When Apple first showed off the Apple Watch, I was stunned. It looked glorious and larger than life. Shiny and precision-machined. Like an object from the future that time-traveled back to the present just to blow everyone away.
This past Friday, the first day that the public was allowed to handle and play with the Apple Watch, everyone who had been obsessing over videos and photographs finally got the chance to use one firsthand. I made it to the Apple Store on Friday and was one of those people.
It’s almost as if carefully orchestrated press events attended by nothing but employees and hand-picked, pre-approved press outlets, as well as fake renders on a company website, are not a good way to gauge a new product.
It surprises me that no one is talking about the longevity of the Apple Watch. Watches over $300 typically last decades. Automatic watches can last several lifetimes if properly maintained. The Apple Watch might last a while if the battery holds up, but like most consumer electronics will probably be disposed of in under 5 years. Likely sooner. That is a tremendous waste of money and hardware for something that is purely a luxury item.
Well, aren’t cell phones and tablets luxury items for most people? For those who depend on these kinds of devices for work and such may get a lot of use out of a watch, esp if they have to put up with a crapload of notifications all day.
I know most watches that cost $300+ will last a lot longer, but these are more like tiny computers that just happen to double as watches. They will be useful to some people, but of no interest to others.
Perhaps it’s a marketing problem. Apple is absolutely pushing these as high-quality high-dollar luxury items, not as disposable consumer electronics.
What’s that, you say? Apple marketing disposable consumer electronics as high-quality, high-dollar luxury items? Surely, you jest
You might think that, because for a product which is clearly not refined, the marketing campaign has been so astronomically well crafted, but this isn’t the iWatch Classic its the iWatch v1. We know they will have a new iWatch launched with in two years and more reasonably a year. This new watch will sport enhanced features and most likely increased visual fidelity. By the iWatch 3 in four years the outer case will likely change and possibly the interaction modality.
This generation will most certainly be a throw away item. In 10 years they might actually have a watch you could buy for a lifetime, but it wont be this model.
What gets me is people are comparing this watch to watches of equivalent length, I am more apt to compare its quality to 50 dollar watches on Amazon. I have $50 and $75 dollar watches that I have worn for eight years. Most of them are winders a few are automatics. I also have a few digital watches from Timex for when I work out. For the majority of a watches function you do not need to spend money to get longevity or reasonable time keeping. The reason you pay 500 for a watch is precision and luxury and right now I don’t see how the Apple watch has either given its limited battery life.
I’ll wait for the iWatch Retina
Edited 2015-04-14 14:18 UTC
There is a venn diagram of those that pay $300 and up for watches, people who could use a smart watch. I don’t think there is much overlap.
Until now
Maybe…
Mobile phones are a communication tool. It’s effectively essential and subsidised. Mobile phones have morphed into smartphones. But their utility status has not changed.
Traditional luxury watches don’t become obsolete, go out of style, or look outdated with time either. In fact most become more valuable and desirable with age and are even passed down from generation to generation with pride.
Can’t say for sure about their watch, but with other Apple products (iPhone, iPad, etc.), as soon as a new model is released the previous generations are suddenly out of favor. Who wants a watch like that?
They are also not computers on your wrist… I think it is unrealistic to compare smart watches to classic watches on these kinds of merits alone.
I’m not saying those are not valid complaints. What I’m saying is that if you actually want a smart watch these particular qualities simply don’t exist in any of them, and probably never will. Those qualities are antithetical to what they are. Obsolescence is simply an inherent quality of modern digital computing, because we are no where near perfecting it and it advances at a truly astonishing rate…
Making such things truly “timeless” is of little real value when the reality is they come out of the box with an almost preordained expiration date.
I could just as easily say I think watches that don’t notify me when I get email are unworthy of my attention…
A smart watch is as much a watch as an iPod was a walkman, or an iPhone was a cell phone, or an iPad was a laptop.
I personally think this whole smart watch thing is stupid and I can’t for the life of me see why anyone would want one instead of a real watch.
I also thought the same thing about smart phones. And tablets. I’m almost certainly wrong this time too
I’d say that’s a sad state of affairs when that becomes a necessity.
Yes, I get that people now have more busy lives that they’ll need to check emails so often, but to have to have two separate devices to pester you to do that is what I’m calling sad.
