Evidence that Apple Watch might be upgradeable

[Tanegashima]

Of course not but the price rumors are everywhere with no discussion of how that would be poor product planning on Apple's part. It is the same product with a fancy case. I'm guessing they will use much less material than people think and will therefore surprise everyone with the price. We'll see soon.

I do see there is a small minority of Apple users that long for exclusivity. It would be very interesting if Apple starts catering to them. That would possibly alienate many more who always buy "the best."

But my main point was simply that the Edition isn't going to be upgradeable and the sport not due to one being more expensive. It is the same product.

Because your culture doesn't "get" that fancy case, doesn't mean other people around the world don't want to buy a wrist computer with a gold case.

More os less material, we don't know, but the watch is bulbous, so it still takes a big chunk of gold.

But if you don't want gold, what's your problem?

If you want gold, then pay for it.

 

[Tanegashima]

Indeed, Apple have said 18ct Yellow and Rose gold options.

The only thing we have no idea on is the wall thickness of the case (or shell) of the watch.

I have speculated, due to scale, and needing as much internal space as possible for the Electronics, Screen, Battery, Sensors etc, that a wall thickness of 1mm would not be unrealistic.

1mm does not sound a lot I know, but at the scale of the entire device, it does not visually look bad.

If it was to be 1mm wall thickness, and we just don't know until one is stripped down and measured/weighed.
Then we are (with a little bit of educated guessing in internal areas) looking at approx. $1200 in material value of the actual gold case.

As the internals are the same as the $349 watch, then lets say we add $200 for just the internals.

And, just for the hell of it, let's add on another $100 for the ceramic and sapphire front and backs (though given their size, they won't be THAT more expensive than the sports model) but we'll round it to $100 anyway.

That would (and it's an educated guess I know) place the Gold edition models at $1500 plus the cost of whatever strap you wish to select.

How much more than this figure they cost to the customer, is going to depend on how much "Fashion Profit / Mark-up" Apple wish to place on them to elevate them to a position where they are SEEN to be expensive and unattainable to the mass public, and something to look up to, or feel special about if you do own one (show off with basically)

Given the numbers I have shown here, I struggle with the $3000 to $5000 speculation, unless the gold case is MUCH thicker than my guestimated 1mm wall thickness.

If anyone thinks 1mm is crazy thin I can supply cross sections showing how that would look like to scale.

This.

Not only gold (even 18K) is very expensive per gram.

But also gold is very dense!

316L steel, which is not "light", weights 7.99g per cubic centimeter (source AK Steel)

Pure (24K) gold, weights 19.3g per cubic centimeter. (source Wikipedia)

Ultimately 7075-T6 ("aircraft grade") Aluminium weights only 2.81g per cubic centimeter. (source ASM Material)

 

[kdarling]

Because your culture doesn't "get" that fancy case, doesn't mean other people around the world don't want to buy a wrist computer with a gold case.

That's a good point. There are places and cultures where the visible display of gold is highly prized as a symbol of wealth. I'm not sure all those same places are hotbeds of iPhone purchases, but there is certainly some overlap.

Elsewhere, I personally think the gold edition is intended mostly to get more publicity for the Apple Watch. It doesn't matter what it costs, it'll be the one favored by people who are often in the public eye.

E.g. When all those teen girls see Taylor Swift with a gold Apple Watch, they'll be begging their daddies for a Watch for their iPhones as well. Which, as a father, reminds me: what was the name of that $30 clone watch again ?

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Because your culture doesn't "get" that fancy case, doesn't mean other people around the world don't want to buy a wrist computer with a gold case.

More os less material, we don't know, but the watch is bulbous, so it still takes a big chunk of gold.

But if you don't want gold, what's your problem?

If you want gold, then pay for it.

What does that even mean? I "get" gold. I doubt it's as much in quantity as you think. Staying on topic, the argument here is people will not pay that much money for something they'll feel like they need to rebuy every year or two, so the watch must be upgradeable. I agree with the first part of that statement but believe the price will be less than expected.

This is just a discussion about some speculation, my friend. I have no problem. I'm obviously interested in the product and hopeful it will provide value on multiple levels regardless of any premium case materials or lack of upgradeability.

 

[Tanegashima]

What does that even mean? I "get" gold. I doubt it's as much in quantity as you think.

What gold quantity do I think?

Anyway, nobody's forcing you to buy a gold Apple Watch. And nobody's forcing you to upgrade the damn thing.

