Slashdot Mirror
Reactions to the New MacBook and Apple Watch
As the dust settles from Apple's press conference yesterday, there have been a broad variety of reactions around the web. Robinson Meyer at The Atlantic says Apple's $10,000 watch demonstrates the company has lost its soul. "The prices grate. And they grate not because they’re so expensive, but because they’re gratuitously expensive. ... To many commentators, this is unsurprising. It’s good business sense, really. Apple has made its world-devouring profits by ratcheting up profit margins on iPhones. There is no better target for these massive margins than the super-rich. But high margins do not a luxury brand make." Others suspect the high-end watches are targeted more at rich people in China.
As for the less expensive watches, perhaps they're around not so much to become a new major sales category for Apple, but rather to drive more iPhone sales. Meanwhile, the redesigned MacBook may signify a bigger change for the laptop industry than people realize: "We don’t need all those other ports, Apple says. We are living in a wireless world now, where we can connect most of our peripherals without cords." The new MacBook has also fueled speculation that Apple could be working on a more powerful tablet, something that could compete with Microsoft's Surface Pro line.
As for the less expensive watches, perhaps they're around not so much to become a new major sales category for Apple, but rather to drive more iPhone sales. Meanwhile, the redesigned MacBook may signify a bigger change for the laptop industry than people realize: "We don’t need all those other ports, Apple says. We are living in a wireless world now, where we can connect most of our peripherals without cords." The new MacBook has also fueled speculation that Apple could be working on a more powerful tablet, something that could compete with Microsoft's Surface Pro line.
In which way is less ports better in a laptop better than more ports? (Other than aesthetics)
> Apple could be working on a more powerful tablet, something that could compete with Microsoft's Surface Pro line.
What, really? Apple is designing a table that is only ever seen on Hawaii Five-0?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Look, my inherent dislike of AAPL (and the people who love it) died some time ago. The problem I have with them now is not the fault of the Company - it's the idiots who keep buying this stuff. Seriously, gold colored iPhones, solid gold tchotckes that are designed to be obsolete within 2 years - madness.
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
"Apple could be working on a more powerful tablet, something that could compete with Microsoft's Surface Pro line.
Perhaps because Microsoft sells tens of millions of tablets every quarter while nobody even knows Apple's tablets exist. Oh wait...
another great comic from .
Conspicuous consumption provides a perverse incentive to make products with outrageous margins on the off chance you can get a thousand rich people to buy them instead of the several hundred thousand poor people you'd have to convince otherwise.
When discussing paying $10,000 for a watch who's brand-name does not end in "olex", invoking Aesop's fables might be a bit presumptive.
Normally, if you are a person who is inclined to blow $10k on a piece of jewellery, you would expect that you "investment" *won't* be obsolete in one year.
To me, if Apple wants to price a watch at $10,000 because it is gold colored while there is an offering with the same exact functionality for a few C-notes, that's just fine. Let people who want to spend that much for a watch help finance Apple's R&D so "the rest of us" can get new and cool things. Same if Apple decided to buy Vertu and make diamond-encrusted iPhone 7s. If people want them, so much the better.
iPhones are not that expensive either relatively. I still remember when one of HTC's phones ran $1200, and that was with a two year contract.
Almost all the people I've met with Macbooks have been musicians, despite the advent of diigital distribution being able to burn a CD or music is still something a lot of them do. Also having enough connectivity for Midi controllers and other peripherals is a must.
I get the Mac Book Air, it's effectively Chrome Book's worth of connectivity for people with more money than sense.
But isn't the Mac Book meant to be a production machine, that what people are always trying to convince me they are, and to be fair audio editing software as good as what comes free with a Macbook does make the price more seem more reasonable for the spec.
It's a symbol, "Apple feeds on me".
I am guessing they're thanking apple for the immense of feel-good dopamine and endorphins released whenever they're using Apple products.
The Air is still a toy compared to my Surface. Great for people that want to pay 5x as much as they need to so they can read Facebook and do some emails looking like a boss who will need to throw it out and buy a new one in 2 years as Apple's forced obsolescence kicks in.
...when they made the memory in the new Mac Minis impossible to upgrade and reduced their performance. The late 2012 quad-core model is still the fastest, best one they ever made.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
If estimates on costs for the materials alone on the Apple Watch Edition are at least near the mark, the 18k gold used costs over $8,000. Plus you add the cost for electronics and the sapphire on top of that, this should mean that a $10,000 Apple Watch Edition has the lowest profit margin of the entire line, well under 20%, while the average profit margin on many Apple products are northwards of 30% - 40%.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
As the geek in the family I don't really see a use case strong enough to want one. My nurse wife has already declared I am buying her one.
What's the point of a Rolex? They're absolutely obsolete, unless you're going for some strange fashion statement involving sporadic announcements of "it's a Rolex". If you are rich, then it'll be impressive as a pair of blue jeans for the rest of us. But, if you want a modern smart watch that you can dress up with, where the Rolex used to go, then you're choices are limited to exactly one. There's an absolute gaping void in the market that they're putting *something* into. What's the problem with that? Why does that involve a "soul"?
It's not 'gold coloured'. It's literally solid gold.
Back in the day Apple was about bringing computers to the masses, and simplifying them to make them accessible.
Selling a $10K watch just proves Apple only cares about profits now.
Apple has become the ultimate iHipster.
$10,000? Surely an onion article.
Personally, I am not into an iWatch or Apple Watch. Not really my thing. I like watches and I own and wear a watch so I am not in the anti-watch club. Perhaps once I see an iWatch and hear some feed back my tune will change and I would consider springing for a sport model which is priced about $200.00 more than a decent CASIO (which I happen to own and find extremely functional and which keeps great time even without the radio sync available in my country.