I don’t disagree. I’m just playing devils advocate…
To me its like comparing microwaves to conventional ovens. Sure, they both fundamentally cook food, but they go about things in completely different ways. The fact that microwaves suck for baking a chicken, grilling a steak, or basically doing anything other than heating water doesn’t matter so much anymore now that you can buy hundreds of things designed to be cooked in them. What was once an expensive curiosity of limited usefulness became quite popular (and cheap) once applications of the technology had a chance to develop.
All I’m saying is that even though the first generation of smart watches may be awful and often lose out in key areas when compared to conventional watches, it doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t evolve into something truly useful. I just think it is way too early to dismiss them as a product category outright. Fact is they will never become popular based on how long they last or their stylish design – those things are simply not relevant to their long term success. Those are just road bumps to initial market acceptance. They won’t matter in a few years, because no one will see the comparison to a conventional watch as relevant anymore…
Me personally? I still think they are a dumb idea, but I’ve seen enough of this kind of thing over the years to know I’m probably wrong. I certainly won’t be buying one any time soon though.
When microwave ovens first came out people talked excitedly about how they would replace conventional ovens. It was assumed that our cookery would adapt to make the most of this new marvel but, even before it did, manufacturers gave out instructions on how to do roast beef, chicken &c. in your microwave.
Now we know better; microwaves are for speeding up jacket potatoes (before you finish it in a conventional oven), reheating meals (that were originally cooked in a conventional oven) and little to bugger all else.
Microwaves are more complex and technologically interesting than conventional ovens, they have their place as a convenience, but no-one in the right mind would choose a kitchen with a microwave over one with a gas stove. New technology doesn’t always win out.
This is very true.
People also forget the usefulness of heating bread in a microwave. Like you stated you bake it in the oven then if its going to last longer then the shelf life I preserve it in the freezer which can dry it out a bit. Few moments in the microwave 15 seconds and you have hot warm bread. Beagles, Tortillia’s basically any flour based item. Its just heating the water inside the bread, but it works wonders.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of food products sold nowadays that are specifically designed to be prepared in a microwave. Are the results as good? Generally no, but it is fast and convenient, and for some things that trumps the quality of the results. They are used for quite a bit more than preparing potatoes.
They certainly didn’t ever replace conventional ovens and never will, but I would argue it doesn’t matter – there are actually more microwaves in use now than there are conventional ovens.
Strictly speaking I wasn’t disagreeing with you. Like the microwave, smartwatches will find their level. It just may not be a very exciting level and is likely to confound early hyperbole.
So, cookery comparisons aside, I suspect we have near identical opinions of smartwatches.
A side note, on a subject raised by IgnitusBoyone above: Never put dry toast in the microwave. Unless you like your house filled with eye-wateringly thick blue smoke that is.
Plenty of people talk about that.
Actually a LOT of people are talking about it, especially in relation to the $10k version. The thing is I guess that the people who are buying it understand this.
You (or at least “you” the general tech people) will buy a new phone for $200-1000 and think nothing of replacing it in 2-3 years with the new hotness, and I think that most people are treating the apple watch like this, a cool tech gadget and not some priceless heirloom to be passed on from generation to generation any more than their GS2 or iPhone 4.
Lets ignore the $10-17k versions, those are obviously for people with tons of money who need an excuse to spend it, and if they do, I don’t begrudge them anymore than the movie stars or music artists who will buy a half a million dollar car… they have the money, they want to spend it, so what?
Car also depreciates fairly quickly, although perhaps not as fast as the Apple Watch.
How about 1st class plane tickets? They’re only good for a few hours and can cost thousands.
But we reserve the right to ridicule such people. Call them names, even.
Ill be totally honest. I have personally defended quite a few high dollar items Apple has made over the years, rationalizing their existence and the reasons some people might part with their money to get them. And I don’t think I was wrong about any of those…
But this? $10,000? That is the bottom of the barrel price for one of the “edition” models. That is a $9,500 markup for a charging box (maybe $200) and 2 troy ounces of gold (about $2,500 right now). That’s it – it is otherwise the same product…
So lets say the difference is $3000 in materials – that still leaves $6,500 dollars in pure markup. Otherwise it is exactly the same product… Materials matter of course, but really? They could have charged half their retail price and still made a sizable profit on them…
I know that people will buy them, of that I have no doubt. Its their money, I don’t care. I am, however, truly embarrassed that Apple felt the need to go this far. I know everyone and their brother thinks they have always done this with their high-end products, but I cannot think of any other example where they were so brazen about it.
