5 ms·

>But I was under the impression that we were Apple fans in the first place because they made best-in-breed products for everyone, not just the elite. Which is

by bluthru 12y ago

>But I was under the impression that we were Apple fans in the first place because they made best-in-breed products for everyone, not just the elite. Which is exactly why there is an expensive tier for the Apple Watch: to sell watches to everyone. Apple is taking this product category so seriously that they're going after the high-end heirloom watches while not leaving the teenage iPhone user market behind. Hate the game not the player. This doesn't look like existing tech markets because as of now it's not a tech market. If you want your apps to be prevalent on wrists, you should be thanking Apple for legitimizing smart watches to the gold-watch crowd. Crowd-funded wrist watches could never do that. I would rather everyone just had $350 watches and the rest of the capital went to... vaccination research or something, but Apple Watch Edition is how a 55 year old lawyer in the midwest gives up his Rolex.

walterbell 12y ago
>Apple Watch Edition is how a 55 year old lawyer in the midwest gives up his Rolex. Maybe. Or maybe said lawyer can afford a timeless Rolex due to lower mental susceptibility to shiny! new! improved! marketing of instantly obsolete widgets. Apple quality and marketing has made billions, but this can lead to commodization of those marketing techniques, as former employees diffuse those techniques into surrounding industry. Over time, the population develops immunity to this marketing and the cycle starts anew. Jobs spent many years developing his regenerative capacity for reality distortion. Can a corporation synthesize that capacity by hiring "fashion" executives? Fashion buyers were pre-inculcated with decades of cyclical norms, how many fashion executives have needed to execute Apple-scale reality distortion?
mullingitover 12y ago
> Apple Watch Edition is how a 55 year old lawyer in the midwest gives up his Rolex. I have a really hard time buying this argument, because a Rolex will appreciate in value, and that 55 year old lawyer in the midwest isn't stupid, s/he knows this. Nobody in their right mind expects a consumer electronic device to appreciate in value.
- Wintamute 12y ago
  The Rolex goes in the bed side cabinet, the Apple Watch goes on the wrist.
  - lqdc13 12y ago
    And off the wrist in a year
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      Smart money is on less.
    - hexasquid 12y ago
      Every evening, if the battery needs a daily charge.
  - nilkn 12y ago
    Except when that lawyer is in an important meeting. Then the roles are reversed. And when that lawyer is 65 and retiring, it's the Rolex that he gives to his son.
    - bobbles 12y ago
      Who then swiftly puts it into the drawer and continues to wear something he likes
- bluthru 12y ago
  It might appreciate in value the same way any antique does, but eventually no one will be able to settle for a "dumb watch" the same way no one today can settle for a "dumb phone".
  - simplyluke 12y ago
    Except for most people a watch is fashion, not a tool. A phone is a tool, and you expect it to perform certain tasks that make your life easier. A smart phone is objectively superior at those things, thus you want a smart phone over a dumb phone. A watch, on the other hand, is much more a fashion statement and status symbol than a tool. A $10k Rolex doesn't really keep time any better than a $20 Timex, but that's not why one buys the Rolex. Most teenagers _stopped wearing watches_ over the past decade or so because they use their phones to check the time, it's only when we've started dressing more professionally that we've started buying watches. I don't buy wearable tech as the next big thing in hardware. I don't think most consumers will pay $500 to have something on their wrist that does a fraction of what the thing in their pocket does while looking worse than the "dumb watch" it replaced.
paulornothing 12y ago
You're exactly right they want to hit all the markets. People will buy the most expensive watch, but it's not for everyone. It will be a conversation piece or it will be an object of jealousy (or possibly ridicule). None the less I'm curious to see how it sells but I'm more interested in the next version of the watch.
- TillE 12y ago
  > but I'm more interested in the next version of the watch That seems like it should be especially true if you're buying the expensive gold version. In recent history, first-gen Apple products are vastly inferior to the second or third generation. They don't age well. The Apple Watch reminds me strongly of the first iPhone. It'll get thinner and probably a lot more powerful in a year or two.
jusben1369 12y ago
The entire premise of that sentence is wrong and he contradicts himself two sentences later. Apple has always relied on being viewed (and therefore priced) as a premium brand. The Watch is an extension even further upstream but it's hardly a VW Phaeton headscratcher type of thing. This is just a uncomfortable realization that your favorite brand wants to go _even further_ upstream than it is today. But that's only because you've misunderstood the brand to begin with. EDIT: The two sentences later part. If you take out the disparaging tone it boils down to "we were fine paying much more for an Apple machine than another brand" -- "We knew our $2000 laptops were incredible for the price, even while people mocked us for not buying cheap, creaky Windows machines."
Osmium 12y ago
> But I was under the impression that we were Apple fans in the first place because they made best-in-breed products for everyone, not just the elite. Another take on this quote: the watch has the same functionality regardless of whether you buy the most expensive model or the cheapest one. In that sense, it's very egalitarian. Let the people who want to buy a more expensive model buy one; all they'll do is subsidise development costs for the rest of us.
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  Haha. Because Apple has ever used the volume of sales and its twelve digit war chest as a justification for reducing its profit margin, consistently recognized as the highest in the industry?
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    Apple consistently increases profits. I own a lot of Apple products, but don't be deluded. The wildly speculated Edition watch isnt some Apple effort to play Robin Hood and pass on development savings to the common man. Funny how that gets convicted, though.
- hnprogfail 12y ago
  If their first watch is a full featured as their first phone, it will probably just have an hour hand, and will have to wait till iwatch 5s for a minute hand!
grmarcil 12y ago
What does the midwest have to do with your 55 year old lawyer example? Not asking this as a hostile defense of the midwest, just genuinely curious how you meant that to add to the example. - an east coaster
- bluthru 12y ago
  I was trying to paint a profile of someone who doesn't follow consumer technology closely.
sjtgraham 12y ago
> Apple Watch Edition is how a 55 year old lawyer in the midwest gives up his Rolex. I am not a 50 year old lawyer, but I do have a Rolex watch. The Day-Date and Datejust are beautiful, timeless classics IMO. When I think of a watch, I think of those. Sure I'll get an Apple watch - the cheapest one - I like the idea of having a map on my wrist when cycling. However, you can pry my Rolex from my cold, cold, very dead hands.
- mullingitover 12y ago
  I think you might be the nightmare scenario for Apple. I have a feeling they expect Rolex owners to buy the Watch Edition, and the regular non-watch wearing 18-35 demo to suddenly show an interest in wearing watches and buy the cheapest one. The real outcome ends up being that the majority, who doesn't wear a watch, will show continue to show no interest in watches when they're 'smart,' and the small demographic that does wear watches will stick to the "cheap," rapidly depreciating Apple Watch.
  - madeofpalk 12y ago
    He still bought an Apple Watch, instead of a Moto 360. That's far from 'nightmare scenario'. Reminds me of Tim Cook embracing cannibalization, because it still results in Apple customers.
- mjcohen 12y ago
  Have you actually tried to see map info on a watch while riding? I have tried while driving on my Pebble, and it does not work for me at all. The display is too small to see anything useful and the amount of time needed to comprehend what is being displayed is scary. Perhaps if it indicated one buzz for left and two for right, it might work, but looking at a watch while driving or riding does not work for me.
gonzo 12y ago
52, sw (pfSenee) dev (mgr), live in Austin. Not a lawyer, but quite familiar with contract and IP law. I've had a stainless Rolex for 25 years. I've hardly work it since 2007. So, I don't get your point.