The bottom line is that a gold watch is going to cost no matter how you slice it and more importantly the price point of the higher end apple watches / iWatch is competing with those high end watches. What I fail to understand is why you would want a watch made out of gold which is very malleable. Maybe Apple are doing something to it to make it stronger? Maybe the people they are selling to like the idea of having more gold on their body or as a statement of affluenceor just sit around and do nothing that would scuff the edges of the watch during day to day wear. Or perhaps they buy a new one each hour of each day to ensure it always looks good.
It just seems like something made of gold which you were day to day is not going to were well. Maybe it is more of a time to time idea? I suspect that Google would not want to make a watch which you only were from time to time. Google would want you to be wearing the watch all the time and sharing your pulse with them to target adverts more effectively.
Well thats the rant. Seems like they are pricing the watches closely with other manufactures of watches to see how it plays out. Be interesting to see if other manufactures drop price points to compete or go higher to differentiate?
Given the millions of other blogged words on this topic in the past 48hours, Slashdot now needs clickbait too?
Thanks Captain Autism. Is you're ability to completely and udderly ignore the point in loo of some miner mispelling or grammer misstake a learned skill, or something you were bourne with?
You must be a real hit at parties.
A solid gold casing would be too soft to be practical.
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
Not sure, I'd never spend 10k for any jewelry. (Even supposing I had the money in the first place.) But at least a Rolex will hold it's value consistently, versus any kind of gadget (minus a few very rare collector type bits.)
I don't know who said this, but I heard one commentator claim that the apple watch was not a smart watch, but a wearable computer. I thought this was apt because when I think of the apple watch as a 'watch' it isn't particularly compelling to me (and this is from someone who still wears a watch, and uses it to tell time). However, when I open up my vision to 'sky is the limit', yet-to-be-invented applications of a wearable computer, I'm more interested to see where this will go. As with the iPhone, the 'included with the first edition' features aren't as interesting as the 'invented by third parties and forced upon a reluctant Apple' (remember, native apps sold through an app store was not in Apple's original vision).
Is the new MacBook for you?
Are you posting on Slashdot?
If yes => NO!!
If no => maybe
About technology? Get real, wsj has been a blunder driven bus for decades. Their coverage of anything related to our world is horrid. The best news is they might well be the anti-news. If the wsj says it, bet against that.
I had always thought that Apple price gouged on most of its products. This is just an example of trying to optimize the Apple tax.
Rolex, Piaget, Cartier, Breitling, Panerai, Hublot, Armand Nicolet, Audemars, Tag Heuer, Zenith, IWC, Jaeger LeCoultre, Ulysse Nardin, Salvatore Ferragamo, Corum, Patek Phillipe, Omega, Blancpain, Gerard Perregaux, and Montblanc all sell watches that cost more than $20,000 according to Amazon -- the most expensive one is over $75,000 -- no that is not a typo.
Clearly, plenty of people spend a LOT of money on high-end watches. However, that does not mean they are a mass-market item: they are status symbols for the rich, and that is where Apple is aiming with this device. And you can be sure that there are more than a few celebrities and other status-conscious people who will buy one just because they're new.
For most people who want a watch, the $350-750 range is where they'll buy. And I expect Apple will probably sell a fair number in that range. What the "ultra-expensive" version is for is the people who have stupid amounts of money to spend and who aren't afraid to spend stupid amounts of money on a status symbol.
The people cunting on about the price are missing the point, because they think EVERYTHING Apple sells is intended to be a "status symbol" of sorts. THIS WATCH is a status symbol. The slightly pricier but much thinner/lighter/etc. laptops they sell? Those are just high-end computers... and the only people who ascribe "status" to a laptop are neckbeards who are most certainly not in Apple's target demographic.
"We donâ(TM)t need all those other ports, Apple says. We are living in a wireless world now, where we can connect most of our peripherals without cords."
That statement alone should give some clue as to how out of touch Apple are with reality.
I'm reminded of that every time I have to haul around an external optical drive for another enlightened Mac user.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I thought those went out of style last century.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The corporations want you to be enclosed in their very pretty but very watched and regulated gardens, so that they can tend to your needs and harvest your wallets at their pleasure. Their garden is on their servers, they want you to only use their tills. Having the masses on un-modifiable thin clients is their wet dream of making sure you stay in their garden for as long as possible.
"you're" "udderly" "loo" "miner" "grammer" "misstake" "bourne" Fuck me, I think I'm about to have an aneurism...
I just want a watch that has a cool face layout; if that means it has customizable TFT or e-ink, so be it.
However, a smartwatch that is tied to the manufacturer's phone devices is crippled by definition. Apple, Samsung, Sony, whoever... I don't want any of their smartwatches.
And we all know that when the next iOS comes out, it won't support these first gen iWatches.
What a visionary innovation for Apple. A wrist watch that talks to your smartphone. It's amazing that no one has thought of it before.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
There's only one reason to buy an expensive watch. They last a long, long time if you take care of it. You can pass it on, it becomes a sentimental heirloom.
I have my grandfather's gold pocket watch. No one uses pocket watches anymore. I have it because it's something he carried around every day.
10k on an Apple watch is ridiculous. What are you going to do? Pass on a non-functional lump of gold to your progeny? At least my grandpa's watch can tell time. Doesn't even need batteries.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Is that what you think is gonna happen with that money?
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's not 'gold coloured'. It's literally solid gold.
No it isn't.
If you don't wear a watch today there is a good reason for that as watches have no real benefit.
If you feel that strapping something onto your wrist then fine. But I won't ever go back to wearing something that truly serves no purpose onto my body.
