Latest Apple Watch estimates: 3M sales, $2B revenue, Apple’s most profitable product ever

[zappian]

The thing about the apple watch is that people that already have an iphone and want a new device to join in the iOs eco system they will go for it.Most of the compelling alternatives which are in my opinion a better deal for the price are on the android wear side.And then you have the pebble steel which despite working with either OS loses out on features and especially on screen quality , on the flipside the batery life on that thing is amazing.So its another product for the IOS eco system , while its not for me I kinda get it now why someone would get the BASIC model.At the end of the day its a luxury item some people will want to get , it doesnt have a killer app yet and what it does for the price isnt for everyone but people that already own iphones probably got it to integrate into that and because of the newness of it.It isnt for me certainly but perhaps I have been too hard on it.The luxury model is still silly , luxury watches are all about prestige .Not sure how much prestige and recognition you would get for wearing a 17k apple watch compared to a rolex  or something of that nature.

So yeah thats me playing devils advocate.

I need to take a shower now.

[Homicidium]

when everybody is talking about your prodcuts, you don't need a lot of marketing anymore ...

 

That's true, but even companies like Apple or Google still have to create interest in a product that most people would've overlooked. 

[ShadowCaptain]

SNIP

 

Well said - also bear in mind (here in the UK anyway)

 

G Watch R - £170

LG G Watch Urbane - £299

Moto 360 £229

Sony Smartwatch 3 £189

Pebble Time (around £200 I guess)

 

Apple Watch £299

 

It isn't actually THAT much more expensive than the alternatives

[zappian]

Well said - also bear in mind (here in the UK anyway)

 

G Watch R - £170

LG G Watch Urbane - £299

Moto 360 £229

Sony Smartwatch 3 £189

Pebble Time (around £200 I guess)

 

Apple Watch £299

 

It isn't actually THAT much more expensive than the alternatives

 

In terms of the famous "apple premium price ™ " it isnt that bad.

In terms of comparative products it stands in a decent enough position.

I still think some of their other products like the new Macbook Pro get a good smacking in all departments from something like this.

http://www.amazon.com/Newest-Model-Dell-Ultrabook-Computer/dp/B00RY4X8A4

http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Dell-XPS-13-7144sLV-Signature-Edition-Laptop/productID.306260800

[ShadowCaptain]

SNIP

XPS 13 is £1099 

 

3ghz i7, intel 5500 256gb ssd, 8gb ram UHD display, 12 hour battery life

 

13" retina pro £999

2.7ghz i5, Iris Pro 6100, 128gb PCI SSD, 8gb ram, retina display, 10 hours battery 

 

not THAT different really, pros and cons between them

 

Mac has smaller ssd- but its PCI based, mac has i5 but has iris pro GPU

dell has bettery battery life, and higher res but more scaling issues

mac is £100 cheaper

 

both have good warranty and support

[zappian]

XPS 13 is £1099 

 

3ghz i7, intel 5500 256gb ssd, 8gb ram UHD display, 12 hour battery life

 

13" retina pro £999

2.7ghz i5, Iris Pro 6100, 128gb PCI SSD, 8gb ram, retina display, 10 hours battery 

 

not THAT different really, pros and cons between them

 

Mac has smaller ssd- but its PCI based, mac has i5 but has iris pro GPU

dell has bettery battery life, and higher res but more scaling issues

mac is £100 cheaper

 

both have good warranty and support

 

The new macbook 2015 has this for the 1300 dollar version.

1.1 GHz (M-5Y31) dual-core Intel Core M Broadwell processor (Turbo Boost up to 2.4 GHz) with 4 MB shared L3 cache¹

^{You can get a XPS 13 with an i7 for that price as I have linked in the post above.}

[MrSuperb]

The new macbook 2015 has this for the 1300 dollar version.

1.1 GHz (M-5Y31) dual-core Intel Core M Broadwell processor (Turbo Boost up to 2.4 GHz) with 4 MB shared L3 cache¹

^{You can get a XPS 13 with an i7 for that price as I have linked in the post above.}

then stop comparing totally different products.

for $1300 you could get a X99 desktop that blows the xps to the moon.

[zappian]

then stop comparing totally different products.

for $1300 you could get a X99 desktop that blows the xps to the moon.

 

They are both 13 inch ultra books.

Whats your excuse now?

Same product category, similar battery life.

Calling it an unfair comparison is being extremely biased.

[LAwLz]

1. A Pebble doesn't function entirely well with the Apple ecosystem. This is a product for people within the Apple ecosystem that want similar functionality out of a similar product like the Pebble. I prefer it this way too because the Android side of things aren't as cleaned up as they are for Apple. There is a higher quality with usability when you have an Apple product.

