I think the demand is enough that it doesn't really matter how useful this is. people want it and will pay for it. It's very much a fashion piece, and priced as such. And really, nothing wrong with that.
I have a phone, internet, camera, GPS, and music player on one device. That's a pretty big deal! What the watch adds is not nearly as exciting to me, in that light.
Also, I don't like that it more or less needs an iPhone. While I don't see myself buying an android anytime soon, I can only eyeroll at yet another apple lock-in. That is probably what stops me from buying the apple watch more than anything.
Except these things aren't on a 2 year payment schedule like iphones are. Jane iPhone lover can drop $99 with Verizon every 24 months, but $350+ out of pocket is not going to be appealing to her.
I would be surprised if most people followed this line of thinking.
People rush to the door to buy the newest model of iphone, why would the same not be true for the watch?
Surely the next generation will offer improved battery life, improved design, improved feature set, refinements, and knowing apple may even have an entirely incompatible set of straps.
Especially given that the watch is cheaper than a new iphone, i expect that we will see even more people upgrading from version to version.
Because phones are actually useful. They aren't just fashion pieces. They may ALSO be fashion pieces, but they aren't JUST fashion pieces.
People are willing to repeatedly pay for the latest model of something that they use constantly throughout the day as one of their chief tools for mediating the world. If (and that is a meaningful "if") it is indeed true that the aWatch is fundamentally a status symbol that has little functional value, we would expect many fewer people to rush to upgrade it.
On an unrelated note, what does everybody think about the design language Topolsky brought to Bloomberg?
I'm torn, on the one hand it's "trendy" on the other hand, it looks like a 70's acid trip and not in a good way.
I'm really torn on these smart watches. I really don't see the utility benefit vs. the tradeoff of a another gadget to care for.
They seem more fragile than a traditional watch, and also quite fugly.
I think watches have become a bit of fashion accessory or other outward statement over the last several decades. Seeing things converge on 2 or 3 dominant watch faces and some minor variations among bands just seems ...bad... to me. Like a tiny piece of individually has to be traded in for technological advancement.
My current watch collection is almost all items that have emotional ties to people, life events, etc. Maybe I'm very much in the minority, but I don't think so, not to the extent required to truly make a "market" for smart watches.
I'm in the same boat. I received a smart watch as a gift and never use it. Pulling out my phone simply isn't enough of a hassle to warrant using the watch and the watch alone doesn't bring any new features to the table. My watch is a piece of jewelry for me and as a piece of jewelry, smart watches just aren't the same.
I believe we are seeing the tipping point of technology as fashion. Others have predicted a resurgence of non-digital goods. Perhaps watches and glasses will be the first examples where tech fails hard?
Yes, it's difficult to invest heavily in a tech fashion accessory that you know is going to be regarded as one step short of useless in a few years. All of my watches are either made of precious metals, or have diamonds (or both) (yes, in that regard I may skew more towards the non-geek spectrum). But in buying each of them I had little concern for them suddenly being eclipsed by an updated version in the near future.
In fact, you can own a decent Rolex for almost $0. There is a big hit on resale value from initial purchase, much like the "driving a car off the lot decreases the value by 10%" thing. But I could sell the Rolex I'm currently wearing that I bought used for about what I paid for it. However if I buy a smart watch, I'll be lucky to get 10% of the cost of it back 5 years later.
Probably Apple gave these journalist an Apple Watch for a pre-release review with the sole condition that they must wait until today to release their reviews.
On the contrary, people with a review unit tend to actually use it before the review. People who have to buy it on release date and then get a review out ASAP tend to do much more republishing of market materials.
Journalists getting review units does mean they are on the "take" or shills. If the journalists don't have to send the review units back, then I would filter those. MEven John Gruber has written about how he sends the review units back to Apple.
How do you figure? They were given an Apple Watch - a real, functioning one - to review a few days early. I'm not sure how that means they are "republishing marketing materials".
