Surely if it is pay pass compatible apple should be able to support the UK pretty quickly? Just focusing on the US initially.
Apple announces Apple Watch
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
Surely if it is pay pass compatible apple should be able to support the UK pretty quickly? Just focusing on the US initially.
Opus Angelorum
Member
Indeed. The head of Visa said it's coming in 2015.
I bought a Pebble through the kickstarter and really like it for the most part. I was super excited to see what apple would do.
But damn, starting at $350? So potentially $400 or so for a version I'll want? That's just way way too much, even though I really want one. So disappointing.
But damn, starting at $350? So potentially $400 or so for a version I'll want? That's just way way too much, even though I really want one. So disappointing.
I have a feeling the pricing between the two sizes will be very similar (like 50 dollars off), if not identical.
Its the nicer finishes and higher end straps that will push prices up quickly, imo.
If the watch has any moderate level of success, straps for this thing will make a fortune. People will buy 2 or 3, easily. its like iphone cases 2.0
Its the nicer finishes and higher end straps that will push prices up quickly, imo.
If the watch has any moderate level of success, straps for this thing will make a fortune. People will buy 2 or 3, easily. its like iphone cases 2.0
infiniteloop
Member
yeah, probably $350 for the small, $400 for the larger.
But that's a Rolex...
I think the hurdle is that with each country, they have their own regulatory hurdles to jump through with respective governments. They'll have to see the backend of the transactions to ensure that no financial data is moved into Apple's hands, basically not wanting to take Apple's word for it. I'm sure that Apple has been discussing this with the FTC or whoever regulates this stuff for a while now and just have to jump the hoops in other countries. I imagine China will be a priority to get Apple Pay working in but will take the longest to launch because of the CCP.
Canada, the UK and Europe likely won't be far behind as long as no one is dragging their feet.
The region this could be problematic in is Japan, depending on how easy it will be to weave Apple Pay into the existing FeliCa system.
I'd expect a pretty big third party market for straps too.
yup.
So? My point was it's factually not unreasonably thick, it is inline with many other watches that people want, including one that just happens to be especially famous.
That doesn't excuse the thickness, I want it thinner, and it would obviously happen over time, but the idea that it's some absurd thickness is just not at all accurate within the watch market.
I think one of the strangest things about this watch is that it's not mix and match, they're offering very specific combinations. For example, if you want the Steel, in black, you can't get it with the leather buckle. I don't see why every strap isn't available for every finish of every material of both sizes.
EDIT: Something else I noticed on the website which relates to something people have brought up a few times. There's an app on the watch to ping the location of your phone, so clearly the watch must function somewhat without the phone.
I think the collections are billed as the default purchase options. Mixing and matching is obviously possible, but it seems like they're selling the device in pre-set configurations with certain straps as an altogether package. With so many configuration options, that's no surprise. I doubt retailers would want to consider THAT many different SKUs, there's already quite a few in the collections. (though I am still disappointed at no black Milanese loop).
As for the location ping, it's probably for those times when it's still in range but stuck in a couch cushion and would still need to be in range to function.
Well I'm sure they'll sell the straps on their own, yeah, but as you mentioned, for example the Milanese loop is only available in normal steel, and for the two sizes, you can't get it in the black, or either of the gold tones.
I quite liked the idea of the black steel, which is only available with the link bracelet, and yeah, I could replace the band, but then the connection of the band wouldn't be black, that would look absurd.
Basically you're locked in to only using the straps with the connectors that are the same as the material and finish of your watch, or it'll look horrible.
I suppose you're correct on that. Mind you, they've only shown us the options that are featured in the standard collections, so who knows what else we will see by early 2015? Apple could release a whole bunch of custom options for every model in every finish, or they could really push 3rd-parties to fill in the blanks.
I think I can say with certainty... no.
So are people going to be buying a new $1200+ Apple Watch every year or every few years? How about when the tech in your watch is no longer compatible with your new phone?