For me, Swiss watches represent the pinnacle of hand crafted micro engineering. I also own a quartz watch that keeps better time and runs for years on a single battery for a micro-fraction of the cost (and requires no expensive servicing). So what? I find it refreshing to use an entirely mechanical device with amazing latent complexity. It serves a single purpose simply and elegantly yet almost perfectly.
Rolex, Piaget, Cartier, Breitling, Panerai, Hublot, Armand Nicolet, Audemars, Tag Heuer, Zenith, IWC, Jaeger LeCoultre, Ulysse Nardin, Salvatore Ferragamo, Corum, Patek Phillipe, Omega, Blancpain, Gerard Perregaux, and Montblanc all sell watches that cost more than $20,000 according to Amazon -- the most expensive one is over $75,000 -- no that is not a typo.
Oh, they go higher than $75,000. A lot higher. Patek Phillipe in particular.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Because I don't think anyone should own something that expensive. And for some reason that sparks outrage.
You see, I am the arbiter of utility. I decide what other people should and shouldn't buy, and what they should pay for it.
Because I know more than them. I understand their needs and wants better than they do.
If I can't afford something, nobody else should be able to buy it.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
"ratcheting up profit margins on iPhones."
Then foxconn is outfitting their factories with robots and reducing manufacturing costs while maintaining scale and quality.
In the end, more profit for Apple.
Those are for small timers, the really high end starts at $100,000 and the sky is the limit. The idea that an Apple watch would be a status symbol seems completely foolish to me but who knows. Some people will buy what other people think they should and damn the costs. Apple counts on it.
The point of a Rolex is to be beautiful.
The Swiss watch will still perform its function in 10 years time. It will still perform its function in 100 years time.
Can you say that about the Apple Watch?
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
What's the point of a Rolex? They're absolutely obsolete, unless you're going for some strange fashion statement involving sporadic announcements of "it's a Rolex". If you are rich, then it'll be impressive as a pair of blue jeans for the rest of us. But, if you want a modern smart watch that you can dress up with, where the Rolex used to go, then you're choices are limited to exactly one. There's an absolute gaping void in the market that they're putting *something* into. What's the problem with that? Why does that involve a "soul"?
Since the Swiss watch industry abandoned quartz technology they have convinced the world over the last 3 decades that the apex of watch technology is mechanical. Which is bullshit 'cause mechanical watches even those in the several thousand dollar category let alone those that cost tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars are less precise in timekeeping than a thermo-compensated quartz watch (like those made by Seiko or Citizen) and lets' not even go into those watches that synchronize with an atomic watch. People buying Swiss watches are not buying them for the fact they're watches, they buy them because it's a status symbol completely disconnected from its primary function. That's why you hear people talking about mechanical souls, 'cause it's the only "rational" way in which you can friggin' jutsify spending thousands of dollars on a non-gold watch that keeps time in a mediocre fashion and less precise than middle of the road watches from the seventies and eighties. Power of marketing. Apple is not the first with its Reality Distortion Field. The Swiss watching industry got there decades before the Cupertino Corp.
Improvement in watch technology comes from 3 sources : Seiko and Citizen in their high end watches (not the 200-300 dollar variety). They innovate in electronics and mechanics. The only other brand (Swiss) that has innovated is Omega with an new escapement mechanism in over 300 years. That tells you just how retarded the Swiss watch industry really is.
The Apple watch has 3 demerits :
- one it requires a friggin apple smartphone to function.
- mediocre battery life.
- the gold variant is for all intents and purposes a disposable jewelry item. Not the message that Apple should be communicating to the eventual buyers.
Fix the first 2 and you have a contender to the middle range swiss watches. The precision battle is already won, unless the swiss want to go back to XXst century technology instead of 3 century old mechanical gears and swiss escapement mechanisms.
Apple wants a $10K watch for no other reason so people will sit around and talk about a $10K Apple watch. Talking about a $10K Apple watch leads to people talking non $10K Apple watches which relates to talking about Apple.
Profits from the $10K watch are nothing compared to the priceless hype and name recognition they get.
It is obvious that PR and and advertising reps do not hang out on /. other then to do their PR and advertising.
I don't have a Rolex. In fact, I actually had to look to discover that it's a Tissot. It's been on my wrist for getting on for thirty years, and I have no doubt at all that it will go on 'til the end of my life without any problems. If, when I die, one of my heirs decides they want it, it will go on 'til the end of their lives, too. It needs a new battery once every three years or so, and it needs the date reset at the end of every month with fewer than thirty-one days, and, err, that's it. It tells the time. It just works. And I don't have to think about it.
If I amortised it over the time years I've had it already, it's cost me about £15 a year; if I amortise it over the time it's likely to be useful, that drops to about £4 a year. By contrast, a 'smart' watch - any smart watch, I'm not making a dig at Apple - will be obsolete in three years, so that's about £100 for each year you own it, or £2 a week. And I'd have to take it off every night to charge it, or if I forgot it would run out of battery just when I needed it most.
A reasonable quality mechanical watch is a very long way from obsolete; and, despite their price, they are very, very inexpensive to own, because you're only ever going to need one.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
In ten years and in 100 years, Apple Watch will still tell time, exactly like the Rolex, except with much greater accuracy. The other functions, the ones Rolex could never even imagine, are the ones that will be obsolete.
But by ten years or twenty years from now, the Apple Watch will have a ridiculously high collector value when sold to a museum.
"We don’t need all those other ports, Apple says. We are living in a wireless world now, where we can connect most of our peripherals without cords."
Try calling your ISP about your poor Internet speeds with your wireless-only laptop and see how far you get.
