Apple Watch is the Wearables King

[Commodus]

14 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

I mean being king of something insignificant does still make you a king, but it also makes it a hollow achievement. A watch only signifies how much money you have lying around to waste needlessly, even with extra features it still is essentially useless without a phone and doesn't provide any additional functionality so why bother.

 

How is it insignificant, exactly?  Apple's already the most successful watch maker of any type, at least by revenue (wouldn't be surprised if it's by units at this point).

 

And while it's true you don't need a smartwatch in the way you do a phone, that doesn't mean you don't get added functionality.  It's much better at tracking fitness than your phone, and it lets you check info or perform all kinds of tasks without pulling your phone out every five minutes.  It's one of those things you have to experience first-hand to really understand... it's nice to spend more time actually doing things and less time reaching into your pocket.

[AresKrieger]

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

Apple's already the most successful watch maker of any type, at least by revenue (wouldn't be surprised if it's by units at this point)

It is not by revenue, unless apple didn't sell a billion worth of things in its "other" category (it totaled 5.5 billion in this category apple watch revenue values are not specified independently), as Rolex had 4.5 Billion in revenue but given that Apple did not claim this it is certainly not true (as they would have announced it), and given how I've never seen an Apple watch (in person) but have seen plenty of the other products in the "other" category it is highly unlikely apple watch had a vast majority of that money.

 

As for it's "experience" it is in essence the pocket watch to wrist watch transition of the modern era with two glaring downsides not present in that example, 1) The watch's brightness settings make it no more practical as a clock realistically, and 2) It does not share full functionality with the device it is compared to while maintaining a high price point.

 

Needs a overhaul to be relevant outside the bay area

[Commodus]

6 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

It is not by revenue, unless apple didn't sell a billion worth of things in its "other" category (it totaled 5.5 billion in this category apple watch revenue values are not specified independently), as Rolex had 4.5 Billion in revenue but given that Apple did not claim this it is certainly not true (as they would have announced it), and given how I've never seen an Apple watch (in person) but have seen plenty of the other products in the "other" category it is highly unlikely apple watch had a vast majority of that money.

 

As for it's "experience" it is in essence the pocket watch to wrist watch transition of the modern era with two glaring downsides not present in that example, 1) The watch's brightness settings make it no more practical as a clock realistically, and 2) It does not share full functionality with the device it is compared to while maintaining a high price point.

Actually, Apple did announce that it was the most popular watchmaker by revenue.  You're comparing Rolex's yearly revenue with Apple's quarterly revenue.  Yes, the Watch didn't represent all of Apple's "Other" revenue, but it didn't have to!

 

Not sure what you mean by the brightness making it "no more practical."  It's bright enough to be visible in bright sunlight; the OLED means you can look at in the dark without blinding yourself.

 

It's not designed to replicate your phone, at least not yet.  It's designed to do things your phone can't, like track detailed motion and measure your heart rate, and it has things a phone doesn't need (like, say, a strap).  There's some overlap, but expecting mirrored functionality is a bit much.

[AresKrieger]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

snip

I guess I was mistaken in regards to the revenue thing, damn differing and vague finance reports, still have never seen one regardless so I suspect this is more a west coast thing at this point not that it matters when revenue is concerned as the price plays such a large role in that with this product so volume will be lower relative to revenue compared to other electronics.

 

Still I can't see the current design gaining mass appeal it might appeal to apple elitists and fans but they would buy it simply for the brand but we'll see. As for my brightness comment that has to do with the gesturing and lack of brightness by default making it not any more useful than pulling from ones pocket (or at least only marginally so)

 

I can say one thing about perception though, unlike smart phones during initial generations smart watches are seen as a joke by the average joe which means they will need to mature in order to become commonplace, or will never achieve that status. The general perception I've seen of them is akin to google glass, which funny enough I had seen more of during its debut than these watches (though tbf it was only 2 )

 

 

[Commodus]

2 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

I guess I was mistaken in regards to the revenue thing, damn differing and vague finance reports, still have never seen one regardless so I suspect this is more a west coast thing at this point not that it matters when revenue is concerned as the price plays such a large role in that with this product so volume will be lower relative to revenue compared to other electronics.

