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.
Getting a first generation Apple watch makes no sense
- Thread starter Aluminum213
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right now, being the only real game in town, sure. Pebble has some cool features. Once Apple's Watch comes out it'll have...battery life. That's it.
Who would create Apps for it anymore when you can go over to Apple and actually make money?
I have a Steel and it works...sometimes. It gets my TXTs and CALLS, and I use it to see the calendar for the next few weeks. Thats it. I have to constantly reboot it as it loses BT Connection with my phone (or picks and chooses what it wants to show).
I've only had mine for a few days, but thus far it has sent everything I've asked it to. It even sends me score updates on my fav teams via yahoo sports.
apologists?
please go back to the playground if you want to have this kind of a fanboy mentality.
there are legitimate criticisms of the product and then there are impossible fanboy wishes.
a thin beautiful smartwatch with tons of useful sensors, which lasts 2 days+, is currently not possible with the battery technology available to us today.
complaining that the apple watch does not do that is as foolish as complaining that a sports car uses too much energy/fuel.
there are much more meaningful criticisms about the product, such as why they went with a rectangular screen, whether there is a killer application for the product or not and whether the price point makes sense.
I totally agree with both of you, and to follow that up, I have a theory about first generation Apple products within the past 10 years.
The original iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, and AppleTV all had 3 things in common. I don't see the AppleWatch being any different.
1) Core lacking feature made it in to the second generation.
2) The following model was overhauled, and outlasted the original.
3) Support for the first gen product saw premature EOL due to specs.
-----
I actually just went in to some really deep detail (almost scary, even) so I'll spare the giant post here, and refer people to my blog if they want a lengthy read.
-----
Apple likely designs the dream product they want. AFTER THAT, they design the first generation. A bulkier, more-feasible version of their dream product that could hit the price-point and release date they want. That version of the product is released. The dream product they dreamed up is then released, but as the "second generation" product, after the first is kicked to the curb due to its unique design and lower specs. By the time component costs go down, they add in the missing feature to the second generation the following year, and people end up getting everything they wanted from the first generation.
Apple isn't stupid. They don't leave features out because they didn't get to it. Those features are obviously planned. They hold back to leave you wanting more, and they're right every time.
Last edited:
Yeah. But can rational thought derail the hype train? Probably not in my case.
Hahahahaha exactly
. I won't be able to resist. And I have a feeling that the extra features in the second generation aren't really gonna make me like my first generation any less.
Ill get the first generation of this watch. Then, if a better version comes along a year or so later, and its worth the upgrade, I will upgrade and the sale of the first gen watch will cover a good bulk of the upgrade cost. Its all good
I wonder if Apple will put some written limitation in place for app developers to stick to as a rule of how much power? your app can draw within a certain length of time in use.
If you think about it, poor battery live is a real sore point at the moment.
If you are trying to convince people to buy your watch, the last thing you want are app developers making amazing, but battery draining apps, as people will naturally wish to use them if they are amazing, and then more and more user complaints will come in, about the watch dying and it's only mid afternoon.
Hence me wondering if Apple will put power drain rules in place for devs, that animations, or heavy screen use / processing etc must be kept within certain levels set by Apple to avoid showing the watch in a bad light in the media as it does not last long.
By making the watch able to, we assume run anything, it's actually more of a problem than if the device was more limited software wise.
How long would it run say a 3D graphics driving game, where you angle your wrist left/right to steer the car?
A hell of a lot shorter than fiddling with some data app.
If you think about it, poor battery live is a real sore point at the moment.
If you are trying to convince people to buy your watch, the last thing you want are app developers making amazing, but battery draining apps, as people will naturally wish to use them if they are amazing, and then more and more user complaints will come in, about the watch dying and it's only mid afternoon.
Hence me wondering if Apple will put power drain rules in place for devs, that animations, or heavy screen use / processing etc must be kept within certain levels set by Apple to avoid showing the watch in a bad light in the media as it does not last long.
By making the watch able to, we assume run anything, it's actually more of a problem than if the device was more limited software wise.
How long would it run say a 3D graphics driving game, where you angle your wrist left/right to steer the car?
A hell of a lot shorter than fiddling with some data app.
early-adopter's first world problem man. it's fine, don't get it. i'm sure everyone on here knows this well enough already, when it comes to these kinda things.
sorry to say pointless post.
[/COLOR]
The same thing could be said of the first-generation iPhone and iPad. But if nobody buys something because they're waiting for a better version that better version may never come. You need early adopters and beta testers to improve the product and make it better for everyone.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand that thinking - you are paying a giant corporation for the "privilege" to test their products? You're paying a lot to help them refine something that they should refine before launching?
