One of the reasons I'm considering the steel. If future upgrades are a possibility, the extra cost would be worth it to me.
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.
Evidence that Apple Watch might be upgradeable
- Thread starter k3ith
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One of the reasons I'm considering the steel. If future upgrades are a possibility, the extra cost would be worth it to me.
My only issue with this concept of swapping out the insides is that this goes 100% against everything Apple has done over the past decade or more.
Apple is constantly refining/ improving / slimming / changing the cases / outsides of all of its products.
And yet, all of a sudden, some people here are thinking Apple are going to stop dead in their tracks and not improve the watch size/shape/design, but just change the internals.
Come on, how realistic do you think that is?
I could see this happening for perhaps a year or two, but in the long term?
Apple go on and on and on in their presentations how they have yet again slimmed down this years model of iXXX and yet it's faster than last years model with the same battery life.
You really think they won't do this for the watch?
Likewise, do you think they will improve the Aluminium / Steel design models, but won't touch the Gold version and keep that the same original design?
Apple is constantly refining/ improving / slimming / changing the cases / outsides of all of its products.
And yet, all of a sudden, some people here are thinking Apple are going to stop dead in their tracks and not improve the watch size/shape/design, but just change the internals.
Come on, how realistic do you think that is?
I could see this happening for perhaps a year or two, but in the long term?
Apple go on and on and on in their presentations how they have yet again slimmed down this years model of iXXX and yet it's faster than last years model with the same battery life.
You really think they won't do this for the watch?
Likewise, do you think they will improve the Aluminium / Steel design models, but won't touch the Gold version and keep that the same original design?
Definitely. And I applaud him for it, but the notion that he was "petty" for it and the only one who felt that way are nonsensical.
The watch is unlike anything Apple has ever done before. So all rule books and past history need to be thrown out. And I'm not convinced the watch is going to be radically redesigned within a year. We went through 4 generations of iPhone with the same screen size. Apple obviously picked rounded rec for a reason so I don't see them switching to a circular shape anytime soon (if ever). Sure the device could get thinner but until we get big improvements in battery life how soon will that happen?
It is not realistic.
There is zero chance the watch is upgradable. Apple will not compromise future generation designs, which is what they would have to do to make the first generation watch upgradable. With each new generation, most components will become smaller and more power efficient, to allow for a thinner case, larger battery, and/or other new components (e.g., blood pressure sensor, glucose sensor).
That said, I would not at all be surprised if Apple offered a trade-in program.
It might not be evidence that it's upgradable but serviceable. I guess it can mean anything from servicable to upgradable. Maybe trade-in?
It won't be upgradable.
Apple doesn't even allow end users to replace the batteries in their laptops, for crying out loud! Their entire business model is based around selling you a new device every two years.
Nothing they sell will ever be upgradable. Ever.
Apple doesn't even allow end users to replace the batteries in their laptops, for crying out loud! Their entire business model is based around selling you a new device every two years.
Nothing they sell will ever be upgradable. Ever.
A watch in the tech world. If it looks the same in two years, it will be called stale. This is a market that has legitimate competitors. Apple cannot afford to sit with what they have in the face of Samsung, Motorola, LG, Garmin, Suunto, etc. They will need to improve and make the watch look new and fresh.
Apple certainly has a history of not making things upgradeable, but this watch could be different. They're treating it differently by bringing in people from the fashion world to work on it, and they must have some plan in place to make a watch priced potentially in the 4 figures appealing.
If Apple were to only make more of a "throw away" type watch, they would have likely just made a silver/space grey/gold variation of the aluminum model and kept the price on the lower end. Their goals with these watches seems very different than anything they've done before, which is probably what it will take to lift smart watches from tech geeky to mainstream.
----------
It seems that Apple is trying to elevate the Watch above the tech world. I see it being very possible that they decided on the current design as a legacy design that will last for years, just like so many popular high end watches today look similar to the original designs from decades ago. If Apple makes the internals upgradeable, dropping four figures on the Watch would make more sense.
