This isn't equivalent. the 30yr old watch was never 'obsolete' it still fulfils the task it was defined for, 30 years later. An Apple Watch will as well, but, future models will do more, hence the original is obsolete quickly. This is more akin to the 30yr old watch now being proceeded by a new model that is better at telling the time. But, the original was 'good enough' and the newer 20k gold/platinum swiss watch may be technically better, but is also less collectable.Originally Posted by SockToy
The Apple Watch is MUCH more equivalent to a 20yr old VW Polo being obsolete compared to the current model. Would you rather have a mint 20yr old Seadweller vs one from today (for the same amount)? I would.
But, I wouldn't have a 20yr old Polo for 15k vs. todays model. That's the Apple Watch problem.
Pricing doesn't seem to follow much logic...
42mm Steel Case with Black Sports Band - £519
42mm Space Black with Bracelet - £949
Only water resistant and battery life "upto 18 hours" which basically means it will struggle to last you a normally working day...
Don't think I'll bother...
Also, other Apple Watch problem. Whatever we think about the 'swiss made' thing, the inside of a watch made in a chip factory in China has non of the cache of a swiss movement. Everyone on here knows the problem with some of that...but the problem for Apple is a picture of an 'artisan' crouched over a bench with a movement, tweezers, loupe would need to be swapped with a Chinese factory worker on a production line earning about 2 quid a day. Many will say WIS are not the market...true...but people who are not WIS know what a 'posh' watch is, and more often and not it usually has 'swiss made' on the dial.
Also, no luxury brand I know of really sells the 'innards' at two hugely divergent prices differentiated by the casing. SO, in the case of watches, we know we can get utilitarian versions of, say, the 2824 in different watches at different prices, bit not a movement as well finished or tweaked as the more expensive watch. I can't buy a current Omega movement in an Omega made of aluminium and mineral glass, for, say, 1.2k (relative to other Omega prices). And....I wouldn't want to.
All this seems more akin to the Fortis plastic watches to me.
Ah....but you forget.... Apple use a super duper tough gold which is twice as hard as other manufacturers can manage or only dream about... That's why its prized so highly.... I can see Rolex's saboteurs being dispatched immediately to find out what alchemy has magically created such a substance...
Reminds me of Lord Percy inventing "Green" to save Blackadders financial woes....
I'm not going to spend 12k but £500 for a fairly nifty cool-looking watch that's wearable, functional and different to everything else is certainly something I will explore. As someone interested in watches it seems a bit of a no-brainer, don't really understand the hatred :)
It's mixed with ceramic, isn't it? Similar to Hublot but different patent. Gold / ceramic powder mix formed to the right shape and then sintered?Ah....but you forget.... Apple use a super duper tough gold which is twice as hard as other manufacturers can manage or only dream about... That's why its prized so highly.... I can see Rolex's saboteurs being dispatched immediately to find out what alchemy has magically created such a substance...
Reminds me of Lord Percy inventing "Green" to save Blackadders financial woes....
Last edited by Broussard; 10th March 2015 at 08:11.
+ the cost of the iPhone needed to pair it with...
It'll sell well, for a while at least... I think they will run into quality/warranty claims issues with the straps and bracelets, but we'll see... people generally baby their phones and laptops, but watches are usually treated like sh1t, no matter what the price, and you cant put a thick bumper case all around it, can you...
Just updated to iOs 8.2 it adds the iWatch app but bit disappointed you have to hide it and cant delete it!
RIAC
Apple have a patent for an 18K gold alloy which is 75% gold alloyed with 25% ceramic which replaces the metals usually alloyed with the gold. This new alloy has several desirable properties including hardness and it occupies a larger volume meaning Apple can use less actual gold to make up the volume of material required for the watch.Ah....but you forget.... Apple use a super duper tough gold which is twice as hard as other manufacturers can manage or only dream about... That's why its prized so highly.... I can see Rolex's saboteurs being dispatched immediately to find out what alchemy has magically created such a substance...
Reminds me of Lord Percy inventing "Green" to save Blackadders financial woes....
Honestly, I don't buy it. The apple watch does more than the 30yr old watch. It also tells the time better. The 30 year old model is functionally obsolete.
But we don't buy nice watches based on function.
