A Watch Guy's Thoughts on the Apple Watch After Seeing It in the Metal

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review

by panic • 12 years ago

610 464 12 years ago

hodinkee.com

seanflyon2• 12 years ago

Interesting that he assumes all the strap options are available at the "starting price" of $350.

2close4comfort• 12 years ago

Now in his defense he's a watch guy not an Apple guy. He is just now aware of how the world works.

xienze• 12 years ago

Yep. First thing I thought of when seeing all those different straps. I have a feeling the elastomer bracelets will come in at $50 and the metal/leather ones will be $100.

knodi123• 12 years ago

To a guy who own an hourglass that cost more than my prius, I suspect that all of the options for the apple watch are so negligibly priced as to be "free".

seanflyon2• 12 years ago

He specifically states that the straps are unusually high quality for the $350 price point.

smaili• 12 years ago

Call me cynical but how do we know that Apple didn't secretly just pay him to write this review?

tgcordell• 12 years ago

They invited him to the Keynote. They wanted him to be there. It's his profession to write reviews on the watch industry. All signs point to this being a mutual agreement, but of course, we question whether money was exchanged? We can ask that question of any and all reviews for products, no matter the company or the author. I guess what I'm driving at is... Why are you cynical about this particular article?

cheald2• 12 years ago

Call me cynical, but how do I know that Samsung didn't secretly just pay you to cast doubt on positive articles about the watch?

bgroins• 12 years ago

Cynical!

MCRed6• 12 years ago

Well, there is evidence of Samsung astroturfing blog authors. One fellow I followed had a rather obscure blog, and then one day he talked about samsung and suddenly had hundreds of negative comments (and not of the american pro-android kind you see here.) So, he checked his logs and found they were coming from a limited IP range in Korea.

Anecdote, of course.

But I think assuming that someone who posts a blog posting in a blog about watches with a history of writing about watches is probably not so easily bought.

sanoli4• 12 years ago

Right, they paid the guy to write about how Apple's new product has no emotion. I wonder how much you have to pay for that?

julianpye• 12 years ago

We here on HN are mostly looking at Apple Watch as Android Wear vs. Apple Watch. This article is interesting since it shows that Apple is successful at completely ignoring these competitors and promoting Watch in a totally different market and environment, where all that matters is Brand, Design and Build. No matter if Android Wear is as good or even better, none of their manufacturers can compete in the luxury space as well as Apple may be able to.

lelandbatey2• 12 years ago

I agree. This is way less about anything technical and much more about fashion (a thing Apple is quite good at). I'm reminded of this article that was posted on HN not too long ago[0].

Also, based purely on style, the Apple watch looks quite luxurious, and the pictures really do make it seem "expensive". However, I also find other smart watches quite nice, such as the Moto360.

lelandbatey2• 12 years ago

I forgot to actually link to the item:

[0] http://www.subtraction.com/2014/07/09/looks-by-dr-dre/

adnrw3• 12 years ago

I think this is a key point that's further backed up by Apple's recent hiring of people from the high-end fashion space.

It certainly seems to me that Apple aren't even trying to directly compete for the audience that Android Wear attracts.

Ben Thompson[1] has been talking for months about Apple moving properly into the luxury goods sector. The Watch seems like their first real push in that direction.

[1] http://stratechery.com

eitally• 12 years ago

I agree. Hiring Angela Ahrendts away from Burberry was a strong sign!

scep12• 12 years ago

Apple wins on hardware, loses on software.

rstupek• 12 years ago

Loses on software based on what? The software looked pretty well thought out so far

Kiro• 12 years ago

It has always been the other around if you ask me.

chx• 12 years ago

Funny that, I have been saying for years when people were comparing the iPhone to various Android devices based a tech laundry list that Apple essentially operates as a fashion business and a technical comparison is meaningless. That's not how or why people buy these things. I seriously want to see the guy who walks into a store asks for a phone with at least two ARMv7-A cores at 1.5GHz with a screen of at least 280ppi.

So, nothing new there except now they compete with existing fashion items.

All told, even though the article was gushing (almost to the point of shill) it still admits it's bulky, it's for nerds and it's a market category noone asked for. We will see how it goes.

pavlov2• 12 years ago

Nice article. I'm wondering about this bit:

On an emotional level, you can't compare [Apple Watch and mechanical watches], and that is why I don't believe many serious watch lovers (who, again, would normally be racing to spend their cash on an Apple release) will go for this.

I suspect that the "serious watch lover" market is one that doesn't really figure in Apple's market estimates at all. On the contrary, Apple has traditionally tried to go contrary to the expectations of the archetypal "serious lover of X" user when entering the market of X.

The Macintosh was not for "serious microcomputer lovers". The iPod was not for "serious MP3 lovers". The iPhone was not for "serious smartphone lovers". (Those did exist back in early 2007 -- they were the rare people who actually knew how to install stuff on their geeked-out Nokia N95 devices, or were in love with the BlackBerry keyboard. They hated the iPhone almost unanimously.)

Personally I'm not going to get a smartwatch because I hate interruptions. I hate OS X notifications; I hate it when the phone rings; I hate reading Twitter (but it's an addiction that's sometimes hard to overcome). I certainly don't want a blob on my wrist endlessly buzzing and tapping away, trying to figure out my heart rate and mood and generally being a bothersome noisy little electronic snoop.

But at the same time, I can imagine that the younger crowd wants exactly that. I think the Apple Watch will be a hit, but maybe about 1 year after the launch once the price of the low-end model comes down and a few millimetres get trimmed off.

TheOtherHobbes3• 12 years ago

The problem is there's no ecosystem and no added value.

The iPhone and iPad had apps, the iPod had podcasting and iTunes. WATCH has nothing equivalent. It seems to be a drastically cut-down iPhone you wear on your wrist, with a few haptic doodads added to create a USP.

It's aiming for a weird market that Apple has traditionally done well in - emotional spending and evangelism - but it's trying to cultivate desire by attempting to be explicitly fashionable, instead of offering 'magical' user benefits that lead indirectly to the perception of being fashionable. ('Show, don't tell.')

Obvious conclusion is that it's not a Jobsian coup like the last few revolutions were.

Maybe it could be with more thought about where it fits as a product, and what makes it unique. But currently 'small iOS wrist device for semi-fashionable people' seems like a challenging place to succeed in.

andrew93101• 12 years ago

I don't understand. The apple watch does allow 3rd party apps.

msherry2• 12 years ago

There was no podcasting ecosystem before the iPod was released, and no significant app ecosystem before the iPhone.

pchristensen2• 12 years ago

"there's no ecosystem"

I think the 200 million iPhones are the ecosystem. I don't see an obvious point to the watch by itself - it seems like it's main "feature" is to expand what your iPhone can do.

The absolute most expensive iPhone is the 128GB iPhone 6 Plus - $950 w/o contract. But it's the highest-end phone in a world with millions of millionaires. This gives a way for iPhone customers to pay more to get more.

nickles• 12 years ago

On the contrary, the iPhone (and iPod Touch) launched without an app ecosystem. Instead of having third party apps, Apple pushed for developers to produce web apps for Mobile Safari. It wasn't until iOS 2.0 that an API was released and the App Store was launched. In that time, the sole way to load apps onto these devices was with a jailbreak.

Additionally, the iPod launched when the iTunes Store was in its nascency. In fact, iTunes wasn't released for Windows until a few years afterwards. It wasn't possible to load apps (small games) on the iPod until the release of the iPod video.

With the promise of an API at launch, there is more of an ecosystem in place than existed for the previous products you mentioned.

tzm• 12 years ago

Apple Watch augments your iPhone's capability and introduces novel use cases based on 'micro interactions' and ambient feedback. It's a consumption device. For now, it must be used with an existing iPhone. It will eventually become a fully independent and integrated device.

Regarding value.. imho, the next evolution of the technical maturity model for mobile will center around decision support. This is where I see wearables providing the most value, which may have significant impact to business process applications and sensor networks.

To the average consumer, this may mean having ambient access to specific economic information, transactional data or live media. It will become a part of your daily informata and utility / Internet usage.

logn• 12 years ago

I find the number of downvotes on your comment to be slightly depressing. It's one thing for readers here to disappear posts that are absurd, thoughtless, insulting, or spam, but this is just a person who apparently has a dissenting opinion and maybe slightly overstated the point. It's no reason to prevent everyone else from reading it.

aaron-lebo• 12 years ago

But at the same time, I can imagine that the younger crowd wants exactly that.

If anyone can build a market from scratch it is Apple, but why would the younger crowd want a watch at all? Unless you are older than 30 (or perhaps even older), you likely aren't in the habit of wearing a watch. What is going to compel the younger crowd to do so?

mathattack• 12 years ago

The younger generation is probably less familiar with Dick Tracy to appreciate the watches.

pavlov2• 12 years ago

Maybe it's better not to think of it as a watch.

The modern smartphone has little in common with the devices that were known as telephones until about 20 years ago, yet it has retained the name. It's not easy to predict something like this. (In the film Back to the Future II, the hero's 2015 house is filled with telefax receivers. There's a scene where his boss sends a fax to all of them and printed pages start pouring out. This is how people imagined the future of telephones a mere 30 years ago!)

The meaning of 'watch' as a timepiece may soon become as antiquated as the meaning of 'phone' as a fixed receiver on an analog landline.

coldtea2• 12 years ago

If anyone can build a market from scratch it is Apple, but why would the younger crowd want a watch at all? Unless you are older than 30 (or perhaps even older), you likely aren't in the habit of wearing a watch. What is going to compel the younger crowd to do so?

If they're gonna buy it it won't be on the merits of its watch functionality. So it's not about being a watch, in the same way (or actually far more so) than a smartphone is not about the phonecalls.

It's a machine you wear on your wrist that also happens to tell time.

Mind you, what the "younger crowd" wants is not really that predictable in the sense of "why would they buy a watch".

If it becomes a kind of fashion statement, they'd buy it, the same way hipsters now buy vests and hats (the kind of which people haven't really wore since 50 years or so), huge headphones (something that was a tiny market a decade or so ago, despite everything being available), etc.

CamperBob2• 12 years ago

This thing is going to open up entirely new frontiers in cheating.

lukifer2• 12 years ago

Personally I'm not going to get a smartwatch because I hate interruptions.

I hate those things too, but I'm still chomping at the bit for the Apple Watch (and plan to disable all notifications except SMS). Why?

- Wrist GPS while driving

- Siri without taking phone from pocket

- Music remote control (hopefully video, too)

- NFC payments

- Heart monitor (QS)

- Other cool apps as yet unimagined

I certainly don't blame anyone who doesn't want one; it's a bulky, expensive frivolity. But its UI affordances create opportunities for active use cases beyond the passive notifications that have characterized smartwatch functionality until recently.

Crito3• 12 years ago

- Wrist GPS while driving

I recommend trying GPS while driving without any screen at all. Pull up navigation on your phone or stand-alone unit, then place it in the center console where you cannot see it. Let it give you directions only though TTS.

This is how I've been using GPS for years now, I find that I pay much more attention to the road and actually have fewer navigational mistakes (probably because I am paying more attention to the road).

Mikeb853• 12 years ago

Ummm, you shouldn't be looking at GPS while driving. It's easy enough to tether a smartphone to your car's console. I know on my last 3 phones (all Android) the GPS would actually interrupt the music when I was coming up on a turn, then return to the music.

