More drawings. Pictures also indicate that Quanta is / has been involved in manufacturing.
http://imgur.com/a/EFfLZ
http://imgur.com/a/EFfLZ
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.
John Gruber's thoughts on Apple Watch
- Thread starter Rogifan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple has already "luxury" experience - did you know this ?
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/03/15-years-ago-apple-killed-the-twentieth-anniversary-mac/
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/03/15-years-ago-apple-killed-the-twentieth-anniversary-mac/
still a little different because it's a tool.
But it does look like a bit closer to a luxury item than the mac pro, which is a tool for professionals.
----------
Who is Quanta?
It seems that the case is definitely thin enough to warrant a fairly low price for the gold edition.
Quanta:
http://www.quantatw.com/Quanta/english/about/company.aspx
They are already manufacturing for Apple.
http://www.quantatw.com/Quanta/english/about/company.aspx
They are already manufacturing for Apple.
And there's this from one of the Swatch inventors:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swatch-...smartwatch-boat/40606754#.VBw-3fm9BZU.twitter
Refering to one of the Swatch inventors is misleading by the concept. Swatch has been revolutionary to make the only ceapo plastic Swiss watch ever. Initially a lot of people bought one ( $10 - $20 ) just for joking.
Later, the company bought more reputable brands.
Quote from Hodinkee.com ( http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review )
Exactly why I don't see the gold versions taking off. A misstep in my opinion. The Sport will be a success with the generation that doesn't wear watches but has iPhones.
Exactly why I don't see the gold versions taking off. A misstep in my opinion. The Sport will be a success with the generation that doesn't wear watches but has iPhones.
I doubt apple will make a shell and call it a case, but a thin durable strong case is highly believable. The shell argument would make them repeatedly calling it a solid gold watch look like idiots.
It would be incredibly easy for them to upgrade the device. This is modeled after classic watches where the backs can be removed to replace a battery or perform other service. Switching out the guts to a new generation would certainly be easier than the cleaning and oiling of a swiss mechanical timepiece, often hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
Further, you have to look at the smart watch component as all technology. Most of the cost is the thought behind it, not the component price of the screen or computer, or sensors. They already have the tooling in place to create this generation, not that much retooling would be required to produce a new generation vs a whole new watch.
It explains why the swiss reviewers (other than their competition) are referring to this as an extremely well thought out device. They compare the leather bands and linked bracelets superior to most $5,000 swiss watches. They speak of how the lines of the body are better than that tier of watches is as well. It explains why apple went to so much trouble to locate the right people, and build the caliber of product they have done.
Apple could easily produce these and promise to update them for decades, or perhaps even much longer, guaranteeing to add function in a new generation every five years, and dependent on continued sales, often would update them yearly.
This won't limit their future, they'll likely come out with more styles and continue the same approach as this will be extremely successful. Not only will they sell a ton of watches this way, but a lot of phones, plus also iPads and macs. It is a hook that will encourage their whole ecosystem.
Apple excels at computer technology, design and miniaturization. What better market could they ever attack? Lets see, what devices are small, elegant, technological, and people spend inordinate amounts of money on, plus buy multiples of? It's an obvious pairing.
We all expect apple to do something groundbreaking, to build a mousetrap better than anyone before them, and then when it happens, we continue to be surprised.
It would be incredibly easy for them to upgrade the device. This is modeled after classic watches where the backs can be removed to replace a battery or perform other service. Switching out the guts to a new generation would certainly be easier than the cleaning and oiling of a swiss mechanical timepiece, often hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
Further, you have to look at the smart watch component as all technology. Most of the cost is the thought behind it, not the component price of the screen or computer, or sensors. They already have the tooling in place to create this generation, not that much retooling would be required to produce a new generation vs a whole new watch.
It explains why the swiss reviewers (other than their competition) are referring to this as an extremely well thought out device. They compare the leather bands and linked bracelets superior to most $5,000 swiss watches. They speak of how the lines of the body are better than that tier of watches is as well. It explains why apple went to so much trouble to locate the right people, and build the caliber of product they have done.
Apple could easily produce these and promise to update them for decades, or perhaps even much longer, guaranteeing to add function in a new generation every five years, and dependent on continued sales, often would update them yearly.
This won't limit their future, they'll likely come out with more styles and continue the same approach as this will be extremely successful. Not only will they sell a ton of watches this way, but a lot of phones, plus also iPads and macs. It is a hook that will encourage their whole ecosystem.
Apple excels at computer technology, design and miniaturization. What better market could they ever attack? Lets see, what devices are small, elegant, technological, and people spend inordinate amounts of money on, plus buy multiples of? It's an obvious pairing.