Those premium watches are aimed at people with high incomes, hence the name 'Watch Edition'. I would imagine the watch will no longer be compatible after a period of a few devices i.e. 3 or 4 equating to a few years. due to the available information we have. Apple is not in the business usually of letting users tinker with their hardware, due to their philosophy on 'one size fits all' and 'the designer knows best' mentality, etc. Moreover, it is probably very hard to design a modular system within a watch that size with available spare parts to purchase at an inexpensive price.
If the person who buys a gold plated Apple watch cares about internal upgrades (or just has money to burn), then yes. If the person bought it more for looks than the internals, then probably no.
The bulk of the Apple watches are gonna be around 350 to 500 dollars. I can imagine that the people who really like them will upgrade them every couple years.
For the luxury models in gold, well, lets see if Apple sells enough of them to keep that option around long term. Its trying to sell to people who have a lot of money and also want to spend a lot of that money on a watch. I get the feeling that unless those people are FILTHY rich and can spend thousands every year on these types of things without thinking about it, that theyd properly prefer to spend the money on a luxury mechanical watch, instead of the gold Apple watch.
I've seen this idea that the watch will have a yearly upgrade cycle, and I'm snicker.
I mean, yes, things will advance hardware-wise and they'll get thinner, but there's only so much that you can do with a watch. It won't play bigger and better games or do more battery-draining things like the iPhone which necessitates a yearly upgrade cycle. Other than making it thinner, there's not that much more that can be done with it, and the hardware that would actually make such an upgrade substantial wouldn't be there every year. You're going to see the iPod line updates slow to a crawl because the iPod market is contracting, but also primarily because there's not much else you can do with an MP3 player. Even the touch is probably going to stay as it is, with bigger screens being something of a luxury that differentiates it from the iPhone.
While I can see there being a market for the watch now, I'm sure Apple is aware that there isn't going to be an appetite for yearly refreshes of the hardware, given that it's specifically a companion device for something that already refreshes yearly. I could see a hardware refresh after the first year MAYBE, but after that, I'd predict a 2-3 year refresh rate.
I mean, yes, things will advance hardware-wise and they'll get thinner, but there's only so much that you can do with a watch. It won't play bigger and better games or do more battery-draining things like the iPhone which necessitates a yearly upgrade cycle. Other than making it thinner, there's not that much more that can be done with it, and the hardware that would actually make such an upgrade substantial wouldn't be there every year. You're going to see the iPod line updates slow to a crawl because the iPod market is contracting, but also primarily because there's not much else you can do with an MP3 player. Even the touch is probably going to stay as it is, with bigger screens being something of a luxury that differentiates it from the iPhone.
While I can see there being a market for the watch now, I'm sure Apple is aware that there isn't going to be an appetite for yearly refreshes of the hardware, given that it's specifically a companion device for something that already refreshes yearly. I could see a hardware refresh after the first year MAYBE, but after that, I'd predict a 2-3 year refresh rate.
I think the question I posed remains: aside from being thinner, which they can do a handful of times before a significant component change happens, what can they add to justify a yearly hardware refresh to a watch?
Agree with this. There will be rapid iteration as the tech matures - better battery life, thinner etc. but it won't need huge increases in CPU/GPU so even older watches have the potential to last a long time and be relevant.
I expect apple to still to yearly updates though. Why not refresh and bring both new users on board and encourage existing owners to refresh?
Waterproof. I wanna shower with Siri
that’s a good one. a waterproof version would be useful.
I think Apple will have yearly updates for at least the first few years just to get any potential issues of battery life and thickness updated. even though i don’t think they’ll expect lots of people on gen 1 to update, it’s always in their best interests to have a more desirable product out there each year for new potential buyers.
they could also take a different approach, keep the guts the same and just come out with new collections next year. different finishes and case designs, everything else as-is. (or a schedule where internals update every two or three years but every year has new designs and collections.)
edit: for added functionality, I’d expect future versions to do more health and maps related stuff without the phone.