by bluthru 12y ago

walterbell 12y ago

>Apple Watch Edition is how a 55 year old lawyer in the midwest gives up his Rolex. Maybe. Or maybe said lawyer can afford a timeless Rolex due to lower mental susceptibility to shiny! new! improved! marketing of instantly obsolete widgets. Apple quality and marketing has made billions, but this can lead to commodization of those marketing techniques, as former employees diffuse those techniques into surrounding industry. Over time, the population develops immunity to this marketing and the cycle starts anew. Jobs spent many years developing his regenerative capacity for reality distortion. Can a corporation synthesize that capacity by hiring "fashion" executives? Fashion buyers were pre-inculcated with decades of cyclical norms, how many fashion executives have needed to execute Apple-scale reality distortion?

mullingitover 12y ago

> Apple Watch Edition is how a 55 year old lawyer in the midwest gives up his Rolex. I have a really hard time buying this argument, because a Rolex will appreciate in value, and that 55 year old lawyer in the midwest isn't stupid, s/he knows this. Nobody in their right mind expects a consumer electronic device to appreciate in value.

Wintamute 12y ago
The Rolex goes in the bed side cabinet, the Apple Watch goes on the wrist.
- lqdc13 12y ago
  And off the wrist in a year
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    Smart money is on less.
  - hexasquid 12y ago
    Every evening, if the battery needs a daily charge.
- nilkn 12y ago
  Except when that lawyer is in an important meeting. Then the roles are reversed. And when that lawyer is 65 and retiring, it's the Rolex that he gives to his son.
  - bobbles 12y ago
    Who then swiftly puts it into the drawer and continues to wear something he likes
bluthru 12y ago
It might appreciate in value the same way any antique does, but eventually no one will be able to settle for a "dumb watch" the same way no one today can settle for a "dumb phone".
- simplyluke 12y ago
  Except for most people a watch is fashion, not a tool. A phone is a tool, and you expect it to perform certain tasks that make your life easier. A smart phone is objectively superior at those things, thus you want a smart phone over a dumb phone. A watch, on the other hand, is much more a fashion statement and status symbol than a tool. A $10k Rolex doesn't really keep time any better than a $20 Timex, but that's not why one buys the Rolex. Most teenagers _stopped wearing watches_ over the past decade or so because they use their phones to check the time, it's only when we've started dressing more professionally that we've started buying watches. I don't buy wearable tech as the next big thing in hardware. I don't think most consumers will pay $500 to have something on their wrist that does a fraction of what the thing in their pocket does while looking worse than the "dumb watch" it replaced.