 

Still I can't see the current design gaining mass appeal it might appeal to apple elitists and fans but they would buy it simply for the brand but we'll see. As for my brightness comment that has to do with the gesturing and lack of brightness by default making it not any more useful than pulling from ones pocket (or at least only marginally so)

 

I can say one thing about perception though, unlike smart phones during initial generations smart watches are seen as a joke by the average joe which means they will need to mature in order to become commonplace, or will never achieve that status. The general perception I've seen of them is akin to google glass, which funny enough I had seen more of during its debut than these watches (though tbf it was only 2 )

 

 

Oh, I suspect Apple doesn't expect the Watch to sell more than a fraction of iPhone sales (unless it becomes so powerful that there's little need for an iPhone beyond the camera), but that's all it really needs.  It's about giving added value to iPhone owners... and, of course, making the ecosystem 'sticky.'

 

I suspect the design is getting mass appeal.  Let's put it this way: what was Chris Rock wearing in his new Netflix special?  An Apple Watch.  And it was a slightly older model, so he definitely wasn't being paid to wear it.  I don't think it's going to lure away people who are particularly style conscious (the sort who'd drop $5K or more on a watch), but I've seen considerably more people wearing it who clearly aren't early adopters.

 

And thankfully, it's not really Google Glass-level... no one is going to punch you in the face or kick you out of a bar for wearing a smartwatch!

[DrMacintosh]

3 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

still have never seen one regardless

Probably because you never noticed them. The space grey ones especially do not stand out as being a smartwatch. 

 

My Series 2 is Space Grey and has a rugged case on it, my Math teacher has no idea I have been wearing it the whole year. (And this guy is in his 20s and is an Apple fan as well)

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

On 3/2/2018 at 2:02 AM, DrMacintosh said:

Very few people care about real watches that much. The average consumer would rather have something functional, practical, and fashionable rather than a über expensive time peice that also leaves old good.

Quite a few people wear expensive or antique watches, or buy them purely as an investment.  

 

Smartwatches only have a very limited lifespan.  If you buy a new smartwatch now, in 5 years time you won't be wearing it anymore due to lack of support or because the battery is dead.  By that time it'll be unusable and pretty much worthless ... assuming it doesn't die earlier and leaves burn marks on your wrist. 

Meanwhile my 65+ year old Mercator is still working perfectly fine and needs to be wound up about as often as a smartwatch needs to be recharged, with the exception that winding it up takes less than half a minute. 

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

Quite a few people wear expensive or antique watches, or buy them purely as an investment.  

 

Smartwatches only have a very limited lifespan.  If you buy a new smartwatch now, in 5 years time you won't be wearing it anymore due to lack of support or because the battery is dead.  By that time it'll be unusable and pretty much worthless ... assuming it doesn't die earlier and leaves burn marks on your wrist. 

Meanwhile my 65+ year old Mercator is still working perfectly fine and needs to be wound up about as often as a smartwatch needs to be recharged, with the exception that winding it up takes less than half a minute. 

Again with the argument based on the merit of a good’ol analog timepiece 

[mr moose]

why does market share mean anything? 

[Commodus]

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

why does market share mean anything? 

There is a certain amount of fanboyism here, but there are some reasons why us plebeians might want to care.

 

More than anything, this shows that smartwatches are very much A Thing, and aren't going away.  However, it also shows that Apple is the only one really thriving in this market.  That's not good news if you're an Android fan -- it means fewer choices as companies back out of the market.  Even as an iPhone user, I'm somewhat annoyed that Google dropped the ball on Android Wear, and Samsung is only doing somewhat better.

[79wjd]

30 minutes ago, Commodus said:

There is a certain amount of fanboyism here, but there are some reasons why us plebeians might want to care.

 

More than anything, this shows that smartwatches are very much A Thing, and aren't going away.  However, it also shows that Apple is the only one really thriving in this market.  That's not good news if you're an Android fan -- it means fewer choices as companies back out of the market.  Even as an iPhone user, I'm somewhat annoyed that Google dropped the ball on Android Wear, and Samsung is only doing somewhat better.

Samsung is doing pretty well imo. I really like the Gear and Tizen OS. You cant respond to notifications, which is annoying, although I think the only way to allow that is to set up their own servers to handle it, which they could do (pebble did it), but I wouldn't fault them for not doing it. GPS and Samsung pay also doesn't work, but that's probably entirely Apple's fault without much way around it (their own servers would probably solve this too). Otherwise I really like Tizen OS and the Gear S3/Sport and came very close to keeping the Sport and not even testing the Apple watch.

 

If the gear S3 was smaller I probably would have kept it, or if the sport didn't have the awkward half circle half square thing going on then I probably would have kept that and just lost Apple pay, responding to notifications, and GPS. To be clear, it's not that I liked the Gears/Tizen better, I think the two operating systems are about even, but I really like a round watch much better (enough to give up Apple Pay), but the S3 was just uncomfortably large as it would get caught on my jacket and any long sleeve shirt.

