Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Best argument for NOT buying the Watch?
- Thread starter JerTheGeek
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
as watch design 
I think it boils down to a few things. First it's a machine meant for early adoption. The original iPod and iPhone prices were very high compared to their more advanced future counterparts. They became more advanced and cheaper over time. I think the same will happen with the Watch, at least with the stainless steel and aluminum versions. It's easier to control the price of these obviously than it would be the gold version. As the industry begins to adopt stuff like sapphire and sensors of this kind more, the prices will be driven down and therefore the savings can pass on to the consumer.
Apple knows that they can't get the same numbers they have had with iPods and iPhones with the watch as it is today, they just want to hit a million wearers its first year and they would be happy.
This is much different than the iPad, the iPad was perceived as a good value from the get-go and by the 3rd generation was essentially the iPad that the masses would except all while staying at the same price point. I don't think it's crazy to say that the Apple Watch Sport and Apple Watch will be $200 and $350 respectively by 2016.
Apple knows that they can't get the same numbers they have had with iPods and iPhones with the watch as it is today, they just want to hit a million wearers its first year and they would be happy.
This is much different than the iPad, the iPad was perceived as a good value from the get-go and by the 3rd generation was essentially the iPad that the masses would except all while staying at the same price point. I don't think it's crazy to say that the Apple Watch Sport and Apple Watch will be $200 and $350 respectively by 2016.
A lot of good reasons there. Feel the same way myself.
I was an early adopter of the original Jawbone UP band. It was an awesome device when it worked, but it failed every few weeks and Jawbone would send me a replacement each time. I probably went through a dozen replacements. No kidding. The last replacement sent (over a year ago) is still sitting in a drawer, unopened, in it's lovely retail packaging. I just lost interest.
I'm hoping Apple has it's act together better - but I'm just a bit wary of 1st gen wearables.
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
I think, with a little refinement and time, there are several smart watches already out that will give the Apple Watch a run for it's money. The Microsoft Band is a very intriguing device and can easily see it as a very viable competitor.
Just saw the pictures of the Band at their website. While the eink screen looks pleasant and easy to read, the wrist band looks kind of ugly and uncomfortable to wear. I think Apple's removable and exchangeable wrist bands are genius. They made enough different bands that at least one is likely to suit you in terms of style and fit, and you can buy many bands and switch them up to match your outfit and/or the occasion. Plus, of all the smart watches I've seen so far, Apple's wrist bands are the only ones that look like it could be comfortable to wear all day. If Microsoft's Band had a comparable selection of wrist bands as Apple's I might consider it, but with the band it has now -- no way.
That's a good point there. I think a lot of people forget about the actual comfort of the device, we are so used to phones and tablets that we forget that with this particular device category, comfort is the number one thing to be concerned about. If it isn't comfortable, who cares what it does? The Apple Watch does look like it will be very comfortable on the wrist. We'll find out soon enough.....
The wrist band is probably the easiest thing for any of the smart watch vendors to fix. They don't have to be as good as the Apple Watch, just good enough that most potential customers don't consider it a deal killer.
My argument is that I do not wear any watches or fitness bracelets. I also do not wear or have jewerly (bracelets, necklaces, rings etc). Perhaps it is an age thing or something else, but I do not anticipate to change that any time soon. Apple watch or any other smart watch is not going to convince me that all of sudden I need such device - same way I do not have have/need iPad. Between my phone and my laptops (and desktop) all my computing needs are %100 covered.
Well, now that Apple has shown them how to do it, other companies might start making better bands. But the thing is, nobody paid much attention to the band until Apple. It's the kind of detail that seems obvious in hindsight, but -- you know, I'm sure Microsoft thought that the band for their "Band" was "good enough." But now that I can compare it with Apple's, it's a deal breaker.
Why is that? Look at the iPod and iPhone as examples. You could say that the iPhone is subsidized, but if you strip out the cellular technologies of the iPhone you are essentially left with something that Apple would be more than willing to sell for $200. They could sell it for $200 and still turn a profit regardless. Aluminum is an incredibly cheap material, as is stainless steel and it is a material that apple has had experience with in the past with the iPhones.
The biggest price hurdles here are the sapphire display and the electronics. If Apple is expecting this thing to get as big as the iPod or iPhone it has to go down in price. This isn't really a maybe thing. Not only that, it will have to work without an iPhone and have cellular versions.
Apple can be all coy and act like they aren't sure about the wearables market, but they have effectively pointed the next 10 years of Apple in the direction of the wearable, just as the last 10 years of Apple was the "post-PC" device. They can charge whatever they like for the Apple Watch Edition. They can't get away with charging $350 and $500 respectively for the aluminum and stainless steel version very long without it eroding at their perceived value and the brand. At the latest, $200 and $350 respectively by 2017, with cellular versions, and no iPhone requirement.
Another thing I would want to point out, is while Apple will make their own bands, nothing is stopping 3rd parties from making bands that could be in some cases better so I'm not sure why Apple has gone to such great lengths to make that a selling point.
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
Absolutely ludicrous. The iPhone 6 starts at $650 off contract. Do you really think Apple can cut the price by 70% and still make a profit? The cost of materials for the iPhone 6 is $227. So they'd be selling at a loss. Then you have to account for all the other factors such as advertising, warranty, R&D, etc etc.
Funny, I would argue the exact opposite. Even if Apple could sell the watch at $200/$350 and still make a slim profit, I think that would erode the perceived value of the brand. Selling better (subjective) product at a premium is what makes a brand valuable. I think what you are suggesting (40% price drops within 1-2 years) would significantly tarnish Apple's brand value. Now Apple isn't a fool. If the watch is a complete flop and the ~$200 wearable market skyrockets, Apple may have the rethink their strategy. But their first goal would be to figure out how to move the market up into higher cost wearables. Even if they sell less they can still be profitable. Look at the macbook to laptop market.