Yes, and?.. I don't see how that counters my point that it is expensive for what it does and compared to for example the Pebble. Not sure I agree with the last point either because you start off with saying Pebble doesn't work that well with Apple products. Maybe you meant "Apple stuff works well but only if you use other Apple products. Throw in something like a Pebble to the mix and it works worse than on Android"?

Anyway I think my point still stands. Like you said, the Apple Watch is for people who want similar functionality out of a similar product like the Pebble... but it's more than 3 times the price of the Pebble.100 dollars vs 350 dollars.

 

 

2. I would prefer the screen to not be on in the first place. A well done gesture system that doesn't need to be the exact same movement all the time would work well. You're not going to be staring at the watch all the time, only when you move it to point at your face. This also saves battery life.

Oh come the fuck on... So if you had to pick, the option to have the watch face on at all time and 1 week of battery life with it on at all times, or no option to have it on and still have the same 1 week battery life, which one would you pick? There are absolutely 0 drawbacks to the first option. If you say "but the battery life would be worse" then you're not arguing against having the screen on all the time, you're agreeing with my later argument that the battery life is shit. I am strictly talking about the functionality here since battery life is a separate point. Having the option to have the screen on at all time is objectively superior to not having an option at all.

 

 

3. If you think pulling your phone out of your pocket is easier than glancing at a watch, you are sorely mistaken. I have a watch simply because I am tired of pulling my phone out of my pocket to check the time. And I don't know about you, but traditionally a watch is removed before sleeping, so why would it be any different here? When you take your watch off for the night just set it to charge. It's a habit you get in to normally after time but get burned if you miss a night of charging.

You're not even countering the argument I made here. This way my argument: It doesn't offer any compelling extra functionality. What can it do that I can't already do? I stopped wearing a watch because I thought it was pointless since I already had a clock on my phone. So for me to get this I want extra functionality, and I just don't see any.

 

 

4. I agree the battery life is bad, but all you truly need is a day's worth of it. I won't say it shouldn't be better, but I would only con the Watch if it was under a day.

No, you need more than 1 days worth of battery life, especially if your watch has a stupid proprietary charger so you can't even borrow one from your friends or family. So if you want to use your watch for 2 days in a row your only options are: 1) Carry the Watch specific (doesn't work with anything else) charger with you wherever you go or 2) don't ever stay over at someone else's house for the night.

 

 

5. Tell me, how often does someone change watch bands? I've done it once when the original wore out too much. I agree they should use standard sizing so I could use one I prefer over an Apple band, but I won't cry about it. The ones they offer a good enough variety for most people in the first place. I would also like to assume that the reason they use non-standard sizing is because of the design of the watch, which was more important than band sizing.

Let me ask you this, what benefit does Apple's proprietary solution have over traditional bands? The drawbacks are that there is a far smaller selection and they are expensive as balls right now. To me it seems like they reinvented the wheel just to be different. Anyway you agree with me that they should have used a standard size so whatever. A good compromise (if there is any benefit to Apple's bands) would have been to ship all watches with an adapter. Adds next to no cost (most likely not even a dollar) and it gives users a far better selection of bands to use.

 

 

6. It should be confirmed to be water resistant, but if you're diving in to a pool with a $450 piece of tech strapped to your wrist, that's your problem and not mine. But washing your hands, it should be able to survive that quite well. If you could point to some sources that say it does or does not survive that I'll be more than happy to read it.

I would dive into my pool with a 450 dollar piece of tech on me if it was confirmed to be water proof. I won't do it with an Apple watch because it's a gamble, and if it breaks I will have to pay. If I got the Sony Z4 tablet I would comfortably use it at the pool. That's why I want a certification. I don't like the "it should be fine" approach when talking about quite expensive pieces of tech. I would be worried even washing my hands with it on.

 

 

Obviously all these things aren't enough to make people skip the Apple Watch (as this estimate shows), but it's the reasons why I won't get it. I just don't think it is a good product with all these drawbacks.

[MrSuperb]

They are both 13 inch ultra books.

Whats your excuse now?

Same product category, similar battery life.

the xps is 1.7 times the size of the macbook ?!

and weighs 1.4 times as much as the macbook ?!

____

going to an extreme, an that in the case of the new Macbook is size and weight, always comes with compromise...

[ShadowCaptain]

SNIP

 

I said 13" retina pro, not macbook - differnet laptops, different specs

 

 

[AxelRantila]

I'm sure there's some kind of argument of how that's a lie, or you're the only person that's encountered that.

