In general, I’d agree that would be a red flag, but it’s not too big or important at this point, I think. I’m pretty sure Apple said from the beginning that they wouldn’t be releasing sales numbers, so it was to be expected. Plus, it’s still a small market that no company has a firm hold on yet, so releasing any sales data would benefit competitors. I think it’s more due to Apple managing expectations- they know people expect, unreasonably, huge numbers, but they also know they weren’t going to get them initially. It’s a no-win situation.
Apple has gone out of its way to not position the Watch as a geek accessory. The first magazines given access to the Watch were fashion magazines. At WWDC, a convention expressly dedicated to developers, Apple brought out a famous fashion model on stage to extol it’s virtues. Health is the second area Apple has specifically targeted for the Watch. It’s pretty clear that in Apples view, the Watch is not about geek/tech. I’d say that makes it kind of the opposite of Google Glass. If you go to the Mac, iPhone or iPad homepage, they all have links at the very top to “Tech Specs.” The Watch homepage doesn’t. I’m guessing that’s on purpose.
The Atlantic article is beyond shallow. Their evidence the Watch isn’t selling amounts to hearsay from one single vendor, the fact that it didn’t have a more prominent standing at an event that already had to push out three totally upgraded devices, and one exec who got a little stage fright in front of seven thousand people. That’s some bang up reporting.
The Watch might well be selling terribly, but that article sucks at providing evidence of it. (That is not directed at you, steronz, for providing the link, just commentary on the piece itself.)
Hunh. You and I appear to have diametrically opposed definitions of “beautiful men’s watch”.
Which is probably why the Apple watch, or any other smart watch, has zero appeal for me. I want my watch to do one thing - tell time. It’s more a piece of jewelry than tech, for me.
You can have my vintage 70s hexagonal dial Citizen watch when you pry it off my cold dead wrist; it tells the time and looks great, and that’s all I require of it.
Thats pretty much the problem with iWatch and other wearable tech. The current business plan has the tech giants bringing out new gizmos or newer versions of existing ones every couple of years and we are expected to change… I have had 5 phones in the last 8 years (and I tend to stick with one until it dies and all attempts at resurrection have failed). I still wear the watch I got when I turned 18, it like yours has lots of sentimental value. People don’t change watches as often as they do phones.
The biggest issue I have had with the Apple Watch is the cost and the possibility of needing a replacement.
I’ve been using an iPhone for 7 years now. The cost of the damn things is getting to me. All it takes is one bad fall, or a puddle of water and then I have to go shell out big bucks. Hell, just age can do the phone in (I got rid of my 4S due to how slow it got from the iOS upgrades).
There’s no way I’m going to plop down a few hundred for a watch that could easily get destroyed (water damage, impact damage).
I paid a lot for my mechanical watch. I’ve been in the ocean with it, I’ve been through crashed with it. It works flawlessly. I really can’t see an Apple Watch holding up.
BTW: when the hell is Apple going to make a good “field” proof iPhone - one that can handle water and dirt? And no, I don’t want to put some huge case on it.
This is a very good point. I’d rather not make it obvious in meetings or other boring situations when I’m checking the time. Maybe as batteries get better they will be able to show the time constantly.
For the sake of the discussion, is Microsoft doing the right thing, then, not to produce an MS Watch, but a “band” with features focusing on health and fitness?
PS. I have neither product, and will most likely never buy such a gadget.
It’s better, but no. Different strokes, y’know? I like a very elegant simplicity: white face, leather band, black numerals. Fancy Rolexes, Tag Heuers and Omegas that clutter up the face with chronometers and moon phases and a bunch of little buttons and dials are simply too busy to be elegant. In my view.
Those all look like watches I saw for $10.88 at WalMart tonight. Yours may last longer, but when the battery dies you aren’t asking yourself whether you should put in a new battery or just buy a new watch.
The Apple Watch seems more like the Anti-Watch, given how few of the requirements of a watch it ignores.
To they can find way to bring price down to $100 or less I don’t think 95% of the people are going to go out a buy a watch no better how good it is or the feature it has.
I think only small 5% tech nerdy will go out and spend that type of money on it.
I’ll stick with my battery-less automatic. And that Tissot is beautiful. I have the same one with a steel band and I don’t think I’ll ever want another watch the rest of my life.
A coworker of mine has a Pebble. It look a lot “cooler” for lack of a better word and she always goes on about how good it is? Anyone here have that or used one?
I think many people think of the Apple Watch first as an Apple gadget, like an iPhone, and second as a watch. It turns out that the thing is engineered just like a fine Swiss watch, with the singular exception of water resistance. Mine is SS with the sapphire crystal. I have been wearing a SS Rolex for a decade with sapphire crystal, doing plenty of hard work that I had no business doing with a Rolex on, and the crystal is still perfect, while the metal has a light patina of fine scuffs. That is how the Apple Watch will age–dropping it in a puddle of banging it into a wall won’t harm it at all. Sadly, it will become obsolete long before it breaks.
Regarding water, Apple CEO Tim Cook says he showers with his on; it seems that they were deliberately conservative about the degree of water resistance, possibly in order to avoid another -gate scandal (not sure what type of “-gate” a water problem would be called :))
I imagine that the next generation will be truly waterproof.
Mind you, when I send a mechanical watch in for full service every few years, it costs over five hundred bucks and I don’t see it again for four months. The world of fine watches has a different price scale than that of Casios and Timexes. It doesn’t bother me to pay so much for such a gadget, as long as the $$$ came out of the toy budget.