We all expect apple to do something groundbreaking, to build a mousetrap better than anyone before them, and then when it happens, we continue to be surprised.
I can agree to the bold statement. As others stated already ( very good ), a real watch is too emotional, too much a piece of art, the apple wrist device can not compete with it.
But if you like it so much, it is the perfect device for you. For me it's a ( wearable ) computer. A nice looking one. Not more, not less.
Apple went all in with this device. Sure they've made iPods and phones in different sizes and colors before, but they have never so thoroughly attacked the case market before. Look at how many different designed bracelets and bands and colors. They have never before offered such a plethora of options. There is only so much most will want to spend on a case for a tech product that will last a couple years. Those devices are not as personal as a watch.
Had apple just wanted to produce another smart watch, it would be like all the other offerings. Maybe a couple colors and a band or two, and let third parties get all the personalization business. However, the case business is big business, especially when that case is jewelry you wear. The only way for them to differentiate their brand was to make it a watch people lust for. They had to design all the bands so their product would be elevated to a new tier. They need people to compare this not to all the other $200 smart watches, but watches worth thousands of dollars from respected makers.
Building a solid gold disposable watch would make them look like idiots catering to stupid consumers and disenfranchise more than it would gain. Jony Ive telling the swiss they were about to feel the hurt from a disposable watch would again make them look like idiots. Apple doesn't like to look like a fool.
Only time will tell if apple has a hit on their hands. However, it is evident that they think they have. They wouldn't have invested so much on delivering so many options if they thought it was a niche product. For them to house it in a solid gold case along with an array of exquisitely designed bands tells you they (literally) have something up their sleeve.
Had apple just wanted to produce another smart watch, it would be like all the other offerings. Maybe a couple colors and a band or two, and let third parties get all the personalization business. However, the case business is big business, especially when that case is jewelry you wear. The only way for them to differentiate their brand was to make it a watch people lust for. They had to design all the bands so their product would be elevated to a new tier. They need people to compare this not to all the other $200 smart watches, but watches worth thousands of dollars from respected makers.
Building a solid gold disposable watch would make them look like idiots catering to stupid consumers and disenfranchise more than it would gain. Jony Ive telling the swiss they were about to feel the hurt from a disposable watch would again make them look like idiots. Apple doesn't like to look like a fool.
Only time will tell if apple has a hit on their hands. However, it is evident that they think they have. They wouldn't have invested so much on delivering so many options if they thought it was a niche product. For them to house it in a solid gold case along with an array of exquisitely designed bands tells you they (literally) have something up their sleeve.
When you go on holiday, you put your cloths and everything you wish to carry inside your case.
How thick is your case, compared to the space in encases?
You may have glasses, and to protect them you put them in a case.
How thick is the case, compared to the space it encases?
You have have a guitar or other instrument that you play, and to protect it when traveling you have purchased a nice case for it.
How thick is the case, compared to the space it encases?
Why does everyone think Apple don't have the same concept of a case?
Why does everyone think Apple will have this large thick heavy chunk of solid gold the circuit boards are hanging from? and need to charge 5000 for it?
I don't share your optimism that a device that needs to be gutted every year in order to stay at the performance level of the latest aluminum version can command ownership pride and prices comparable to a handcrafted timepiece. Besides, it would be very odd if Apple committed to fit future electronics into then outdated form factors. That would make development and production very expensive, can't see how that should ever be worth it.
The AWatch is a computer on the wrist, you want it to have the latest functionality and it should be stylish, but in the end you know it's not to last.
Apple may offer an exchange for their gold watches, not without implied admission they're bound for redundancy. The attractiveness of high end watches stems from the suggestion of timelessness and lasting value.
Two guys are running from a bear. One guy says to the other, "do you think we can outrun the bear?" The other guy answers, "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you."
This watch doesn't need to be the only watch you'll wear everyday at everytime to be successful. It just has to be good enough for you to put it in the mix. Just one of many options you have in a drawer. Function alone combined with design you're not embarrassed to wear will make it the one you likely will use most often. Dinner parties, catillions, a night at the orchestra you'll wear something more appropriate. But around the house, at work, on your commute or bowling this is the option that will make the most sense. That's for the older audience that already wears watches. For young users, the disposable sport that gives them a reason to wear a watch is enough.
Everyone carries phones and computers not because they are fashionable, but because they are functional. A smart watch will also be owned for the same reason, and apple has taken it past the geek factor that will encourage adoption. Apple has a way of making mundane things cool. Often when people describe a new apple product, sexy is one of the first adjectives. Sure it's not a Rolex, but we don't walk around with exquisitely designed abacuses either.
How large do you think the $5000 MacPro market is compared to the $5000 watch market? I think this could be Apple's biggest hit to date.