I think Apple will have yearly updates for at least the first few years just to get any potential issues of battery life and thickness updated. even though i don’t think they’ll expect lots of people on gen 1 to update, it’s always in their best interests to have a more desirable product out there each year for new potential buyers.
they could also take a different approach, keep the guts the same and just come out with new collections next year. different finishes and case designs, everything else as-is. (or a schedule where internals update every two or three years but every year has new designs and collections.)
edit: for added functionality, I’d expect future versions to do more health and maps related stuff without the phone.
They can make them thinner and lighter, improve image quality and battery life, improve storage, etc, the obvious things they'll do.
You could argue only doing it every three years would make the upgrades more meaningful, but that's true of all of Apple's product lines.
OK, and that's something you can do ONE time, and the technology to do so already fully exists, so there's nothing to iterate from there.
There's no need for more RAM in the thing, the display technology is going to be a very slow iterative process, it already uses sapphire crystal, it's got plenty of biometric and location sensors as it is and any new iteration would likely top that up...
So that really just leaves size (via die shrink of this S1 chipset and the Taptic engine) and battery life to consistently iterate upon, and battery life is always going to have limitations to its improvement when you try to make something smaller until we move to alternate battery technologies.
How are you going to improve the image quality? It's already using what looks to be a high-contrast Retina Display technology.
And what does a relay device need storage improvements for? Apps aren't exactly going to eat up the storage as it exists, considering how lightweight they will be.
As I said, thinner (and I guess lighter) are the only iteration options, and I don't see that driving an upgrade path, and on a device this small, there's really only so much thinner and lighter that people will care about.
When you're iterating yearly, you have to think of the value proposition. You have to think about how you're going to make it look like the better option than the predecessor to drive adoption to those who don't already have one (read: how to capture the "wait for gen 2" audience).
With smartphones and computers, that is a much easier thing to do. Even if people don't buy a new computer or smartphone yearly, the technology behind them changes so rapidly and becomes cheaper to produce so that it makes sense to refresh yearly.
iPods could do this via significant changes in form factor and the primary UI changes like the move to touch screens to meet different needs of different consumers, as iPods weren't really something people felt a need to upgrade yearly; new iPod models sold primarily to new customers who wanted that type of form factor that was offered or necessary replacements because the iPod people had broke beyond repair.
These factors just aren't as true or as prevalent of a smart watch. There's only so much you can do for the form factor of a watch with a touchscreen, aside from maybe making a round face version to make those who hate the rectangle happy.
The technology used is, for the most part, at the peak of performance. You could put in a display that's higher than 4K resolutions, but if people can't tell the difference, then what's the point? They'd rather you just made the current model cheaper to own.
More sensors? Waterproofing? Round design? One refresh and all of that is resolved. But what do you do AFTER that to make people have a reason to refresh the hardware. If you don't have one, then your market shrinks to people who merely need to replace their current model due to damage, until you finally reach an iteration with new tech advances that grabs someone's attention, which is harder to do when you're doing underwhelming yearly iterations.
The amount of tech that changes in computers on a monthly basis legitimizes the hardware refresh cycle on those. It is as much about them being cheaper to produce with newer components that give more bang for your battery buck as it is anything else. I'm not seeing the kind of improvement in the tech the watch is using to legitimize the same cycle.
If anything, we're more likely to see price drops than refreshes.
My understanding is that over recent years, performance in the miniaturised space is considerably out pacing the desktop world.
WordAssassin
Member
How frequently do normal watches refresh? Like is there a new Rolex every year or are they big event things that only happen every few years? What does a "new" Rolex offer that the previous one doesn't?
Legitimate questions, I honestly have no idea how the timepiece world works. But I imagine that the Apple Watch would follow suit? Slimmer designs, different materials for the case and bands, more sensors, better batteries, different form factors, etc?
Legitimate questions, I honestly have no idea how the timepiece world works. But I imagine that the Apple Watch would follow suit? Slimmer designs, different materials for the case and bands, more sensors, better batteries, different form factors, etc?