I think the Apple watch will, ultimately, be a success, but only once Apple lowers the price. They're trying to price it as a luxury watch, but it's evident that, as a first-generation tech product, there are clear areas for improvement in future versions. Unlike the luxury watches that it is competing against, it will be obsolete in a year or two.
For example, in the video linked here, the reviewer demonstrates how sometimes the watch won't turn on the display when raising the watch to look at it. The only real way to permanently fix this is an always-on display. However, that will almost certainly require a hardware revision, not a software one.
There are a lot of meanings for "success." I think that Apple Watch will sell comfortably well at launch. Apple has earned brand loyalty from its customers and is adept at gauging or generating demand and selling to it.
And, having the watch, my sense is that the overwhelming majority of Watch-owners will, you know, where and use it. Nothing I'm getting from any of these reviews is "oh my god, this is a disaster," and the people I know who have Pebbles or Android Wear watches like them pretty well and continue to wear them. This suggests that once you've shelled out for a smartwatch, the watch has to be pretty bad for you to just not use it.
Now: will people who bought the watch like it enough to want to upgrade it regularly? Will they evangelize it to their friends? Will they drive demand for apps that creates a robust app ecosystem and potentially clever new products that are uniquely suited to the watch form-factor?
I don't think they will. Which has little to do with Apple per se and more to do with the inherent limitations of the form factor. But, if I'm right (and, hey, I'm predicting the future, I'm probably wrong), that's not good news for Apple, which more than Google really needs the watch to be successful.
Do I need an iphone to use apple watch? I really just want it for the bluetooth music player, stopwatch, and heartbeat monitor for when I am running, but currently have an android phone. If not are there any good android watches that do this?
I'm under the impression that Android Wear devices will do most, if not all, of the things you want, though I don't actually own one. There are many of them at this point; I've personally only used the Moto 360, and quite liked it, but just could't justify the expense.
I won't echo the sentiments of the other comments but you may want to explore the Microsoft Band. It falls short on bluetooth music player. However, whether iPhone, Android or WP, you have cross-integration. Something not afforded by the other main products currently (though, rumored Wear will interface with iOS). The ergonomics of the Band needs minor improvements. The dedicated GPS and range of sensors is mostly in a class of its own. Dedicated GPS is only on the Sony Wear as far as I recall.
That's the #2 function (next to accurate time/timing) I want from my smart watch: bluetooth music without the need for my phone. Dealbreaker without it.
A decent heartrate monitor that works with at least some accuracy when sweating would be amazing and I would pay a decent amount for a watch that also included that, but it isn't a dealbreaker like the bluetooth music without the phone.
I believe the Sony is close to your requirements but not perfect. Wear can support local storage. The Sony is the only Wear on the market that has standalone GPS. The bad news is that heart rate monitoring is not a feature. I can't believe that function was omitted.
I've a Pebble. You can use it as a remote for your music. I regularly use mine with RunKeeper that has a nice interface that shows me my pace, time, distance etc. when I'm running. I'm not sure about the stopwatch and heartbeat as they aren't there out-of-the-box, but I'm pretty sure there are that type of apps that have a Pebble interface.
I'm a bit of a strange case: I'm a runner in the north east US and its been very cold until recently. So I've had my watch on the outside of my thermal sleeve, where it obviously can't read my heart rate, but I'm mostly using it for stop watch + it can monitor how much total time I'm spending running vs walking. So not much data from me about sweating + heart rate.
You can store music on the watch, but the sync is so slow and the data cap is 2 GB that unless I want to listen to the same playlist on infinite repeat its not viable. You'd also need bluetooth headphones, which is a purchase I don't feel I actually need... generally when running I'd rather be alert of surroundings less I get hit by a truck while jamming to a favorite track.
My use of music controls on the watch has been this: phone is sitting around office or home and connects to sound bar, I can leave phone charging somewhere while reading / studying / drawing and if I want to change tracks or volume its a flick on the wrist. Otherwise while in the subway + listening via headphones on a crowded train, can change music while keeping a grip on subway poles.