If Apple were to only make more of a "throw away" type watch, they would have likely just made a silver/space grey/gold variation of the aluminum model and kept the price on the lower end. Their goals with these watches seems very different than anything they've done before, which is probably what it will take to lift smart watches from tech geeky to mainstream.
----------
It seems that Apple is trying to elevate the Watch above the tech world. I see it being very possible that they decided on the current design as a legacy design that will last for years, just like so many popular high end watches today look similar to the original designs from decades ago. If Apple makes the internals upgradeable, dropping four figures on the Watch would make more sense.
I agree. The problem is that this isn't a high end watch. It does not carry the craftsmanship, the intricate movement that requires as little power as possible, the timelessness, the near guaranteed appreciation of value, the ability to pass it to the next generation in your family. I fear if that it was they are going for, they have become too full of themselves and aimed too high.
Really? So nothing in the Mac Pro is upgradable?
Even if the watch isn't upgradeable what evidence do we have people will need to buy a new one every two years? I know people that are still happily rocking iPad 2's. And I'll bet most people aren't buying new Macs every two years. The biggest reason people upgrade iPhones is the camera. The watch doesn't have a camera.
Honestly I think it's as simple as Apple wanting to make what they felt was a really nice watch with really nice bands. Something to set them apart from their competitors in this space. But I don't think they're trying to pass Watch off as the equivalent to high end Swiss time pieces that sell for 10s of thousands of dollars.
I went back and listened to John Gruber's The Talk Show podcast from back at the end of September where he and Ben Thompson discussed the Watch, and ... especially after listening to them, I kinda think that the S1 needs to be upgradeable if the Watch is to be a viable product category. It would immediately transform the perception from a "disposable consumer electronics device" and potential terrible investment into a must-have.
There are a few arguments that the podcast addressed that have come up in this discussion:
1. That is a very un-Apple thing to do. Almost everything about the Apple Watch is a departure from the traditional Apple approach. This is a first-generation product that is offered in three "collections" with multiple configurations. It's an incredibly customizable product. It's being approached as a device that will have different uses for every user. It hasn't been released yet and it already has an SDK, will launch with third-party app compatibility, and they've already announced that it will allow native third-party apps in the future. (The traditional Apple approach is to wait a generation or two.) The Watch will also require a massive departure from Apple's traditional retail approach, is already being marketed differently, and you even have them marketing three different tiers where the only differences are the case material and the price. The Apple Watch is the most decidedly un-Apple-like product they've ever released, but they're doing it in a smart way.
2. Apple doesn't even let people swap out their own batteries. Just like Apple wouldn't let people swap out their own S1 chip. Obviously you'd take it back to the Apple Store for a replacement, just like you can already do with your Apple products' batteries.
3. It limits future design. The only real limitation on future design is the way the S1 plugs into the device. Everything else can be designed around. Just because the S2 or S3 may be smaller than the S1 doesn't mean Apple would be incapable of swapping them out, as long as the one key component is the same.
More importantly, and this is my own belief, Apple is going to make a major push to change design drastically between generations. That's the only way this product is really going to work as a combination fashion accessory/wearable computer. People are going to need to visibly distinguish the 2015 Apple Watch Collection from the 2016 (or however many years between generations) Apple Watch Collection. Why? Because that makes each generation of Watch stand on its own as a desirable, collectible product.
See, that's how you get around this point:
4. Apple would never do something to keep you from getting a new watch every X years. This is faulty for a few reasons. First, if the Watch is to be a success as more than a cool gizmo, it needs to be something you can get and keep for a long time--meaning aiming for obsolescence for the sake of the upgrade cycle is actually a detriment to the product's success. Second, what's better? Getting people to spend loads of money on a higher-end, upgradeable Apple Watch upfront then charging them $250 for service every couple years, or pushing most people to buy the Apple Watch Sport because it's cheaper and therefore makes more sense as a disposable product? Third, if Apple gives each generation of Watch its own distinct look and feel (rather than reusing the same case or making small refinements), people will be encouraged to not only keep their older Watch, but buy new ones that fit their personal style. And given Point 1, that this entire product category is decidedly un-Apple, that makes a lot of sense.