Well that's also what I'm a bit afraid of in this SD-card debate

 

Anyhow; for people saying this is useless. One of my former physics teachers said that laser was initially deemed as a useless technology

[zappian]

the xps is 1.7 times the size of the macbook ?!

and weighs 1.4 times as much as the macbook ?!

____

going to an extreme, an that in the case of the new Macbook is size and weight, always comes with compromise...

 

This comes with an i5 , XPS 13 2015.

 

Thick as a whale.

Its also 1000 dollars instead of 1300.

Then you have the touch version which is 1300.

[MrDynamicMan]

teksyndicate are idiots. I have no idea why someone would watch their shit ...

Well... I've seen the video and I think it's more skewed towards apple inventing direct technologies, but let's not open that can of worms.

[Victorious Secret]

Well said - also bear in mind (here in the UK anyway)

 

G Watch R - £170

LG G Watch Urbane - £299

Moto 360 £229

Sony Smartwatch 3 £189

Pebble Time (around £200 I guess)

 

Apple Watch £299

 

It isn't actually THAT much more expensive than the alternatives

 

The only ones that actually look good and can be worn on a night out, or to court, or to any professional setting happen to be the Urbane and the Apple Watch, which cost the same. 

 

The only one that works with my phone is the Watch, since switching platforms just for a watch is silly. 

 

The black sport with black band looks alarmingly good and subdued. Use a leather strap? Even better.  But lets not be logical about this.... /s 

[ShadowCaptain]

The only ones that actually look good and can be worn on a night out, or to court, or to any professional setting happen to be the Urbane and the Apple Watch, which cost the same. 

 

The only one that works with my phone is the Watch, since switching platforms just for a watch is silly. 

 

The black sport with black band looks alarmingly good and subdued. Use a leather strap? Even better.  But lets not be logical about this.... /s 

 

also just get this and fit a nice band https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1516117990/click-the-first-watch-band-adapter-for-apple-watch

[Guest Generallee]

Mods really do enjoy watching Apple haters vs fanbois going all ape shit over a damn watch

 

But when I start a AMD vs nvidia flamewar it's locked in a femtosecond

 

#doublestandards

[othertomperson]

Wow you understood nothing

That you think that $10000 Rolex are the only watches with a mechanical clockwork is funny. Emp=Nuclear Holocaust is funny too.

 

This whole conversation is about £5 Timex vs Rolex Vs Apple Watch. All mechanical watches have terrible accuracy though.

 

You followed up your EMP post by specifying that this EMP was strong enough to destroy all quartz watches and most technology as we know it. because otherwise I'd just buy another £5 watch. Yeah you're basically talking about nuclear holocaust for this scenario.

[.spider.]

£5 Timex vs Rolex Vs Apple Watch.

Yes Rolex are the only mechanical watches

All mechanical watches have terrible accuracy though.

If you buy a mechanical watch as an substitute for an atomic clock your decision was wrong.

 

Yeah you're basically talking about nuclear holocaust for this scenario.

An EMP isn't nuclear.

[othertomperson]

Yes Rolex are the only mechanical watches

If you buy a mechanical watch as an substitute for an atomic clock your decision was wrong.

 

An EMP isn't nuclear.

 

In a discussion about cheap vs Rolexes and Apple Watches, chiming in with how good mechanical watches is going to be taken as talking about the only mechanical watches previously mentioned in the thread without additional clarification, yes.

 

No one is replacing atomic watches with mechanical watches. We are replacing very expensive watches with a superior cheap Timex. Even if you're not going for an expensive brand like Rolex you aren't going to spend £5 on a mechanical watch.

 

EMPs aren't. You're talking about an EMP strong enough to knock out modern civilisation as we know it to simultaneously render every qwartz watch non-functional. That scale of electromagnetic burst would take something colossal such as nuclear war.

 

The really hilarious part, though, is that a sizeable EMP such as you're describing would induce a current in the spring in your mechanical watch (be it Rolex or not), which essentially just a coil anyway, and cause it to get hot enough to melt.

[.spider.]

The really hilarious part, though, is that a sizeable EMP such as you're describing would induce a current in the spring in your mechanical watch (be it Rolex or not), which essentially just a coil anyway, and cause it to get hot enough to melt.

K.

Rofl

[79wjd]

also just get this and fit a nice band https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1516117990/click-the-first-watch-band-adapter-for-apple-watch

Definitely would've considered going with that + Black aluminum 42mm sport over the time steel. Oh well. 

[Seldszar]

Ill never understand the crazyness happening when something Apple launches. Its always overpriced, always just "ok" and people buy it ... in masses. 

[79wjd]

Ill never understand the crazyness happening when something Apple launches. Its always overpriced, always just "ok" and people buy it ... in masses. 