----------
I think post 123 depicts the case, not a shell, but not a heavy case either. I think the gold versions will sell in jewelry stores, and while $5000 may be list, just like other high end watches, you'll see sales at far lower prices, potentially half of list.
This watch doesn't need to be the only watch you'll wear everyday at everytime to be successful. It just has to be good enough for you to put it in the mix. Just one of many options you have in a drawer. Function alone combined with design you're not embarrassed to wear will make it the one you likely will use most often. Dinner parties, catillions, a night at the orchestra you'll wear something more appropriate. But around the house, at work, on your commute or bowling this is the option that will make the most sense. That's for the older audience that already wears watches. For young users, the disposable sport that gives them a reason to wear a watch is enough.
Everyone carries phones and computers not because they are fashionable, but because they are functional. A smart watch will also be owned for the same reason, and apple has taken it past the geek factor that will encourage adoption. Apple has a way of making mundane things cool. Often when people describe a new apple product, sexy is one of the first adjectives. Sure it's not a Rolex, but we don't walk around with exquisitely designed abacuses either.
How large do you think the $5000 MacPro market is compared to the $5000 watch market? I think this could be Apple's biggest hit to date.
----------
I think post 123 depicts the case, not a shell, but not a heavy case either. I think the gold versions will sell in jewelry stores, and while $5000 may be list, just like other high end watches, you'll see sales at far lower prices, potentially half of list.
That's how the jewelry industry works, but not Apple. They will sell this directly in some form. You might see some small discounting, but likely not to the tune of half the price. That's why $5K is realistic. It is competing against "$8-12k" watches that in reality sell for less.
I struggle to see anyone with money proudly bringing out their iPhone 1 or iPad1 in it's gold case, which cost them 5000 each, when someone next to them on the desk pulls out their iPad Air2 and iPhone 6+ costing a fraction of that and running the latest OS and apps.
On the other hand their 6 or 7 year old gold Rolex means as much today as it did when they bought it, in fact even more.
On the other hand their 6 or 7 year old gold Rolex means as much today as it did when they bought it, in fact even more.
Your correct, people who are well off will be buying a new aWatch Edition every year like a new car. It's not meant to be their heirloom.
For someone who has annual income near 7 figures the aWatch Edition at $5000 will be equivalent to you or I purchasing a Shuffle (or even just a CD). No big deal and an insignificant amount of their disposable income to have the latest trend.
An initial gold housing sold in 2015, will likely house it's 6th or 7th generation watch in 2025, and be compatible with the iPhone 10s. The entire time, the watch will have the latest and greatest hardware and software, except often the owner will skip a generation or two just like is commonly done with the iPhone. The watch will have lasting value as by the upgradeable design, it can't be outdated, just like the Rolexes from decades ago until today. The Rolex however, will never be better than when you originally bought it. The aWatch will continue to get better and better.
Think of your aWatch body as your car, and electronic smart watch component the gas you fill it with.
The difference in piggies' example is a 3rd party blinging out a soon to be outdated electronic device. Apple's strategy is to start a platform of bling, and continue to upgrade the componentry though out the years. It's an entirely different philosophy. One that keeps you coming back for more like no other product they have ever produced before.
Think of your aWatch body as your car, and electronic smart watch component the gas you fill it with.
The difference in piggies' example is a 3rd party blinging out a soon to be outdated electronic device. Apple's strategy is to start a platform of bling, and continue to upgrade the componentry though out the years. It's an entirely different philosophy. One that keeps you coming back for more like no other product they have ever produced before.
You really have zero faith in Apple, and it's partners to be unable to make the Apple Watch any thinner after up to 10 years?
That's terrible.
You do understand that the ONLY reason it's as fat as it is, has nothing to do with wanting to make it so thick, it's because that's the compromise they had to settle for. They would of LOVED to get a larger battery and more things inside it, but that would of means even fatter. They could of made it thinner but with even less sensors and battery life than it will have for the 1st gen.
Don't for a second think it's this thick because they like it this thick.
Everyone would have an orgasm if it was 3mm thick, had every sensor and lasted a week on a charge.
That's not possible.
If it's still this thick after 10 years as you suggest I think we may as well all give up.
This version will likely get thinner with sensors being recessed into the case. Once progress takes it further, the battery will likely get larger and larger so that it could be charged every week or longer.
I do not think this is the only platform they will support and sell. They likely will both go to thinner and round options that they will sell and support as well.
Many people have watches that are this thick already, and it is acceptable, not to everyone, but to a lot of people. They will be successful and likely so will new designs they create.