 

[Piggie]

That's a good point. There are places and cultures where the visible display of gold is highly prized as a symbol of wealth. I'm not sure all those same places are hotbeds of iPhone purchases, but there is certainly some overlap.

Elsewhere, I personally think the gold edition is intended mostly to get more publicity for the Apple Watch. It doesn't matter what it costs, it'll be the one favored by people who are often in the public eye.

E.g. When all those teen girls see Taylor Swift with a gold Apple Watch, they'll be begging their daddies for a Watch for their iPhones as well. Which, as a father, reminds me: what was the name of that $30 clone watch again ?

It's funny isn't it.
As Gold (in my opinion anyway) can look VERY tacky and nasty really easily.

A little bit here and a little bit there, subtle amounts of gold can add to the looks of something, and be quite tasteful.

But it's so so very easy to step over that mark and make yourself look very very "Chavvy" (if you know that term)

A bit like, lower class rich with zero taste that seem to simply think gold is THE thing to be seen with, when in fact it looks horrid and tacky as I say.

There was a TV show many years ago, about the very very wealthy.
It was interesting as they showed some American homes and European millionaires.

The European ones, we all very tasteful, nice subtle objects, all VERY expensive, but of amazing quality, that did not SHOUT LOOK AT ME I MUST OF COST A LOT !!!!

Then they showed some American homes of a few rich people and they looked dreadful. It's simply like someone with zero taste and too much money went shopping, went to the most expensive stores, and said I'll buy whatever the most expensive item you have it, and threw it all into their house thinking THAT was the way to impress people.

Gold taps, Gold door handles, Gold Light switched, Gold Lamps, and so it went on.

Cost a fortune, but looked like a Gold version of Walmart.

Perhaps the "gold is tacky" aspect is one reason why many chose to bypass it, and go for Platinum.
They know it's quality, but to an outsider it may just look like they are wearing cheap silver.

But they don't feel the need to show off and wear gold.

Gold is, or very easily can be a very tacky and cheap looking, look at me, show off metal.

As I say, a little can be nice, too much and you end up giving off the opposite impression than you think you are trying to achieve.

A Silver or Platinum Apple Watch might be another option

 

[KPOM]

I'm a doubting thomas on this.

Apple has for intents and purposes moved away from upgradeable products to sealed products that cannot be upgraded. The iPhone, the iPad, the MBP, the Mac Mini. Only the Mac Pro and the iMac have some components that are upgradeable.

I don't see apple designing a brand new product that can upgraded, when its in their best interest to sell new versions.

In general, Apple is moving away from upgradability, but I can see it being a possibility for the Watch, at least the Edition. High-end mechanical watches need servicing periodically. Also, if the Edition really does sell for $5,000, being upgradable would be an advantage. Not many people are going to buy a $5,000 device every year.

Remember, Apple also tends to limit choices in design. However, with the Watch, they have 34 different SKUs. This is a different kind of device, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they view upgradability differently for the Watch than, say, the MacBook Air.

----------

Gold is, or very easily can be a very tacky and cheap looking, look at me, show off metal.

As I say, a little can be nice, too much and you end up giving off the opposite impression than you think you are trying to achieve.

A Silver or Platinum Apple Watch might be another option

Americans have generally preferred platinum, while British often preferred gold. Apparently gold is more popular than platinum in China, as well (it goes better with olive skin, while platinum works better with pale skin). Remember, Apple is selling plenty of versions of the stainless steel watch, too, so multiple tastes will be covered.

I think the use of rose gold was a good move. It works well with lots of different skin tones, and doesn't look as "cheap" as yellow gold.

 

[Michael CM1]

Very intriguing. I always thought the way Apple presents the S1 chip makes it seem like it could be a modular system. If Apple really wanted to drop a bomb on the competition they would announce that the battery and chip were upgradable.

Phil Schiller walks out there and shows off the watch with a full-size USB port.

"ARE YA HAPPY, BUSINESS INSIDER?"

Seriously, I would love a little modularity. Dealing with some hardware issues on an iMac right now, I remember the pain of installing a new hard disk -- something people will do so damn often because hard disks get cheaper and we need to store more stuff -- on it. I don't get why the older iMacs couldn't be a little easier on upgrading that and RAM, especially RAM. Some were really good, others not. Some of the older MacBook Pros were awesome about it.