Thanks to you too. You've shown the world how you're a special snowflake who doesn't have to learn from their mistakes with humility, but instead strikes out with base sarcasm at any suggestion that you're not entirely perfect.
On a lighter note, would you be so good as to specify the fable in question?
> For me, Swiss watches represent the pinnacle of hand crafted micro engineering. ...you're definitely not the target audience. :P
> It serves a single purpose
Your sporadic announcement, while wearing the watch, would be claims of hand made mechanisms.
In ten years and in 100 years, Apple Watch will still tell time, exactly like the Rolex, except with much greater accuracy.
Assuming it's battery lasts that long.
I'd been waiting for this laptop for a year. All I wanted was a display-port and a USB or two couples to a nice screen in an "Air" type package.
It's got the weight, the battery life, the screen, but no ports..... 1 or 2 more would have been much more practical... baring a better adapter (the current ones suck) the Dell XPS it is!
The watch is a joke.
The Macbook is worse than a joke, and the gold color is just plain stupid.
Tim Cook needs to step down for the welfare of Apple shareholders.
I'm dumping my Apple stock until Cook is gone. In the mean time I am going to go
out and get a good steak and drink some whiskey, and hope Tim Cook gets AIDs.
- W. Buffet
If you need lots of ports, something between the 11" MBA and the 15" MBP will surely fit the requirements.
Dell's XPS seems to be an OK-alternative, but you've got to run either Windows or Linux.
If this is supposed to be your bring-your-own-device laptop that you actually do work on and need to connect to a LAN directly, then it might not be the best thing.
But that's not the fault of the laptop or Apple.
How many people in Starbucks do you see who use a mouse with their laptops?
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
In 10 years time, the Apple Watch will be a non-functioning piece of trash. You will be lucky if an Apple Watch outlasts a Timex. Never mind a Rolex.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
In ten+ years the Rolex will still run as well as when you bought it where the Apple Watch battery will be dead with no replacement part available. If they don't make the software unusable beforehand.
The Fox and the Grapes.
The cost to service a Rolex every 5 years, and yes they need oil, is about the same as the as the price of an Apple Watch.
The value of anything isn't dictated by a formula e.g. (cost to build) + (reasonable margin) + (shipping/sales/etc)
Value, or price, is what someone is prepared to pay for it.
Apple obviously believes, guided by the likes of Angela Ahrendts, that $10k is a good starting price for a limited "edition" watch.
This is Slashdot -"News for nerds" right?
They aren't selling that watch to us, so quit the sniping and moaning.
You could probably make your own 24ct gold watch out of the guts of a $349 entry level for less than an extra $1000.
I'm certain there's foundries firing up right now rubbing heir hands at the prospect of scalping.
As for the laptop.
It's not for us either who are probably more advance IT users than the fashion followers who will love that gold 12" in their handbag or execs wanting the latest desktop bling.
Horses for courses.
I think I was a bit shocked at the optic drive being dropped from the original air but to be fair it was the right move in hindsight.
This is history repeating itself so it shouldn't be as much of a shock.
My only concern with that laptop is the loss of the mag-safe.
Who remembers the broken MB's before mag-safe from folks tripping over them?
We're more or less at the convergence point of laptop & tablet as of yesterday.
Same number of ports and not much in screen size difference.
How fast technology does change...
Why is the need for the apple smartphone a problem? Most people carry their phones with them to most places. You can assume a phone is available except for exercise, shower..
The point of a Rolex is to advertise to the world that you are made of money. Personally I wouldn't want anything on my wrist that is worth more than my hand.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
If Apple had released a gold version of their original, and now iconic iPod, in gold with a price tag of 4 figures or more - how much would it be worth today?
Take a guess at a) still in it's original packaging b) used and worn by someone famous
Remind me. How much did that original Apple I sell for recently?
I don't know about you, but if I had to pay $10,000 to save my hand, I would. Or $40,000 for that matter.
iMacs without a floppy drive.
They were right, then.
They were right about optical drives.
They're right about wired networks. I hate that, but frankly, I have no desire to go cord-humping whenever I want to use a local network on my laptop, phone, 3DS, video streaming device, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
that the wearer is a pretentious douche, then yes.
Is that what you think is gonna happen with that money?
Why wouldn't it? Apple is already sitting on a large surplus.
Not just the cost of service, but the initial cost too.
Buy a $50 Timex, in 5 years time spend $5 on a battery, in another 5 years spend another $5 on a battery... somewhere in there spend $5 on a new strap... still orders of magnitude better than $10k on a watch even if you have to throw it away after 12 years.
In ten years and in 100 years, Apple Watch will still tell time, exactly like the Rolex, except with much greater accuracy.
Assuming it's battery lasts that long.
Apple is likely going to recommend regular service during which the battery will be replaced. Even mechanical watches have to be regularly serviced if you want them to last a long time. Rolex recommends every 5 years for most of their watches .
No it isn't.
Sure it is. It's not just "gold coloured," it's a solid 18 carat (yellow or rose) gold case.
No it's not 24 carat, four nines, or even five nines gold, but 18 carats exceeds the minimum fineness of 8 carat required for a metal to be considered "gold." "Solid" means that it is gold (>8 carats) throughout, not merely plated. Ergo this case is "solid gold."
So unlike Apple? Has everyone forgotten the 20th anniversary Mac? Underpowered at its release, three times the price of a comparable Mac? C'mon people, I'm an unrepentant Apple user and I remember this - Apple making a really expensive version of something they have and selling to the rich is old hat.
What might be interesting with these is the opportunity to use them as trendsetters - Jay-Z wears one for a month, a thousand lesser celebs wear them for the next couple years, then the $500 version hits the streets - with two years of data to improve the user experience and make it more integrated and useful.