Ever think it's because it's not just "ok" or because it's not always "overpriced"....if both statements were always true -- regardless of the marketing -- Apple wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as it is. 

[Thought]

Yes, and?.. I don't see how that counters my point that it is expensive for what it does and compared to for example the Pebble. Not sure I agree with the last point either because you start off with saying Pebble doesn't work that well with Apple products. Maybe you meant "Apple stuff works well but only if you use other Apple products. Throw in something like a Pebble to the mix and it works worse than on Android"?

Anyway I think my point still stands. Like you said, the Apple Watch is for people who want similar functionality out of a similar product like the Pebble... but it's more than 3 times the price of the Pebble.100 dollars vs 350 dollars.

How hard is it to understand that the Watch works perfectly when paired with an iPhone, the product it's designed for? A Pebble is not. A Pebble will not get you complete and proper functionality when you pair it with an iPhone. Is this a hard concept for you to understand?

 

Oh come the fuck on... So if you had to pick, the option to have the watch face on at all time and 1 week of battery life with it on at all times, or no option to have it on and still have the same 1 week battery life, which one would you pick? There are absolutely 0 drawbacks to the first option. If you say "but the battery life would be worse" then you're not arguing against having the screen on all the time, you're agreeing with my later argument that the battery life is shit. I am strictly talking about the functionality here since battery life is a separate point. Having the option to have the screen on at all time is objectively superior to not having an option at all.

Having the option to leave your screen on all the time is not "objectively superior" because you're not going to be staring at it 24/7. You are simply wasting energy on a bullet point on a spec sheet that means nothing.  Would I prefer a week long battery life? Sure? But will I complain about day long battery life? No, because it lasts as long as it needs to.

 

You're not even countering the argument I made here. This way my argument: It doesn't offer any compelling extra functionality. What can it do that I can't already do? I stopped wearing a watch because I thought it was pointless since I already had a clock on my phone. So for me to get this I want extra functionality, and I just don't see any.

Ease of use is a lost concept on consumers. Everything for you has been designed around ease of use. Your notifications? Your phone's clock on the screen? They are designed that way so you have minimal effort required to get to them. Click your home button and you have the time. Swipe down and you get your notifications. But a watch takes the ease of use concept one step further; taking your phone out of your pocket takes longer and requires more effort than simply turning your wrist towards your face. You still get everything on your phone, but quicker. That is what it is designed for. And if you would like to complain that this is just an expensive piece of metal on your wrist to do what your phone does then you're obviously not the monetary target Apple is aimed at, plain and simple.

 

No, you need more than 1 days worth of battery life, especially if your watch has a stupid proprietary charger so you can't even borrow one from your friends or family. So if you want to use your watch for 2 days in a row your only options are: 1) Carry the Watch specific (doesn't work with anything else) charger with you wherever you go or 2) don't ever stay over at someone else's house for the night.

I haven't heard of one person that doesn't bring their charger over especially when it's proprietary. I've taken my laptop over to a friend's house, I still bring my cable even though I know they have one. Why? Because I'm prepared for something coming up and I would need my own. Foresight is a skill you should learn if you forget a cable.

 

Let me ask you this, what benefit does Apple's proprietary solution have over traditional bands? The drawbacks are that there is a far smaller selection and they are expensive as balls right now. To me it seems like they reinvented the wheel just to be different. Anyway you agree with me that they should have used a standard size so whatever. A good compromise (if there is any benefit to Apple's bands) would have been to ship all watches with an adapter. Adds next to no cost (most likely not even a dollar) and it gives users a far better selection of bands to use.

The only thing I've said is that the bands might be non-standard because of the sizing of the Watch, which has priority over what is used to strap it to your body. I do agree it's pointless, and they are expensive, but if the reason that I stated is true then I can see why they did it.

 

I would dive into my pool with a 450 dollar piece of tech on me if it was confirmed to be water proof. I won't do it with an Apple watch because it's a gamble, and if it breaks I will have to pay. If I got the Sony Z4 tablet I would comfortably use it at the pool. That's why I want a certification. I don't like the "it should be fine" approach when talking about quite expensive pieces of tech. I would be worried even washing my hands with it on.

Of course if it had an IP67 rating you wouldn't have a problem throwing it in to a pool, but traditionally how often would you? My watch is water proof, but I still take it off regardless. And with the "it should be fine" thing, have you ever accidentally gotten water on to something electronic? Unless you submerge the device in fluid, more often than not you'll be okay.

 

Obviously all these things aren't enough to make people skip the Apple Watch (as this estimate shows), but it's the reasons why I won't get it. I just don't think it is a good product with all these drawbacks.