I’m not opposed to them making a profit, but this is to the point where it seems exploitative… Were I rich, I might buy a decked out Mac Pro, because for the money (and it is a lot of money) it is truly a marvel of engineering and I would love to have one. There is nothing else quite like it on the market.
This? I would be embarrassed to buy this, even if $10,000 meant nothing to me… The $500 version is exactly the same marvel of engineering, why the hell would I want to pay $9,500 for 2 troy ounces of gold?
This ploy may well work out for them financially, but it saddens me none the less.
A stainless Rolex Submariner has <$10 worth of materials. It is mass produced on highly automated production lines. It is less accurate and less reliable than a $20 Casio or Timex. The Rolex retail markup is 300%. They sell nearly a million a year.
There are a lot of idiots in this world.
“Somebody is interested and likes things I do not like. Therefore, she is an idiot.”
The reasoning. The lack of it burns.
There is a difference between merely not having the same interests and likes, and spending an obscene amount of money for an equal or inferior product.
When a person’s likes and interests is differentiated by no other attributes than its price, then I would argue that it’s not even an interest. Acute-horology is the last thing on that person’s mind, if there was anything in there to begin with.
Edited 2015-04-14 10:18 UTC
Seems more like an inconvinient truth for Thom than any lack of reasoning.
Not a ploy just basic economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
Whats going to be so hard for most people coming from techie culture to grasp about the Apple Watch is that it is not a tech device. Trying to understand it using traditional techie discourse will lead no where.
I understand the concept of veblen goods. My argument is that while many (most?) people consider almost all of Apple’s existing high end products to be pure “luxury items”, I have always disagreed because even in the most extreme cases there was always a value proposition to that could be made about the technology. Yes, they were often very expensive, but if you compared them “on the merits” to similar products their prices were relatively competitive (sometimes even a bargain).
There is no such value proposition for the “edition” watch, it is simply an obscenely priced money grab.
Right. Exactly. It is not a tech device and it is not priced as such. It really is a veblen good. It is no longer a tech product, now it is overpriced jewelry with a chip in it. I just think they have gone too far… Some have argued the point that this enhances the value proposition of the “low-end” models. I think it is actually the opposite – it just tarnishes my opinion of all of them.
It might work for them, hell it probably will. But this product makes it hard to justify the “value proposition” of anything they make in the future just by its existence. It is shining proof that when it comes down to it they are happy to sell status symbols instead of technology, something they have often been accused of in the past but was never really true.
Now? I liked Apple better when they sold technology
Hi,
No, the $10-17k versions are not for people. It’s a simple and old marketing trick.
If you see a watch for $500 you think it’s expensive so you don’t buy it. However; if you see a watch for $500 sitting next to a similar watch for $10000? Now that $500 watch looks like a bargain!
– Brendan
True enough.
But there’s a sucker born every $10k.
Very true.
Issue is when you can see a watch for < $300 quite better than the $500 one and also looking quite similar to the $10000’s one.
Well, it’s only an issue to the $500’s salesman.
He might find it hard to get his apps published after writing that article….
Or the idea that Apple retaliates against negative reviews is complete nonsense.
One day it’s everyone is terrified of big bad Apple and only publishes positive reviews out of fear, the next day when there are negative reviews (by a developer no less) this is somehow a non-issue. Ah the anti-apple crowd is funny.
It is so sad to see his disclaimer on top “Honest, I am an Apple Lover, please don’t bash me for having an opinion!”.
What on earth is that material they call leather?
Anyone know of a processed material that can be poured and molded, and still qualify as leather?
If the leather was pressure treated with some sort of epoxy, it could be finished and machined that smoothly and precisely.
Or perhaps some sort of super-compaction process?
Or maybe they did liquify and mold it?
Edited 2015-04-13 17:52 UTC
That could make sense. If it is thin slices of leather with glue and pressure, then it would likely also lose the surface texture and need to have a fake texture molded on the surface.
If it is poured /moulded at all then it’s probably enzymatically digested collagen/leather – and the partial digest mixed with physically ground leather fibres that have been alkali treated (but not long enough to get rid of every small fibre bundle) – this would form a nice “leather paste” in the right solvents. Might as well use artificial polymers though if you’re going that far.
Not exactly what Apple likes to read, I’m sure.
Based on the photo comparisons and Apple advertising copy, it seems like he was merely stating the obvious.