Terrell, if Apple wants to push hard on driving upgrades, it’s not gonna be the tech updates. Like you say, there’s only so much they can do before they address the big things.
It’ll be the design. Just look at how much of the Jonny Ive video focused on case materials and bands. that’s a huge focus for this thing.
Apple may tout thinner and more battery in rev 2, but they will REALLY push new styles in order to drive new purchases.
they’ve already done more than any of the Android Wear devices in offering a wider range of sizes and styles. They will focus on new styles for new refreshes. Any tech updates inside will come along for the ride but won’t be a big selling point (well, maybe the battery or waterproof things, if they get addressed)
just my take.
It’ll be the design. Just look at how much of the Jonny Ive video focused on case materials and bands. that’s a huge focus for this thing.
Apple may tout thinner and more battery in rev 2, but they will REALLY push new styles in order to drive new purchases.
they’ve already done more than any of the Android Wear devices in offering a wider range of sizes and styles. They will focus on new styles for new refreshes. Any tech updates inside will come along for the ride but won’t be a big selling point (well, maybe the battery or waterproof things, if they get addressed)
just my take.
The most logical comparison would be when a specific watch changes 'movement', which is extremely rare, it's also not really cause for 'an upgrade'.
Smart watches will be alone in that sense, like cell phones compared to home phones before them.
jts
...hate me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCluaJe3lb4
I think the reveal video song is kinda cool. Is it custom? Shazam couldn't ID it.
I think the reveal video song is kinda cool. Is it custom? Shazam couldn't ID it.
AlphaTwo00
Member
Hmmm. This will be interesting, and resets some of the issues that has been raised with it.
I guess Ill be watching that interview tomorrow.
So, did he say that you can use the watch to play back music on wireless headphones without a phone in the area? that suggests some relatively meaningful on board storage. like a GB or something
Running with just the watch and no phone means you won't have GPS though, right?
And what sort of value does that performance offer a WATCH? What will it be able to do that it wouldn't as it exists now? I see a lot of hypotheticals, but I'm not seeing a clear reason for a yearly refresh cycle as it applies to this technology implementation. iPods, Macs and iPhones had clearly delineated reasons for a hardware refresh, and "just because" doesn't mean much to anyone. Not Apple and not the consumer.
Since we're talking about what is essentially a companion device, Apple Watch falls in line with the Apple TV: it gets a refresh when it offers something of significant value, as its value is dependent on another device/service to be of value.
So as I said, I see a refresh after the 1st year, followed by a slowdown. Just like Apple's other companion device.
There's a significant limitation on form factor variations on a watch by comparison to an iPod. The straps are swappable, so that falls to the accessory market, not the core device. And watches use new designs to the face and the build materials to drive purchases, but you can't really do new faces to drive purchases with a watch that has them hot-swappable in software and the materials in use for the current build are already top-shelf. So aside from a round design, and accounting for the fact that it still needs a screen and thus limits design options unlike on a standard analog watch, the design aspect isn't that flexible.
Watches are about style. Marc Newsom isn't hired to just do 1 watch design. I doubt Paul Deneve and all the other fashion hires are there for just one style either. This also goes along with the Beats purchase. Why upgrade headphones when they do the same thing and just a little bit more tech?
This is what the just recently hired Newsom has done before:
http://www.marc-newson.com/ProjectCategorys.aspx?GroupSelected=0&Category=Timepieces
Byakuya769
Member
What will the battery effects be on the iPhone it's tethered to?
What's the point increasing compute performance on an iPod or iPhone? The iPod went from being able to decode and playback audio at the speed the user would ever need, to playing videos on tiny screens in color, those aren't things that mattered to the core function of the device, but they happened. The iPhone made phone calls, it text people, it had a contacts list, it did the things it needed to function, then when we wanted richer screen resolutions, you needed more processing, you want multiple apps running, you need more performance, you want to maintain a buttery smooth 60fps while having richer transparencies, you need more performance.
