer would soon feel that their rather expensive watch had fallen behind the technology curve.
My guess: B
[+] [-] cbr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobbles|11 years ago|reply
This is essentially the same scenario, people wont care about them being disposable, because they wont necessarily be using it as a watch as the main feature any more. (Just like how people hardly use their phones for talking any more)
[+] [-] Osmium|11 years ago|reply
Haptic walking directions for me. I travel a lot and walk a lot, and to be able to find my way without having to looking at a phone screen would be lovely (not to mention it means I can then keep my attention on my surroundings rather than being distracted).
[+] [-] Istof|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julianpye|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arh68|11 years ago|reply
I'm impressed by the sweeping, of course. The display looks very nice for a watch at any price range. I wish the author actually compared some $350 mechanical watches, instead of a $28,000 hourglass, a $15,000 watch too big for his cuff, a $150 mechanical Swatch, and a $700 mechanical Tissot. Instead, we get vague, non-specific swaths of comparisons:
> Apple got more details right on their watch than the vast majority of Swiss and Asian brands do with similarly priced watches
> In many cases, its offerings make what is coming out of Switzerland (or Asia) look amateurish.
Again, no specific mention of better-than-X. Too bad. I do like that Tissot he mentioned.
I'm quite impressed by Apple's (relatively) vast array of superb finishes: other watch manufacturers could step their game up in this regard, but they would have to consolidate their designs. Also, the bracelets look quite nice and I hope that competition improves things analog-side.
[+] [-] fillskills|11 years ago|reply
Thats what I feel when I hear about any tech company launching a watch, be it Samsung or Apple. Maybe its just me, but since owning a smartphone, I feel I don't really need a watch. None I know wears a watch anymore. Werent watches one of the main things replaced by smartphones. Also, how many more screens can I handle? Laptops for work, tablets for browsing, smartphones for on the go tech.... and a smartwatch to do what exactly?
Maybe I am missing the whole point of smart watches. I am hoping its just not me.
[+] [-] MCRed|11 years ago|reply
The iPhone is a good example: it wasn't until last year that you could have more than 2 versions (black and white)... and the 5c added many possible combinations with the off color cases. That's a product that had been on the market 6 years at that point!
So, actually offering all these different variations is quite a departure for them.
One argument for the Beats acquisition I heard was that Beats did this as well- they had many SKUs and many color combinations for each model of headphone and the argument went that managing selling a product line like that took a lot of special skill.
I wonder if this is the thing that Apple was really buying with Beats? (or more realistically, a big part of Beats value to Apple.)
[+] [-] balloot|11 years ago|reply
Is it possible that the best possible UX solution for winding a mechanical watch and controlling a digital OS is exactly the same? Perhaps. But that seems improbable to me. It's hard to know until the thing is out in the wild, but I would expect a lot of people fiddling awkwardly with the top half of that tiny little dial as the bottom of the dial digs into their wrist. Doesn't seem terribly fun.
Or to look at it differently, both of Apple's other consumer hits (iPod, iPhone) introduced a navigation interface that was completely novel and way better than anything else on the market (iPhone => finger navigated multi-touch screen, iPod => rotary dial). A crown on a watch is definitely not novel, and I'm thoroughly skeptical it will be way better than its competition.
That being said, it's unlikely that this thing bombs. But as a test of innovation post-Steve, I'm just not seeing it. And over time, the luster of Apple will fade if there's no innovation.
[+] [-] larrys|11 years ago|reply
"But for me, it's all about the Milanese bracelet, baby. The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it."
Specifically "The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable."
Apple knows?
Obviously Apple didn't develop the watch in a vacuum. And they have the money and resources to hire and consult with the best people in the world. So the surprise isn't that they did this what's surprising is how other equally rich companies don't tend to do things like this. In other words they seem to be lacking the motivation and creativity to even hire the right individuals.
[+] [-] lumens|11 years ago|reply
This thought framework has me convinced that watch-like wearables have a place, but I think the fact that the Apple Watch doesn't "fit beneath the shirtsleeve" as OP points out is a major ding: form is as important as function for such a jewelry/tech hybrid. A 2x slimmer second generation of the Apple Watch will get /everyone/ on board.
[+] [-] adnrw|11 years ago|reply
I agree. I think they will sell a boatload of the first generation, but two or three years down the track it will get its equivalent of the iPod-on-Windows or App-store-for-iPhone moment and take off. Everything will suddenly click and everyone will want one.