He should have done a better job with his own photos though; his photo did look like crap compared to the Apple press photos, but that wasn’t entirely due to the watch. I guarantee the Apple marketing department doesn’t use iPhone pics in their ads, LOL.
What animal has a hide that can be so machined?
Their “leather” looks like a WWJD or LiveStrong wristband.
But the biggest thing I can’t understand is the OLED screen. If you don’t understand, look at the latest Samsung retinal OLED screens. Seriously, my 8.4 Galaxy S Tab’s colors are so vivid – saturated – and the screen so clear, its hard to find something in nature to compare. Apple couldn’t do something like this for the most important part of the watch?
Have you seen the watch in person, or are you judging based on the low-quality picture taken by the reviewer? Just curious.
I haven’t see the watch yet and wonder how accurate his photo representation is. Sure looks like he took a lousy cell phone picture for the review, complete with the resulting image grain and distorted wide-angle view, not to mention the glaring overhead lights reflecting off the watch face.
.5 – Watch bands scraping the laptop – I agree here – but does the apple watch scrape the apple laptop? He doesn’t say. I bet it doesn’t.
1 – Size? I hate huge watches, and i’m over 6′ 200# also. So it’s just a taste thing, I suppose.
2 – Apple’s leather isn’t good leather? Who knows, it usually takes a few years for leather to show it’s quality, in my opinion. Buy another band.
3 – Screen shows pixels? So does almost everything else in the world other than an iPhone and macbook. Also that picture is doctored and filtered — look at the hairs on his arm. They have pixels too!!
The guy sounds like a disappointed apple fanatic, I get that, but his reasons are pretty thin. I’d say every Apple v1 has inconvenient truths.
Unless it’s the leather Apple uses for their iPhone cases. You’ll know within a couple of months if that’s the case.
I just take my watch off when I’m typing. I mean, I have a clock on the taskbar, plus one in my pocket, in case I go somewhere and forget my watch, which is rare, because my watch sits next to my wallet and keys, which I also remove from my pockets while I sit.
Edited 2015-04-13 22:48 UTC
Curiously harsh take on the screen quality while showing it beside a Moto 360 : https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/2000/1*rXRL-nT54MueeS-Dab_…
(Of course lighting, brightness, angle etc matter, but doesn’t seem anywhere near as dire as presented)
That Moto 360 is in low-brightness mode. It goes into that mode after a few moments of inactivity, before going on full standby (at least, mine does it).
To be honest, I wish Apple had picked Mirasol instead. Although the color reproduction sucks, you would gain far better battery life (with the screen being on all the time) and sunlight visibility. I am sure Apple’s design team can come up with a UI looks attractive despite the display technology’s inherent limitations. You would also gain an always-on display that functionally complements your phone’s display. Unfortunately, most smartwatch commentators focus too much on the battery side of the equation and forget that the display typically accounts for the largest portion of the power budget in any mobile device.
Edited 2015-04-14 01:34 UTC
First off, I personally have no intention of getting one, I don’t usually wear a watch.
However, I have small to average wrists, I’m an 5’11” engineer, NOT a linebacker, NOT a basketball player, NOT a weight lifter, I’m NOT a rapper. I’m sick of going to the mall and finding every single watch is made for a 6’6″ 300 lbs football player. Sorry, a freaking 2″ face watch is bigger than my wrist.
I somehow suspect that I’m NOT the only guy out there who has small to average size wrists, and is glad somebody makes a normal sized watch.
I have tiny girl wrist. Like, really, really tiny.
The Moto 360 fits just fine, and so does every other 42-44 watch.
https://twitter.com/thomholwerda/status/586534162313641984/photo/1
You may not *like* the look of such larger watches, but that’s a different thing than them *not fitting* or being made for big people.
Yours are about the same size as mine, and big watches like that make them look even smaller.
I agree. From the photo, it appears that watch doesn’t fit you at all.
Thom, I agree, the Moto on your wrist looks awkwardly large. It does not suit you at all.
I have tried it on, as well as the LG round watch and a few others. Nothing looked OK (not to talk looking good) on my wrist, which must be much like yours.
Question is, how many new stories can Thom post quickly to bury this! QUICK
At 38mm, the Apple watch is about the same diameter as the Timex watch I wear daily. The problem, the computer watch has apps and text that the user has to read and interact with. Make the watch too small, and no one could use it without a hand lens.