Yes, a recent update to AW enabled a feature where you can copy music directly to the watch and pair up BT headphones so you can leave your phone at home. No idea if the Apple device can do this, but AW people have been doing it for a few months now.
I find that I'm both hoping that Apple will find success with the watch and fail, but the emotions around those wishes are complex. I like my Pebble watch, I really appreciate as my hearing in high frequencies goes away, being able to reliably here an alarm/alert. And the Apple watch takes that to a new level. But beyond telling time, providing a display for my current step count, and letting me know when something is happening that I need to pay attention too, that's all I need. I'm really curious about how this plays out.
Well, if Apple succeeds, we get a brand new wearable market. Lots of money will be thrown at it. Either Pebble, Microsoft, or Google will gain the 85% market share that Apple tends to leave. It doesn't feel like it now, but wearables will probably revolutionize healthcare, for example.
I completely agree, and that's why I'm hoping the Apple Watch succeeds. If Apple can make smartwatches mainstream, then every other company making wearables will absolutely benefit from that alone.
I bought a Garmin Vivosmart a few months back now, and that's basically what it provides. It vibrates when I get calls, texts and other notifications on my phone, and tracks my steps for the day. It's also pretty thin/light, and is water resistant enough where I can take it swimming.
The Garmin Connect apps are, well... crap really, but I spend almost no time in the apps.
A couple of weeks ago, my boss asked me if I would wear an Apple watch if he bought me one, my answer was basically, yes, because he bought it for me, but I honestly have no real desire to have the Apple watch.
> But beyond telling time, providing a display for my current step count, and letting me know when something is happening that I need to pay attention too, that's all I need.
C'mon, remember ten years ago when people said all they wanted from a phone was the ability to make calls?
> C'mon, remember ten years ago when people said all they wanted from a phone was the ability to make calls?
Actually, no. I remember people saying that the iPhone was too simple - that it only had half the functionality of a Symbian phone and even less connectivity.
In both cases, people were generally sold on the product category, just not necessarily on the available products, or on Apple's version of it.
Smartphones were seen as a big deal long before the iPhone. Remember "crackberry"? The concept was accepted. Skeptics doubted the worth of the iPhone specifically, because it was quite a bit different from other smartphones (e.g. no hardware keyboard).
Tablets were a bit different, as there were no popular tablets before the iPad. However, the general feeling as I recall it was that tablets as a concept were cool and useful, and it's just that nobody had managed to do one well.
The iPod fit this as well. MP3 players were fairly popular and the advantages were obvious. iPod doubters were skeptical of the iPod specifically, not the general concept of portable digital music players.
The Apple Watch seems to be the opposite scenario. People are mostly not convinced that smartwatches in general are a useful product category, but a substantial number of people think Apple's version of it is good.
It's a departure for Apple. They typically wait for a market to mature to where it's at least somewhat proven, but the existing products are bad in various ways. Then they show everyone how it's done. In contrast, the smart watch market basically doesn't exist yet. There are a handful of extremely niche, experimental products, and that's it. Apple will have to convince people that they want a smartwatch, rather than merely convincing people that they have the best one, or that they've overcome the deficiencies of the other ones.
It will be interesting to see if they pull it off.
I imagine that maps, siri, apple pay support are all potential killer features. If any of those nails the functionality, Apple will be able to drive a lot of purchases.
After reading Gruber's review [1], I'm worried about the first version being a big step backwards from my Pebble regarding constant time display (it's a watch!) and water resistance (I won't swim with it, but I will want to submerge it while bathing my kids).
I have a phone, internet, camera, GPS, and music player on one device. That's a pretty big deal! What the watch adds is not nearly as exciting to me, in that light.
Also, I don't like that it more or less needs an iPhone. While I don't see myself buying an android anytime soon, I can only eyeroll at yet another apple lock-in. That is probably what stops me from buying the apple watch more than anything.