As for music remote control, headphones generally have controls somewhere on them or the cord so you don't need to take your phone out.

orbifold• 12 years ago

Many modern cars have GPS directions integrated next to the Speedometer, I would imagine this to become universal in the future.

rumbler• 12 years ago

- Wrist GPS while driving

Please don't look at a screen while driving. You might end up killing people.

seanp2k2• 12 years ago

+1 re: phone nerds. I had an HTC Apache (AKA Verizon XV6700) at the time, and I wouldn't give up on the idea of a physical keyboard. I was running my customized ppc kitchen BuildOS image (Win Mobile 6.1 stripped down iirc) before upgrading to the original Droid because of the much-higher-res screen. I ran Bugless Beast on the Droid and painstakingly updated it usually within 24 hours of a new release. Before the Apache, I had a Nokia 6600 with Symbian S60, and even as a kid I wrote VB5 for my 3Com Palm Pilot Professional.

I'm typing this on an iPhone 5, and I'll be pre-ordering the 6+ as soon as I can. This is my second iPhone; I started with a 4S. Fighting with Android became less and less appealing over time, and I currently only jailbreak iOS to get bluetooth / wifi tethering and because my physical mute switch is broken after a swim in the sink which I've worked around using Activator to toggle silent with a long-press on the status bar.

NicoJuicy6• 12 years ago

Why didn't you just buy a Nexus? (i used to battle Android updates to, but it's not Google's fault... The Nexus proves that) (1st smartphone was a iPhone 3GS, the rest were all Androids)

spitfire2• 12 years ago

Wait when did VB5 run on a palm pilot?

I used to write apps for palm pilot and it was a hell of resource constrained C.

mbillie13• 12 years ago

Fighting with Android became less and less appealing over time

This rings true to me. I was long a diehard Android/Linux guy - even an explicitly anti-Apple person. 5 years of professional development later and I'm typing on my 15" MacBook Retina Pro which I have not had to restart in something like 42 days, thinking about which iPhone I'm going to dump my Galaxy SIII for in a few weeks' time.

I still run a GNU Linux on any desktop I have, and I actually don't see that changing anytime soon (my Linux complaints are generally with built-in peripherals on laptops which is hardly Linux's fault but still makes for a bad experience), but Apple has really won me over. I've got an iMac in my bedroom, an iPod I climb/bike/run/ski with. I can't see becoming a watch-wearer with the Apple Watch (I haven't worn a watch ever really) but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

I'm curious to see if Apple can do what Google couldn't, and make wearables a significant presence in the market, thus forcing other companies to react. If we leave other companies to break trail, as it were, I think the acceptance of wearables is still a little further off.

bobbles6• 12 years ago

A lot of the article talks about the manufacturing process being so precise and sophisticated as a reason why the 'old school' watches are popular among his crowd.

It would be great to see apple release a video similar to the 'making the mac pro' that shows just how sophisticated and precise their manufacturing for the watch would be.. it might even get a few more people on board that have an interest in production quality.

Terretta• 12 years ago

This "serious watch lovers won't go for this" is debatable. I'm one.

He compares the Patek Philippe 3940G, along with a photograph. I have and used to wear the rarer top model of that series, with several more complications and digits in the price. I love and collect complication watches. I hate digital watches -- I've kept only one in 25 years.

Since getting the Pebble Steel with leather band (preordered and meant to cancel when I decided I wouldn't use it), I haven't worn the Patek or any of the other mechanicals during my business day.

The moment to moment difference liberating me from "devices" during my business day is too valuable. I don't love it. But it changes my day.

Given your comment, it's an interesting contrast: I no longer wear any other watch besides the Pebble Steel because I hate interruptions even more than I love mechanical watches. The Pebble's soft vibration and glance-ability is so much less intrusive than checking a device, I'm unwilling to trade it.

Couple the manufacturing detail described here with the benefit to the flow of one's day, and I'd argue the Apple Watch is the first digital likely to appeal to mechanical watch lovers in highly connected jobs.

ethagknight• 12 years ago

As mentioned by Terretta and the original article, serious watch lovers have collections of watches. They could buy the  watch just to add to the collection, worn as a conversation piece in addition to its smartphone peripheral feature.

Aside: I was totally surprised by how similar the  watch looks to the original iPhone.

EpicEng7• 12 years ago

It is debatable. Actually, it's being heavily debated on WUS right now (I assume that you know WUS = Watchuseek). I also love watches. They're on of my primary obsessions. I can't imagine wearing something like this, but I'll certainly take that PP off of your hands if you don't want it anymore. :)

wpietri4• 12 years ago

Your point on the politeness of the Pebble is exactly why I'm wearing one right now. I hadn't worn a watch in years, and when I got a Pebble for a project, I thought I would use it just long enough to write some code for it. But I love being able to fend off and deal quietly with the various intrusions of my digital life. I can fend off a phone call, see a text, or be reminded of an appointment without a fit of beepilepsy. It makes my life more serene even when I'm alone, but what really sells me on it is when I'm around others.

cityhall3• 12 years ago

You moved from high-end automatic watches to a smartwatch. In the long term, it's worth considering whether people will move from smartwatches to mechanical ones. If people get used to the features of an iWatch in their 20's, will they ever decide it's worth spending many thousands of dollars on a piece of jewelry that displaces all that functionality? If not, automatics may go the way of film cameras.

Whatever their merits as engineering marvels, expensive watches are Veblen goods that are worn to display wealth. Similar mechanisms can be put into pocket watches, but that's a much smaller market. Expensive watches have the appeal they do because they fall on the same continuum as everyone else's watch. Change the middle of the watch market and the current high end will look as absurd as a Vertu brick phone.

eloisant3• 12 years ago

Additionally, he says he's worried because the watch is not "the absolute best one you can buy".

Well, I don't think people buying 30,000 euros watches are such a big market that Apple should worry about missing them.

That includes former French President Sarkozy (he wears the same Patek Philippe watch), not really the "man with an okay job who lives in a nice apartment in some metropolitan town".

stef25• 12 years ago

Patek Philippe 3940G

That's a 50.000 USD watch?

Hominem• 12 years ago

A Patek Phillipe 3940g costs around 40k-50k. With several more zeros that is what, 4 million? You gave up a 4 million dollar watch for a Pebble Steel? I mean, the point of a 4million dollar watch isn't even to tell time. It is to say "I can wear your life savings on my wrist"

Tyrannosaurs5• 12 years ago

I kind of agree. The article is kind of right in that it seems to be saying that they're not the same thing and that's right - the only real similarity is that they occupy the space on your wrist but that doesn't mean that it can't appeal to someone who likes high end mechanical watches (I have an IWC which I love but I'm still interested in the Apple watch).

After all, I have expensive leather shoes and trainers. Other than the fact they both go on my feet there is little similarity but I can and do own, use and like both.

Spearchucker• 12 years ago

My Breitling Navitimer only cost $10k and my Pebble, which is about 6 months old now, has been on my wrist for all of 8 hours. I've never worn it again after that one day because it does nothing I find useful. And in comparison to the Breitling the Pebble feels cheap. The only reason I have to not wear the Breitling is when I go more than a meter underwater. And for that I have a Suunto D6i.

tlrobinson8• 12 years ago

Let's also not forget that most humans have two wrists. Perhaps it will become fashionable to wear a smart watch on one wrist and a high end mechanical watch on the other.

Of course that would remove any remaining doubt that the purpose of a $60,000 watch is to signal wealth rather than tell time.

Alternatively, maybe we'll see mechanical watches with a smart watch "complication". At the very least I'm sure we'll see partnerships between (some) high end mechanical watchmakers and smartwatch platforms.

brlewis• 12 years ago

I'm not a serious watch lover, but I imagine members of that group have larger collections than your typical microcomputer lover or smartphone lover, and place a high value on finding one that's different from any they already have.

arohner• 12 years ago

Personally I'm not going to get a smartwatch because I hate interruptions. I hate OS X notifications; I hate it when the phone rings; I hate reading Twitter (but it's an addiction that's sometimes hard to overcome). I certainly don't want a blob on my wrist endlessly buzzing and tapping away, trying to figure out my heart rate and mood and generally being a bothersome noisy little electronic snoop.

I agree with the sentiment, but, based on my interactions with OSX and iOS, I assume it's not essential that the watch buzz and interrupt you all the time. I have all popups & notifications disabled in OSX and iOS, and they're still great tools when you're ready to pay attention to them.

I won't be getting an Apple Watch v1 (because it's not waterproof, and well, v1), but it wouldn't surprise me if I bought one down the line. I think there's a lot of interesting things that can be done with all the new sensors, and UX.

rayiner3• 12 years ago

I was negative on the Apple Watch until my wife mentioned something interesting: she wants one so she can doesn't have to constantly check her phone for important work emails during family time. Its a huge boon for the Blackberry crowd--people like my wife and I who would otherwise put their phone on the table during dinner to keep an eye on it.

She's also pretty fashion conscious and while she isn't happy with the design, I think it passes the bar. She really would prefer something with Apple guts and external design by her favorite fashion brands, however.

taternuts• 12 years ago

Doesn't almost every single existing android/smart wearable provide the ability to not "constantly check her phone for important work emails during family time"? At this point, apple needs to be doing more than their competitors in order to keep justifying their environment lock-in, _especially_ in the mobile space

micampe• 12 years ago

While waiting for the watch, a lot of people never open the Settings app so they don't realize that the notifications settings for Mail on the iPhone are pretty flexible, with VIP contacts and custom notifications per account.

marincounty2• 12 years ago

Every watchmaker has always had a hard time selling women's watches. This watch, especially if they thin it out, might be the game changer?

mirsadm• 12 years ago

Not to be too rude but has your wife tried simply, well, not checking her phone after work? IMO most of these smartwatches are adding to the problem of constant interruptions, not solving it.

jacquesm8• 12 years ago

The proper response to 'important work emails during family time' is to ignore them.

Unless you're the president of the United States or something to that effect. People have too little family time as it is once you start adapting what you wear in order to accommodate further encroachment on the little that remains soon there'll be nothing left.

Work can usually wait until the next day.

And if you do have to be on call outside of regular work hours make sure you're compensated for each and every minute that you're on call.

maigret4• 12 years ago

Reasons for me to stay with mechanical watches:

- The NSA won't hack into it

- Most will work decades and follow me, given I service them every 5 to 8 years

MCRed6• 12 years ago

Apple is historically the kind of company that says "you can have it in any color you like, so long as it's black" for new products... and then when the product has been around for awhile, they start accessorizing it.

The iPhone is a good example: it wasn't until last year that you could have more than 2 versions (black and white)... and the 5c added many possible combinations with the off color cases. That's a product that had been on the market 6 years at that point!

So, actually offering all these different variations is quite a departure for them.

One argument for the Beats acquisition I heard was that Beats did this as well- they had many SKUs and many color combinations for each model of headphone and the argument went that managing selling a product line like that took a lot of special skill.

I wonder if this is the thing that Apple was really buying with Beats? (or more realistically, a big part of Beats value to Apple.)

pinaceae• 12 years ago

the iPod Nano is the counterexample, together with the bright colors of the iMac.

the Nano is especially important as it was used already by various kickstarter projects as a poor man's Apple Watch. the real one looks very similar actually.