I partially agree with you but I (think I) understand why Apple has done this. To show the market what is possible, as examples for 3rd party manufacturers, and as a fallback in case the 3rd party market doesn't take off. Remember Apple wants the watch to be looked at as a premium product. For that reason, they need premium (and variety) of straps. The 3rd party market won't invest in the Watch until it's proven to be a success. Apple wants the Watch to be a success so they have invested in it by creating luxury straps. If the 3rd party market ends up creating just as good (or better) products at an equal (or lesser) cost in a vast quantity and variety, then I can easily see Apple backing off of their investment into that category.
It does not have to be waterproof to control the music on the shower or wash the dishes (like you mentioned on the above post) Water resistant would still protect it.
----------
Oh.... the myth people around here believe.
Every new product is better then the former, that's a fact.
For that reason alone, myself I wil definitely get the apple watch.
I have used the galaxy gear fit with Galaxy S5 few months ago, and it was great to not miss a single call on my phone while the phone vibrating on my pocket or on the other room (charging) And I was all against it before I did try it, totally dismissed the need for notification on my wrist (simply wanted the health data)
Well, that changed right away after using the thing. Quite looking forward to buy the Apple Watch.
Apple can operate at considerable high margins and still make a decent amount money. What I was referring to specifically was the iPod touch which sells for $200.
The iPod was initially $400 5GB, only worked with Mac, and was Firewire, no iTunes or anything either. i.e., it was limited but had interest of the consumer.
Within 2 years it was $100 cheaper, double the capacity, worked on Mac and PC, USB, and had iTunes, i.e. was a much better value to consumers, etc etc. A lot of those savings came from materials going down in price.
Much of what is driving the price of the watch is new technologies and the materials they are using. Once the cost of those things level out then Apple could sell them for cheaper which they will have to do. Theres other ways that Apple could sell it for cheaper too. The iPhone 3G had a HUGE price drop and it only helped Apple out even more. The price of the phone was subsidized, and such subsidies could perhaps happen somehow with the watch as well, especially depending on how long Apple keeps this iPhone as a requirement thing, which I would bet wont be for very long.
Also the Macbook sells very well yeah, but it also is comparatively a much cheaper laptop than it was years ago. Not only that, a lot of the sales the Macbook come from come from opposite ends the spectrums upper middle class professionals, all the way down to college students (whom several get their income from parents and/or student loans). You arent going to see a lot of demand for the Macbook in the middle. Apple will want the watch to have demand in all spectrums much like the iOS devices and iPods did. Something they will not be able to accomplish selling them for a $350 starting price, unless they are trying to cannibalize iOS sales in the future. I really don't think they can remain profitable with the watch for long if they are only selling to say, the upper and lower and not the middle. You ask anyone in the middle, even an Apple fan and they don't even see a point in a watch, let alone spending $350 for one. This thing isn't like the iPhone where whole families couldn't wait to get them, it doesn't even have a quarter of the hype of the iPhone, or even the iPad for that matter. Of course I'm not sure if Apple will ever top the Mac or iPhone in terms of revolutionary products.
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
The $200 iPod touch is using 2-3 year old components, many of the components at the time were inferior than the iPhone. Also, Apple is able to use smaller margins on the iPod touch because it's essentionally subsidized by the cashcow that is the iPhone. Now could Apple apply this logic to the watch? Perhaps, but certainly not if their goal is to make it eventually independent of (or even a replacement of) the iPhone. Apple may keep around older versions of the watch at a discount (like they do with the iPhone and iPad), but I can't imagine the price of a new apple watch to decline.
The features you mention are irrelevant. Of course Products will develop new features over time. Apple is a MUCH different company today than they were in 2001 (when the iPod was released). Apple was struggling to stay alive. Today Apple has huge economies of scale, great leverage/experiences with manufacturing, and is extremely stable. The cost of their newest products (iPhone/iPad) have remained constant since their release (subsidizing is not actually lowering cost). In fact, the iPad mini price has actually gone up.
Or they could continue to add new, expensive components (like they do every year with the iPhone/iPad)
Who's going to subsidize the watch? Health insurance companies? (yeah right) I guess you are saying that the carriers will subsidize once the watch replaces a phone? I don't see that EVER happening... As an independent suppliment to a phone? Sure. But why would the carriers subsidize both a watch and a phone? That would require jacking up payment plans. Whether this happens or not, my point would still stand that the price of the watch isn't going down just like the price of the iPhone 3G didn't actually go down.
Much of this spectrum/class talk I disagree with, but one thing I will absolutely agree with is on the potential for the watch to be a flop. There appears to be a lot of disinterest, but then again there was a lot of disinterest in the iPad before it was launched. Either way, I expect relatively low sales in the first gen with the potential for huge sales in the second gen. Regardless, I wouldn't expect the price to go up or down
No one is denying that? But 1st gen tends to be significantly worse than next gen.
Learn from the past, 1st gen is for suckers.
best argument ?
The use of one Apple product, but to make it even useable on any level, needs a phone as well.
probably not a good argument, since all smart-watches need that.... (grins)..
But it's very convincing
Not all smart watches need a phone. Samsung has that one curved glass watch which has its own Sim card. You could actually use it as a dedicated phone.
To be quite honest, first iPhone was hard to resist from buying it and so was the first iPad (which people "suckers" still use now days) Inevitably the succeeders had to be better. It's just the way things evolve.
I'm waiting for reviews of the FitBit Surge....that might be the gadget I need rather than an iwatch