I mean, its your money and I have no issues with you spending it wisely (i.e. on things you can afford), but the thinking I don't understand is along the lines of "its ok to release a product before its ready because the giant corporation deserves my money to help fund its development" - I'm sure they have the resources to wait another year and release a decent first iteration. No?
Its anti-consumer. Its the little guy trying to protect and coddle the big guy. Its the opposite of customer service - its customers serving the business.
Anyways, I may get the sports version in a few years if the heart sensor works, the Health app will track my calories consumed, and the battery lasts a few days minimum. I guess you people who want to pay to be beta testers will enjoy it in the mean time though.
The same thing could be said of the first-generation iPhone and iPad. But if nobody buys something because they're waiting for a better version that better version may never come. You need early adopters and beta testers to improve the product and make it better for everyone.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand that thinking - you are paying a giant corporation for the "privilege" to test their products? You're paying a lot to help them refine something that they should refine before launching?
I mean, its your money and I have no issues with you spending it wisely (i.e. on things you can afford), but the thinking I don't understand is along the lines of "its ok to release a product before its ready because the giant corporation deserves my money to help fund its development" - I'm sure they have the resources to wait another year and release a decent first iteration. No?
Its anti-consumer. Its the little guy trying to protect and coddle the big guy. Its the opposite of customer service - its customers serving the business.
Anyways, I may get the sports version in a few years if the heart sensor works, the Health app will track my calories consumed, and the battery lasts a few days minimum. I guess you people who want to pay to be beta testers will enjoy it in the mean time though.
While your points may be valid and reasonable. I think you'll have to wait for second generation for years. I highly doubt that Apple is going to upgrade the 
Watch every year.
I think they will upgrade it every 2 or 3 years. I see absolutely no reasons why would they upgrade it every year.
Watch every year.I think they will upgrade it every 2 or 3 years. I see absolutely no reasons why would they upgrade it every year.
While your points may be valid and reasonable. I think you'll have to wait for second generation for years. I highly doubt that Apple is going to upgrade the
I think they will upgrade it every 2 or 3 years. I see absolutely no reasons why would they upgrade it every year.
We have had this chat before, and there is a very obvious clash of worlds going on here between TECH and WATCH
Tech view = fine for a new one each year
Watch view = bad for a new one each year
Problem is, we are bringing those two things together.
I would say the BIGGEST problem in that debate is simply price.
If the Apple watch was £199 and that was it, then I think many would be keen to see next years better model & eager to pass it on and buy a new one.
However Apple has decided not to aim at that area, and start at almost twice that amount and go up, steeply from there.
This then clashes with some it seems with the yearly upgrade.
All I can think is that, Apple don't see any problem with say $400 price point with a yearly refresh, iPad's are changed every year at that price point and Apple are happy.
If we consider this......
Apple WILL want a yearly fresh wave of cash coming in. So I struggle to see them going past the year, or past the second year, knowing all the eager customers out there, and saying, sorry, we've got nothing new for you to buy from us.
It has been mooted here about upgrades, and that would get around the issue. I still feel it's a logistical nightmare to offer upgrades in a way.
3 Options.
1: Simply do what they always have done, bring out a new model and you can decide to buy it if you want to. Clean and Simple.
2: Offer to upgrade the internals - This has a few issues:
A: How long will an upgrade take in-store
B: How would you manage say a few million all wanting an upgrade right away?
C: Does the customer want to pay their money, and get their year old, battered around a bit, chips, knocks, dinks over it watch with new internals handed back to them for another year?
D: How much gets upgraded? Just the chips, or also a new screen and new back?
3: Offer a swap out upgrade, you give them your old watch body, pay the money and get a new body back.
A: Apple had to get rid of this, or sell it on, but to who?
B: If it's not just crushed, which is not very green, then they may wish to do an appraisal in-store to judge how well you have looked after it, and offer you different charged depending on it it's immaculate or been knocked around a bit, scratches etc.
4: An of course, do Apple offer one of the above to only a certain one of the watches ?
All this aside, and lets say Apple did not want more money from the loyal buyer/fans each year, and were happy to just let it run with no upgrades for 2 or 3 years. Which I can't see happening, but anyway, let's just say they did.
What are Motorola, LG, Samsung, Microsoft, etc etc etc going to be doing for these 2 or 3 years? Nothing?
After 2 or 3 years an Apple watch could look ancient against 2 to 3 years of advancement by the competition.
I don't know what they will do.