[Commodus]

13 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Samsung is doing pretty well imo. I really like the Gear and Tizen OS. You cant respond to notifications, which is annoying, although I think the only way to allow that is to set up their own servers to handle it, which they could do (pebble did it), but I wouldn't fault them for not doing it. GPS and Samsung pay also doesn't work, but that's probably entirely Apple's fault without much way around it (their own servers would probably solve this too). Otherwise I really like Tizen OS and the Gear S3/Sport and came very close to keeping the Sport and not even testing the Apple watch.

 

If the gear S3 was smaller I probably would have kept it, or if the sport didn't have the awkward half circle half square thing going on then I probably would have kept that and just lost Apple pay, responding to notifications, and GPS. To be clear, it's not that I liked the Gears/Tizen better, I think the two operating systems are about even, but I really like a round watch much better (enough to give up Apple Pay), but the S3 was just uncomfortably large as it would get caught on my jacket and any long sleeve shirt.

It's more to do with pace of development and market share.  The Gear Sport is more a cut-down S3 than a truly new watch, which means that Samsung really hasn't been devoting much attention to advancing its platform.  And that's frustrating -- as much as I prefer the Apple Watch, it's winning share partly because its rivals don't even bother keeping pace.  They'd better hope that smartwatches don't become big enough that they dictate smartphone sales, or Samsung (and possibly Google) is going to wake up one day and wonder where its sales went.

[79wjd]

12 minutes ago, Commodus said:

It's more to do with pace of development and market share.  The Gear Sport is more a cut-down S3 than a truly new watch, which means that Samsung really hasn't been devoting much attention to advancing its platform.  And that's frustrating -- as much as I prefer the Apple Watch, it's winning share partly because its rivals don't even bother keeping pace.  They'd better hope that smartwatches don't become big enough that they dictate smartphone sales, or Samsung (and possibly Google) is going to wake up one day and wonder where its sales went.

What else should Samsung have done with the Sport?

 

The Gear Sport saw the addition of waterproofing, a faster SoC, and a different form factor; the negatives being that they dropped the LTE option and Samsung Pay MST. On the other hand, the Watch Series 3 added an LTE option, faster SoC, more storage/RAM, bluetooth LE,  and a barometer. The S3/Sport already has a barometer and Bluetooth LE. So, there really isn't anything lacking about the Gears compared to the Apple Watch. So I don't really know what else they should have done.

[Kawaii Koneko]

It's a good watch, there is no doubt about that. If I was an IOS user, I would probably go the Apple Watch route since it would offer the best compatibility but as I'm an Android user because I prefer the openness, flexibility, and customize-ability so an Android Wear watch is an obvious choice. And let me tell you, I have no clue where the idea that Android Wear is mediocre comes from.

 

I had been rocking an original Zen Watch with Android Wear 1.xx for a long time. It was not perfect but it was capable. It was definitely showing its age though so I finally stepped up to a Huawei Watch 2 Classic because I really wanted some of the newer features that Android Wear 2.0 offers. It was also because I wanted better fitness tracking and WiFi so I didn't have to be so close to my phone all the time.

 

Of course, there is room for improvement with Android Wear 2.0 but at least on the Huawei Watch 2, the experience is fantastic. I am very happy. It in no way lacks polish or feels like it is missing features. It feels mature and refined. Of course, it isn't perfect but my issues have been minor. So the idea that the Apple Watch is on top of the sales chart because Android Wear devices are inferior, just doesn't ring true IMHO.

 

I think there are reasons the Apple Watch is on top but I certainly don't think it is due to Android Wear being bad in anyway. Perhaps it is due to that perception and maybe that perception is partially due to Android Wear's growing pains in the early days. Perhaps it is due to the insane brand loyalty of Apple users. Apple users tend to flock to new products in a way Android users don't but that may be because we have so much more choice in products than Apple users. Perhaps it is due to the mindset of Apple users and that they are just more drawn to a smartwatch as a fashion and tech accessory. I know for me, I find Smart Watches to be practical but there is also a fashion aspect that draws me to them, so perhaps that mindset is just stronger in Apple users.

 

Regardless, the Apple Watch is a good device but it just isn't for me. Android Wear 2.0 is also a great OS and there are some very nice watch options so I personally do not feel the Apple Watch is a better product. It might be better for some people due to their needs and wants, but I don't buy this argument that Android Wear watches are inferior. 

[Yoinkerman]

I wonder how this compares to traditional watch sales

[LAwLz]

Still don't see the point of smartwatches, let along an Apple smartwatch (which can't even tell time properly).