MCRed6• 12 years ago

I think of those as supporting examples. The first iMac had bright colors, but you're right that they both adopted colors rather quicker than my example of the iPhone.

I wonder how much of the impetus for the Apple Watch came from the number of people who wanted to use the nano as a watch. Kind of a back door MVP in a way.

wlesieutre• 12 years ago

The iPod Nano actually launched in black and white, briefly dropping the color options from the earlier HD based iPod mini. That was toward the beginning of Apple's black/white phase.

Thru went back to colors pretty quickly, probably for a mix of fashion and scratch resistance. There was a class action about the plastic nanos getting damaged too easily.

r00fus3• 12 years ago

Another explanation for color choices - the austere Jobs is no longer at the helm, it's Tim Cook, and Tim clearly wants to steer Apple into the fashion market - he recently hired many top execs from fashionable brands. Beats acquisition ties in as well - wearing Beats is more a fashion statement more than a technical selection.

nl• 12 years ago

I remember the shock and lust the original coloured iMac was greeted with. That was the first comeback Jobs hit.

Jobs was fine with colors.

Rapzid• 12 years ago

Apple apparently understands the watch market. So yes, fashion.

badusername• 12 years ago

More realistically, I think it was obvious to them that they couldn't make a watch in a singular style and expect wide adoption. Personal style is a very important factor in watch purchases.

mikeg82• 12 years ago

nailed it.

msabalau• 12 years ago

We partnered with Timex on a wearables project once, and their sentiment seemed to be that you needed a couple of thousand SKUs before you'd truly satisfy people's desire for personal expression. With less you'd run into "I like that thin blue band, but it should be a different shade of blue."

eloisant3• 12 years ago

That's not really true. There was the iPods, but also the 1998 iMac which I think was the first computer to come in multiple colors.

grecy4• 12 years ago

Great article and photos.

Imagine a man who grew up in the middle class, went do a decent school, got an okay job, lives in a nice apartment in some metropolitan town, maybe drives a German car and occasionally splurges on something nice for himself. Do you see him wearing the Apple Watch? I don't.

I honestly don't think Apple are too concerned about not selling a watch to that man. The watch is targeted at the hundreds of millions of teens and 20 year olds that are already attached to their iPhone, and want another gadget to connect to it and play with.

Market Leader In A Category No One Really Asked For

Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.

tolmasky• 12 years ago

Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.

You mean the declining year-over-year iPad sales figures? The tablet market is far from proven. Maybe the last year has been a hiccup, or maybe tablets weren't all they were cracked up to be.

mendort• 12 years ago

To be fair to Apple, I think it's fair to say that their ROI on the iPad has been respectable, even if it doesn't turn out to be a product that's successful in the long term.

MCRed6• 12 years ago

He's arguing that there's a market, you're saying that sales are down for a year. (Which is true after 3 years of explosive growth)

For the past three quarters, Apple has sold more than 12 million iPads a quarter, or an annual rate of >48 million units. Is 48 million units a year not proof of a market?

soneil• 12 years ago

Personally (I'm no market guy) I think this pretty natural. I haven't found a lifecycle for the ipad yet. I go through iphones every 2 generations (I've skipped each S so far), macbook pro every 3-4 years ..

I got an ipad2, and haven't found a need to replace it yet. The battery's pretty solid, and at this rate, that's likely to define when it's time for a new one.

Most the people I see buying new tablets are essentially buying "my first computer" for a kid. Something to shut them up in the car. And that's not a great market for apple's prices.

So I don't think the tablet is a flash in the pan - but I don't think the initial rush was sustainable either. Now that pretty much everyone who wants one, has one, it'll settle down closer to lifecycle turnover.

And to stray a little closer to on-topic, I'm hoping for the same from the watch. That's really what I'm waiting to find out, and I suspect we won't know any time soon. But that $350 is going to feel much heavier if I feel compelled to replace it as often as my phone. (on that note, I did find it interesting that there was absolutely nothing in the way of tech specs announced on the phone. No mention of resolution, just that it's enough. No mention of speed, or storage. The models are defined by materials, not numbers. Hopefully, this is a good sign that this device isn't meant to fit into a race to double the numbers each year.)

alaskamiller• 12 years ago

I wager you both have it backwards.

I believe that aspirational yuppie will be EXACTLY the type Apple wants to buy the watch to build up brand cachet. They will want the kidults to avoid the watch as much as possible until they've turned into yuppies.

The tweens/kidults sets will gravitate towards the 6+, it'll be their preferred daily device when not touching their Apple laptops.

pchristensen2• 12 years ago

The watch will probably have a dozen configurations of model+band for $350-$600 (similar to iPhone prices), and the gold Edition models could cost 10x that. They're casting a very wide net, style and demographic wise.

letstryagain• 12 years ago

There 0% chance the Edition models will cost anything close to $3k

josu2• 12 years ago

It took Apple several years to enter the MP3 market, the smartphone market or the tablet market.

However, they are releasing their product just two years after the first real smartwatch came out(the Pebble), and the same year that the first color screen smartwatches started coming out.

This is not the standard Apple procedure. Will the iteration 1 of the Apple watch be successful? I personally don't think so, and I was among the people that predicted the success of the iPad [1]. But, paraphrasing what I said for the iPad, given that the Apple watch is made by Apple and that it's well made, elegant, functional and relatively cheap, it could end up selling very well and prove me wrong.

[1] http://economiauniversitaria.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/el-ipa...

gress2• 12 years ago

There is no magic formula that says Apple is successful because it waits.

Apple builds what they believe is a meaningful product, and often this involves assembling many more components than their competitors, so it takes them longer.

dragonwriter• 12 years ago

Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it

Er, no, they didn't. Some people said that. Lots of people said it was stupid but that it would probably sell well nonetheless. Other people said it was a well-conceived product for the market even if it wasn't what the speaker was looking for (which is basically the same as the previous thing, but with less ego.)

Lots of people said it was something they were looking for.

personZ• 12 years ago

Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.

The reception to the iPad was overwhelmingly positive (if we really need to go to archived press and reviews, we can do that, but this revisionist nonsense about the iPad's reception needs to stop). And I don't remember anyone doubting that it would sell, just as I have no doubt that Apple will sell tens of millions of this watch regardless of any defects.

What people criticized was the notion that the iPad killed laptops -- that it was the new vehicle of productivity. And the terrible name which, while it stuck, remains terrible.

And those critics were by and large right. I know people can point to the fringe "productivity" use of an iPad, but overwhelming we use it for casual browsing, watching videos, and playing casual games. Exactly the same sort of stuff that we did on PMPs before. Because the iPad is a biggie-sized PMP, and it was hardly the first to idealize the notion that PMPs were cool, but would be cooler bigger (the "CrunchPad", for instance, was proposed two years before the iPad. The concept was obvious, albeit within a narrow band).

72deluxe13• 12 years ago

Very good point. The iPad really didn't kill laptops, and yet people kept going on how everything needed to be redeveloped for the iPad, or attempted to show an iPad in a productive environment. It's very poor for creating things.

Instead, it clearly is excellent for consuming things, and cleverly pinched that giant segment of the market where people had been buying PCs just to browse the Internet, share photos and go shopping. Consumption.

_red• 12 years ago

I honestly don't think Apple are too concerned about not selling a watch to that man. The watch is targeted at the hundreds of millions of teens and 20 year olds that are already attached to their iPhone, and want another gadget to connect to it and play with.

You are exactly right, which is why this is so worrying from an investment perspective.

No matter if you like it or not, the wealthy drive fashion and taste. The reason why we think of BMW, Porsche, Ferrari's as "luxury" is primarily because the rich buy them.

No stock trader is going to trade his Philippe Patek for a $350 watch that his pool-boy wears.

This is something that is not getting talked about. No one buys watches to tell time. They are almost exclusively used as status symbols.

This is the miscalculation in Apple's plan. No one needs a watch anymore. Trying to make one relevant for a purpose other than status symbol is going to be tough.

They should've made a "smart band" that connects to any watch face. That would've been a clever strategy.

lukeqsee• 12 years ago

No one buys watches to tell time.

I do. I don't go anywhere without my watch (I have two, in fact). I purchased a $300 watch (after numerous Timex watches dying in a year) in high school that I've worn daily for 5+ years; I don't see that changing anytime soon. I hate pulling out my phone just to check the date / time—I always get distracted by something. If I need the time or date quickly, I look at my wrist.

anewcolor• 12 years ago

They could get the much much more expensive "edition" watch which their pool-boy couldn't even dream of affording. The watch could act as the controller for a digitally connected house (HomeKit) which is something else the pool-boy probably wouldn't be able to afford.

I don't see it as that different from the iPhone today. BMW drivers and pool-boys both employ them as status symbols and neither lets the other drag that image down.

grecy4• 12 years ago

No stock trader is going to trade his Philippe Patek for a $350 watch that his pool-boy wears.

And yet, the stock trader has the same phone that his pool boy does...

integraton• 12 years ago

I don't know what country you live in, but basically none of what you describe applies to the US. Young finance workers, for example, are among the least culturally influential groups in urban America. Your notion of class dynamics (as illustrated by the "pool-boy" comment) is similarly inapplicable and sounds like something from a developing country.

deciplex• 12 years ago

Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.

The tablet market has been around for well over a decade, it's just that Apple was the first not to build one totally half-ass and as an afterthought or add-on to some more mature market. Tablets before the iPad were basically just weird laptops, and sold about as well as you'd expect something with that description to sell. Same with smartphones, which really replaced both mobile phones and PDAs: the market was there, and entities were making products, but every effort was half-assed and horribly crippled in some way.

I don't know where this product and market is headed. I lump it, for now, into the same category I lump Glass: very interesting tech, but I don't think I have a use case for it. But that's exactly the opposite of where I put tablets before iPad, and PDAs before iPhone, where I knew I had a use case for this stuff, but all the tech was overpriced garbage.

e: and, just to add, this is typical of an inexplicably common failure mode I seem to notice an awful lot, which is:

1. identify a potential market for X, with few or no participants

2. design shitty product B, in attempt to capture that market

3. when shitty product B fails, declare there is no market for X, move on to something else

One of the strengths of Apple, I think, is that they don't do this very often, i.e. they build good products even if they have no apparent competitor. Thus they can build new markets more easily.

capkutay• 12 years ago

Apple is a marketing/sales retail machine. This watch is just another thing for them to sell with a high-end, glossy look and feel that fits with their strategy of dominating the sectors they want to control. I'm not surprised it doesn't do all the things HN folks were looking for (e.g. requires pairing with iPhone, not a standalone device with its own internet connectivity/gps).

