Welcome to MacTalk Australia

the largest Australian community for Apple discussions and topics

Join the discussions, Register Now!
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 73
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    283

    Default

    not overly impressed with Apples decision to make Space Black exclusively available with a link bracelet

    A 42mm space black with the blue modern buckle leather strap would be my ideal watch, unfortunately the modern buckle isn't available in 42mm, not sure why? And space black is link only

    The basic ECCA leather buckle is made in Thailand, not really my idea of quality

    At this stage, I'm so drawn and almost every hour changing my mind between the metal loop bracelet, modern buckle leather and that's before I fret over 38 vs 42mm

    It's going to be a long wait until April 10
    James from Perth W.A (Wait Awhile)

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    371

    Default

    I think the Space Black decision is to try and make the Space Black Apple Watch a more exclusive item (similar to when they had the black Macbook).

    The modern buckle leather strap is also only available on the 38mm watch as it is a clasp designed for woman. Most woman will not have wrist sizes where they would use a 42mm watch, so it was probably safer just to offer it on the 38mm.

    I would think that most men would opt for the 42mm watch size. From the various review sites I have read, the 38mm is too small for most men. Check out the Apple Watch sizing guide. I found it quite useful http://store.apple.com/Catalog/regio...zing_Guide.pdf
    iPhone 6 128GB Space Grey, iPad Air 2 -128GB Space Grey, 11" Macbook Air, 27" Core i5 iMac, Mac Mini, Airport Extreme

  3. #23

    Default

    Apple prices their products way too high for the average person. And this watch...a joke to spend $600 or more to get to have the same thing as your iPhone. I'm so used to not being burdened by a watch I wouldn't consider it even if I could.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mtmember View Post
    Apple prices their products way too high for the average person. And this watch...a joke to spend $600 or more to get to have the same thing as your iPhone. I'm so used to not being burdened by a watch I wouldn't consider it even if I could.
    If you think $600 for a good watch is too high a price, then it shows that you don't own a watch.

    I just purchased a watch for my wife and it was $3500 and it's not what I would call a fancy watch, but an wear everyday watch. Her dress watch was considerably more expensive.
    iPhone 6 128GB Space Grey, iPad Air 2 -128GB Space Grey, 11" Macbook Air, 27" Core i5 iMac, Mac Mini, Airport Extreme

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by changa View Post
    If you think $600 for a good watch is too high a price, then it shows that you don't own a watch.

    I just purchased a watch for my wife and it was $3500 and it's not what I would call a fancy watch, but an wear everyday watch. Her dress watch was considerably more expensive.
    I own several watches, the most expensive was around $550 15yrs ago. I was ok with that as it's a lifetime type watch. I have a problem with a $600 watch that will last only a few years and become obsolete when next years model comes out. I have friends with much more expensive watches and have found that they tend to have had a lot more expensive repairs (Tag huers seem notorious) and I've had no issue with mine. I have an everyday watch that was about $200 10 yrs ago, I wouldn't consider anything much more than that an everyday watch, as by definition it has to survive daily use and not be something I'd fret about losing or getting broken. A $3500 watch I would never want to wear for that.
    Successful trade with: Clockwork.....(and what a trade!)

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woofy View Post
    I own several watches, the most expensive was around $550 15yrs ago. I was ok with that as it's a lifetime type watch. I have a problem with a $600 watch that will last only a few years and become obsolete when next years model comes out. I have friends with much more expensive watches and have found that they tend to have had a lot more expensive repairs (Tag huers seem notorious) and I've had no issue with mine. I have an everyday watch that was about $200 10 yrs ago, I wouldn't consider anything much more than that an everyday watch, as by definition it has to survive daily use and not be something I'd fret about losing or getting broken. A $3500 watch I would never want to wear for that.
    What price people are prepared to pay for a watch (or any device) and what value they get from it is always going to be subjective. There are people who are prepared to pay over a hundred thousand dollars for a car (which I don't quite understand) when a cheaper car will do essentially the same thing.

    Also the comment on obsolescence is subjective too. Just because Apple comes out with a new device does not mean that is is obsolete. It may not be the newest Apple Watch around when version 2 comes out, but it will still do the things it did the day before the newer Apple Watch was released. I assume you don't consider your car to be obsolete when a newer model is released do you?

    I also own a few watches (but really only wear one). My daily watch cost $3000 20 years ago (It's a Tag Heuer). It's a great watch, well made and robust has taken lots of hits and bashes and has worked flawlessly in that time. A cheaper watch might not have survived.