[+] [-] mladenkovacevic|11 years ago|reply
The reality distortion doesn't start with the consumer once the product is released. It starts within Apple while the product is being developed. I mean they really believed when they were building the Apple Watch "We are building a $350 device". Wheter you love the design or hate it, it's hard to deny the effort that went into designing this device, from getting the dimensions right, to the curvature of the screen and bezel camouflage to the bracelet selection. This reality distortion field only then gets transfered to the RIGHT customer who has no problem paying $350.
I still think it'll be a tough slog to get the watch through the early adopter curve and over the early majority hump simply because it has no compelling features as of yet, but that might change with a wider ecoaystem. As of right now, the main selling feature of this watch is the built in reality distortion field.
With the right offer though it might have an easier time. If you got the watch for $100 extra when upgrading your iPhone anyways that might be an easier pill to swallow than paying $350 outright. Whatever the offer may be, Apple needs to find the equivalent of the carrier subsidies which propelled smartphone adoption at the end of last decade.
TL'DR: What Apple realizes is that the way to sell their watch is to communicate to their customers that they want to wear the watch because they'll enjoy wearing it - no other reasons or features are needed. In fact many of the truly novel features (payment, identification, keyless entry...) will only scare away mainstream users. Just put in on their wrist first.. And show them the true functionality slowly and in stages.
[+] [-] wpietri|11 years ago|reply
You can tell because they don't do anything particularly novel. The early Mac innovations were taken from Xerox PARC. The first iPod came out 3 years after the first MP3 player. The first iPhone came out 6 years after the first smartphone. The Pebble was part of the YC 2011 class.
This is a smart approach. Apple lets other people pioneer a product space to figure out what works, and then use their immense design talent and their even more immense cash reserves to turn a good-but-geeky product into something that the bulk of the market will actually buy and use. And then they scoop up enormous amounts of money.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_lifecycle
[+] [-] Gracana|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lispm|11 years ago|reply
No way.
Apple targets the fashion market. Material might be great, but the form factor is horrible: big, clunky, ...
Basically Apple tries to sell a very tiny computer add-on in a jewelry case.
Currently I'm only using watches for training a Garmin 310xt and now most of the time a Suunto Ambit2 S. The latter is the more modern and it does the training stuff very well. I can swim with it, it has GPS and it has very good heart rate monitoring functionality (it gets the oxygen consumption and energy using heart rate variability data).
For Apple I would hope that the new Apple Watch is the equivalent of the first iPhone, which also wasn't very good on the hardware level (slow, limited connectivity, ...).
[+] [-] grecy|11 years ago|reply
Imagine a man who grew up in the middle class, went do a decent school, got an okay job, lives in a nice apartment in some metropolitan town, maybe drives a German car and occasionally splurges on something nice for himself. Do you see him wearing the Apple Watch? I don't.
I honestly don't think Apple are too concerned about not selling a watch to that man. The watch is targeted at the hundreds of millions of teens and 20 year olds that are already attached to their iPhone, and want another gadget to connect to it and play with.
Market Leader In A Category No One Really Asked For
Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.
[+] [-] seanflyon|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonwilk|11 years ago|reply
"It's directly competing for the same real estate (i.e wrist), where as if we had seen a bracelet of some kind announced yesterday, those early adapters, myself included, would be begging Apple to take their pre-pre-pre-order"
I really did want the apple watch to be more of a bracelet and something that could be complimentary to an analog watch with all the messaging, notification, health aspects in tact. More than anything, the health tracking seems to be the most relevant for myself, and for that, I see a JawBone Up or something comparable that I can rest next to my analog watch as a potentially better option.
The design is brilliant, it's just not for me. However, iPhone 6 looks great so not like Apple won't be taking my money :)
[+] [-] cnbuff410|11 years ago|reply
I'm just curious that when he made claim of "The Apple Watch is by far the best smartwatch", what is this claim based on? Did he try all the other high end smart watch like Moto 360 or G watch R? If not, is it really fair to make a strong public claim like this?
[+] [-] maigret|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] capkutay|11 years ago|reply
On the other hand, I think they delivered a nice product that will fit perfectly in an Apple store, engaging swarms of shoppers with lots of disposable income.
[+] [-] pimlottc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] serve_yay|11 years ago|reply