I just hope I don't regret it on my MacBook Air in a few years. I think at some point the thickness of an object is less important than "Oh, I could really use 8GB of RAM right now." Invent some fancy, smaller RAM for all I care, but I don't get why the design couldn't have a single DIMM slot. Or even the same thing for SSDs. Again, not that I'm having trouble now. But it would be nice.

 

[Tanegashima]

Nobody's upset because it doesn't have Adobe Flash?

 

[Piggie]

Nobody's upset because it doesn't have Adobe Flash?

I have a PC and Adobe Flash is one of the main items I always make sure is installed

Always worked perfectly for well over a decade on many various machines.
I never knew anything was wrong at all until I heard sad old Mr Jobs has a personal vendetta/issus with the company over other things, and it all went wrong from there.

Oh well......

 

[cmChimera]

I have a PC and Adobe Flash is one of the main items I always make sure is installed

Always worked perfectly for well over a decade on many various machines.
I never knew anything was wrong at all until I heard sad old Mr Jobs has a personal vendetta/issus with the company over other things, and it all went wrong from there.

Oh well......

It's hilarious that you think that Steve Jobs was the first and only person to criticize flash.

 

[Piggie]

It's hilarious that you think that Steve Jobs was the first and only person to criticize flash.

Honestly I never knew there was one issue or one person complaining until I took an interest in Apple products.

All I know is that Apple (Steve) was deliberately withholding the (for want of a better word) hardware acceleration code?) from Adobe, so they could never make it run as well on Apple computers as it did on PC's where Adobe could use that.

Hence why even powerful Mac's well killing themselves trying to play back Flash items, whilst on a PC, the same flash content was only registering about 10% of loading on the system.

I seem to recall I could play back a full 1080p FLASH YouTube movie on one screen, full screen, and play back a full screen 1080p flash animation on my second screen with my CPU loading at around 12% to 15% I think.

Hence, it all seemed, and always had seemed fine to me, until I hear about some earlier issues between Jobs and Adobe, which caused him to get all difficult and screw up flash from running nice on Apple machines, by withholding what was needed.

Petty little man

 

[cmChimera]

All I know is that Apple (Steve) was deliberately withholding the (for want of a better word) hardware acceleration code?) from Adobe, so they could never make it run as well on Apple computers as it did on PC's where Adobe could use that.

It didn't run well on Linux either, had numerous security issues, and was so bad on mobile platforms that even Adobe just gave up. But you're free to look at it with rainbow tinted glasses if you want.

 

[Tanegashima]

I have a PC and Adobe Flash is one of the main items I always make sure is installed

Always worked perfectly for well over a decade on many various machines.
I never knew anything was wrong at all until I heard sad old Mr Jobs has a personal vendetta/issus with the company over other things, and it all went wrong from there.

Oh well......

What's the utility of Flash?

Nothing, besides opening bugs to your computer, and consuming unnecessary battery.

There's nothing that flash does, that a simple web page doesn't.

----------

It didn't run well on Linux either, had numerous security issues, and was so bad on mobile platforms that even Adobe just gave up. But you're free to look at it with rainbow tinted glasses if you want.

Neither on android... it was SLOOOOOOOOOWWWWW, ate so much memory that most devices would crash, and didn't respond to touch input most of the times.

----------

Hence why even powerful Mac's well killing themselves trying to play back Flash items, whilst on a PC, the same flash content was only registering about 10% of loading on the system.

BS. Complete BS. In fact, Mac was the primary platform for Flash.

 

[Tycho24]

Honestly I never knew there was one issue or one person complaining until I took an interest in Apple products.

All I know is that Apple (Steve) was deliberately withholding the (for want of a better word) hardware acceleration code?) from Adobe, so they could never make it run as well on Apple computers as it did on PC's where Adobe could use that.

Hence why even powerful Mac's well killing themselves trying to play back Flash items, whilst on a PC, the same flash content was only registering about 10% of loading on the system.

I seem to recall I could play back a full 1080p FLASH YouTube movie on one screen, full screen, and play back a full screen 1080p flash animation on my second screen with my CPU loading at around 12% to 15% I think.

Hence, it all seemed, and always had seemed fine to me, until I hear about some earlier issues between Jobs and Adobe, which caused him to get all difficult and screw up flash from running nice on Apple machines, by withholding what was needed.