Making the Apple Watch an upgradeable product does not mean the end-user will be able to swap out chips on a whim. It means that you will take the Apple Watch in for service, like you would a traditional analog watch, and pay a fee to keep it running for years beyond the lifespan of its original components. It means that the Apple Watch will make the leap from consumer tech that you use for a few years and then replace, to something else entirely. Apple isn't stupid, and they made some great hires to help bring this product to fruition.
This product exemplifies Apple's "Think Different" approach, and trying to apply the traditional Apple approach to this device is what's keeping so many people from seeing its potential. Because Apple is tossing out their old rulebook for this one, and making a modular, upgradeable System-in-Package that can extend the life of an individual unit by years is part of that.
Of course, just because it makes sense doesn't mean it's going to happen. But I have high hopes that this is where Apple is going, because it would prove just how far ahead of the competition Apple currently stands. Nobody is making their smart-watches to compete with anything except other smart-watches and fitness trackers. Only Apple has positioned their product to compete with genuine watchmakers. And if they can make the Apple Watch something that screams longevity, that will go a long way towards changing people's perceptions of this product.
For me, the more I think about it ... it has to have this kind of upgradeability, or at least something to make it last more than two to three years before I need to replace the whole device. Otherwise, I'm just not going to take the dive on an Apple Watch, and you'd be a fool to buy the Apple Watch Edition.
If there's no upgradeability, only the Apple Watch Sport makes sense to buy because only the Apple Watch Sport is positioned to be a disposable consumer tech niche product.
I know I'm probably wrong. But I'm hopeful, because I want tis product to live up to the potential Apple claims it has. And this is the biggest currently-missing piece of the puzzle to make it reach that potential, even more-so than battery life.
There are a few arguments that the podcast addressed that have come up in this discussion:
1. That is a very un-Apple thing to do. Almost everything about the Apple Watch is a departure from the traditional Apple approach. This is a first-generation product that is offered in three "collections" with multiple configurations. It's an incredibly customizable product. It's being approached as a device that will have different uses for every user. It hasn't been released yet and it already has an SDK, will launch with third-party app compatibility, and they've already announced that it will allow native third-party apps in the future. (The traditional Apple approach is to wait a generation or two.) The Watch will also require a massive departure from Apple's traditional retail approach, is already being marketed differently, and you even have them marketing three different tiers where the only differences are the case material and the price. The Apple Watch is the most decidedly un-Apple-like product they've ever released, but they're doing it in a smart way.
2. Apple doesn't even let people swap out their own batteries. Just like Apple wouldn't let people swap out their own S1 chip. Obviously you'd take it back to the Apple Store for a replacement, just like you can already do with your Apple products' batteries.
3. It limits future design. The only real limitation on future design is the way the S1 plugs into the device. Everything else can be designed around. Just because the S2 or S3 may be smaller than the S1 doesn't mean Apple would be incapable of swapping them out, as long as the one key component is the same.
More importantly, and this is my own belief, Apple is going to make a major push to change design drastically between generations. That's the only way this product is really going to work as a combination fashion accessory/wearable computer. People are going to need to visibly distinguish the 2015 Apple Watch Collection from the 2016 (or however many years between generations) Apple Watch Collection. Why? Because that makes each generation of Watch stand on its own as a desirable, collectible product.