And that's the core of it - you do buy your cars on functional perspective, but not your watches. You buy your watches on romance. Would you buy a 40 year old austin healey, or classic jaguar d type or ... ? would you understand somebody who did?The Apple Watch is MUCH more equivalent to a 20yr old VW Polo being obsolete compared to the current model. Would you rather have a mint 20yr old Seadweller vs one from today (for the same amount)? I would.
But, I wouldn't have a 20yr old Polo for 15k vs. todays model. That's the Apple Watch problem.
This is just the same old argument. I dont understand why someone would spend money on something I wouldn't, so they must be rich idiots (which has been said in this thread - even if not by you). I just find it ironic on a forum full of fountain pens, watches and cars costing more than some peoples monthly income, or in some cases, their houses.
;-p
Anyway, having written all that I can see it is going NOWHERE good, so just pretend I didnt say it ;p
The prices of the watch are steep! (in comparison to other smart watches)
I personally think it will be a flop! It works in par with the iphone!Most of apples revenue comes from iphones and they are trying to diverse.If its 600 quid for a new phone every 2 years , what other accessory can we add to it? Heres your answer!!
^^ That makes it even more crazy that they're charging £2500 for a gold buckle!
I'm not sure it's quite the same old argument and I think you have a point! But, for me it's actually about design and engineering. It's not "some idiot spending loads". I know and idiot at work who spent EIGHT GRAND on a front door! That's madness. I find some peoples watch attitudes embarrassingly ostentatious and tone deaf to the world out there. BUT...in the case of the door I am guessing it's something do with the quality of material and manufacturing process. So, I think it's mad to spend that, but I appreciate it. Insane though! Same with many watches; I think they are OTT, but I 'get' the design values.
I don't get the design value or long term quality of the Apple Watch. if you buy a gold Apple Watch today, who will give that to their kid born this year for their 18th? Who?
My problem is I don't see what the engineering or design quality is in the Apple watch. I am more impressed by the steel bracelet than the watch! (if I take the marketing guff at face value). I am not impressed by the engineering of the insides, made on a Chinese production line, largely facilitated by the inevitable march of chip miniaturisation.
Austin Healey is a design classic. my dad first used a Nikon F4s when he became a pro sports photographer, a far more beautiful camera than the current Nikon's. But, yes, technically obsolete.
To me everything on the Apple Watch outside of the steel band is a glorified disposable chipboard. And, I just don't see the 'luxury' appeal. The case, to me, looks incredibly boring and is a rote simple 'industrial' design. the shape is basically the first iPhone.
I have been an apple fan for ever but I would happily pay and will continue to pay for swim time pieces, not a chance am I spending penny on an iwatch.
The updated Pebble is going to look like the Apple watch, do almost as much, work on IOS and Android, and cost £200.
I was tempted at the sport version at a rumoured £249. Now I know it's £339 I will be passing.
you ruined your $10,000 watch by cleaning it under a tap. lol.
I think 10k for a watch that is basically a companion device for a smartphone is bit daft. A device which will be superseded by a model with greater functionality in a year. A device which must be charged every day and a device which locks its owner into continuing to purchase Apple smartphones in order to use the features which make the device a smartwatch.
This is before we think about OS upgrades and the effect that software upgrades designed for new versions of the device with better or altered specifications ( faster chips and the like) have on older iterations of the device.
I have little doubt Apple will sell shed loads of watches in the 400-500 quid bracket, this isn't a device for me though, primarily because of the things mentioned above and because to my eye the actual case shape isn't all that appealing.
So does a mobile phone from 1991, though. Or a quartz watch from 1972, etc.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
This is the problem for me. The innards of the iWatch are the same for 339 and 10k. So, anything above £339 is silly. And, stainless steel and sapphire is pointless if it can't be repaired / refinished. We know sapphire is tough, but tough enough for the amount of exposure the AWatch will get? I doubt it. I look at my watches, not prod them a handful of times a day!
Also, something else I spotted. I'm one of those idiots who wears their watch on their right hand. Won't my hand get in the way of the face when using the crown (there is a lot of pointing going on in the pics Apple show, but as far as I can tell, no-one with the watch on their right hand).