You seem to know nothing about work habits except your own. I know absolutely zero people in the workplace that use their Laptop or Desktop to only check email. Sales and Marketing people are in presentations and spreadsheets all day, Technical writers are constantly editing documents and images, coders are pushing and pulling code all day, Managers are pulling and formatting reports, Ops is pulling patches and data while writing scripts, HR is on every resume web site thereis and creating docs all day, everyone has to use some type of social media, chat program, accessing corporate web sites for their daily work.
Sure, everyone is using email "too" but very few people today have a job where they "only need to check email".
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This is ludicrous:
http://www.businessinsider.com/patek-philippe-25-million-wristwatch-2015-3
I can't fathom having $2.6M to blow on a watch. People that rich may as well be aliens.
...but will you even be able to buy a replacement battery for it in 100 years? I doubt you can get a replacement battery for a 20 year old laptop now.
lol! i didn't think it was possible to go so low as to have that one go over your head.
What does it matter? They had watches 100 years ago. Have you ever seen anyone using one? No? Me either. I seriously doubt a Rolex bought today would be used by anyone in 100 years.
You really think no one wants or uses hundred year old Rolex watches?
here's just one example.
"Apple Watch will still tell time, exactly like the Rolex, except with much greater accuracy"
If you're willing to put that up as a bet, I accept it. Let's take your Apple watch, and remove it from online network sync. I bet within a couple weeks it'll be surprisingly far off. Yeah, generic computer devices tend to have shit clocks in them and are almost entirely reliant on external time sources to remain accurate.
Is that what you think is gonna happen with that money?
Why wouldn't it? Apple is already sitting on a large surplus.
Why would it? Apple is already sitting on a large surplus.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Untracable transactions, mostly.
That's right. The money is for buying companies that have innovated, not for funding innovation. And that is an important distinction. The latter creates new stuff. The former takes creators off the playing field.
It's why it's known as a "war chest".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Smart watches have been around for years. Another product for Apple to copy, and then claim to have invented.
Nothing really new, and useful, about the new mac book either.
And we all know that when the next iOS comes out, it won't support these first gen iWatches.
That's ridiculous, since everything Apple has done points to whatever the latest iOS is supporting at least two, probably more Apple Watches....
After all, iTunes can still connect and work with ANY Apple device (including the oldest iPods).
Plus even after iOS moves on a bit, there's no reason to think the AppleWatch will not work as it is with whatever apps are loaded... I know personally I would try to keep the companion app working for as many variants as possible.
People are thinking of the Apple Watch as being more like an iPhone - but why not think of it more like the AppleTV? That has not been updated much in a LONG time. So that means supporting two generations of the Apple Watch could mean supporting a four year old watch...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't see why people are getting in such a lather about this.
The simple fact is the cheapest Apple Watch is every bit as functional as the most expensive one.
If Apple had given greater function to a watch priced unreachably high to most everyone, I'd be right up there complaining. But I see nothing wrong with making limited versions of anything that is far cooler and costs more... geeks do this all the time with stuff like limited edition boxed sets of movies, special Star Wars figures, etc. A really expensive Apple Watch lives in that same realm of reason - it may not be for you, but if it makes someone happy what is the harm?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
the workers are all being paid slave wages
A) Apple pays their workers in China far more than the people who had the misfortune to make whatever you are typing on, so be careful where you throw those stones. You are literally murdering people through the choices you are making. But then you don't actually care about anyone in China; you just hate Apple. Otherwise you'd support companies trying to make things better there.
B) The people making the Edition watches are not making a low salary; read the description, it includes specially trained people to hand-polish the finished body.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That apple proves you wrong again and again. It is why they make money and why you dont.
While you are bussy saying it will never work how bad it is they make another billion and will soon be a wall street trillion.
I know which of you are actually wrong.
In ten years and in 100 years, Apple Watch will still tell time, exactly like the Rolex, except with much greater accuracy.
Actually, that may depend. I haven't looked at the WatchKit APIs yet to see what internal time representation they're using, but it may be susceptible to the Year 2038 Problem
Of course, what everyone seems to be ignoring is that the case is (as are some of the pins in the straps) 18k gold. According to Apple, the large Apple Edition watch has a case that weighs 69g. Now that's probably not all gold (the back is ceramic, the front is glass, the internals are electronic), however at the very least there is roughly $1000 USD of gold in there.
So while it's possible it won't retain its original price, it will probably never become worthless -- at the very least, there is some 30g or so of 18k gold there.
Yaz
For me, Swiss watches represent the pinnacle of hand crafted micro engineering. I also own a quartz watch that keeps better time and runs for years on a single battery for a micro-fraction of the cost (and requires no expensive servicing). So what? I find it refreshing to use an entirely mechanical device with amazing latent complexity. It serves a single purpose simply and elegantly yet almost perfectly.
Same here. I have an Atmos clock, which is entirely mechanical. You're supposed to get it serviced every 30 years (mine has just gone in for its second service, the first in the time I've owned it). The standard models are meant to run for about 400 years, the fancier ones like the du Millenaire are calibrated out to 3000 AD, although I'm not sure whether civilisation will still be around then if something goes wrong.
I'll bet the $10,000 Apple watch will be a piece of expensive inanimate jewellery long before my clock goes in for its third servicing.
Apple made a pretty laptop at the cost of basic efficiency.
Even wireless-N has a top throughout of 300 megabits per second. Although that's *if* you're on a wireless-N router. And even then you may not achieve that for numerous secondary reasons.
USB-3 has a top throughput of 5 GIGABITS per second.