As people want richer tracking detail, richer visuals, cleaner image quality, more apps running, etc, the watch will need more performance. I see no difference whatsoever between the watch and the phone or MP3 player in that regard.
Bizarre statement, the watch requires the phone, as the phone/tablet required iTunes, which required a computer. The watch will absolutely become standalone over time, and there will never be any reason not to increase CPU/memory performance, the user will always be able to benefit from it. Moreover, Apple specifically single out AppleTV as not a core product for them. Cook compared the watch to the Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad, it's not a 'hobby' project, like the TV.
And I'm not saying they'll NEVER upgrade. But yearly is a stretch.
In the meantime, he will design new bracelets, new watch faces (which seem to be as much of a thing for Newsom as the physical design aspects) and refine the design for the next one, whenever that happens.
I will re-iterate: updates will happen, but yearly is going to be a stretch. That has been my position since the discussion began. Newsom didn't put out a new design every year. Never mind that Newsom is also an industrial designer outside of the watch space and they'll keep him plenty busy in other areas on Apple's business.
It's a screen that's about an inch large. There's a difference between these devices, and their upgrade paths.
How much cleaner and richer is the image quality going to get on a 1" screen beyond the Retina technology, exactly? And how long will it take before that technology is affordable to the consumer? Apps that are relaying data from a phone aren't processor intensive, so it can probably run quite a lot of them as it exists now. And richer tracking detail will be dependent on more sensors, which, as I said, is a one-and-done affair.
And when the watch becomes standalone (however meaningless that is, as people are even less likely to abandon owning phones for a watch than they are to abandon computers for an iPhone/iPad), this will be valid. But we are a LONG ways away from that. I'm talking about the near to mid-term.
I think I'm confused as to what you think they can or will do with the updates
If we're talking about a difference where I think they'll do yearly and you think it'll be every two years between updates, then I guess it's just a matter of degrees.
But you seem to be suggesting that apple has no real options aside from sticking with this lineup of launch watches for, like, 5 years with no changes. (Or rev once then stick with the same stuff for five years)
I don't see that happening. There's a significant amount of case shape and style changes that apple can use to keep the lineup fresh every year for a loooong time (I do think you underestimate the options in case design and finishes that we can see) And I definitely see an update a couple years out that changes the case so much that new straps are needed. Old ones won't match.
As for tech inside, I see yearly refreshes with meaningful improvements the first couple years, at least. After that, yeah, I think it'll slow down or it just won't be important once battery life is longer.
Assuming the launch isn't a total flop, apple will be investing in new designs and will not want the watch to fall out of people's minds with a stagnant lineup. Having new ones every year (or close to it) keeps the product fresh.
Edit. I wrote this up while you wrote your post clarifying your stance
If we're talking about a difference where I think they'll do yearly and you think it'll be every two years between updates, then I guess it's just a matter of degrees.
But you seem to be suggesting that apple has no real options aside from sticking with this lineup of launch watches for, like, 5 years with no changes. (Or rev once then stick with the same stuff for five years)
I don't see that happening. There's a significant amount of case shape and style changes that apple can use to keep the lineup fresh every year for a loooong time (I do think you underestimate the options in case design and finishes that we can see) And I definitely see an update a couple years out that changes the case so much that new straps are needed. Old ones won't match.
As for tech inside, I see yearly refreshes with meaningful improvements the first couple years, at least. After that, yeah, I think it'll slow down or it just won't be important once battery life is longer.
Assuming the launch isn't a total flop, apple will be investing in new designs and will not want the watch to fall out of people's minds with a stagnant lineup. Having new ones every year (or close to it) keeps the product fresh.
Edit. I wrote this up while you wrote your post clarifying your stance
Byakuya769
Member
All the "apple watch is ugly!" talk has made me look more closely at other smart watches. Umm, apple watch is killing them all. The moto 360 looks cheap as fuck, and there is no way I'd put that on my wrist with that terrible and cheap looking leather strap.
- Status