You need to conform.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
In 4 years time (like the old iPhones) they would have stopped releasing iOS updates for that watch which means it prob won't even sync with the latest iPhone or iTunes apps and be rendered useless and worth £10 unlike a wristwatch.
A quick question, before I leave the thread for people less curmudgeonly (I can see more appeal in the sport version...or only selling the steel one).
Name an item, made by a company, that came in two versions, both with the exact same functionality, but with the only difference being the materials that they are made out of, and a price difference of more than ten times.
The only thing I can think of are diamond encrusted Rolex and Breitlings, etc. Or the cheapest Parker pens vs. the most expensive. I'm sure people have more, but...
And this is why as an Apple user I really dislike what was announced. Elements of it make me think this is a 'new' gilded age, where some things are value not because of their practical worth, but simply because of the ostentatious nature of the item (which some watches fit as well!).
But, sticking to Apple, it is akin to releasing another new MacbookPro today; the 'Macbook Pro 1%...same as the regular model, but with a diamond Apple logo'. What you paid for with Apple was design for a reason. You could argue (mac vs. PC) whether those designs equaled products that were more useful, but that was the point, it was industrial design, because it was to make life easier. Slightly more expensive macs = more power, or better screens, or lighter computers etc.
What's the design reason for the more expensive elements of the AWatch, other than people illustrating their wealth?
No according to the meeeja the Apple metal is far superior to anyone else's and no one else can do it so Hublot must be inferior....
Apparently the young don't wear watches as proved by a BBC tv vox pop with three! people in Carnaby St today....
Apple are going to make wearing watches desirable again apparently.... they must have seen some sales potential in it to produce it all... maybe the spin off will be an increased interest in watches generally so who knows _ it will be good or bad for Switzerland et al in the long term...
Last edited by lordloz; 10th March 2015 at 01:04.
Did I not put enough silly emoticons in my post for it not to be taken too seriously ?????
Making gold watch that will be obsolete in 2 years is just daft. Buying one is absurd. You can't even get anything near the value back if you sell it as scrap gold. It might make sense to keep it unopened and try to sell it as a curiosity a few decades from now. Even that is a bit hit and miss though.
And don't get me started on the 2500 pound gold buckle that will most likely end up in the rubbish by mistake in a few years time. (How many people throw away original buckles and live to regret it?)
I think they've been watching Rolex videos.
A 12 hour battery charge, 24 hour battery charge or 36 hour battery charge will never compete with the 30 seconds it takes to wind my IWC Mark II before putting it on my wrist and heading off into the wild blue yonder of the Freeway carpark every morning.
"you're wearing it wrong". (as I am!)
It's certainly closer than many would have you believe:
Flexible AMOLED high res touchscreen versus 60 colour e-Paper
WatchKit for Developers versus Timeline
18h battery life versus ten days
Heart rate monitor versus none
Haptic engine and speaker versus silent vibrating alarm
No external port versus third party physical connection
Apple versus Apple and Android
I like the idea of a new Rolex every year ( if I could afford it) but not an Awatch.
This chap writes in The Telegraph that the iWatch will have the Swiss watch industry quaking in its boots: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...nd-market.html
The 18h vs 8 days (the Pebble's charge is 10X that of the iWatch) is significant, but less so given Apple's mechanism for charging (induction + magnet). I take it that they were keen to have the watch last an entire `awake' cycle and to completely charge during a `sleep' cycle. So, assuming that few people sleep less than 6 hours a day, that looks okay. The difficulty is that one has to have the charger available each day.
So, no not-going-home, even after a party with the bright and beautiful friends one has made by showing off the watch. ;
Best wishes,
Bob
That can be said for almost all watches. A Valjoux 7750 based watch can be found for less than 300 GBP but look what IWC charges for a watch with that movement.
-Eric-
I agree with you, Bob, Apple assumes people will charge it every night - not uncommon with most smartwatches. The beautiful people I know have pockets, so could remeber to take it with them when they party ;-)
I do wonder how the 18 hours is calculated, as my GPS watch lasts about 6 weeks as a simple watch vs 8 hours when the GPS is turned on, so I'd expect the battery life to be longer than advertised.
The concept is wasted on me, mind you, as I can't wear a watch or carry a phone at work so I am not interested in getting one. That said, I spent a year thinking the iPad would flop, bought a Gen 1 when the Gen 2 came out and I still use it FOUR years later for web surfing and watching films when I travel - so the VFM for that was pretty good.