Easiest to do as they always do is the simple one. Admit it's a tech gadget like all their other lower end products. $350 is low Apple end, and just bring out a new one each year. Simple.
I do agree however, Apple COULD price the gold one way way above it's real value, and justify that with some special upgrade deal to woo people to buy those. I could see that if prices were very high for the top model.
It's a tricky one to call right now, for sure.
While your points may be valid and reasonable. I think you'll have to wait for second generation for years. I highly doubt that Apple is going to upgrade the
I think they will upgrade it every 2 or 3 years. I see absolutely no reasons why would they upgrade it every year.
Apple may keep the form factor for a few gens, but very little doubt there will be an S2 and maybe even additional sensors. Moore's Law continues and Apple HAS to follow it. The 2ed gen will probably be in fall of 2016 but after that I bet we get at the very least an S chip upgrade every year.
Because it's a watch. Not a phone.
PS. I could also ask how is Mac Mini, Apple TV and Thunderbolt Display any different to a phone? These products don't get yearly update cycle and I highly doubt Apple Watch would get updated yearly either.
Last edited:
And it would be quite silly to compare those to a phone.
The watch is a mobile device, much like a phone, mp3 player, or tablet. Those devices get updated regularly because the technology is still progressing fairly quickly and the competition warrants it as well. Why would you think the watch would be any different in this regard?
I already said it. It's a watch. It's a style statement. It's premium accessory. Especially the higher end models.
Yes. It's accessory, like watches usually are and jewellery.
It's not meant to be a gadget or device like phones.
I don't believe it will get updated yearly. And even if it does, improvements will be minimal.
This is just another "hobby" for Apple. It won't sell like iPhones and iPads are.
It's interesting and complicated due to this price range.
I'm sure if Apple has said $349 watch and that's that, many more would of been happier to accept, perhaps a year later a mark2
After all, that's less expensive than any iPad, and no one questions that on a years refresh, in fact we can't wait!
Apple have complicated it, with more expensive models, which now are messing up this concept for many, as not we have the issue of it's too expensive to update each year.
Tricky isn't it.
They could upgrade the Aluminium one, and not the others.
But they would upset everyone who bought a more expensive model so that won't happen.
They could offer a upgrade service for everyone except those who have the sports model, but that would upset the most buyers.
They could just do nothing for 2 or 3 years, whilst other brands continue to bring out new models making the Apple watch look more and more out of date as new tech comes along.
Can't see Apple wanting that either.
They could offer a swap out service, again perhaps not for the sports owners, and again that would upset people.
The simple answer would be to do what they always do, bring out a new one and offer it for sale if you want it, then it's up to you what you do. Keep what you have, or sell it on and buy a new one.
That's easiest for Apple.
It's a tough call given the different models.
I'm sure if Apple has said $349 watch and that's that, many more would of been happier to accept, perhaps a year later a mark2
After all, that's less expensive than any iPad, and no one questions that on a years refresh, in fact we can't wait!
Apple have complicated it, with more expensive models, which now are messing up this concept for many, as not we have the issue of it's too expensive to update each year.
Tricky isn't it.
They could upgrade the Aluminium one, and not the others.
But they would upset everyone who bought a more expensive model so that won't happen.
They could offer a upgrade service for everyone except those who have the sports model, but that would upset the most buyers.
They could just do nothing for 2 or 3 years, whilst other brands continue to bring out new models making the Apple watch look more and more out of date as new tech comes along.
Can't see Apple wanting that either.
They could offer a swap out service, again perhaps not for the sports owners, and again that would upset people.
The simple answer would be to do what they always do, bring out a new one and offer it for sale if you want it, then it's up to you what you do. Keep what you have, or sell it on and buy a new one.
That's easiest for Apple.
It's a tough call given the different models.
You might want to tell Apple that. This is certainly not just some accessory/piece of jewelry.
I don't doubt that some updates will be minimal spec upgrades, but it's reasonable to think it will see a regular update cycle especially if the competition dictates it.
I don't think it will sell like iPhones or iPads either. Hell, I'm skeptical of the smartwatch market altogether. However it's absurd to think they're treating this as a hobby.
Well... If I'm not completely mistaken it was Apple. Yes Apple. Who said that they aren't treating Apple Watch as a gadget. They said that first and foremost it's meant to be a watch. Fashionable jewelry. That just happens to do more than regular watches.
I didn't mean it that way. Of course they don't treat it as a hobby. Thats why I wrote it like "hobby". They will take Apple Watch seriously but they will still keep their focus on iPhone, iPads and Mac. Apple Watch is secondary product compared to these.