> "We loved our iPods and iPhones for their sleek design and smooth UI, even when people dismissed them as “expensive toys”. We knew our $2000 laptops were incredible for the price, even while people mocked us for not buying cheap, creaky Windows machines."
> "An Apple that sells “bling” to billionaires is not a company that many of us could muster passion about. "
I think the author already has the answer to his question.
I still think Pebble is demonstrating more Apple qualities than Apple is atm.
1. Sleek design (Pebble Time Steel looks better)
2. Innovating new markets/ideas (the new bands are doing to open the flood gates for hardware devs)
3. Keeping it simple (Apple watch wants to put a smartphone on your wrist, Pebble focuses on what watches do best)
>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.
>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?
> 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.
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".
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.
People will buy smartwatches because it adds value a rolex cannot: convenience.
Timex and Rolex have the same amount of information so they differentiate based on other aspects. Smart watches add convenience through serving more information. Not having to take out your phone, wallet, keys, etc. is a compelling selling point. The bet is:
This bears repeating in any Apple Watch discussion: watches are socially approved jewelry for culturally Western males.
The classic and luxury appeal of jewelry is at odds with many parts of tech (eg elegance vs nerdiness, timeless heirlooms vs 1-year product cycles, etc). The Apple Watch Edition will be an interesting attempt to cross that gap. I don't see it becoming a first-tier competitor to classic watches, even in a short term wear, non-heirloom sense, but if the past decade has proven anything, Apple knows how to forecast (or shape) market demand for a product very well.
I don't expect consumer electronics to increase in value for the simple reason that they decay. The batteries decay, the transistors decay, the capacitors decay, etc. The watch will become non-functional and non-repairable.
Just look at what people go through trying to keep older computers running.
Particularly if history repeats itself. If the example of the iPad is anything to go by, this watch has a lifetime of a couple of years at most. Worth bearing in mind if you're going to drop tens of thousands of dollars on it.
I'll point out that's not true with all Rolexes. Depending on which Rolex you purchase, it may very well appreciate over time.
Rolex occasionally tweaks aspects of its various models. For example, a 2015 Submariner has larger lugs, larger hour markers, and branded rehaut compared to a 2001 Rolex. This makes newer Subs look different and, for some collectors, makes the older models more desirable.
Pepsi Subs and the Paul Newman Daytona are both good examples of watches that have become collectable and whose value today greatly exceeds initial purchase price + inflation.
Exactly this, though I expect it is more hold value than appreciate with current watches. Overall, when dropping a large amount on a watch you expect it to keep value and be something that lasts a lifetime if not generations. Most people wont commit massive funds for something that needs replacing every 2 or 3 years. And even if they get the first one because it's exciting, I cant see people repurchasing on a regular basis.
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.
> 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.
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."
> 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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
There are hipsters here practically ready to throw away their mock 80s wrist watches and shave their wrist beards in readiness for an Apple watch. So they can all be unique, in their group like way.
Just wait till the first time they go out for their artisan and it rains, and the watch goes wrong. Maybe they will be told "you were wearing it the wrong way".
True, but at that time it was a combination of fashion and design(especially true for the iPhone's early years). But today the design arena is much tougher, with Google becoming very capable in design, and a lot of good ux/ui designers around(due to the difficulty of designing good apps and the importance of that).
So now Apple is differentiating with what they can, which is fashion, and their unique positioning in the market.
No, they've placed themselves as a premium but accessible fashion brand within the popular consumer tech market.
Now, they're trying to sell a tech product to the status symbol market - which is a completely different proposition.
I cannot see any way this can work, because Apple's upgrade cycle-driven minimalism is the exact opposite of the busily pointless lasting-heirloom-wannabe bling you get from brands like Vertu, Rolex, Patek Philippe, and the rest.
Wrapping a thick layer of gold around a Mk 1 product that everyone suspects is going to be updated in a year or two isn't going to fix that.
So it's a dangerous strategy. If it fails it's going to dampen sales of the cheaper models.
IMO they should have stayed out of the fashion market until they had a model that truly qualified for heritage status, and then sold it as a very limited special edition, in something insanely expensive like diamond-coated aerospace platinum.