See, that's how you get around this point:
4. Apple would never do something to keep you from getting a new watch every X years. This is faulty for a few reasons. First, if the Watch is to be a success as more than a cool gizmo, it needs to be something you can get and keep for a long time--meaning aiming for obsolescence for the sake of the upgrade cycle is actually a detriment to the product's success. Second, what's better? Getting people to spend loads of money on a higher-end, upgradeable Apple Watch upfront then charging them $250 for service every couple years, or pushing most people to buy the Apple Watch Sport because it's cheaper and therefore makes more sense as a disposable product? Third, if Apple gives each generation of Watch its own distinct look and feel (rather than reusing the same case or making small refinements), people will be encouraged to not only keep their older Watch, but buy new ones that fit their personal style. And given Point 1, that this entire product category is decidedly un-Apple, that makes a lot of sense.
Making the Apple Watch an upgradeable product does not mean the end-user will be able to swap out chips on a whim. It means that you will take the Apple Watch in for service, like you would a traditional analog watch, and pay a fee to keep it running for years beyond the lifespan of its original components. It means that the Apple Watch will make the leap from consumer tech that you use for a few years and then replace, to something else entirely. Apple isn't stupid, and they made some great hires to help bring this product to fruition.
This product exemplifies Apple's "Think Different" approach, and trying to apply the traditional Apple approach to this device is what's keeping so many people from seeing its potential. Because Apple is tossing out their old rulebook for this one, and making a modular, upgradeable System-in-Package that can extend the life of an individual unit by years is part of that.
Of course, just because it makes sense doesn't mean it's going to happen. But I have high hopes that this is where Apple is going, because it would prove just how far ahead of the competition Apple currently stands. Nobody is making their smart-watches to compete with anything except other smart-watches and fitness trackers. Only Apple has positioned their product to compete with genuine watchmakers. And if they can make the Apple Watch something that screams longevity, that will go a long way towards changing people's perceptions of this product.
For me, the more I think about it ... it has to have this kind of upgradeability, or at least something to make it last more than two to three years before I need to replace the whole device. Otherwise, I'm just not going to take the dive on an Apple Watch, and you'd be a fool to buy the Apple Watch Edition.
If there's no upgradeability, only the Apple Watch Sport makes sense to buy because only the Apple Watch Sport is positioned to be a disposable consumer tech niche product.
I know I'm probably wrong. But I'm hopeful, because I want tis product to live up to the potential Apple claims it has. And this is the biggest currently-missing piece of the puzzle to make it reach that potential, even more-so than battery life.
Last edited:
I am hopeful with you!
Your whole post was very well articulated and I agree with your sentiments!
Except Apple could probably make more money on internal upgrades. How many people are going to buy an expensive watch with expensive bands and then do it all over again in 2 years?
Honestly, let be real here.
This 100% comes down to cost, and what any new? model looks like.
If a brand new model, in a new style is $500, but to upgrade your old style model to the new internal specs for $400 its a non starter.
Most would rather pay another $100 for something totally new.
This is the same with any item that can be upgraded. The cost of the upgrade much be a LOT less than a new model.
How many people buy $600 - $900 smartphones every year with countless cases, covers, and protectors?
As far as competing with traditional watch makers...Apple Watch isn't any more a watch than a TV on a wall is a painting. It's a computer capable of displaying the time which is not what buyers of traditional watches value. It's the thing itself, not a facsimile.
Piggie: how much less, though? Let's say that the Sport cannot be upgraded, but the cost of an upgrade is $300 for the Watch (and possibly more for the Edition because it would come with additional service, who knows)? Anyway. It's enough that upgrading makes more sense than buying a Sport every couple years, but it's expensive enough that Apple could probably get a very high return. Plus, it would encourage more people to invest in buying the more expensive units, AND get them coming back on an annual or biennial basis for service (stickiness). Correct?
That's the goal: find the sweet spot where you have ridiculous margins on the chip and the cost of labor for servicing the device without encouraging people to buy a whole new unit outright. Yes, a lot depends on how much Apple sells the Watch and Edition for, and how much the S-series SiP costs to develop and manufacture, but bringing up the "it's not in Apple's financial best interest" argument is bullocks at this point when we have no firm grasp of the financial breakdown of this product.
