• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Tablets and e-Readers
Report: The Apple Watch Will Only Last 2.5 Hours With "Heavy" Use
<<
<
7 of 12
>>
>
psionic
10-03-2015
Originally Posted by psionic:
“It's amazing how much gets written out there about a device where few details have been provided, let alone confirmed.

For example according to some sources out there apparently it does have some music capability and even bluetooth headset connectivity. I'm guessing it has very little capacity so maybe acts more of a buffer. Anyway we'll find out on Monday.”

Just going back to what came up early in this thread. More details appear to be trickling out now. Such as it does have some on board storage for music and photos etc. Not a lot of storage as it all syncs with the phone. http://bgr.com/2015/03/10/apple-watch-storage-memory/
alanwarwic
10-03-2015
Originally Posted by Stuart_h:
“....As I say its not a crucial feature but I would consider it a pain to lose the "always on".”

A comment piece, from the Telegraph themselves known to have accused the Guardian of courting Apple's advertising cash, focusing on the "social stigma associated with checking a watch, I can't see this waving requirement endearing many Apple Watch users to those around them. "

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-10098572.html

I can see an elaborate wave as a positive to say 'look look, I have an Apple watch'.
You can't say that about the latest generation from smartwatch specialist Sony thats got decent 48 hours + battery life, even though the screen is always on.

Its got the top screen but loses out being top dog being a more ugly square.
IvanIV
10-03-2015
It will have the '70s button' surely to turn on the display so you won't have to wave your hands like on take off.
Stuart_h
10-03-2015
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“It will have the '70s button' surely to turn on the display so you won't have to wave your hands like on take off.”

Retro-chic
calico_pie
10-03-2015
Of course what they need to invent is an analogue watch, but where the glass can be used as a screen for apps / displaying additional info when required.

I should probably patent that idea.
calico_pie
10-03-2015
Originally Posted by psionic:
“Motorola hasn't stood still. They have just introduced a 'Moto Maker' tool on their website which allows a load of customisation options if you want to buy a new 360. https://www.motorola.com/us/motomake...tion=designNew”

That is quite nice actually. I think the whole area of smart watches just needs to mature over the next couple of years til we end up with the best compromise of analogue looks and digital functionality. Things like the Withings Activite look pretty good, but much more limited functionality.
alanwarwic
11-03-2015
http://www.cultofmac.com/315120/will...derer-says-no/
Roger Federer does not say 'they likely have to buy out my Rolex and Tag Heuer contracts first'.

Elsewhere, "“We should be thanking Apple for launching the $10,000 ‘apple watch’ as the new gold standard in douchebag detection"
http://www.cultofmac.com/315119/wont...-twittersphere
"A simple search of #AppleWatch offers a range of snarky missives, especially aimed at the high-end Apple Watch Edition, which presumably won’t be much of a keepsake once its battery stops charging."
gregrichards
11-03-2015
Apple have confirmed the battery will be replaceable for a fee so that main concern isn't much of an issue now.

It will be interesting to see if company's will do gold plating of normal Apple watches so people can pretend they have an edition.
kidspud
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by gregrichards:
“Apple have confirmed the battery will be replaceable for a fee so that main concern isn't much of an issue now.
.”

That's not surprising, I can't think of an Apple device where they don't offer a battery replacement service (I'm sure someone will find one).

Another interesting thing is I assume the servicing costs usually associated with high end watches will not be needed. The savings made would easily cover a periodic battery replacement.
IvanIV
11-03-2015
What are servicing costs of high end watches? Most people don't have high end watches. You just need a periodical battery replacement done if the watch is waterproof or you can even do it yourself if not.
Stig
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by gregrichards:
“Apple have confirmed the battery will be replaceable for a fee so that main concern isn't much of an issue now.

It will be interesting to see if company's will do gold plating of normal Apple watches so people can pretend they have an edition.”

The battery in the iphone and ipad is 'replaceable' in the sense that you take it back to Apple and they charge you for the parts and labour. In that sense I suppose it is no better/worse than watches with batteries.