Can someone explain? Quite a few of my colleagues has them and I have only seen them used for one thing and one thing only, checking who is calling them (before they need to pick up their phone to answer anyway). Seems pointless to me but maybe I am missing something.

[Guest The Viking]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Still don't see the point of smartwatches, let along an Apple smartwatch (which can't even tell time properly).

i didn't either, but recently i've been in situations i couldn't take my 7 inches phone out of my pocket, as weird as that may sound (I guess the real question is "how do you fit such a big phone in your pocket?"). I'm always running for time, so between getting a normal watch and a smartwatch, I just went for a smartwatch for the extra few options. Sure, my case is probably quite rare, but yes, I can justify it somehow. Very happy with it so far, making things a bit easier for me.

[LAwLz]

3 minutes ago, The Viking said:

i didn't either, but recently i've been in situations i couldn't take my 7 inches phone out of my pocket, as weird as that may sound (I guess the real question is "how do you fit such a big phone in your pocket?"). I'm always running for time, so between getting a normal watch and a smartwatch, I just went for a smartwatch for the extra few options. Sure, my case is probably quite rare, but yes, I can justify it somehow. Very happy with it so far, making things a bit easier for me.

In such a scenario I can kind of see the point, but like you said that seems like a quite rare scenario and not something me with my 5.1" phone can relate to.

[79wjd]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Still don't see the point of smartwatches, let along an Apple smartwatch (which can't even tell time properly).

Can someone explain? Quite a few of my colleagues has them and I have only seen them used for one thing and one thing only, checking who is calling them (before they need to pick up their phone to answer anyway). Seems pointless to me but maybe I am missing something.

It can tell the time just fine, an always on display isn't something that's always needed and is something that I would disable on any smartwatch for the sake of preserving battery life (it should still be an option, but I would personally not use an AOD unless I was able to get >3 days with it enabled).

 

On 3/2/2018 at 9:47 AM, djdwosk97 said:

I've had a smartwatch for two years, then it died and needed to be replaced, but I didn't a couple weeks deciding what to get and in the meantime didn't have a smartwatch. It's just one of those things that seem useless but because a necessity once you're used to it being there. I use mine for time, notifications and weather mostly, and occasionally responding to notifications and making calls. But it also solves a big problem regarding NFC payments -- having to take out my phone is still annoying especially if there's a chance I'll need to put my phone back in my pocket and take out my wallet anyway, whereas just taking my wrist is much less of a hassle.

You can also take calls from your watch if you happen to be in a somewhat private place (e.g. when speakerphone is acceptable) or while driving. 

 

 

It's definitely a niche product, but it's one that I wouldn't give up. 

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

It can tell the time just fine, an always on display isn't something that's always needed and is something that I would disable on any smartwatch for the sake of preserving battery life (it should still be an option, but I would personally not use an AOD unless I was able to get >3 days with it enabled).

Well I mean...

When battery life is such an issue that you have to rely on gesture controls for you know, telling the time, then I don't think it's "just fine":

 

If the purpose of a smartwatch is convenience, then I think having to do a specific gesture to tell the time goes straight against the supposed purpose of the product.

Gestures sucks ass compared to always-on displays. "But battery life would be bad with an always-on display" isn't an excuse because the battery life is terrible even with the display off.

I mean, Macintosh even went as far as to suggest poking the watch against your nose just to see the time. When I think "convenience" or "laziness" I don't picture someone having to poke their watch against their nose just to make the time show up. That's basically the opposite.

 

 

15 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You can also take calls from your watch if you happen to be in a somewhat private place (e.g. when speakerphone is acceptable) or while driving. 

 

 

It's definitely a niche product, but it's one that I wouldn't give up. 

How does that work? You hold the watch up to your mouth and speak to it? Or does it simply activate the speaker phone in the phone? If it's the former then I think that sounds really uncomfortable, and if it's the latter then I don't see the point because you need to take the phone out of your pocket anyway, otherwise the speaker and microphones will be muffled by your leg and pocket.

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Well I mean...

When battery life is such an issue that you have to rely on gesture controls for you know, telling the time, then I don't think it's "just fine":

 

If the purpose of a smartwatch is convenience, then I think having to do a specific gesture to tell the time goes straight against the supposed purpose of the product.

Gestures sucks ass compared to always-on displays. "But battery life would be bad with an always-on display" isn't an excuse because the battery life is terrible even with the display off.

With the display off I get three days of battery life, which is perfectly acceptable. Two days is the critical point in my opinion as then I can easily forget to charge it and it will still work. 