There's no comparison. If you need to regularly transfer (of backup) large quantities of data, wifi is not the optimal choice.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
The new laptop:
They tossed a port they really needed to keep: ethernet. To get (a slower, less capable, CPU-eating version of) it back, you must re-dongle the USB port (and you'd better hope you have some kind of mega-wire-spider so you can feed it power at the same time... and connect your USB stuff... and connect an external HDMI monitor...)
Then they failed to make wireless the thing they really needed to make wireless: charging. And why is this so needful? Because they REMOVED one of the best features of macbooks, the magsafe power cord, so now, instead of your macbook reliably staying on the table when you or your kid or your dog trips over the power cord, it's now considerably more likely to hit the floor instead. Also, of course, wireless charging is awesome, and wired charging is... not.
Apparently, this thing was designed by the same clever folks who made the new Mac Pro into a rats-nest generator, took away the expandable memory option for the mini, and broke both the hosts file LAN functionality. Bravo. Braaaaaavo. They are doing an excellent job of keeping me looking out for earlier model used Mac Pros. It appears that they feel they have enough money.
I agree that Apple has successfully identified something I clearly don't need: the new macbook.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Oh, I think DeathElk got it all right... he's just in pain, as well he should be. Give his some credit, at least until he confirms for you his post was the work of an illiterate, rather than obviously the opposite.
No watt eye mien? Aye mite halve two right moor, THAN wear wood yew bee?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Um. Apple is likely to obsolete that watch as soon as they possibly can, as well as completely drop support for it, and stop manufacturing / providing the custom battery inside, similar to what they have done for every other bit of hardware and software (except iTunes) they've manufactured that's older than my next-to-last tax return plus one or two.
But they will be right there offering you a new watch, much better than the "old" one. Cool, eh?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There are plenty who can afford $10K and that investment may be considered a contribution to Apple research. It will be invested as wisely as Apple is able, to help understand the next step in the evolution of intelligent assistance to a wide variety of user needs: the disabled, the economically disadvantaged, and others who count on Apple to provide the services they need for day-to-day living.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if others were investing in such research?
...omphaloskepsis often...
Because I don't have an iPhone?
If Swiss watch makes don't go "smart", they will die out like CRT television. Apple and others will still be in business, because people will upgrade their watches every year to a new model.
No one will use it for 10 years. Next year they get the iWatch 2. It is a non-existing problem you are talking about.
Not really. It does not work unless you have an iPhone. The iPhone is the real computer.
It does work without an iPhone, there are a number of built in apps that work OK without a phone present. It is limited, and third party apps will not work without a phone - but Apple has already said that will change, probably this year.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
the screen would have to be replaced every 2 years minimum to start with, after the first 4 years (unless you buy the 10k version) it's going to be cheaper to upgrade than repair
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
I worked as a network admin inside a Jewellery store last year. I can tell you the iWatch is going to fail as a jewellery piece. Jewellery is about exclusivity, crazy engineering, and status. The iWatch fails too many of these points to matter. Another problem is it's a square faced watch. It falls under the traditional Women's timepiece category. They might sell a few, but it's not going to be the giant smash they are assuming it's going to be. Most jewellery store staff I showed it to thought the moto 360 looked much more like a men's watch. However even then they thought that their core client base would choose the traditional watches over the electronic ones. At the end of the day, Apple just isn't trying to compete with a hand cut $20,000 Grand Seiko watch. They are going to be laser cutting these things on a fabrication line. Works great for cheap electronics, not so much for exclusive high end luxury items.
I think the GP's point was that if a watch is really expensive then a thief will not stop at cutting off your hand to get it.
Haha! Yeh, let me just leave my $10,000 watch at the counter of a mall store with a relatively anonymous, low paid young adult wearing a uniform for that service by some kid in the backroom sometime next week.
Maybe it's better to use insured shipping with tracking to Apple instead.
A Rolex isn't really a watch... it is jewelry... or a collectible if you prefer... they hold value over time, unlike most watches which are just time pieces...
A nice $20,000 Rolex in 18k gold has nothing to do with telling time and it will still be sought after in 100 years...
The standard $350 Apple watch won't.
But by ten years or twenty years from now, the Apple Watch will have a ridiculously high collector value when sold to a museum.
Not sure why you'd think that, what has Apple made... ever, that is valuable? Perhaps one of the original Apple 1 boards... but that's about it...
Everything else they have made has been in such qty that it is cheap and common.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-...
Apple IIc for less than $200 in working condition...
The Timex isn't a fashion statement or jewelry... it is a time piece... nothing more or less...
And that is fine, but don't kid yourself... $10K buys you a real 18k gold watch that will have real value due to that gold...
People buying Swiss watches are not buying them for the fact they're watches, they buy them because it's a status symbol completely disconnected from its primary function.
^ This...
A $20K Rolex on your wrist says, "I have more money than you do".
Nothing more or less...
Let me guess - you have no experience in maintaining old watches do you ? If you leave it in a box untouched for 100 years, maybe it will work alright - otherwise at the very very minimum you will need to have it oiled. If you can't do it yourself, be prepared for an expensive trip to the 1 guy that still does it in 100 years.
Stuff break in watch, big brand like Patek, IWC, ... will always put your watch back in working order, as they are mechanical product. They have even been known to do it on the cheap from time to time.