On the other hand, I think they delivered a nice product that will fit perfectly in an Apple store, engaging swarms of shoppers with lots of disposable income.

gress2• 12 years ago

A marketing/sales retail machine, with the best product design and engineering on the planet to supply it.

r00fus3• 12 years ago

requires pairing with iPhone, not a standalone device with its own internet connectivity/gps

Standalone GPS is fine (even preferred - not replacing a forerunner) but another multi-band cell-radio? Simply sounds like a bad idea - the form factor is too small to make that feasible or interesting - for now.

vidarh• 12 years ago

Aliexpress is overflowing with Android devices with multi-band cell radios. Some of them even dual-SIMs.

rtpg• 12 years ago

I know people like to feel clever like acting that Apple's success is solely due to marketing/sales as if they've peeked behind the curtain, but their products are actually good too.

fillskills2• 12 years ago

"Market Leader In A Category No One Really Asked For" -

Thats what I feel when I hear about any tech company launching a watch, be it Samsung or Apple. Maybe its just me, but since owning a smartphone, I feel I don't really need a watch. None I know wears a watch anymore. Werent watches one of the main things replaced by smartphones. Also, how many more screens can I handle? Laptops for work, tablets for browsing, smartphones for on the go tech.... and a smartwatch to do what exactly?

Maybe I am missing the whole point of smart watches. I am hoping its just not me.

tvanantwerp• 12 years ago

This is my experience going from watch, to smartphone, to smartwatch:

The phone replaced my watch because it completed the same task while also completing many more. Why bother with a watch (for me, at least, just another thing to remember) when the phone works just as well?

A phone is not a perfect replacement, however. I constantly have to pull it out of my pocket, input a code to unlock it for various tasks, etc.

My Android watch has replaced the action of pulling my phone out of my pocket and unlocking it for basic tasks. It tells me the time, lets me dismiss phone calls, can pause and play my music, take notes, remind me of things, and display texts--and I no longer have to fish around in my pocket for a phone that takes seconds to unlock and navigate through.

As the smartphone replaced a repetitive task (remembering to wear my watch), the smartwatch replaces another repetitive task (wrestling with a phone stuck in my pocket).

enlightenedfool2• 12 years ago

yeah...people somehow manage to justify buying anything that apple makes. And nothing wrong with that, just interesting observation.

wpietri4• 12 years ago

Exactly my experience as well. I got a smartwatch for a project and expected to hate it; I hate most gadgets. But it effectively made my phone more polite.

drblast• 12 years ago

I've been around a while, and I've seen the "tech" industry evolve, or devolve depending on your perspective, into one that's entirely about fashion.

I guarantee that for most people who would buy a watch like this the actual functionality is probably so far removed from their minds it's a non-issue. The marketing doesn't say what the watch does, it fetishizes the laser-cut infinitely adjustable magnetic watch band with meticulous design to make you go, "Oooooooh."

We are so far from the days where tech reviews would contain a breakdown of the new instructions in the latest microprocessor. Devices are only tangentially about functionality and tech; people will buy this because carrying around a phone (that replaced the watch) was "so last year."

I think any attempt to debate the merits of the device on a functional level are misguided. This is a watch that you will have to take off and RECHARGE for pete's sake.

fillskills2• 12 years ago

You nailed it - "This is a watch that you will have to take off and RECHARGE for pete's sake.". No tech-watch company has yet advertized what the major benefit of the watch really is.

Don't misunderstand me - This is a beautiful device. I will go check it out in the Apple store just to see if I am missing some major use case that can help improve my productivity in a significant way. Till then, its just another add-on device for me.

brisance• 12 years ago

You are talking about tech for its own sake. The target market for this segment is vanishingly small.

But to address your point more directly. Do you already know how to make a wearable device of a similar size that offers all these features without having to recharge once a day, by "early 2015"? If you do, then I'm very sure you can find employment at Apple or one of its competitors.

mrharrison• 12 years ago

"Werent watches one of the main things replaced by smartphones"

Weren't watches replaced by watches?

They started off in towers, then to rooms, then to tables, then to pockets and then to wrists. Is this not a similar evolution of computers?

mikeg82• 12 years ago

Everything you described is actually called a "clock". Watches were the evolution from pocket to wrist, nothing more than that.

vacri• 12 years ago

A watch is only to tell time. A phone is only to talk. Neither of these require a size bigger than "barely able to see easily. However smartphones have incorporated 'web browsing' (and analogues) into them, and they do have a size requirement that they can't get smaller than. The market has spoken, and all the vendors are bringing out larger phones with bigger screens. That functionality isn't something that can fit onto a wrist; not until we have sci-fi style holographic projectors, anyway.

dubcanada• 12 years ago

Watches are fashion accessories first, and time pieces second. So no. And I wear a fossil watch 24/7 not sure if I want a apple watch, but it does look sexy.

benihana• 12 years ago

Apple has a pattern of doing things like this. They launch things, and you say to yourself "what problem is that solving? who's going to buy that?" Then they iterate on the design and functionality of the thing, and apps get developed for the specific device, and suddenly it makes perfect sense. iPhone 1 was ridiculously feature bare. iPad 1 had no real great apps, and was pretty feature bare as well. We all know how those both turned out. That's what I imagine will happen with this one. I'm looking to version 2 or 3 for when these things become amazing.

dreamfactory2• 12 years ago

It's about wearables not watches. Apple just hasn't totally abandoned skeuomorphism yet.

jqm• 12 years ago

No, it's not just you. I can't see using a smart watch. But (I realize this is an unpopular opinion), I don't care for smart phone either. Little tiny screen, slow button push typing, half assed internet with me _all the time. Not my thing at all. I finally got a Nexus 7 so I could have internet in my pocket for those times I really needed it. It sits collecting dust while I wear my laptops out.

It's funny to see the looks (especially being a web developer) when I take out my $15 dumb phone. Some people look like they think I'm one step above homeless. But I just don't have a use for a smart phone other than to make sure web apps display properly. I guess I like devices to do one thing and do it well. But I realize this is minority opinion.

laichzeit02• 12 years ago

None I know wears a watch anymore.

You're taking functionality and fashion and grouping them together. Then you're dismissing one of the elements, functionality, and throwing out the other with it, fashion.

I wear a mechanical watch purely for fashion. The same way females wear rings in their ears. Ultimately, I don't think the first iteration of Apple Watch is going to supplant that, however it may in the future.

Padding• 12 years ago

The same way females wear rings in their ears.

That's an odd way of phrasing it. Are you a Ferrengi? Usually we call them women, not females.

debt• 12 years ago

In one of the photos I could see a reflection in the Apple Watch of the camera man taking the photo. I can't help but think that that big honking camera will be replaced one day by the very thing he's taking the photo of.

jff• 12 years ago

Seems unlikely if you know anything at all about optics.

grecy4• 12 years ago

The same would have been said about vacuum tubes...

bing_dai2• 12 years ago

I believe one day software will be advanced enough to reduce the number of necessary lenses for quality photos.. "Software eating DSLR".

pimlottc2• 12 years ago

Another site with an always-present header that completely fails keyboard paging. It is really frustrating how many pages break such a basic function. Forcing the user to manually adjust the positioning every time they page is a really great way to make them lose interest and go somewhere else.

asadotzler• 12 years ago

You should switch to Firefox. With Firefox, we take those headers into account when keyboard paging and everything "just works."

grayclhn• 12 years ago

OT, but I use Firefox and have not found that to be universally the case. But on this website, it definitely does and I really appreciate it!

sjwright• 12 years ago

And I appreciate it. But it would be nice to have some built-in way to nix them. Right now I'm browsing on a MacBook Air 11" which has just 768 pixels of height. Between the menu bar, firefox UI and fixed site header, I'm left with a claustrophobic slit to view the content in.

And then I love to browse many websites by zooming in and leaning back; but once you zoom in a few steps these headers magnify to the point of absurdity.

pimlottc2• 12 years ago

That's a good point. But besides my undying love for Chrome Dev Tools, I'm kinda bugged by the idea of hacking a permanent workaround into the browser to accommodate broken sites.

cpr• 12 years ago

Isn't anyone else bothered by the lousy typography of both the logo (<apple>WATCH) and the typography on the screen?

The fonts are too loosely spaced, and the screen layouts looked amateurish, no better than the Android-based wearables.

I know this sounds like a nit-pick, but it's not. It's not like Apple to blow it at this level. They need to get it right at every level, especially the UI (and the brand).

serve_yay3• 12 years ago

Literally everyone I have seen remarking on the typography has said the exact opposite. And I concur with them, I think the type and the new typeface is one of the best parts.

zobzu• 12 years ago

Personally I dont want any watch with at least 1 week of battery time with heavy use.

My current watch has 5 fucking years of battery time. Some are more or less working indefinitely.

I like that my watch looks nice, but I also like that its functional. Running, on a bike, what not, its actually much more convenient than grabbing a smartphone.

What I don't get, is why current watch makers don't make a smartwatch from their point of view:

a regular watch, with connectivity to the phones, that can do a couple of things like vibrate in a variety of ways - OK - citizen actually tried that and it sort of work but there is no attention to details.

You want the watch to reliably vibrate if u get a msg or notification that you setup. You want it to vibrate differently for navigation depending if you gotta go right or left according to your phone (so you dont need to grab the phone while on a bike for example!).

Neither work well on the citizen, and the connection eventually times out, that sort of stuff. Too bad.

grecy4• 12 years ago

Personally I dont want any watch with at least 1 week of battery time with heavy use. My current watch has 5 fucking years of battery time. Some are more or less working indefinitely.

Fair enough, though the same could be said about smartphones.. i.e.

Personally I don't want any cell phone that has less than a week of battery time with heavy use. My current dumb phone has weeks of battery time, even when used heavily. I'll never get a smartphone until battery life is....

While that statement makes sense, it doesn't appear to have stopped many from moving to a smartphone.

jvagner• 12 years ago

Do you take your watch off at night.. leave it on a bedstand?

How much harder with it be to tap the magnetic power thingie on? Not at all.

When Apple Watch 2.0 comes out, will battery life be longer? Quite probably.

This is just the beginning. If people can get used to charging their phone 1-3x a/day, they can plug their Watch in at night. Not perfect, but I don't think this is a deal breaker.

glandium• 12 years ago

And when you go on a trip, you have to take one more charger...

threeseed2• 12 years ago

Personally all I need is a full day. I don't sleep with my watch. So putting it on a stand to recharge it isn't an issue with me.

And current watch makers can't make a smartwatch. Just like Apple couldn't make a mechanical watch. Completely different worlds that just happened to meet in the middle.

sanoli4• 12 years ago

No, a full day just isn't enough. What about the time when you come home wasted from too much work/partying and you just forget to charge the thing. Then you wake up, decide you don't want to wear it because you just want to chill on the beach/park/anywhere, and then you put it on on the next day, and it is dead. And to use it you need to charge it for an hour or so, so you can't wear it on that day.

klochner3• 12 years ago

The hourglass referenced in the article costs $28,000, here's the start of his review about it:

Let's begin this post by letting you know, right from the start, that this hourglass costs $28,500. Now, as you continue to read, you will notice how that number becomes more and more rational in your mind.

Not quite for me. It's still seeming absurd.

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-hourglass-...

aeturnum• 12 years ago

A lot of the high end watch world is focused on craftsmanship. Think of it like buying a painting, but instead of oil & canvas you get steel, gears & springs (or glass and...nanoballs in this case).