Petty little man

Jesus Christ, do the research, man!
The way flash worked... to get those low cpu usage you're talking about is it had to have permissions to interact directly with cpu, etc. bypassing any security that could exist in a layer between.
As such, it was an OBVIOUS exploit! If you know that if you can hack Flash, you own my machine... why even keep trying to attack iOS at all? You (as a hacker) could have time better spent 100% on hacking Flash which was MUCH less secure.

 

[fousfous]

I've got so many problems with flash with my previous PC on windows 7...
Either with a big configuration I've got lag when I needed flash, so personally I want this think to desepear.

 

[ryanasimov]

Apple Watch prediction

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple announced that the expensive, precious metal versions would be eligible for free internal upgrades for a set amount of time and/or Watch revisions.

 

[shyam09]

highly doubt apple will offer internal upgrades. The trend they seem to be following now seems to lock owners from upgrading internal components with 3rd party components.

"An upgradable S1 would be great because it would be a competitive advantage. Why pay $150 or $250 for a Fitbit, or $300+ for a competing smart watch that would be obsolete in a year? It’s bad enough to get a new phone every 2 years, who would want to also get a new watch?"

This is a watch with modern day technology in it. Who wouldn't get a new watch every few years. If it was a typical wrist watch, it's not worth the upgrade but I'd be switching every other year just to keep up with technology. I'd have to sell the watch to minimize loss.

 

[Julien]

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple announced that the expensive, precious metal versions would be eligible for free internal upgrades for a set amount of time and/or Watch revisions.

Now this is taking the remotely plausible possibility of internal upgrades to a whole new level.

 

[saschke]

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple announced that the expensive, precious metal versions would be eligible for free internal upgrades for a set amount of time and/or Watch revisions.

You would't be surprised? Wow.

 

[matrix07]

Now this is taking the remotely plausible possibility of internal upgrades to a whole new level.

LOL. Yeah, no way it will be free.

 

[Mobster1983]

Makes a lot of sense for the high end gold models. If those cost $Thousands, people will be very leary of buying something that will be obsolete in a year or two. Rolexes last a lifetime. But someone who pays $5000 for a watch wouldn't blink at spending a few hundred to upgrade it every few years.

The sport is nearly guaranteed to not be upgradeable. Think of it as your iPhone/ipad 16GB model, priced low enough to get people in the door.

This is exactly what I was thinking. While it would be completely against the way Apple has been moving the past few years, buying a watch that costs more than a Mac Pro is highly unlikely if it will be obsolete in a year or two.

A lot of people, myself included, have no issue spending a few grand on a nice watch that will last a long time.

However, if the battery (which has to be charged every day) dies after a couple years of use, or the chip no longer connects to the new phones, then it is worthless

I see two possibilities.
1) battery will be replaceable for a small fee. Almost a certainty IMO.
2) S1 chip replacement possible. Not as likely, but I do think there is a possibility. It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade some things on the chip if necessary to keep it compatible. Obviously things like a camera you would have to buy a new watch

 

[saberahul]

For me, unless the battery life is upgradeable, upgrades don't really matter. But, that's me.

 

[theBigD23]

It's hilarious that you think that Steve Jobs was the first and only person to criticize flash.

He wasn't the first to criticize it, but he was the first to refuse to have it in an important product and not cave. That's the big distinction.

 

[douglasf13]

Makes a lot of sense for the high end gold models. If those cost $Thousands, people will be very leary of buying something that will be obsolete in a year or two. Rolexes last a lifetime. But someone who pays $5000 for a watch wouldn't blink at spending a few hundred to upgrade it every few years.

The sport is nearly guaranteed to not be upgradeable. Think of it as your iPhone/ipad 16GB model, priced low enough to get people in the door.

Rolexes don't run forever. They recommend servicing their watches every 5 years or so, and it isn't cheap. A basic service on mine, which only needed a few small parts replaced due to normal internal wear, was over $700.

I think this is why upgrading the internals of the Apple Watch is a possibility. Apple can sell you a "forever" watch that simply needs to come in every few years for a few hundred dollar service, just like a nice Swiss watch, and they'd likely upgrade the internals to whatever is current. Heck, the Watch could be more modular than we think, and they may even gut everything but the metal case.

I'd guess that the aluminum version will be cheapest and not upgradeable. I'm also starting to think that there may be a larger gulf in price between the aluminum and steel version than once believed. It may be that the majority will buy the non-upgradable, aluminum version, while the steel and gold versions are for those used to spending thousands on watches.