The real competition (in features, that is, not price) for an Apple tablet would be the Panasonic Toughpad 4k, a monster 20-inch tablet with 3840x2560 resolution (that is, 4:3 aspect ratio). It's a beautiful piece of kit but hugely expensive. Apple could put the same panel in a 20 inch "iPad Pro" or "MacPad" and if priced more keenly it could sell well among those doing graphics work who want something more portable than a desktop.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
> When discussing paying $10,000 for a watch who's brand-name does not end in "olex",
Rolex is about marketing for a significant part. Their exceptionality is mostly about hypnotising customers with such a message. On the tech side, it is easy to find worthy or superior competitors:
Giraud-Perregaux (about the only ore-to-watch full manufacture work style swiss shop still in existance)
Vacheron Constantin (wristwatch brand of princes and royals)
Patek Philippe (about 5x the history and prestiege of Rolex)
Hublot (very new brand, but insanely high prices)
Omega co-axial escapement (about the only real invention in mechanical wrist-watch technology in the past ~120 years)
Blancpain (brand history was interrupted in the 1970s and revived later, otherwise would beat Rolex hands down)
Panerai (italo-swiss brand, possibly worthy of mention, but maybe not full 10k USD class)
Honorable mention in the ~5000 USD class:
IWC Schaffhausen (exceptional workmanship and unrivalled reliability, with significant american involvement in its history, but uses largely ETA based mechanisms nowadays)
> In ten years and in 100 years, Apple Watch will still tell time, exactly like the Rolex, except with much greater accuracy.
There is no way a printed circuit board can survive 100 years. It is a glass-fiber-resin laminate and delaminates naturally, especially in presence of moisture. If the screen is of OLED technology, well, the letter O in it stands for organic and such materials are not forever (not even diamonds are).
On the Canadian Apple website, it looks like the top tier gold Apple watch actually costs $13,000-$22,000 depending on the model. Just sayin', since I keep hearing the $10,000 figure tossed out.
I could afford the most expensive model, but over £10k for something that could be obsolete in a year in a total waste of money. I like Omegas, Rolex's etc and I believe they’re worth it cause I would expect my Omega Seamaster to last me a life-time...not to expect to replace it in a year with a newer model. I've been going off Apple stuff for a while now. Apart from their phones, and a lesser extent, their tablets, their hardware has been declining in quality for years. Shame really but it does feel Apple is turning into Vertu.
IMHO, Apple got great because they went to the UNIX-y core with OSX and Darwin. They started to fall from grace almost immediately when they closed off the core. My wife's Apples used to work great connecting to network shares with Samba, until they gibbled that with their proprietary version. It was easy enough to fix at the time by switching to NFS, but have you tried to use NFS in a recent version of OSX? It's like gone.
What kind of a UNIX sucks at networking?
Apple doesn't care if anyone buys their $10k smartwatch. They've made a few of them, for the purposes of it being a real thing, and if some idiot buys them great.
The reason the $10k Apple Watch exists is to make the rest of us think we're buying the cheap version of the premium product. It's to position our minds into thinking we're wearing something that's already a high-class brand.
You're kidding, right? You think Rolex is the only expensive luxury watch?
I haven't looked at the WatchKit APIs yet to see what internal time representation they're using,
NSDate represents time as a double-precision floating point value with the epoch set at the beginning of January 1, 2001, GMT.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Because very few people will buy the gold edition, it will occupy the same collector market as some of the other early Apples.
You do realize that Rolex watches are only certified to be within -4/+6 seconds per day, right? (COSC chronometer certification)
Even cheap Quartz watches have significantly greater accuracy than that.
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.
Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Even more anemic specs and what essentially amounts to a hefty price hike! OTOH I guess that Google is selling some Pixels which amounts to about the same thing... but me, I think that I'll stick with Sager and the like where I have choices of components and configurations that meet realworld needs...
I guess that Timmy didn't get the memo that the reality distortion field died with St. Stevey...
Because very few people will buy the gold edition, it will occupy the same collector market as some of the other early Apples.
Very few people bought a Microsoft Surface RT, but I highly doubt that makes the tablet a collectors item. Very few commercially made, mass produced items hold value the way you're assuming this watch will.
Maybe if they made it a limited edition, bit that doesn't really fit Apple's MO...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
...but will you even be able to buy a replacement battery for it in 100 years? I doubt you can get a replacement battery for a 20 year old laptop now.
Actually, you can.
And by 100 years, you'll be able to retrofit a cold fusion battery replacement into that laptop or Apple Watch.
In 10 years time, the Apple Watch will be a non-functioning piece of trash. You will be lucky if an Apple Watch outlasts a Timex. Never mind a Rolex.
If I purchase the $349 model, you'd likely be right. But if I have purchased the $10k model (and assuming that $10k means more to me than $349 to most), you can bet that it would be serviced at regular intervals, and would still be functional for as long as I wanted it to be.
I've got a 10 year old seiko kinetic that I love. It's a subdued color, being made of titanium, and relatively light weight. It runs on a capacitor that is recharged by an internal pendulum or something. I've heard the capacitor will need replacing eventually but so far it's just fine. The only problem I've had with it was that part of the watchband broke just out of warranty because it was made of titanium when steel should have been used. I had that single part replaced for $20 with a stainless part. Like your Tissot I expect I'll get a life times use out of my Seiko and possibly so will one of my progeny.
Smart watches don't appeal to me at all. I can't be bothered to carry a cell phone, and I really don't want to wear an oversized watch as an accessory for a cell phone. If/when they ever get around to making truly useful and rugged wearable computers I might consider wearing it like a bracer or watch, but most of what I've seen thus far isn't worth the expense and trouble.
The Timex isn't a fashion statement or jewelry... it is a time piece... nothing more or less...