Anyone can buy a clock - you have one in the corner of your computer right now. People who spend this level of money are more interested in time keeping sculpture.

klochner3• 12 years ago

Both watches and the hourglass seem closer to a lithograph than an original piece of art, and I wouldn't pay $28k for a lithograph.

x0x02• 12 years ago

If you're incredibly wealthy, what else are you going to spend the money on after all possible material needs are more than satisfied? After all, you can have multiple homes, but you still only stay in one at a time; wear one pair of shirt and pants per day; etc.

klochner3• 12 years ago

Your presumption is that money needs to be spent. Some people try to limit flagrant indulgence in consumerism regardless of income level.

jasonwilk• 12 years ago

Good article. I really agree with his comment:

"It's directly competing for the same real estate (i.e wrist), where as if we had seen a bracelet of some kind announced yesterday, those early adapters, myself included, would be begging Apple to take their pre-pre-pre-order"

I really did want the apple watch to be more of a bracelet and something that could be complimentary to an analog watch with all the messaging, notification, health aspects in tact. More than anything, the health tracking seems to be the most relevant for myself, and for that, I see a JawBone Up or something comparable that I can rest next to my analog watch as a potentially better option.

The design is brilliant, it's just not for me. However, iPhone 6 looks great so not like Apple won't be taking my money :)

serve_yay3• 12 years ago

I like this, because it dispenses with the "Apple lover" angle and instead focuses on the existing watch market at the $350 price point. It should be clarified, though, that $350 is the base price and some configurations are probably going to go up to double and triple that.

slantyyz• 12 years ago

Here's something that's different from the existing watch market and Apple's watch. Most people who pay $350 or more for a watch will wear it for years and years.

The Apple Watch, as beautiful as it is -- is still an electronics/computing device that has obsolescence built into its life cycle (I'm also curious if the battery can be replaced).

Unlike an analog watch, people will want to upgrade to watches with faster CPUs and other new technology. And if you use mobile phones and tablets as a model, that could translate to every couple of years.

While I believe that initial sales will be impressive, it'll be interesting to see how a premium product like this will perform in the long term.

serve_yay3• 12 years ago

Yeah, that is a big difference. Dropping $600-ish on a watch (figure pulled from thin air) is one thing, but usually when people do that, it's gonna be their watch for many years.

enlightenedfool2• 12 years ago

It'll do well, considering how other premium products from apple sell. All those who buy an Apple product every time they release one...big enough market

josu2• 12 years ago

If Motorola were able to release iteration 2 of the Moto 360 by the time the Apple Watch comes out, and make it iOS compatible, they could single-handedly kill the Apple Watch.

rewind• 12 years ago

Regardless of whether or not it's a better watch, unless it has an Apple logo on it somewhere and they hide the Motorola logo, then I doubt very much that that would ever happen.

Bud• 12 years ago

There's zero evidence so far that Motorola can even last 12 months in this market, and lots of evidence to say they can't, like their abject failure in the cellphone market. Ludicrous to say that their lukewarm Moto 360 effort, featuring a CPU that's 4 years old, terrible performance, cheap look-and-feel, and extremely poor battery life, could even be a serious threat to Apple's engineering efforts.

threeseed2• 12 years ago

How could they make it iOS compatible ? They won't have the ability to integrate with third party applications which is really the killer feature of the device.

cnbuff410• 12 years ago

I'm sure the author is very knowledgeable on the watch industry and by no means I'm challenging his taste and feel of fashion.

I'm just curious that when he made claim of "The Apple Watch is by far the best smartwatch", what is this claim based on? Did he try all the other high end smart watch like Moto 360 or G watch R? If not, is it really fair to make a strong public claim like this?

to3m• 12 years ago

A watch is more jewellery than timekeeping appliance. Appearance and provenance/authenticity seem key. (You can tell this is the case, because people will spend thousands of dollars on wind-up watches that stop telling the time entirely after 2 days or whatever - even though they could instead have bought some cheap digital POS for £5, that will require adjusting about once a year.) And there's not much in the way of provenance for a computer-powered wristwatch from Apple... so the review focuses, and quite rightly I think, on what the watch looks like, and how it feels on the wrist.

The timekeeping aspect is purely secondary, since, thanks to modern technology, we know it will keep the time. My phone keeps the time, my laptop keeps the time, my TV keeps the time, my fucking oven keeps the time. Keeping the time is a solved problem.

voltagex_2• 12 years ago

There are only a couple of options in your list that's synced to a reasonable timekeeping source - keeping accurate time is something we only solved "recently"*

*Although, in the US, wasn't there a timekeeping radio broadcast?

NicoJuicy6• 12 years ago

I thought Apple would say: the market ain't ready for a smartwatch. Nobody wants to pay for a watch that has to charge every 24 hours (or less).

That's immediatly the biggest mistake from the Moto360, the watch looks awesome... But the battery life is too short :(

bobbles6• 12 years ago

I only ever charge my iPhone at night next to my bed, if I just have to put the watch on the charging stand (or whatever) at the same time as my phone I don't think people are going to care too much.

They will need enough battery life though to go from morning to the next morning I would say, as you don't exactly want to have your watch stop working after a night of drinks after work...

solnyshok4• 12 years ago

you do not want your watch run out of juice around midnight, at the nightclub, or on the dark road

drivingmenuts2• 12 years ago

I know many people who will happily spend $350 on an iWatch who wouldn't even consider a mechanical watch at any price. I think this watch is for them.

I also think mechanical watch makers are going to wake up one day and realize their market is getting old and dead.

Igglyboo• 12 years ago

I myself, and many of my friends, fall into that category. I realize for some that a mechanical watch may be a fashion icon or status symbol but for most, it's utterly useless. It tells time and my phone already does that.

gaius• 12 years ago

Ironically, when you get your phone out to check it, you're doing exactly the same as people did 100 years ago with pocketwatches,

Pocketwatches were replaced by wristwatches the instant it became possible to do so.

larrys• 12 years ago

I liked this:

"But for me, it's all about the Milanese bracelet, baby. The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it."

Specifically "The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable."

Apple knows?

Obviously Apple didn't develop the watch in a vacuum. And they have the money and resources to hire and consult with the best people in the world. So the surprise isn't that they did this what's surprising is how other equally rich companies don't tend to do things like this. In other words they seem to be lacking the motivation and creativity to even hire the right individuals.

zindlerb• 12 years ago

arh68• 12 years ago

Wow, what a crazy review. No mention of materials, which seems odd for a 'watch guy' review. I have to go to apple.com to read: A new aluminum alloy? "that’s 60 percent stronger than standard alloys"?? No mention of the sapphire crystals? Or the strengthened Ion-X glass? As a watch guy, that's what I want to hear about. Is it lighter than titanium, or heavy like a stainless watch? Is the crystal domed? Reflective? What is the ceramic back? I'll be honest, this reads like a crap review.

I'm impressed by the sweeping, of course. The display looks very nice for a watch at any price range. I wish the author actually compared some $350 mechanical watches, instead of a $28,000 hourglass, a $15,000 watch too big for his cuff, a $150 mechanical Swatch, and a $700 mechanical Tissot. Instead, we get vague, non-specific swaths of comparisons:

Apple got more details right on their watch than the vast majority of Swiss and Asian brands do with similarly priced watches
In many cases, its offerings make what is coming out of Switzerland (or Asia) look amateurish.

Again, no specific mention of better-than-X. Too bad. I do like that Tissot he mentioned.

I'm quite impressed by Apple's (relatively) vast array of superb finishes: other watch manufacturers could step their game up in this regard, but they would have to consolidate their designs. Also, the bracelets look quite nice and I hope that competition improves things analog-side.

coldtea2• 12 years ago

Wow, what a crazy review. No mention of materials, which seems odd for a 'watch guy' review. I have to go to apple.com to read: A new aluminum alloy? "that’s 60 percent stronger than standard alloys"?? No mention of the sapphire crystals? Or the strengthened Ion-X glass? As a watch guy, that's what I want to hear about. Is it lighter than titanium, or heavy like a stainless watch? Is the crystal domed? Reflective? What is the ceramic back? I'll be honest, this reads like a crap review.

That wouldn't be a watch review I'd want to read, that would be the analogous of what we say in the photography forums "pixel peeping"/"measurebation" review (which, like the reviews you describe in watch circles, all too common).

snogglethorpe• 12 years ago

Yeah, but I think "watch fans" are quite different than photographers in that respect.

Watch fans are generally pretty up-front about the fact that they like watches mainly because they're beautiful/elegant/cool artifacts. As long as a watch keeps OK time, they don't seem particularly concerned with the nominal functionality.

I think in reality, many people like cameras for similar reasons, but it's not quite as acceptable to admit that. Even if someone really bought that expensive Leica because it's a beautiful jewel of precision manufacturing and high-quality materials (a perfectly fine reason if you ask me), they often put up something of a front, trying to emphasize all the ways it takes great pictures and helps their photography style...

krschultz2• 12 years ago

There are several different Apple Watches in a range of different materials, so I think this was more of a preview of the whole line.

watchgeek123• 12 years ago

Oh sweetheart. Bless you.

dchuk• 12 years ago

It's interesting to me that there has been very little mention of the fact that the Apple Watches (at least the watches we've seen so far) are purely for right handed people who wear watches on their left hand. If you tried wearing these on your right hand, you'd be reaching across the face to use the digital crown.

There are two logical solutions for this:

1) Sell a left handed model as well. You can expect there to be a 90/10 skew for righties just because of genetics, but that can be accounted for in manufacturing runs.

2) Allow the watch to be flipped upside down for the right wrist. While technically this would work, I highly doubt Apple would design something to be worn upside down.

Or they can just say fuck it and only make watches that make sense for right handed people. I guess we'll find out in a few months.

refulgentis• 12 years ago

We already know – they went with #2. http://www.iclarified.com/43778/apples-iwatch-is-reversible-...

alphakappa• 12 years ago

http://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/09/apple-watch-interface-or...

Thiz• 12 years ago

Apple Watch is not a watch.

It's a computer on your wrist that will be used for special tasks where little but precise information is required.

It's all about presence, NFC, iBeacon, sensors, iTags, etc.

laichzeit02• 12 years ago

Yes, let's just completely ignore the aesthetics of the device and focus only on the technology. It's almost as if you didn't read the article and the finer points about the design of the face, straps, etc. that the author went into such painstaking detail about.

He didn't even mention _any_ of the things you just talked about, instead deferred it to another article.

lumens• 12 years ago

The smartwatch represents the beginning of a new era: the unbundling of the smartphone. Like Marc Andreessen pointed out with his last tweet in this storm (https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/481554165454209027), "Unbundle X from Y, but then use the liberation of X as leverage to do amazing new things with X."

This thought framework has me convinced that watch-like wearables have a place, but I think the fact that the Apple Watch doesn't "fit beneath the shirtsleeve" as OP points out is a major ding: form is as important as function for such a jewelry/tech hybrid. A 2x slimmer second generation of the Apple Watch will get /everyone/ on board.

adnrw3• 12 years ago

The fact that the Apple Watch doesn't "fit beneath the shirtsleeve" as OP points out is a major ding: form is as important as function for such a jewelry/tech hybrid. A 2x slimmer second generation of the Apple Watch will get /everyone/ on board.

I agree. I think they will sell a boatload of the first generation, but two or three years down the track it will get its equivalent of the iPod-on-Windows or App-store-for-iPhone moment and take off. Everything will suddenly click and everyone will want one.

mmxiii• 12 years ago

I understand how a watch guy would have strong feelings about the emotions and ideas behind a watch. But I think he is missing the greater context.

