Apple watch

[gpb1]

If you are agonizing over which Apple Watch with which band look here to try out all the combinations

http://mixyourwatch.com

[Pixelpeep7r]

leglessAlex said:

Pixelpeep7r said:

Just as a final thought, i had to laugh at those '£13k for a watch?!' comments where you'd quite happily spend £20k on another, less feature rich watch just because of the name written on it

I'm one of those that think it's a silly price, but not because it's a watch. It's because it'll be outdated in 12 months time, if you buy a 'real' watch for that amount you generally expect it to last a lifetime.

I don't think they should have called it a watch, its a wearable life companion or some other marketing term that makes most of us cringe. The problem with calling it a watch is that people, like yourself start comparing it to traditional watches.

I would still buy it if it didn't tell the time, if that makes sense.

Regarding the tech, Outdated in 12 months?

The watch, as a watch, will work for a lifetime as that core function (as you are comparing it to traditional watches)

Software updates including new functions (does TAG or Rolex offer this?) will be available as they are released, at no cost.

Regarding the hardware...

2012 iPhone 5 runs (and will continue to do so for a good time yet) the latest iOS
2008 Macbook Pro still runs everything, including the very latest Mac OS without any problems or compatibility issues.
2007 1st Gen Apple TV still runs and performs all its original functions.

[silentbrown]

Pixelpeep7r said:

The watch, as a watch, will work for 18 hours as that core function (as you are comparing it to traditional watches)

EFA

But I think the problems are that the "ooh, shiny" customers won't be wearing a 3-year old watch, no matter how expensive it was, and that the performance (speed+battery life) of the watch WILL degrade over time as it's "apps" rely more and more on the performance of the inevitably faster 'latest models'.

[Pixelpeep7r]

silentbrown said:

Pixelpeep7r said:

The watch, as a watch, will work for 18 hours as that core function (as you are comparing it to traditional watches)

EFA

But I think the problems are that the "ooh, shiny" customers won't be wearing a 3-year old watch, no matter how expensive it was, and that the performance (speed+battery life) of the watch WILL degrade over time as it's "apps" rely more and more on the performance of the inevitably faster 'latest models'.

granted it will need charging every day however it does so much more than a normal watch so that's a little unfair - i do see the point you made though.

Batteries will be able to be replaced, it's speed will never change as the OS is always written to get the most from the hardware. When there would be a noticeable change in performance they no longer update the OS but it will still run all it's current features.

With regard to ooh shiny customers won't be wearing a 3 year old watch, why is that a problem for apple?

Actually, i can see this watch being the new bundled giveaway for networks. Free iPhone 5s + Watch, 24month contract, £45 pm etc

[130R]

Pixelpeep7r said:

Software updates including new functions (does TAG or Rolex offer this?)

Since they don't have any software that would be difficult. People don't buy a Rolex because of how many features it has.

[silentbrown]

Pixelpeep7r said:

it's speed will never change as the OS is always written to get the most from the hardware. When there would be a noticeable change in performance they no longer update the OS but it will still run all it's current features.

Pretty much all software has a habit of getting fatter and slower over time, and relies on ever-increasing CPU power to keep the actual perceived performance 'better'. And once the OS can't be updated, you then have the problem of newer app versions not running (or not running well) on the older OS.

I guess my point is that I wouldn't buy any "smart" expecting it to be useful beyond 3 years max. The cheaper Apple watches make some sense but the edition ones are just bonkers.

Good point on the bundles: Tell punters that you can get a free watch AND phone every three years

[leglessAlex]

Pixelpeep7r said:

leglessAlex said:

Pixelpeep7r said:

Just as a final thought, i had to laugh at those '£13k for a watch?!' comments where you'd quite happily spend £20k on another, less feature rich watch just because of the name written on it

I'm one of those that think it's a silly price, but not because it's a watch. It's because it'll be outdated in 12 months time, if you buy a 'real' watch for that amount you generally expect it to last a lifetime.

I don't think they should have called it a watch, its a wearable life companion or some other marketing term that makes most of us cringe. The problem with calling it a watch is that people, like yourself start comparing it to traditional watches.

I would still buy it if it didn't tell the time, if that makes sense.

Regarding the tech, Outdated in 12 months?

The watch, as a watch, will work for a lifetime as that core function (as you are comparing it to traditional watches)

Software updates including new functions (does TAG or Rolex offer this?) will be available as they are released, at no cost.

Regarding the hardware...

2012 iPhone 5 runs (and will continue to do so for a good time yet) the latest iOS
2008 Macbook Pro still runs everything, including the very latest Mac OS without any problems or compatibility issues.
2007 1st Gen Apple TV still runs and performs all its original functions.