Look at these watches as being physical gen 1, 38 or 42 mm with version 1 electronic hardware. In the future, expect multiple physical generations in different sizes all with multiple electronic upgradeable versions to be supported. Look how diverse their line already is, and it's six months before shipping. How many iPods, iPhones, or macs did they first sell? One. How many different models do they sell today? You know they think a lot of this market by flooding it with so many models that most people will like at least one.
The proof is that apple never spent anywhere near this much time or money on their cases before. Everyone agrees that the limited watch body, band and case will far exceed the cost of the $350 hardware componentry that goes inside it. Solid gold watch bodies, luxuries leather bands, leather charging boxes, 9 hours to cut the SS band all dwarf the smart watch motor it is driven by. They understand this is a wearable form of art first, a smart watch is secondary. However they will continue to upgrade the function so that a smart watch is as mandatory as a smartphone is today.
Just like car manufacturers adopted audio systems to connect specifically to to iPhones and iPods, they will adapt to your aWatch. The doors will unlock, the car will start, the seat and mirrors will adjust to your settings. The front door of your house will unlock as you approach, and a home automation macro will kick in based upon the your arrival and the time of day.
They're going after the smart watch market with the sport version. They are going after the much larger and more lucrative watch market with the edition and standard models. They may sell more sports, but will make more money cumulatively from the other two versions.
I do not think this is the only platform they will support and sell. They likely will both go to thinner and round options that they will sell and support as well.
Many people have watches that are this thick already, and it is acceptable, not to everyone, but to a lot of people. They will be successful and likely so will new designs they create.
Look at these watches as being physical gen 1, 38 or 42 mm with version 1 electronic hardware. In the future, expect multiple physical generations in different sizes all with multiple electronic upgradeable versions to be supported. Look how diverse their line already is, and it's six months before shipping. How many iPods, iPhones, or macs did they first sell? One. How many different models do they sell today? You know they think a lot of this market by flooding it with so many models that most people will like at least one.
The proof is that apple never spent anywhere near this much time or money on their cases before. Everyone agrees that the limited watch body, band and case will far exceed the cost of the $350 hardware componentry that goes inside it. Solid gold watch bodies, luxuries leather bands, leather charging boxes, 9 hours to cut the SS band all dwarf the smart watch motor it is driven by. They understand this is a wearable form of art first, a smart watch is secondary. However they will continue to upgrade the function so that a smart watch is as mandatory as a smartphone is today.
Just like car manufacturers adopted audio systems to connect specifically to to iPhones and iPods, they will adapt to your aWatch. The doors will unlock, the car will start, the seat and mirrors will adjust to your settings. The front door of your house will unlock as you approach, and a home automation macro will kick in based upon the your arrival and the time of day.
They're going after the smart watch market with the sport version. They are going after the much larger and more lucrative watch market with the edition and standard models. They may sell more sports, but will make more money cumulatively from the other two versions.
I heard Jony was caught rehearsing for the gen 3. "....A new elegant design and the thinnest Apple Watch we have ever made...
Piggie is correct. Jony dreams of thiner products (as well as Marc Newson). If Apple made a refrigerate you couldn't close the door if you put a can of beer in it.
I would be shocked if the thickness wasn't reduced to about 6mm by gen 5 and 3mm sounds very plausible by gen 10.
Once the thin ones come out you'll have your choice of either going thinner and buying a whole new watch, or upgrading your electronic components along with a larger battery for it to last longer between charges. There's a market for both. Just because they can make thin analog watches, doesn't mean they only sell thin analog watches. Currently they sell analog watches that are both much thinner, and quite a bit fatter than the aWatch.
I like your thinking.
Perhaps people can send in their old iPhones and have newer parts fitted and a better battery as they old model is thicker than the new model
Can't wait to send Apple my iPad1.
Just think, enough space for two iPad air circuit boards and 3x the battery
I find it slightly frustrating that John is willing to give the software mess (redundant input methods, feature overload, and an arguable lack of purpose when your phone is already on you). Meanwhile, all he will say about the Moto 360 is 'wow I can't believe it's not a complete circle what a failure'.
I don't think he means to be biased, I think he's just lazy when it comes to anything other than Apple.
I don't think he means to be biased, I think he's just lazy when it comes to anything other than Apple.
I like your thinking.
Perhaps people can send in their old iPhones and have newer parts fitted and a better battery as they old model is thicker than the new model
Can't wait to send Apple my iPad1.
Just think, enough space for two iPad air circuit boards and 3x the battery
You're iPad 1 case is worth a few bucks, your edition watch is worth a few thousand.
----------
The only way they can sell the edition watches other than to a few frivolous snobs is to promise people an upgrade path. So many more would be likely to spend the money on something they know can and will stay current.