paulornothing 12y ago

You're exactly right they want to hit all the markets. People will buy the most expensive watch, but it's not for everyone. It will be a conversation piece or it will be an object of jealousy (or possibly ridicule). None the less I'm curious to see how it sells but I'm more interested in the next version of the watch.

TillE 12y ago
> but I'm more interested in the next version of the watch That seems like it should be especially true if you're buying the expensive gold version. In recent history, first-gen Apple products are vastly inferior to the second or third generation. They don't age well. The Apple Watch reminds me strongly of the first iPhone. It'll get thinner and probably a lot more powerful in a year or two.

jusben1369 12y ago

The entire premise of that sentence is wrong and he contradicts himself two sentences later. Apple has always relied on being viewed (and therefore priced) as a premium brand. The Watch is an extension even further upstream but it's hardly a VW Phaeton headscratcher type of thing. This is just a uncomfortable realization that your favorite brand wants to go _even further_ upstream than it is today. But that's only because you've misunderstood the brand to begin with. EDIT: The two sentences later part. If you take out the disparaging tone it boils down to "we were fine paying much more for an Apple machine than another brand" -- "We knew our $2000 laptops were incredible for the price, even while people mocked us for not buying cheap, creaky Windows machines."

Osmium 12y ago

> But I was under the impression that we were Apple fans in the first place because they made best-in-breed products for everyone, not just the elite. Another take on this quote: the watch has the same functionality regardless of whether you buy the most expensive model or the cheapest one. In that sense, it's very egalitarian. Let the people who want to buy a more expensive model buy one; all they'll do is subsidise development costs for the rest of us.

FireBeyond 12y ago
Haha. Because Apple has ever used the volume of sales and its twelve digit war chest as a justification for reducing its profit margin, consistently recognized as the highest in the industry?
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  Apple consistently increases profits. I own a lot of Apple products, but don't be deluded. The wildly speculated Edition watch isnt some Apple effort to play Robin Hood and pass on development savings to the common man. Funny how that gets convicted, though.
hnprogfail 12y ago
If their first watch is a full featured as their first phone, it will probably just have an hour hand, and will have to wait till iwatch 5s for a minute hand!

grmarcil 12y ago

What does the midwest have to do with your 55 year old lawyer example? Not asking this as a hostile defense of the midwest, just genuinely curious how you meant that to add to the example. - an east coaster

bluthru 12y ago
I was trying to paint a profile of someone who doesn't follow consumer technology closely.

sjtgraham 12y ago

> Apple Watch Edition is how a 55 year old lawyer in the midwest gives up his Rolex. I am not a 50 year old lawyer, but I do have a Rolex watch. The Day-Date and Datejust are beautiful, timeless classics IMO. When I think of a watch, I think of those. Sure I'll get an Apple watch - the cheapest one - I like the idea of having a map on my wrist when cycling. However, you can pry my Rolex from my cold, cold, very dead hands.

mullingitover 12y ago
I think you might be the nightmare scenario for Apple. I have a feeling they expect Rolex owners to buy the Watch Edition, and the regular non-watch wearing 18-35 demo to suddenly show an interest in wearing watches and buy the cheapest one. The real outcome ends up being that the majority, who doesn't wear a watch, will show continue to show no interest in watches when they're 'smart,' and the small demographic that does wear watches will stick to the "cheap," rapidly depreciating Apple Watch.
- madeofpalk 12y ago
  He still bought an Apple Watch, instead of a Moto 360. That's far from 'nightmare scenario'. Reminds me of Tim Cook embracing cannibalization, because it still results in Apple customers.
mjcohen 12y ago
Have you actually tried to see map info on a watch while riding? I have tried while driving on my Pebble, and it does not work for me at all. The display is too small to see anything useful and the amount of time needed to comprehend what is being displayed is scary. Perhaps if it indicated one buzz for left and two for right, it might work, but looking at a watch while driving or riding does not work for me.

gonzo 12y ago

52, sw (pfSenee) dev (mgr), live in Austin. Not a lawyer, but quite familiar with contract and IP law. I've had a stainless Rolex for 25 years. I've hardly work it since 2007. So, I don't get your point.