If this turns into a 'This is still mass produced, but we made it shiny, gold, and very expensive as a thing' pitch, I think it will be completely wrong for that market.
The brilliant thing about the Apple Watch is that no matter which casing/strap you buy, you're getting the same gear. So if you don't care what the watch is made of or how it looks, you can just buy the Sport model. If you want the best durability, you get the steel/sapphire standard model. If you want the blingiest thing, you get the Edition. But no matter how much you spend, you get the same functionality. This isn't a matter of Apple selling an elites-only product. This is Apple bringing a mainstream product to the elite market.
I don't even think it really makes sense to talk about Gruber as a "techie" blogger. He is interested in the way Apple designs and markets things, and the movements of those markets generally. He almost never covers actual technical topics.
If you don't have any interest in the manner in which technological goods are sold to the public, that's certainly your prerogative. But some people do.
While yes, the Apple Watch does kind of throw out the notion that the worlds most elite and powerful are using the same (i)Phone as teenagers in school - the author of this article seemingly forgot that there are two other Apple Watches which will presumable be much cheaper - starting at $350.
50 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadI think the author already has the answer to his question.
1. Sleek design (Pebble Time Steel looks better) 2. Innovating new markets/ideas (the new bands are doing to open the flood gates for hardware devs) 3. Keeping it simple (Apple watch wants to put a smartphone on your wrist, Pebble focuses on what watches do best)
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.
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?
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.
And when that lawyer is 65 and retiring, it's the Rolex that he gives to his son.
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.
Timex and Rolex have the same amount of information so they differentiate based on other aspects. Smart watches add convenience through serving more information. Not having to take out your phone, wallet, keys, etc. is a compelling selling point. The bet is:
convenience + decent design > timeless design alone
The classic and luxury appeal of jewelry is at odds with many parts of tech (eg elegance vs nerdiness, timeless heirlooms vs 1-year product cycles, etc). The Apple Watch Edition will be an interesting attempt to cross that gap. I don't see it becoming a first-tier competitor to classic watches, even in a short term wear, non-heirloom sense, but if the past decade has proven anything, Apple knows how to forecast (or shape) market demand for a product very well.
Just look at what people go through trying to keep older computers running.
No personal jabs, please. This comment makes a fine point without that.
Rolex occasionally tweaks aspects of its various models. For example, a 2015 Submariner has larger lugs, larger hour markers, and branded rehaut compared to a 2001 Rolex. This makes newer Subs look different and, for some collectors, makes the older models more desirable.
Pepsi Subs and the Paul Newman Daytona are both good examples of watches that have become collectable and whose value today greatly exceeds initial purchase price + inflation.
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.
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."
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.
Funny how that gets convicted, though.
- an east coaster
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.
That's far from 'nightmare scenario'.
Reminds me of Tim Cook embracing cannibalization, because it still results in Apple customers.
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.
So, I don't get your point.
Just wait till the first time they go out for their artisan and it rains, and the watch goes wrong. Maybe they will be told "you were wearing it the wrong way".
They've positioned themselves as a luxury brand, where it is considered fashionable among the general population to visibly own their devices.
Sure, Mac-owning techies have additional reasons, but I don't think they drive the brunt of Apple sales.
So now Apple is differentiating with what they can, which is fashion, and their unique positioning in the market.
Now, they're trying to sell a tech product to the status symbol market - which is a completely different proposition.
I cannot see any way this can work, because Apple's upgrade cycle-driven minimalism is the exact opposite of the busily pointless lasting-heirloom-wannabe bling you get from brands like Vertu, Rolex, Patek Philippe, and the rest.
Wrapping a thick layer of gold around a Mk 1 product that everyone suspects is going to be updated in a year or two isn't going to fix that.
So it's a dangerous strategy. If it fails it's going to dampen sales of the cheaper models.
IMO they should have stayed out of the fashion market until they had a model that truly qualified for heritage status, and then sold it as a very limited special edition, in something insanely expensive like diamond-coated aerospace platinum.
If this turns into a 'This is still mass produced, but we made it shiny, gold, and very expensive as a thing' pitch, I think it will be completely wrong for that market.
If you don't have any interest in the manner in which technological goods are sold to the public, that's certainly your prerogative. But some people do.