Ah, well, in THAT case you want one of those $5 el-cheapo Casio watches. They seem to be very much a fashion statement over here in hipsterville. And I'm talking about proper hipsters: the one with little pidgeon legs and lord-of-the-rings beards, shoes without sockes, thick rimmed glasses and of course el-cheapo Casio watches.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"Apple Watch will still tell time, exactly like the Rolex, except with much greater accuracy"
If you're willing to put that up as a bet, I accept it. Let's take your Apple watch, and remove it from online network sync. I bet within a couple weeks it'll be surprisingly far off. Yeah, generic computer devices tend to have shit clocks in them and are almost entirely reliant on external time sources to remain accurate.
There are a lot more ways that a purely electronic timepiece can keep impressive accuracy over long periods of time. For example, in most developed countries, there is enough examples of power-line frequency to be picked-up everywhere, all the time, and those frequencies are adjusted continuously, precisely so that line-powered clocks will keep time, to have to rely on network time-servers (once set). It would be trivial for the Apple Watch to be able to "tune-in" to those frequencies (almost always either 50.0 or 60.0 Hz) to help with this.
It strikes me that Apple is continuously trying to find the balance between minimalism and functionality.
What's unfortunate is that they generally err on the side of minimalism. This would be fine (great even!) if they restricted that philosophy to products intended to be small like the iPad and MacBook Air, but it becomes a problem for the user when they start applying it to their Pro product lines and even their mainline models.
Some can learn to live with a hardwired battery and hard drive, even though it goes against most techies' core philosophies. But when you start taking out ports, it gets really fucking annoying if you don't have the requisite dongle RIGHT NOW when you need a connection to work.
And what is the ultimate limit to this philosophy? Sure, you can make the laptop a lot smaller and prettier if you take out the physical keyboard, and the hard drive, and the RAM, and the keyboard. But, at some point, the laptops become so small they they are actually annoying for average-sized people to use for real work. Also, it doesn't look as pretty or feel as convenient in use when there are 50 cables, port extenders, and dongles attached to it just to restore the device to some level of base functionality.
Jobs always had a hard time with that point as he got older. It's unfortunate that Cook seems to have inherited it as well.
Why is the need for the apple smartphone a problem? Most people carry their phones with them to most places. You can assume a phone is available except for exercise, shower..
And people seem to be completely (or is that conveniently?) forgetting that the Apple Watch has WiFi as well as Bluetooth; so it isn't like you have to have your iPhone in your pocket to be able to use the Apple Watch. If you have a WiFi Router at home and both devices can reach it, then you can use your Apple Watch's non-timekeeping functions. And if you are out-and-about, you probably DO have your phone somewhere within Bluetooth range; so...
Plus, I wouldn't put it past Apple to make it so the Watch and Phone could "pair" over WiFi even without being immersed in a common WiFi network, by automagically creating an Ad-hoc network between them.
If all you want is a device on your wrist that tells the time then you have the perfect device. This one does more. Either you want that or you don't. Lots of people say they dont but I think that is the standard anti apple knee jerk reaction. The pebble got a ton of support with less features and integration. People said the same thing about the iPhone and the iPod.
Maybe folks will prefer a different smart watch but that doesn't make this any less relevant.
It may not be a thing you want right now but comparing it to your device is as silly as saying nobody in the world needs a car because they have a reliable cheep bike. The bike will last longer. Costs a fraction of the price and never needs fuel!
For what it's worth I get where you are coming from. I like regular watches. But writing this off could prove to be pretty silly in the long run.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Not, mind you, anywhere near $10k. I've seen estimates of about $2k in gold value?
"The prices grate, not because they're so expensive, but because they're gratuitously expensive."
Newsflash: they always have been. Ever since Woz got sidelined and Steve Jobs took over the company, Apple has basically been in the business of marketing overpriced and underpowered products at people with more money than sense. At least these days they're not underpowered, with is an improvement. And I'd argue that being more upfront about their business model is also a good thing. Apple hasn't lost its soul, it's just lost some of its hypocrisy. Maybe some people don't like that because it makes it harder for them to lie to themselves.
Everything is trivial to those who have no done so.
Less ports b/c use everything wirelessly? Wireless technologies are fine at home... terrible in the office. More terrible in remote offices. We are a windows shop, but I would allow a Mac here or there as a pet device for people who think they can support it on their own. So far, iphones and ipads are all that has worked well enough. Seems like that will contiue.
If you aren't an iPhone user than you probably shouldn't be an Apple Watch customer. Pick an Android oriented device.
Good point. That's a simple web-service. If that isn't happening now, it will likely be happening soon.
Everything is trivial to those who have no done so.
True enough.
But, as an Embedded Developer with nearly 40 years' paid experience, I believe I have a relatively good handle on the complexity of that task; so let's just substitute "relatively straightforward" for "trivial".
I have seen at least one design for a AC power inverter (think "off-the-grid" solar energy) that was supposedly able to take its frequency-cues from snatching a "whiff" of 50/60Hz powerline frequency in the air, even in the relative boonies. I don't know how well it worked; but that's what it purported to do.
That's a low-enough frequency that the electronics in the watch (or your phone, monitor, computer, TV, etc) isn't likely to interfere, and there are multiple ways (well, at least 2) to detect that frequency (RF and Ambient-Light-Sensor). Amplify, Filter and time the zero-crossings to determine 50/60 Hz, and drive a Phase-Locked-Loop, and there you go!
Now what?
This is not the market you were looking for. It is clear no one here is going to spend $399 -- $10,000 on a smart watch. There are plenty of people who will... just to make a statement. In this day and age of smart phones that do more than a Cray XMP-48 could on its best day... including being a convenient pocket-watch, the wrist-watch is obsolete. Apple re-invents the watch. I won't buy one. I think it will be a hit in the market of glam.
If you want value from gold, then buy pure gold. Don't tie it up in a time piece.
Actually, I haven't been to any parties since I was 14, but I wouldn't hit on anyone anyway.