I agree they shouldn't have called it a watch, but they did and so I feel justified in comparing it to other watches. It makes perfect sense you would buy it even if it didn't tell the time, time telling is really a very small part of this devices capabilities, but that's not how Apple seem to be selling it. I get the impression they are saying "look, here's a device that tells the time and does lots of other stuff" opposed to saying "here's a device that does lots of stuff and also happens to tell the time".

Yes, if they release a new one in 12 months the old one will be outdated. Not obsolete I grant you, but outdated. The watch may technically work for a lifetime, but practically it won't be worth using in 10 years or so. You can still listen to music on cassette tapes if you really wanted to, but they are so outdated no one is bothered with the hassle of it.

The software updates will only offer new functions if the hardware supports it, and eventually they will stop. No, Rolex and TAG don't offer that but then they don't have to.

Your hardware examples are good, but they only go back to 2007. You have people on this forum that are looking for Rolex watches that are 30-40 years old with the expectation they will work perfectly!

I agree with what you are saying, it shouldn't be compared to a watch as it is totally different to a traditional watch aside from the fact they both go on your wrist and tell the time. However, Apple themselves are saying that it is competing with traditional watches so I think it's fair game to compare them.

[Pixelpeep7r]

leglessAlex said:

Pixelpeep7r said:

leglessAlex said:

Pixelpeep7r said:

Just as a final thought, i had to laugh at those '£13k for a watch?!' comments where you'd quite happily spend £20k on another, less feature rich watch just because of the name written on it

I'm one of those that think it's a silly price, but not because it's a watch. It's because it'll be outdated in 12 months time, if you buy a 'real' watch for that amount you generally expect it to last a lifetime.

I don't think they should have called it a watch, its a wearable life companion or some other marketing term that makes most of us cringe. The problem with calling it a watch is that people, like yourself start comparing it to traditional watches.

I would still buy it if it didn't tell the time, if that makes sense.

Regarding the tech, Outdated in 12 months?

The watch, as a watch, will work for a lifetime as that core function (as you are comparing it to traditional watches)

Software updates including new functions (does TAG or Rolex offer this?) will be available as they are released, at no cost.

Regarding the hardware...

2012 iPhone 5 runs (and will continue to do so for a good time yet) the latest iOS
2008 Macbook Pro still runs everything, including the very latest Mac OS without any problems or compatibility issues.
2007 1st Gen Apple TV still runs and performs all its original functions.

I agree they shouldn't have called it a watch, but they did and so I feel justified in comparing it to other watches. It makes perfect sense you would buy it even if it didn't tell the time, time telling is really a very small part of this devices capabilities, but that's not how Apple seem to be selling it. I get the impression they are saying "look, here's a device that tells the time and does lots of other stuff" opposed to saying "here's a device that does lots of stuff and also happens to tell the time".

Yes, if they release a new one in 12 months the old one will be outdated. Not obsolete I grant you, but outdated. The watch may technically work for a lifetime, but practically it won't be worth using in 10 years or so. You can still listen to music on cassette tapes if you really wanted to, but they are so outdated no one is bothered with the hassle of it.

The software updates will only offer new functions if the hardware supports it, and eventually they will stop. No, Rolex and TAG don't offer that but then they don't have to.

Your hardware examples are good, but they only go back to 2007. You have people on this forum that are looking for Rolex watches that are 30-40 years old with the expectation they will work perfectly!

I agree with what you are saying, it shouldn't be compared to a watch as it is totally different to a traditional watch aside from the fact they both go on your wrist and tell the time. However, Apple themselves are saying that it is competing with traditional watches so I think it's fair game to compare them.

i'm not quite sure how to say this, but i agree.

Thats odd.. we exchanged opinions, saw each others point of view and it came to a natural conclusion. How very un-PH of us

[leglessAlex]

Proof that miracles happen?

Back on topic(sort of), I do wonder what apples sales expectations are for the gold one. It could be they are only aiming to sell, say, 10,000 of them which I reckon they will easily do.

[Pixelpeep7r]

leglessAlex said:

Proof that miracles happen?

Back on topic(sort of), I do wonder what apples sales expectations are for the gold one. It could be they are only aiming to sell, say, 10,000 of them which I reckon they will easily do.

I read somewhere earlier that the Gold ones are actually sold at a loss.

it's the Bugatti Vayron of Watches lol

ill be getting the cheapest one they do, with a plastic 'effect' strap. I will know i've reached the dizzy heights of nerd-ness when i can turn my central heating down a few degrees just by my watch.

[jshell]

Pixelpeep7r said:

I read somewhere earlier that the Gold ones are actually sold at a loss.

How? Gold is $1,100 oz, there's not even an ounce in that watch, OK 2 at most and it costs how much for the same internals?

[GarryDK]

18hour battery life

That sounds pretty bad.

How does that compareto other smart watches?