As mentioned, the problem is technological obsolescence. A Rolex doesn't go out of date, but the Apple Watch quickly will.

If every Apple Watch was £299 it wouldn't be so much of an issue, as people routinely pay that for a phone which they replace in 1-2 years time (which is also madness when you think about it). It's the watches that cost £1000+ where this stops making sense.
IvanIV
11-03-2015
The question is who is the target of that gold watch. If somebody is shopping in this price bracket they might prefer something like Rolex or Omega first. I'd say you already have to have that if you'd go for a gold Apple Watch. I find it less likely that somebody's first bloody expensive watch will be the one from Apple. Apple may send it to known people to be their ambassadors of bad taste, though.
Stuart_h
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“The question is who is the target of that gold watch. If somebody is shopping in this price bracket they might prefer something like Rolex or Omega first. I'd say you already have to have that if you'd go for a gold Apple Watch. I find it less likely that somebody's first bloody expensive watch will be the one from Apple. Apple may send it to known people to be their ambassadors of bad taste, though.”

I agree that a significant number of the high (est) priced ones seen out and about will be freebies.

It will be interesting to see what type of "celeb" they get picked up by - the Hollywood a list or the towie brigade. I'm guessing some will even be paid to be seen wearing them.
kidspud
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“What are servicing costs of high end watches? Most people don't have high end watches. You just need a periodical battery replacement done if the watch is waterproof or you can even do it yourself if not.”

Anywhere upwards of £150+.

I had an IWC serviced just before Xmas for £270.

Always done by certified agents.
kidspud
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“The question is who is the target of that gold watch. If somebody is shopping in this price bracket they might prefer something like Rolex or Omega first. I'd say you already have to have that if you'd go for a gold Apple Watch. I find it less likely that somebody's first bloody expensive watch will be the one from Apple. Apple may send it to known people to be their ambassadors of bad taste, though.”

I'm in no doubt that those that buy the more expensive model will already own high end watches.

$10,000 for a watch might sound expensive, but it isn't really. However, whether the apple watch will be worth it is an interesting debate.
Stuart_h
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“I'm in no doubt that those that buy the more expensive model will already own high end watches.

$10,000 for a watch might sound expensive, but it isn't really. However, whether the apple watch will be worth it is an interesting debate.”

As with everything cost is relative. Thats how companies can sell $10k watches or $1m cars and $25m houses.

Personally I cant see the appeal of ultra-expensive watches, but drive an expensive car so certainly wont be critical of those that do.

But with your "Rolex" (insert any high-cost non-smart watch) you are paying for something that will always do the same things that it did when you bought it. Its standalone. Its (probably) hand crafted and will continue to perform exactly the same function for years, decades or more. It will be made of premium materials inside and out.

With a high-end smartwatch the insides will be identical to the insides of the lower proced models (maybe upgraded battery etc ?). The "boards" will all be punched out at the same factories and the parts will all be haggled with the same suppliers. All you are paying for is a machined case/strap of a higher-cost material. The software may be upgradeable to a point but will the iPhone 27 still support the legacy Apple Watch Gen 1 in 20 years allowing it to perform the same functions it does now ?

Have I missed something ? Is there any genuine "value" thats gained with the highest priced version ? Im assuming you arent getting $9500 of gold content ? Is it purely a higher markup ? Are you now paying almost entirely for the brand name (in the same way you would with high end clothes and accessories) ? Has the gold version simply become a designer accessory more than anything else ?
IvanIV
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by Stuart_h:
“It will be interesting to see what type of "celeb" they get picked up by - the Hollywood a list or the towie brigade. I'm guessing some will even be paid to be seen wearing them.”

I predict Justin Bieber, Kanye West, his big arsed wife, their daughter North South East West, and other role models
clonmult
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“I predict Justin Bieber, Kanye West, his big arsed wife, their daughter North South East West, and other role models ”

That big arsed wife uses a Blackberry (or at least thats what some of her "leaked" selfies were taken on). So she can't be a potential owner ... well, she'll probably own one and never have it turned on.