Well, no. It might be technically the same as a 7750, but not as well finished etc. I think the argument for a movement in an IWC over a cheaper 7750 is hard to make...but it is not EXACTLY the same.
The innards of a 10k Apple watch and 339 one is exactly the same down to the micron.
Last edited by redsox78; 10th March 2015 at 11:45.
Everything you need to know about this watch:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-2015031096087
Lets face it… there will be people in Dubai or China or some other crazy place that will drop £15k on a watch without a second thought. They probably do it with mechanicals, use them for six months and move on for something new. I don't think it is meant for the likes of us (and no offence meant there - as I think we all agree is insane!)
I personally don't see the charging of a watch every day as odd. I do it with my phone and I often wind my watch everyday - I did yesterday morning and I did it this morning.
I know it's difficult for mechanical watch enthusiast to get excited by new fangled tech but lets put it into context. The Apple Watch is amongst the first of its kind. Look at some of the other early versions of new tech – the Apple watch isn't that bad.
Look at how far things have come in such a short time. I don't want an Apple watch anymore than I wanted one of the first digital cameras, or mobile phones. But I have both now, and so at some point I and many more of us will have a smart watch.
The £300 Apple Watch is financially within the reach of most people. The cheapest Rolex probably is not.
If they were the same movement - like an unbranded, unfinished loose-parts 7750 bought off eBay - this would be valid, but what IWC put in its 7750-powered watches was significantly better equipped, finished and balanced than the bottom-end version you'd find in a £300 watch. Sure, it doesn't explain anything like all of the difference, but you're talking about marked-up retail prices including taxes, and there are improvements in case, dial, bracelet, finishing and packaging as well as the expensive supply chain (all those adverts, celebrity events and boutiques don't pay for themselves!) to consider.
Although I can't think of any new £300 watches with 7750s in them that aren't well used or fakes...?
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I'm really surprised at the high prices, a steel watch on a steel bracelet seems to be £1000 plus. For first generation technology, a face that will be blank most of the time to save battery it all seems a bit rubbish.
I phone's are seen as a premium product but come in much less expensive, people expect to upgrade to better models, so see the tech as disposable, are people going to see the same value in a limited function watch at these prices?
I see these are IPX7 - what is real world durability of that in regards to water?
1 whole metre. Rain, basically.
Bonkers imho.
a) = yes it is
b) = with Apple updates could be sooner then that
c) = if still in use, useful and in production, then not obsolete.
They look quite cool but you would have to be idiotic to buy the gold one.
Although the price of it has gained them massive publicity and a Halo model.....
Yes, amusingly, John Gruber on daring Fireball said "Proper waterproofing would be great, but this is far better than I feared for Apple Watch." what did he fear? That it couldn't cope with a splash of water?!
I think here is where Apple will fall into a WIS problem. Most normal functioning people are not WIS, and I do wish I was not as WIS as I can be.
But, few 'normal' people pay £300 for a watch with only splash resistance. Ironically, the WIS types who will dismiss the Apple watch, will have a better handle on its resistance to water than the everyday folks.
IPX7 sounds impressive - it is a very Apple like marketing tool - but the standard is, basically, no resistance to water.
Everyone knows the gold watch costs 10k. That alone will attract people to it. It's a great marketing ploy.
Just like many of the people that buy Rolexes safe in the knowledge that everyone else will know they have an expensive watch.
I predict aftermarket plating services will do well.
Do you really think that a bunch of watch fans are Apples target market?
Oh and I suspect that those of you that prefer to wear your watches on the wrong (right) wrist,,, will be fine, just turn it upside down, just like a mobile or tablet the screen will orientate, or alternatively adjust the screen in settings.
What's to say that when version 2 comes to market you don't just change the movement, keeping the same bracelet strap combo...?
I'm not an Apple fan, I've never bought into queuing around the block to pay over the odds for a phone, tablet or laptop, don't misunderstand I'm not knocking the product or those that buy them, but if smart watches were such a bad idea Apple wouldn't go there.
60 years ago IBM thought there would someday be a computer in every city, 25 years ago only business users had mobile phones and they were the size of house bricks.
Things change.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