[campermanj]

Looking at the watches you own... Is this not a bit gadgety / gimmicky??? I find any of these new fangled toys rubbish personally and just think a man with obviously exquisite taste above them. Just my 2 pence worth

[Miguel Alvarez]

GarryDK said:

18hour battery life

That sounds pretty bad.

How does that compareto other smart watches?

I had a Abacus/Fossil one that synced with a Sony mobile. I used to charge it on my work PC/USB and it would last from Friday to Monday fairly easily. It did however only vibrate and flash caller/text incoming. The watch itself worked off a regular battery from memory regardless of the smart functions.

I won't lie I did think it was cool till it came to upgrade phone time and you suddenly realise your watch won't work with anything else.

[MitchT]

I read earlier that fake ones running on Android are already on sale in China ... at a tenth of the price and with far superior battery life!

[Some Gump]

I must admit i'm a bit anti- apple, but imo if i met anyone wearing a smartwatch from any manufacturer that looked like that, i'd think they were a bit of a gump. Casio calculator watches had more style in 1986.

For everyone saying that they'll last, and eventually you'll just not udate the OS - that's not my experience of the apple ecosystem. My wife's old iphone has efectively been rendered useless, because without the latest. Os, i can't get the latest version of apps - which then shut themselves down because "you need the latest version". Once the latest OS is on there, that 8gb of storage has tumbled to more like 6, and it's piss boilingly slow - can't even manage bloons td4, which was fine on the old version.

Anyone getting the watch for functionality, fine - but those that out bigger money into one must surely be looking at a fairly horrible cost / benefit for a watch (smartphone accessory) that only lasts three years, and even when working not only looks daft, but can't cover a day's worth of talktime, has quite large restrictions on usage as a media player / fitness gadget, and can't even tell the time for a full day.

[Miguel Alvarez]

Can these be used with other phones like an iPod can be used with other computers or are they only apple phone compatible?

Not that you would just curious.

[Variomatic]

Honest question (probably mostly for Pixelpeep):

What, exactly, is the difference between these and the myriad of Android based wearable tech that has already been on the market for a year or so, starting at around £50 - £150, and already offering most of the functions through any Android phone - thereby not tying you into i-everything? Some of them even have the phone itself built in to the "watch", although that strikes me as vaguely impractical.

As far as I can see, the honest answer to that honest question is (possibly) slightly better build quality, the chance to buy licenced "dials" (so you can pretend your £300 retail toy is a Rolex), and the Apple name.

Then again, I'm genetically immune to marketing hype or peer pressure so I'm willing to concede I may have missed something?

[Pixelpeep7r]

Variomatic said:

Honest question (probably mostly for Pixelpeep):

What, exactly, is the difference between these and the myriad of Android based wearable tech that has already been on the market for a year or so, starting at around £50 - £150, and already offering most of the functions through any Android phone - thereby not tying you into i-everything? Some of them even have the phone itself built in to the "watch", although that strikes me as vaguely impractical.

As far as I can see, the honest answer to that honest question is (possibly) slightly better build quality, the chance to buy licenced "dials" (so you can pretend your £300 retail toy is a Rolex), and the Apple name.

Then again, I'm genetically immune to marketing hype or peer pressure so I'm willing to concede I may have missed something?

my answer won't be what you are looking for i suspect.

For me, personally, i have the apple 'eco system' at home. I use a Macbook pro for my design work, the other half sits back on the sofa with the iPad to unwind, we both have iPhones, i have apple TV and they are all linked, we use a shared calendar so we both know what each other is doing, any joint commitments etc so when out separately and someone asks if we are free we know at a glance without having to 'call up' each other.

My sister in law who has two small children and lives the other side of cambridge also has an iPhone, iPad etc. She puts pictures of the kids on photo stream which automatically updates all our devices which are subscribed to the stream with the photos and we can comment etc, just like a closed private network.

My OH's parents are also on the photo stream with their iPad, so they get to see pictures of their grandkids automatically and with minimal fuss (which is good cos they're both in their 70's)

All our media is run from an iTunes server and can be accessed by any iDevice in the house, Apple TV streaming stored movies or music and played wirelessly to any room via Airplay (have Raspberry Pi's running as airplay slaves). even the wireless printer is AirPrint compatible so any device on the local network can print to it.

There are other ways of doing all of the above, there are cheaper ways. But the Apple Ecosystems biggest advantage to me is also the disadvantage. It's locked down which means i can't manipulate it like i could another system but for that same reason all the stuff just works as it should, all the time. Its no fuss, no mess and a proper convenient solution to a lot of (first world) problems.

The reason i would buy this watch above an android / 3rd party offering is simple, i want to ensure full compatibility with the rest of the kit.

[Zoon]

MitchT said:

I read earlier that fake ones running on Android are already on sale in China ... at a tenth of the price and with far superior battery life!

I read somewhere about a guy who had built a Veyron out of a Ford cougar, it didn't look exactly the same, cost as much or perform as well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015002/It...