When an object has a permanence in utility and form, we have a certain relationship with it. This is the kind of emotion and relationship we have with watches. But the world changes, and very soon it will be competing against a different type of relationship. Our relationship with wearables may be skewed more to utility than heirloom. But that's OK because wearables represent the mesh of software with hardware, and software gives the ability to evolve. We will no longer have the singular relationship with one watch, but a broad relationship with a series of evolving wearables that slowly become more and more essential to our lives.

So no, we won't have the same emotions and same relationship with wearables as we did with watches. But that's just where the universe will be going.

conradfr• 12 years ago

My only question with those watches is the screen, i.e does it look like one ? I have a friend with a LG watch and the back light is annoying.

Years ago I thought digital photo frames were an excellent (and still relevant) idea but ultimately a failure because they looked like screens. And screens are distracting, eyes are drawn to them.

I hate TVs in bars, people unconsciously watched them even if they don't care about what is broadcast and forgot they are with people.

sanoli4• 12 years ago

I'll bet 5 bucks with someone here that it will flop (as in, won't become a regular product). My reasons for winning the bet:

-Although it looks great, it doesn't look like a great watch, it just looks like a beautiful Apple product. The thing is, on this specific product, as opposed to all their other products, Apple is competing with an established design lineage that goes back for decades, and wristwatches have always been about good taste and good design, so the competition on the aesthetics front is not so easy for Apple as it was on their other products (meaning computer hardware/software makers suck tremendously in regards to design, but watchmakers are champions of it).

-Extending on previous reason: it's as if Apple decided to go the eyeglass route and take on Google. Easy, because Glass is downright ugly and too geeky. So Apple makes its own beautiful glass, which is still a little geeky, and then they have to compete with Ray-Ban, Gucci, Prada, wathever.

-Short battery life sucks for a wristwatch.

-People already have the functionality on the iPhone, and the iPhone is already pretty portable.

-Short battery life sucks a lot for a wristwatch, come to think of it.

edit: formatting.

sanoli4• 12 years ago

Forgot to add: check out Apple's 80s clothing line. Probably looked way better than clothes from Microsoft.

cubicle67• 12 years ago

You might want to define "flop" and specify a timeframe if you're offering a bet like this

Some suggestions:

* will sell less than x units in the y months after it becomes available

* is discontinued within y months

* will not make it to version n

* will bring in less than $x revenue/profit in [timeframe]

* will lose its link at the top of the apple website within y months

It's also hard to tell what Apple's internal expectations are. They may expect to only sell 100, or they may be expecting to sell 100 million. My guess is it's a "feeler" product to guage demand while they work on v2

bobbles6• 12 years ago

Is apple trying to sell this to people that already wear a watch?

Tim cook knows that younger generations dont care about wearing a watch because the time is on their phone. They want a product that convinces people that have NEVER worn a watch that they want something on their wrist...

I think this is going to be explosively successful.

Of course the sheer fact that you will actually be able to BUY an apple watch will be great for its success (see: every android watch perpetually being unavailable when they launch)

kitsune_2• 12 years ago

High status individuals will probably view this as a toy for the 'plebs'. Of course they might buy one because of a passing interest, but in order to impress their investment banker buddies, they'll still go for Patek Philippe, IWC, Audemar Piguet etc.

I also don't think that the Apple watch will convince 'normal' people to suddenly start buying watches again. Why on earth do you need this if you already have an smart phone? Maybe as some kind of mini iPod? If you remember the gimmicky 'smart watches' of the 80's and 90's, everything they offered has been solved by smart phones a thousand times. Calendar, birthday reminders, calculator, moon phases and so on. What does the Apple watch bring to the table compared to an iPhone? The only thing the Apple watch might be somewhat useful for is as an unreliable sports / health sensor for people who don't want to buy into Polar or Garmin's ecosystem.

To me, the thing looks entirely ridiculous. Sending your heart beat? What a fucking gimmick. Having to recharge a watch every other day? Are you kidding me?

A lot of people will still buy it. Apple is good at marketing. But this won't be a new iPhone success story.

Ar-Curunir• 12 years ago

This article is just falling over itself to praeise the Apple Watch.

The Apple Watch doesn't look particularly sleek or modern, instead it looks like someone shrunk the iPhone 3GS and put a strap on it.

The author picks up random watches that do not look nice as a comparision for the Apple Watch, but ignores watches in roughly the same price range that do look better?

For instance, look at [1] or [2], both are from Tissot, both look elegant and classy, and both are the same price as the Apple Watch.

The article obssesses over Apple's decision making regarding straps, but uses really, really biased sounding words. For instance:

The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it.

Anybody who visits a watch store will find watches with that sort of strap a dime a dozen.

Further evidence of Apple fanboyism can be found later on in the article, when the author states that the new iPhone 6, which is not available for use yet, as "the absolute best offering in the category in both form and function".

I am not implying that liking Apple products makes one a fanboy (I own and really like my MBPr), but this article isn't of any really journalistic standard, and yet has reached the top of HN.

tomcorrigan• 12 years ago

> The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it. Anybody who visits a watch store will find watches with that sort of strap a dime a dozen.

Re-read the bit about tech company, not watch company

robert_tweed• 12 years ago

I for one am impressed by your categorisation of the 1957 Speedmaster and Patek 3940G as "random watches that do not look nice". You're probably not the target audience for Hodinkee.

The article acknowledges some of the shortcomings of the watch, but one thing should be obvious: this author is someone that understands the little differences in quality that differentiate a $350 watch from a $35,000 one. When it comes to the points he makes about build quality, I believe him. I'm also quite impressed by what I've seen of the bracelets, especially the ultra-thin deployant. If you've ever worn a deployant strap you'll understand what a big deal that is.

I do not think Apple has got everything right with this, but I'm increasingly realising they've done again what they always do well: completely ignore conventional wisdom about what makes a good product and focus on the "ownership experience".

As with other new Apple products, the first gen isn't very good. By the time it hits 3rd gen, all the initial complaints will have been resolved. They just need to find a market in the meantime, which is neither the Casio owner nor the Rolex owner, but I have confidence the market exists and this will do well enough to survive and evolve.

beloch• 12 years ago

A Timex might last over a decade if you replace the battery occasionally. A mechanical watch will offer inferior time keeping accuracy but, if maintained, can operate well for centuries. A quality mechanical watch is an heirloom item, which is one reason why watch aficionados can rationalize spending thousands on a single watch.

The Apple watch will be totally obsolete and incompatible with everything inside of five years. It's soldered-on and nearly impossible to replace battery will likely run out of charges in far less time than that. These are not heirloom items. They're disposable. As such, I don't expect the same kind of build quality from an Apple watch that I would from a mechanical watch. That they do offer good build quality for the money is therefore totally unexpected and rather nice.

That being said, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want one of these. As a fitness tracker and GPS watch they're inferior to what's out there (chiefly because the Apple watch relies on your iPhone's GPS). I don't do workouts with a phone in my pocket. Also, so far it's unclear if the Apple watch is waterproof, and it had better be to have any use at all in this market! For almost all other applications, the effort of working with such a tiny screen and different interface outweighs the trouble of reaching into your pocket and pulling out your phone. If I want eye candy on my wrist, I'll dust off a mechanical instead of buying something that will be junk in a few years.

Istof• 12 years ago

GPS is a battery hog, that is maybe why they decided to use the phone's battery and GPS?

cbr• 12 years ago

    I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes
    me want one of these.

Triaging notifications without taking your phone out of your pocket. Who's calling me; do I need to pick up? Is this buzz an sms, calendar reminder, etc? That's what makes me want one.

visarga• 12 years ago

Covert tactile communication / notification. Imagine a poker game.

bobbles6• 12 years ago

A rotary phone will be bolted to the wall and work for 100 years. An iPhone needs to be replaced in a few years once the battery starts to go.

This is essentially the same scenario, people wont care about them being disposable, because they wont necessarily be using it as a watch as the main feature any more. (Just like how people hardly use their phones for talking any more)

pikachu_is_cool• 12 years ago

An iPhone isn't to a rotary phone as an Apple Watch is to a mechanical watch.

EpicEng7• 12 years ago

People who buy mechanical watches for 3k+ buy them because they are beautifully engineered and finished works of art. Trust me, I'm one of them. Most of us will not swap out our Tudors, our Omegas, our Patek's, or our VC's with one of these. It's just a different market.

PhantomGremlin2• 12 years ago

A rotary phone will be bolted to the wall and work for 100 years.

But who will know how to use it?

I grew up using rotary phones. But about 15 years ago, after many years of using Touch-Tone, I tried to place a call on a rotary wall phone. And I couldn't do it without a lot of retries. There is a little bit of a technique of knowing how hard to turn and just when to release. And I had lost the recipe.

Plus I don't think anyone under 30 y/o has even used one. They'd find it difficult to dial correctly.

Not only that, the rotary phones are filled with mechanical components that rust and wear out. If it weren't for the infernal non-replaceable battery, my money would be on an iPhone surviving for much longer than a rotary phone.

marze2• 12 years ago

The fact that Apple is making the watch body out of solid gold (in one model) is interesting. It suggests:

A. They will do future upgrades to the internals of the watch to make it current with the latest model.

B. They will allow trade-in for a small fee to the latest version with the same case material (and recycle the gold in the case into a new watch).

If they didn't one of these, a customer would soon feel that their rather expensive watch had fallen behind the technology curve.

My guess: B

simias• 12 years ago

I don't think either A. or B. is realistic in the long run, both because Apple will obviously want to make the future versions of the watch as thin as possible which might make it difficult to fit the new hardware in the old case (imagine if in a few years they decide to use a bigger curved screen for instance) and also because Apple is not really famous for supporting what they consider to be obsolete products.

I think people who'd buy a gold iWatch are not looking for a family heirloom to give to their great-grandchildren, they're looking for something "bling" to show off how rich they are. I think it's for the petrodollar market, basically. I'm sure you can already find diamond encrusted iphones made by third parties already...

xorcist3• 12 years ago

My guess: C. The people rich enough to buy a gold smartwatch doesn't care. They'll just buy the next when it comes out.

Osmium2• 12 years ago

That being said, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want one of these.

Haptic walking directions for me. I travel a lot and walk a lot, and to be able to find my way without having to looking at a phone screen would be lovely (not to mention it means I can then keep my attention on my surroundings rather than being distracted).

wastedhours• 12 years ago

That's why I'm waiting for vibrating insoles. Glancing at a watch is useful (G Watch owner here...), but it's still looking at something. Wearables will be awesome when they're don't appear to be there.

mladenkovacevic3• 12 years ago

Here's one thing I realized about the famous Apple "reality distortion field" with the release of this watch.

The reality distortion doesn't start with the consumer once the product is released. It starts within Apple while the product is being developed. I mean they really believed when they were building the Apple Watch "We are building a $350 device". Wheter you love the design or hate it, it's hard to deny the effort that went into designing this device, from getting the dimensions right, to the curvature of the screen and bezel camouflage to the bracelet selection. This reality distortion field only then gets transfered to the RIGHT customer who has no problem paying $350.

I still think it'll be a tough slog to get the watch through the early adopter curve and over the early majority hump simply because it has no compelling features as of yet, but that might change with a wider ecoaystem. As of right now, the main selling feature of this watch is the built in reality distortion field.