And excuse me, but Apple is very much competing with traditional watchmakers. Look at Apple's descriptions of the Watch. They are very much positioning it to compete with and relate to traditional watches because they're trying to hit that intersection between watches/jewelry and technology. Not once do they compare it to smartwatches, but nearly every description of the device relates back to horology, whether it's the materials they use, or calling it a precise timepiece, using nomenclature like complications, etc., etc.
You're confusing this being a competing device for the traditional watch market with the watch's target audience, which is not people who actually buy luxury watches. They're targeting below that group, to the people who aspire to own luxury timepieces without truly understanding why people buy luxury timepieces. But in order to do so they need to make enough comparisons to traditional watches to make people aspire to buy it, and particularly the high-end Edition model. That's why it's being presented to the world as a watch and not just a computer.
And if Apple cannot replicate, to at least some degree, the quality of a timepiece in terms of longevity (i.e. that it is designed so well that it will work years after its initial purchase), I think that will be a major deterrent for people to adopt this on a massive scale. Because then it is just another consumer electronics device to be used for a couple years and replaced, and that runs counter the personal connection you're supposed to forge with Apple's "most personal device."
That's the goal: find the sweet spot where you have ridiculous margins on the chip and the cost of labor for servicing the device without encouraging people to buy a whole new unit outright. Yes, a lot depends on how much Apple sells the Watch and Edition for, and how much the S-series SiP costs to develop and manufacture, but bringing up the "it's not in Apple's financial best interest" argument is bullocks at this point when we have no firm grasp of the financial breakdown of this product.
Yes, just how many people ACTUALLY buy a new phone, full price, every year? And how many people are on an installment plan that allows them to upgrade after 12 payments with no upfront payments? And how many are buying subsidized phones and only buying a new one when they can get an upgrade two years later? Do you have any hard numbers on that? Because if so, I'd love to see them. I'd love to see how the average consumer behaves on this topic.
And excuse me, but Apple is very much competing with traditional watchmakers. Look at Apple's descriptions of the Watch. They are very much positioning it to compete with and relate to traditional watches because they're trying to hit that intersection between watches/jewelry and technology. Not once do they compare it to smartwatches, but nearly every description of the device relates back to horology, whether it's the materials they use, or calling it a precise timepiece, using nomenclature like complications, etc., etc.
You're confusing this being a competing device for the traditional watch market with the watch's target audience, which is not people who actually buy luxury watches. They're targeting below that group, to the people who aspire to own luxury timepieces without truly understanding why people buy luxury timepieces. But in order to do so they need to make enough comparisons to traditional watches to make people aspire to buy it, and particularly the high-end Edition model. That's why it's being presented to the world as a watch and not just a computer.
And if Apple cannot replicate, to at least some degree, the quality of a timepiece in terms of longevity (i.e. that it is designed so well that it will work years after its initial purchase), I think that will be a major deterrent for people to adopt this on a massive scale. Because then it is just another consumer electronics device to be used for a couple years and replaced, and that runs counter the personal connection you're supposed to forge with Apple's "most personal device."
Last edited:
You've clearly bought into the hype and the marketing message. And that's fine. I'm only looking at it for what it is.
I think much of the message is hyperbole. Calling images on a screen complications is ridiculous. What makes them different than any other non time keeping function of the device?
As far as longevity, we will soon know. I think bands will carry over and be compatible but the technology will move on. People will choose when to recycle the device and buy a new one. To me, not much different than the phone. The most significant upgrades will not be the CPU. They will be aesthetic, battery, or sensor type features that would be difficult or impossible to retrofit.
They might make money off of this by only allowing employees to replace watch parts. They'll probably won't let you buy an upgradeable chip unless its serviced by Apple them self.
Nailed it again!
A close friend of mine and I talked about this at length several months ago, but you are articulating it in a way that is really easy to make sense of.
Granted, none of us knows but Apple, but I am extremely hopeful that the watch trends in this direction.