 

But the gesture isn't that bad, it works 95% of the time with most gestures, it's the more subtle glances where it becomes troublesome -- e.g. while I'm lying in bed supporting myself with my arm when I can't rotate my wrist 10º to trigger the gesture. 

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I mean, Macintosh even went as far as to suggest poking the watch against your nose just to see the time. When I think "convenience" or "laziness" I don't picture someone having to poke their watch against their nose just to make the time show up. That's basically the opposite.

I've done that when I have full hands and wouldn't be able to access my phone at all -- although it's generally to accept a call or something like that rather than to wake it up since if I can bring it up to my face than that will also easily trigger the gesture. So it's definitely advantageous. 

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

How does that work? You hold the watch up to your mouth and speak to it? Or does it simply activate the speaker phone in the phone? If it's the former then I think that sounds really uncomfortable, and if it's the latter then I don't see the point because you need to take the phone out of your pocket anyway, otherwise the speaker and microphones will be muffled by your leg and pocket.

The watch has a pretty loud speaker in it and the mic can pick you up from a comfortable resting position. 

[Guest The Viking]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Well I mean...

When battery life is such an issue that you have to rely on gesture controls for you know, telling the time, then I don't think it's "just fine":

 

If the purpose of a smartwatch is convenience, then I think having to do a specific gesture to tell the time goes straight against the supposed purpose of the product.

Gestures sucks ass compared to always-on displays. "But battery life would be bad with an always-on display" isn't an excuse because the battery life is terrible even with the display off.

I mean, Macintosh even went as far as to suggest poking the watch against your nose just to see the time. When I think "convenience" or "laziness" I don't picture someone having to poke their watch against their nose just to make the time show up. That's basically the opposite.

on my huawei watch i get 4 days of battery life with normal use. With the display on all the time, no clue. The gesture isn't terrible, it's just the typical "shake your wrist" (I don't know how to explain it...basically you just need to move your wrist a few degrees so the screen goes on, which isn't too difficult to do, nor too weird, and, well, if you want to see the display you still need to do that movement). Works 95% of the times, sometimes you need to do it twice but whatever really. No poking needed. 

 

You can activate the always on display option and there's different degrees of luminosity. Obviously for the extra options you need to activate bluetooth but I have such a sad life I don't need it, as I rarely get messages on my phone  I think some people have said 2 days of battery life with always-on display? on my watch it goes into this battery saving option where you get a basic display on black background, so should last long enough as to be "decent".

 

if you're going to phone often, just get something along the lines of the huawei talkband, it serves as a watch but you can take the display off and use it as an earpiece-bluetooth-phone thingy.

 

overall I just see the smartwatch as a niche market blown out of proportion-for now. At some point somebody will figure out how to make something interesting out of it, but, from my point of view, yes, it's just for a few of us who want something a bit more "tech" than a classic watch. I mean, I really like my huawei watch, as, for me, they nailed the design, but others prefer more sporty looks and whatever.

 

Apple is just apple. They are experts in selling crap, and their fanbase will just buy either due to the "exclusivity" or "premium" feel Apple is known for, or they are already so locked into the apple ecosystem that they don't care (iphone, ipad, macbook, watch). Remember when they made a book and sold it for 300$ each copy? There. Experts in selling crap, and a brainless fanbase who'll just give them money for anything. Pretty sure their fanbase would pay 300$ for this too:

 

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

11 minutes ago, The Viking said:

-Snip.-

The battery life thing I feel is the biggest stumbling block when it comes to smart watches. I didn't even bother considering one because none of them lasted more than a day, as in the working hours. I'm sure a lot of them are better, but when I'm getting basically a glorified notification pusher, that thing better last more than 24 hours.

 

Which is why I'm surprised my Fitbit Blaze lasts as long as it does. It's advertised as 5 days, but on the first time I tested it (because I forgot my charger), it lasted almost 6.

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, Commodus said:

There is a certain amount of fanboyism here, but there are some reasons why us plebeians might want to care.

 

More than anything, this shows that smartwatches are very much A Thing, and aren't going away.  However, it also shows that Apple is the only one really thriving in this market.  That's not good news if you're an Android fan -- it means fewer choices as companies back out of the market.  Even as an iPhone user, I'm somewhat annoyed that Google dropped the ball on Android Wear, and Samsung is only doing somewhat better.

As near as I can tell there are 5 other major options for smartwatches and 40% of the market is made up of lots of other brands.   It seems choice is not an issue.  I still don't see how market share evidences low quality on the other products on the market? 

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, The Viking said:

Pretty sure their fanbase would pay 300$ for this too:

-snip-

You'd be wrong.

They'd pay $2,999.99 or more.

 

 

 

 

 

Kappa.