With the right offer though it might have an easier time. If you got the watch for $100 extra when upgrading your iPhone anyways that might be an easier pill to swallow than paying $350 outright. Whatever the offer may be, Apple needs to find the equivalent of the carrier subsidies which propelled smartphone adoption at the end of last decade.

TL'DR: What Apple realizes is that the way to sell their watch is to communicate to their customers that they want to wear the watch because they'll enjoy wearing it - no other reasons or features are needed. In fact many of the truly novel features (payment, identification, keyless entry...) will only scare away mainstream users. Just put in on their wrist first.. And show them the true functionality slowly and in stages.

Gracana2• 12 years ago

I don't really follow what you're saying. How is designing something to match its price point distorting reality?

mladenkovacevic3• 12 years ago

Because the mark-up on the actual price of producing a product is inflated due to the reality distortion field. Apple is not in the business of selling a collection of electrical conponents, silicon and labour. They are selling admission to the experience of owning an Apple product.

Apple superfans won't wear this watch because of some feature that makes their lives easier somehow. The first buyers will wear it because they enjoy wearing it from a physical and psychological standpoint.

wpietri4• 12 years ago

Apple doesn't really sell early-adopter products. They sell to the early-majority segment, who then persuade the late majority eventually. [1]

You can tell because they don't do anything particularly novel. The early Mac innovations were taken from Xerox PARC. The first iPod came out 3 years after the first MP3 player. The first iPhone came out 6 years after the first smartphone. The Pebble was part of the YC 2011 class.

This is a smart approach. Apple lets other people pioneer a product space to figure out what works, and then use their immense design talent and their even more immense cash reserves to turn a good-but-geeky product into something that the bulk of the market will actually buy and use. And then they scoop up enormous amounts of money.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_lifecycle

scald• 12 years ago

I think the point about Swiss makers being in trouble with the younger generation is valid. I'm 28, and have always had a great appreciation for fine watches. This is mainly because I grew up seeing my dad appreciate them, and many of the people I'd classify as successful were appreciating them. I wonder though, how many in my generation will teach their children - intentionally or not - that a reasonably successful individual owns the best smartwatch to control their Tesla and their smart home, and not a Rolex? It isn't a stretch to think Rolex could partner with someone to be that brand of smartwatches. Today, smartwatches aren't competing with classic timepieces. In 10 years, there's a real chance that they will.

jacquesm8• 12 years ago

A Rolex is a complete waste of money. For less than a very small fraction of the price of a Rolex you can get a watch that will perform just as good or possibly even better.

The only reason Rolex owners have Rolexes is to show they can afford one. And they can't wait to tell you about it.

Parents that teach their children that successful people buy overpriced trinkets are losing an opportunity to teach their kids the difference between 'good enough' and conspicuous consumption.

easytiger3• 12 years ago

Tell that to every girl wearing ear rings or a diamond ring or a guy wearing a necklace. People accessorize. Get over it. For less tha the price of a mid range rolex you can also buy a rubidium atomic oscillator. I'm failing to see your point?

bhavvik• 12 years ago

I see many other high end watches as waste of money, but not rolex. If you buy a Gold Rolex they actually appreciate with time or at the least you won't loose much value when you do sell it. I agree the reasons you have suggested are primary reasons people do buy high end watches.

balloot2• 12 years ago

My issue with the watch is the crown control. It just feels lazy to me to take a control mechanism made 100+ years ago for winding mechanical watches off your wrist, and repurpose it for digital control of a watch on your wrist.

Is it possible that the best possible UX solution for winding a mechanical watch and controlling a digital OS is exactly the same? Perhaps. But that seems improbable to me. It's hard to know until the thing is out in the wild, but I would expect a lot of people fiddling awkwardly with the top half of that tiny little dial as the bottom of the dial digs into their wrist. Doesn't seem terribly fun.

Or to look at it differently, both of Apple's other consumer hits (iPod, iPhone) introduced a navigation interface that was completely novel and way better than anything else on the market (iPhone => finger navigated multi-touch screen, iPod => rotary dial). A crown on a watch is definitely not novel, and I'm thoroughly skeptical it will be way better than its competition.

That being said, it's unlikely that this thing bombs. But as a test of innovation post-Steve, I'm just not seeing it. And over time, the luster of Apple will fade if there's no innovation.

MBCook3• 12 years ago

The control mechanism that's lasted over 100 years obviously works well. We are not too far into the touchscreen era, and when the thing is only 1 inch on each side the touchscreen isn't going to work especially well.

Someone made a mockup a week or two ago that used the ring around normal watch face as an input mechanism. I actually thought that was kind of a neat idea. I'd kind of like to see one of the Android watchmakers give it a try. But it was more of a 'watch with some interaction' (like the old Timex Datalink) than a 'smartwatch'.

balloot2• 12 years ago

Crown mechanisms worked well for a completely different purpose. They are the easiest way to set and wind a watch that is not on your wrist. Totally different use case than controlling the watch's screen while you're wearing it!

eevilspock• 12 years ago

Apple could easily do that for a round "Apple Watch 2". It's the same as the digital crown in function, just in a different place. The just have to make the bezel touch sensitive. The feel of using it would be very reminiscent of the iPod scroll wheel.

sschueller• 12 years ago

Ventura Watches[1] uses a similar mechanism to configure their watch. It is called Easyskroll (TM) and was patented in 2002 under 2002CH-1962 [2] so Apple may have a problem here.

[1] http://www.ventura.ch/

[2] https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KScQVKCwL...

jacquesm8• 12 years ago

With about 100 years of prior art for configuring the settings on a mechanical watch I don't think that patent should ever have been granted, nor do I think it stands much chance of survival once they try to get money out of Apple.

neonkiwi• 12 years ago

My thought after reading this—a great product would be an actual analog watch (quartz or mechanical) with the same styling and finishes that the Apple Watch has, with a much thinner case, that customers would use with Apple's bands. Take advantage of the immense design effort that went into the watch, but set aside the smart watch idea.

I'd buy that watch today for the same price as the Apple Watch.

bobbles6• 12 years ago

I wouldnt be surprised if deal extreme has a 'watch body' that will be compatible with apple watch bands before the apple watch even hits the market

totalrobe2• 12 years ago

Was the battery life announced? Cannot find a reference anywhere which makes me wonder...

MBCook3• 12 years ago

No, but the keynote made a mention of how easy it is to charge every night. Rumor is that it's about a day and Apple is trying to optimize it before release.

totalrobe2• 12 years ago

Gotcha, did not see it due to technical issues. Apple brags about battery life in every other product they release. IMO reviewers need to hold off until real life battery life is released.

hyp04• 12 years ago

A specific-purpose accessory can't be as big or as revolutionary as Apple ][e, Mac, iPhone or iPad.

More like apple TV, iPod, console, kindle. Still scope for a multi-billion dollar market though.

Just the kind of thing Sony might have made in its heyday, and Apple can dramatically improve it iteratively, limited only by the wrist-space form-factor. Replace your wallet (payments, ID, memberships), car keys, TV remote; monitor blood sugar, home-automation etc.

hnriot• 12 years ago

What about privacy? There's something reassuring about putting an iPhone into one's pocket. Messages showing up for anyone to see doesn't really appeal to me.

I ran this page through NLTK's Sentiment Analysis and the the score is NEGATIVE 0.8, Stanford's never finished!

marincounty2• 12 years ago

I think I was too initally hard on the watch, or expected too much? After they thin it out it might just get younger people wearing watches again?

LeicaLatte3• 12 years ago

Nice photos of the watch in there

sebastianavina• 12 years ago

I'm still not sure what kind of information I want to be delivered via my watch...

smrtinsert• 12 years ago

This is the best ad ever for a Patek Philippe 3940G.

fla• 12 years ago

This is not a watch, it's a communication accessory's accessory.

lazylizard• 12 years ago

now we just need a dumb seiko 5 or casio g-shock with a dim LED to do 'less intrusive' notifications..

_pmf_• 12 years ago

The digital crown will snap off, and people will be pissed.

lispm4• 12 years ago

A watch which does need charging once a day with a special charger, which is not very robust, very clunky, with a UI for kids for 350+?

No way.

Apple targets the fashion market. Material might be great, but the form factor is horrible: big, clunky, ...

Basically Apple tries to sell a very tiny computer add-on in a jewelry case.

Currently I'm only using watches for training a Garmin 310xt and now most of the time a Suunto Ambit2 S. The latter is the more modern and it does the training stuff very well. I can swim with it, it has GPS and it has very good heart rate monitoring functionality (it gets the oxygen consumption and energy using heart rate variability data).

For Apple I would hope that the new Apple Watch is the equivalent of the first iPhone, which also wasn't very good on the hardware level (slow, limited connectivity, ...).

72deluxe13• 12 years ago

"UI for kids"

Haha that's made my day thanks. Very witty.

hoggle2• 12 years ago

I don't know how accurate Apple's method for monitoring the heart rate is but it's definitely cool that I don't need to use a chest strap. That said knowing about my oxygen consumption and heart rate variability during swimming exercises is pretty amazing, I highly doubt the optical Apple sensor would work in that environment. So that Suunto Ambit2 looks neat indeed, thanks for sharing.

lispm4• 12 years ago

Optical sensors currently don't give that data.

So far only chest straps deliver that data.

solnyshok4• 12 years ago

How is Ambit 2S at monitoring HR in water? Don't you need the strap for this?

zimpenfish3• 12 years ago

From the canonical source of all questions fitness watch related: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/04/suunto-ambit2-review.html

Note that the ANT and ANT+ transmission protocols that the Ambit2 utilizes to transmit heart rate don’t transmit well underwater (about 1-2”), thus, you won’t get any heart rate data.

I believe Polar's ultrasonic sound transmission is still the only one which works reliably underwater.

lispm4• 12 years ago

The Ambit2 S does not do that. The new Ambit3 does it though. The strap works underwater, too. It buffers the data and sends it later when bluetooth connectivity is back...

LeicaLatte3• 12 years ago

Looks like this is not a fight just between Apple and Android. So many players, so much history, so much subjectivity that...

Apple and Android are sure to win! :)

But seriously, only these two have the tech. We never wanted those old watches these smart watches are being compared with. And we sure as hell are not going to buy them now!

None of these so called watch makers make phones. Or tablets. Touch screens. Voice recognition. They are clueless about ecosystems. Watch companies have managed to have a strap ecosystem, that's all. That's laughable and lazy for a "big" business. I continue to believe watch incumbents are obsolete. If anything, this is their last chance to jump onto the bandwagon now that tech companies have put our interests back into watches.

kitsune_2• 12 years ago

I think you underestimate watch makers. The watch industry already survived the 'quartz crisis' back in the late 70s and early 80s. Companies like the Swatch Group own semiconductor subsidiaries specialized in ultra-low power integrated circuits, micro controllers, lcd displays, sensors, tablets and so on. They also own battery manufacturers and have years of know how in this field.

LeicaLatte3• 12 years ago

Thanks I didn't know this

maigret4• 12 years ago

One thing the author is missing: the prices begin at 350$. The milanaise strap he shows might be worth as much alone. For 350$ you probably get the cheap sport watch, while the beautiful ones might cost a good 1000. Which makes the wealth argument less strong. But let's see how this comes out.

probably_wrong• 12 years ago

Well, keep in mind the author mentions that he saved and bought an Ikepod Hourglass, which according to this link[1] costs $28,500. He also posits (rhetorically) that a 25-years-old would typically want an Omega watch, which typically starts at $2500.