I could imagine the 42mm monster on justin biebers tiny wrists. Would be kinda funny.
IvanIV
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by clonmult:
“I could imagine the 42mm monster on justin biebers tiny wrists. Would be kinda funny.”

He'll need three. One around his neck, two on his wrists, in case he accidently drops one down the toilet and pukes on it. BTW is the watch waterproof/water-resistant?
calico_pie
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“I'm in no doubt that those that buy the more expensive model will already own high end watches.

$10,000 for a watch might sound expensive, but it isn't really. However, whether the apple watch will be worth it is an interesting debate.”

I'd agree that there are plenty of high end expensive watches out there. But there probably is a big difference in that if you spend $10k on a high end analogue watch, it will last years, if not decades, without showing its age.

There's no way a smartwatch will, especially a first generation one, which will almost certainly see the release of newer, better models in the next few years.

So I think that people who have stupid money to spend, and maybe have several watches, it won't be an issue. But perhaps people for whom it might be a once in a lifetime special purchase, would probably go for an analogue alternative.

Looking at the Mondaine watches - their analogue ones top out at around $4-500. But their new smartwatch is going to retail at just under $900. That's a heck of a premium just for an analogue hand to show the progress towards your daily steps or distance goal.

Put in that perspective, the lower end Apple watches don't seem that ridiculous.
paulbrock
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“Of course what they need to invent is an analogue watch, but where the glass can be used as a screen for apps / displaying additional info when required.

I should probably patent that idea.”

too late

https://kairoswatches.com/
calico_pie
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by paulbrock:
“too late

https://kairoswatches.com/”

Ha! But that is exactly what I had in my head. Although I think the watches are a bit too in your face for my tastes. But the general idea solves the problem of having to choose a classic analogue watch, and the functionality provided by a smartwatch.

Would love to see, in the flesh, something like that, but on a more classic, minimalist watch face.
kidspud
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by Stuart_h:
“As with everything cost is relative. Thats how companies can sell $10k watches or $1m cars and $25m houses.

Personally I cant see the appeal of ultra-expensive watches, but drive an expensive car so certainly wont be critical of those that do.

But with your "Rolex" (insert any high-cost non-smart watch) you are paying for something that will always do the same things that it did when you bought it. Its standalone. Its (probably) hand crafted and will continue to perform exactly the same function for years, decades or more. It will be made of premium materials inside and out.

With a high-end smartwatch the insides will be identical to the insides of the lower proced models (maybe upgraded battery etc ?). The "boards" will all be punched out at the same factories and the parts will all be haggled with the same suppliers. All you are paying for is a machined case/strap of a higher-cost material. The software may be upgradeable to a point but will the iPhone 27 still support the legacy Apple Watch Gen 1 in 20 years allowing it to perform the same functions it does now ?

Have I missed something ? Is there any genuine "value" thats gained with the highest priced version ? Im assuming you arent getting $9500 of gold content ? Is it purely a higher markup ? Are you now paying almost entirely for the brand name (in the same way you would with high end clothes and accessories) ? Has the gold version simply become a designer accessory more than anything else ?”

I don't disagree with anything you say regarding the internals of the watch.

I'm not so sure I would underplay the engineering of the case & strap as that is something that also makes up a large chunk of the appeal of a conventional watch.

I saw comments regarding the cost of the high end straps for the Apple watch which which as far as I'm concerned are in line with any quality watch strap.

As a timepiece I'm not sure the $10k is worth it. On the other hand I don't think $399 is very expensive.
Stuart_h
11-03-2015
see now Im going to assume everyone just has one of these

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31832108
IvanIV
11-03-2015
Originally Posted by Stuart_h:
“see now Im going to assume everyone just has one of these

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31832108”

I wonder if they will sell 'almost gold' version, too
<<
<
7 of 12
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map