Shhh, they’ll hear you and come out with the iGlass.
And this is exactly why they added the digital crown, although it’s probably still quite fiddly
Love the ‘probably’
Apple is advertising through and through.
I had a hilarious epiphany when i jumped between two videos on Youtube from the post presentation demo room, and while the journalist and Apple rep where different the videos were so similar they could be carbon copies.
They went through the same few steps each time. Put a (function limited) demo watch on the journalist wrist, talk about switching watch faces, draw a heart on the watch, talk about the vibration notification, end of demo.
What’s another name for inconvenient truth?
Truth.
The guy sounds like your typical uninformed and totally pretentious watch ‘wanker’.
Large watches have always been considered tacky by watch lovers.
Back in the 60s a 37mm watch was considered ‘oversized’. Men’s dress watches were typically 34-36mm and dive watches around 37-38mm.
In the 1920s men’s dress watches were as small as 32mm diamter.
In the 40s and 50s rectangular dress watches were generally considered more upmarket than round ones.
Until 30 years ago only very thin gold watches on leather straps were considered acceptable for business use. Nobody would consider wearing a dive watch with a suit.
Fifty years ago Rolex made crude and affordable sports watches.
Modern Panerai watches are tacky, overpriced and oversized watches with cheap ETA (Swatch) movements. Old Panerai watches are crappy oversized dive watches with cheap pocket watch movements
He’s talking about fashion watches, not your perspective.
Watch “lover” perspective, ironically, is known to be the watch “wanker” position. Simply because it’s the watch “lovers” that are the snooty wankers that are telling other people that their watches are wrong.
Did you even read the article? He is criticising the iWatch simply because it is NOT huge and gaudy.
Traditionally gents watches were <36mm and ladies watches were <28mm because they are the most practical size for most people.
The huge WW2 era (IWC) aviator and (Panerai) dive watches that are now fashionable were not designed for daily wear. They were special purpose tools designed to be worn outside a flying jacket or wetsuit. This point seems totally beyond the comprehension of modern watch wankers. [In fact genuine WW2 military watches were practically worthless until fairly recently.]
The iWatch is ‘small’ because it is the most practical size for 95% of people.
Well, for me, the OSnews snippet to intro this writing has been the best so far, in that it saved me a lot of time. I mean, after having read this…
…I had absolutely no wish whatsoever to read any further.
It was funny calling this piece “Inconvenient truths about the Apple Watch’ because scouring the web you managed to find the most convenient article to support your opinion that the Apple Watch isn’t up to much. Fair enough, although anyone can play that game.
Here is an alternative take.
http://om.co/2015/04/13/should-must-apple-little-details/
Of course if you think this
http://www.asciimation.co.nz/bb/wpg2?g2_itemId=8352&g2_GALLERYSID=T…
is way cool then I am sure the Apple watch is not for you
Its too early in the game to know if the Apple Watch will become a truly popular new wearable computing platform but already we can say some things with a reasonably high degree of certainty.
1) The Apple Watch has already outsold every other smart watch combined.
2) The Apple Watch OS is far more advanced than any other smart watch OS.
3) That the Apple Watch has already changed the smart watch/wearable game
4) That the first generation Apple Watch is just that – generation one.
Remember what V1 of the iPhone was and then compare it to the iPhone 6 seven years later. Its possible, probable even, that although the Apple Watch will go through laddered upgrades they may not be annual. But the upgrades will come and every one will include steps that free one function after another from dependency on having an iPhone.
This rather breathless presentation by Scott Galloway explains, in the section on Apple at the end, why the Apple Watch brand will almost certainly be a game changer.
https://youtu.be/XCvwCcEP74Q
Be honest:
How much did your sense of self worth go up by writing that promoter’s pablum?
A lot?
Unbelievably high?
From your quoted piece:
Every single praise they have for the iWatch applies equally to the $500-$1000 models. Not one mention of the “features” of the $10,000+ models – because they don’t actually have any to speak of other than being gold and really expensive…
No one cares about the “edition” models because they are ridiculously priced status symbols… I think Apple is going to end up regretting their existence in the long run.
Here’s an acute-horology research problem:
Does Apple’s reality distortion field make time flow faster around the wearer of an Apple watch?
I guess you could study that using the time/money equivalence equation to measure the distortion in time by proxy.
The closer you are to an Apple watch, do you lose more or less money from your bank account or credit card?