His article makes some great points about the watch itself, as he clearly knows what he's talking about. But I would take his non-strictly-watch-related opinions with a bit of skepticism, as I don't think he's playing in the same league as the rest of us.

[1] http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-hourglass-...

maigret4• 12 years ago

Right. I know the Hodinkee blog well actually, and I agree with you. I was just pinning on the first part of the article, where he compares the Apple Watch with sub-350$ watches.

minusSeven• 12 years ago

meh, Why are all this kind of watch reviews focusing on the looks rather than what you can do with it. Dunno I would be far more interested in what you can do with how you want to use it rather than how incredible wonderful it looks.

sfjailbird2• 12 years ago

Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just ugly?

A big clunky square box with a rubber strap. Some dim electronic display on top. That's what it looks like at a distance. Honestly it looks like something Samsung or Sony might turn out.

Most of the guesswork 'prototypes' were far more compelling: https://www.google.com/search?q=iwatch+prototype&tbm=isch

Even the Samsung offering looks better - we can finally do curved displays, and is there a better place to put them than in a wristwatch? http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/gears/

broolstoryco• 12 years ago

Honestly it looks like something Samsung or Sony might turn out.

As does the iPhone 6

edit: and this is coming from quite the apple fanboy

on_and_off2• 12 years ago

I have played with a prototype of the new samsung watch. I think it already gave a good idea of where they wanted to go. Considering their phone designs, it is not bad, but not a work of art either. Samsung watches are plasticky things.

I have conflicted thoughts on Apple Watch. On one hand, I can see that Apple has put a LOT of thought on its appearance (as with most of their products) and on the little details. On the other hand, I don't think the final design look good. I would need to try it first hand to confirm it but my first impression is that I don't want that big rectangular clunky thing on my hand.

And a circular watchface in a rectangular frame with a lot of whitespace (well blackspace actually) ? I just can't get over it.

If I had to guess what Apple Watch would look like before its reveal, I would have bet on something very similar to the Moto360.

chucknelson• 12 years ago

I agree with the initial impression of a "big rectangular clunky thing", but thankfully the smaller version of the Apple Watch looks more reasonable. That along with the what-seem-like-great strap choices might make it a bit more palatable than the other watches out right now (Samsung, LG, etc.).

The Moto360 is initially easier to accept due to its familiar "normal" watch appearance, but I think the software and "experience" on devices like the Apple Watch will prevail.

Osmium2• 12 years ago

Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just ugly?

I think build quality will really make or break it here. On paper, it's not that attractive, but if--as an object--it's machined very precisely and out of attractive materials, I think it can overcome that. It certainly seems to be what they're hoping for.

I think the litmus test will be how the face feels (without strap) just in your hand. Does it feel like a premium object or not?

fastball2• 12 years ago

rubber strap

I think you missed something.

realo• 12 years ago

And would you prefer this other big ugly rectangular watch instead: http://www.independentjewellers.com/blog/2012/04/the-most-co...

Only 2.7 _million_ dollars...

Tyrannosaurs5• 12 years ago

"The Most Complicated Watch In The World"

How many people have ever walked into a jewelers and, when asked what they wanted from a watch, replied "I want it to be as complicated as possible - the more complicated the better".

A watch at that price does one thing and one thing only - it says loud and clear that the wearer is almost certainly richer than you.

y0ghur7_xxx• 12 years ago

Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just ugly?

On the internet you are never the only one. I don't like it either, but it's just subjective opinion. I'm sure a lot of people will like it.

usaphp• 12 years ago

"Even the Samsung offering looks better - we can finally do curved displays, and is there a better place to put them than in a wristwatch?"

1. The Samsung offering looks huge on that men's wrist, never mind women's wrist.

2. Why would you put a curved watch on a wrist, if the top part of the wrist is flat?

prawks• 12 years ago

I've got to say, this picture makes it look pretty good:

http://static.squarespace.com/static/4fa14d3ce4b08a53fa26468...

I think as with most watches, it's a piece of your outfit. It doesn't look good on its own, and it's not supposed to.

silverbax882• 12 years ago

I guess it's in the eye of the beholder - when I saw that picture, it was the one I liked the least. But, hey, that's why people buy/wear different things.

This article gave me more insight into why someone might actually buy this watch. But in reality I just don't see people clamoring for something like this. Although I never thought Steve Jobs was really a visionary, I did always recognize that he did have enough understanding of the market to see what people were looking for and provide it better than anyone else. I mean, digital music, smart phones, etc. all existed before Apple produced iTunes and the iPhone, but nobody marketed it correctly or provided exactly what people were looking for like Jobs and Apple. I just don't think people who can pull that off come along very often, and I don't think Apple has anyone (at least not facing the public) that can match what Steve did.

I'm not sure Jobs would be trying to produce a watch...I might consider what Jobs did and think he might have moved over into self driving cars or something like that. People would buy a self driving car from Apple, and it seems the market is starting to build momentum.

thomasahle• 12 years ago

1/3 of the width is black, if you count from grey edge to grey edge. I agree that it doesn't look bad or bulky on this image, but the bevel size still strikes me as odd, considering how little room you've got on a watch like this.

People said Apple would be mocking Motorola for the black area in the bottom of their watch. I don't personally have a preference in the square/circle debate, but I really thought Apple would be able to get rid of more of the bevel.

Tloewald• 12 years ago

I doubt you're alone, but i think the apple watches look good, especially worn (vs. on their own). The smaller size also makes them look elegant, even compared to the Moto 360 (which I otherwise prefer as a physical object). After seeing Ars Technica's side-by-side comparison of screenshots, the round screen of the 360 seems both ridiculous and poorly used (although the Apple UI designers might have done better with a round display).

That said, I don't find the device compelling. One more gadget to charge.

Tyrannosaurs5• 12 years ago

It's subjective - there's a reason if you go to a regular watch shop they have as many different watches as they do.

Apple have made a start on trying to work with different preferences with the interchangable straps and clasps and so on but something like this is never going to please everyone.

Personally I wouldn't go as far as ugly but I'm certainly not wow-ed by it in terms of how it looks. It seems to be well designed and well made but lots of things are and it doesn't mean I want to strap them to my wrist.

macspoofing• 12 years ago

Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just ugly?

If you think it's ugly, it's ugly. I'd prefer a round watch, personally, but to each his own. However, the watch looks really well made and the straps look great. Two downsides for me: iPhone-only (I'm not going leave Android) and (potentially) battery life.

Most of the guesswork 'prototypes' were far more compelling

Really? Most of them aren't possible with current technology (or ever). I'm also not a big bracelet guy.

GhotiFish• 12 years ago

If you think it's ugly, it's ugly.

I like your attitude on this.

Cookingboy• 12 years ago

http://i.imgur.com/aL7ogTS.png?1

http://i.imgur.com/qGvqIqK.png

Would you still call those ugly? Either way it's definitely not just some dim display with a rubber strap.

Shivetya• 12 years ago

While I have only a few watches I certainly am not on the level of a collector nor do I own any beyond the five hundred range. I appreciate a good watch but I appreciate good design and great function as well and I just don't see it here.

I do not need a slaved device. To me that is a redundant device. If anything I would love a wrist mounted phone and would willingly give up much of the smart phone functionality I have now. Simple text messages, voice mail, gps, and similar would be needed. Full on email, taking pictures, and browsing not so.

Besides being boring, ugly, whatever, the worst offense here is that you cannot buy it. Apple should go back to announcing products you can buy today, not next year.

Slaved device, I guess we should be thankful it isn't cable attached

tlrobinson8• 12 years ago

"and in fact, to my left is an Ikepod Hourglass (designed by Marc Newson) that I wanted from the minute I laid eyes on it. I saved up and bought it because it's a perfect object, and even those people who don't care about time, or design, agree that it's beautiful."

By "watch guy" he means someone who dropped $28,500 on a hourglass.

ohitsdom• 12 years ago

I cannot understand this "Watch lover" crowd. That hourglass looks ridiculous, I wouldn't buy that at a garage sale. And even with all the things he didn't "love" about the watch, he still is going to buy one (but might not daily wear). I'd say that's a win for Apple with version 1.0.

That said, I am not the market for a smart watch at all. I don't wear jewelry, and my phone already does a great job of telling time and showing me messages.

Aldo_MX2• 12 years ago

Dear mankind:

I don't want a smartwatch to be the complement of a smartphone.

I want a smartphone to be the a complement of a smartwatch... actually, a smartphone sans the phone, like an ipod touch or a tablet.

My idea for a smartwatch is to have the modules that make a smartphone possible there: cellular antenna, gps, bluetooth, fitness tracking, etc. Baterry-unfriendly modules like Wi-Fi must be discarded.

The use case for a smartwatch as a standalone device would be the following one:

- Connect a Bluetooth headset to listen to music (extra points, if a micro sd slot is included)

- Receive messages and answer to them with predefined text (ex. I'm on my watch, I'll text you later)

- Receive calls and call to existing contacts/emergency numbers, a proper dialer is not required at all

- Basic GPS directions to predefined locations (ex. Home/Work/Gym/School)

- Fitness tracking

- Wireless charging

For the rest of features, and to enjoy a proper dialer, proper texting, proper navigation, etc., just connect the ipod/tablet/whatever to it via bluetooth.

The killer feature: Having to carry no smartphone at all.

You can use the multimedia system of the car to take advantage of the watch, the steering wheel could have a wireless charging module next to it.

Another accessory could be a desktop keyboard with a wireless charging module.

And at home, you could have a proper charging dock.

nardi• 12 years ago

Man, the sense of entitlement. They can't fit all that stuff in there yet. Give it a few years, man. It's amazing what they can fit in there already.

Aldo_MX2• 12 years ago

Few years? The Chinese already have done it since many years ago, although pre-2014 models were bulky:

http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/2014-New-Design-GPS-Tr...

kristapsmors• 12 years ago

include GPS in battery-unfriendly list

deweller• 12 years ago

The Apple Watch looks beautiful when photographed by itself. It looks absurd to me when photographed on someone's arm.

In time perhaps history will prove me wrong.

nzp2• 12 years ago

With the risk of sounding like an elitist prick (not the intention, and I'm really not) that photo of a Patek Phillipe and Apple Watch side by side on his wrist to me screams: This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a digital picture of a fake butterfly. A masterpiece of craftsmanship, good taste and skill, side by side with a mass market simulation of those all those things sporting a tacky, pointless image of an animal.

I'm not an Apple fan but I do appreciate their mostly good taste and design. However, this watch is hideous. It's the first object they produced since their resurrection in 1997 that I instantly find ugly. Really, really ugly. If it was an aeroplane it wouldn't fly well. I wouldn't bet it will be unsuccessful though, there's a lot of people with bad taste out there.

P3KLb82AhB• 12 years ago

this watch is an add-on to a phone when people are extending their contracts (you know "extend your contract with a new iphone and you get an apple watch for free" kind of deal) to get some of android base back, other than that it's useless.

I would not wear one even if it was given to me for free in every configuration possible.

A Watch Guy's Thoughts on the Apple Watch After Seeing It in the Metal

Related Stories