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 don't think either A. or B. is realistic in the long run, both because Apple will obviously want to make the future versions of the watch as thin as possible which might make it difficult to fit the new hardware in the old case (imagine if in a few years they decide to use a bigger curved screen for instance) and also because Apple is not really famous for supporting what they consider to be obsolete products.
I think people who'd buy a gold iWatch are not looking for a family heirloom to give to their great-grandchildren, they're looking for something "bling" to show off how rich they are. I think it's for the petrodollar market, basically. I'm sure you can already find diamond encrusted iphones made by third parties already...
With B, it doesn't need to fit into the old case size. You'd get a new case with new watch internals, the old one would be melted down, for an upgrade fee.
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)
People who buy mechanical watches for 3k+ buy them because they are beautifully engineered and finished works of art. Trust me, I'm one of them. Most of us will not swap out our Tudors, our Omegas, our Patek's, or our VC's with one of these. It's just a different market.
The thing is though, once a watch can do more than tell time, the market is going to expand dramatically. If a killer app comes out, I expect the original market to get crowded out.
Well, I just don't think that most of the people who wear watches as jewelry (like myself) care for a watch to do any more than it already does. I appreciate the beauty of a watch and the (old school) engineering behind it. I don't want something like this. Just a different market.
To give you some perspective, I'm a bit of a watch freak, certainly not the norm. Hell, I visit and participate in more than one watch forum on a daily basis. Mine is the general sentiment being expressed in those forums.
It's not a watch doing more than it already does; it's other devices converging onto your wrist.
You used to have to carry a camera around if you wanted to take pictures. Now that's part of the hunk of silicon in your pocket. Similarly, you used to have to carry a bunch of plastic cards in a wallet. Now that's part of the hunk of silicon on your wrist.
The hunk of silicon on your wrist isn't a "watch that does more" any more than a device that's both a camera, a PDA, a GPS, etc. is a "phone that does more." It's a convergence of several orthogonal devices that isn't a phone, or a watch, at all.
Thinking of the Apple Watch as primarily a watch obscures the value proposition. It has the form factor of a watch, but it may as well not tell time at all, for all people will care about that feature of it. In fact, maybe it's better to pretend it doesn't tell time, to help you cut through to the real reasons people would want one on their wrist.
The problem is that it competes with something that I love. I have to chose one or the other and, as a watch collector/enthusiast/lover/obsessor (I seriously love watches) it will never win. Ever.
Actually, that's exactly what the watch enthusiast crowd seems to be asking for. They will never replace their Omegas with this, but they would be open to wearing a band on the other wrist a la fitbit.
The killer feature of phones is that they call people. My £10 candy bar phone does that far better than the iPhone, but I don't think that Apple is too worried.
> A rotary phone will be bolted to the wall and work for 100 years.
But who will know how to use it?
I grew up using rotary phones. But about 15 years ago, after many years of using Touch-Tone, I tried to place a call on a rotary wall phone. And I couldn't do it without a lot of retries. There is a little bit of a technique of knowing how hard to turn and just when to release. And I had lost the recipe.
Plus I don't think anyone under 30 y/o has even used one. They'd find it difficult to dial correctly.
Not only that, the rotary phones are filled with mechanical components that rust and wear out. If it weren't for the infernal non-replaceable battery, my money would be on an iPhone surviving for much longer than a rotary phone.
> 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).
That's why I'm waiting for vibrating insoles. Glancing at a watch is useful (G Watch owner here...), but it's still looking at something. Wearables will be awesome when they're don't appear to be there.
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.