    My dress watch which I only wear on special occasions cost over $10,000 when I got it over 15 years ago. I personally consider the price of a normal watch to be around the $2-3K mark so the Apple Watch a bit below that range. Granted the Apple Watch is a hybrid of watch / jewellery / technology, so a discount might be warranted.

    So if you work out the cost of ownership of watches. My daily watch cost me about $150 a year (not adjusting for inflation and the fact that $3K was a lot more valuable 20 years ago). The Apple Watch (assuming 3 years useful life) is $200 per year. Not that much of a difference really.
    iPhone 6 128GB Space Grey, iPad Air 2 -128GB Space Grey, 11" Macbook Air, 27" Core i5 iMac, Mac Mini, Airport Extreme

  7. #27

    Default

    I'm a sad bastard...collecting watches is one of my hobbies, and has been for some time. I currently have a collection of 18, but that changes fairly frequently 😉 I have a number of quite rare and valuable pieces.

    Very few watches retain, let alone increase, their value. Those that do usually have intrinsic, tangible value due to their construction and decoration, a unique or limited edition mechanism, or some other unique factor ("worn by Neil Armstrong during the Apollo 11 mission"). Scarcity is a big factor; some are really just jewelry and valued according to composition, design and artistry.

    There is an intangible factor, "brand value", which Apple seems to be staking a lot on with the expensive Apple Edition models. I will look forward to seeing how that works out -- I'm very skeptical. IIRC, no quartz or electronic watch has become a real collectable unless it has been worn or owned by someone special; I can't see Apple changing this. As others have said, it will be obsolete in 3 months, and won't work with the iPhone 9 other than as a watch!

    That said, I'll buy an Apple Sport model because of the way it works with my IP6 -- it's function, not form -- and that's still overpriced (Apple tax!). I don't think the "form" of the $24k 38mm Edition (inc strap &buckle) changes this, unless Apple declares only 5 will be made, these are numbered and certified, and Apple destroys the means by which that particular was made. That's not happening, so I can only conclude, notwithstanding all the blurb about Jonny Ive, Marc Newson, Burberry and LMVH marketing people, Tim Cook has taken a leaf out of the PT Barnum playbook, viz, "There's a sucker born every minute," and "Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American public".

    I'd rather spend $24k on Apple shares!

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    5,616

    Default

    If I had $24k I can think of an awful lot of things other than an Apple Watch to spend it on. But, I'm not a millionaire. Thats the market for this one. I won't even be getting the base model. A day's battery life? They have to be kidding. That is just woeful.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,410

    Default

    I would have much preferred Apple build a TV than a watch TBH... Its a lot of money to spend on something that is essentially become obsolete. The battery will eventually reduce in capacity, the S1 will be outdated, it won't be able to connect blah blah - just like what happens to old iPhones and iPads. As soon as you have an ecosystem on the internet that relies on apps and whatever, its going to become obsolete.

    Maybe I need to use one for a week then report back. I did read and interview in the smh that struck me... the watch is going to turn us into people who are just more attached to technology and not part of the real world. I'm bad enough with checking my Phone/iPad/Mac all the time - god knows what I'd be like with a watch ... basically I'd be switched on and connected ALL the time.
    Plus, IIci, IIsi, LC, LCII, LC III, CC, LC475, LC630, Centris650, 6100, 8100, 5260, 7220, 7600. PB: 100, 150, 160, 165, 540, 190, 5300, 1400. Lombard, iMacG3, iBookG3, iBookG4, PBG4, eMac, iMac G4, PMG4, MiniG4, iMacG5

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    5,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldmacs View Post
    ... basically I'd be switched on and connected ALL the time.
    And this is part of why I won't get one. I have my phone nearby 24/7, I sure as hell don't need to have it on my wrist.

    Changa: Not everyone can afford to spend that much money on watches. You're really fortunate that you have that kind of freedom. The bulk of the population doesn't. It doesn't mean we don't own watches, but the ones we buy will do the job, and not become obsolete when Apple changes the game. I still have a 30 year old Seiko which works just fine, having cost me "only" $150 at the time. I doubt that in 30 years, people who buy the Apple watch next month will still be using them.

  11. #31

    Default

    I think that is what I'm getting at, unlike most watches people buy the Applewatch will be obsolete as it runs on software that will stop being supported pretty quickly. If someone plans to keep changing (which I suspect is what Apple are planning) then you stay ahead, but when you are looking at $500 I would be expecting a metal bracelet at least.

    The reliance on the iPhone for the watch also adds to faster obsolesence, as an owner of the original iPad, they don't still do everything they used to, once support has stopped bugs start creeping into the older apps the developers are no longer interested in fixing. I wouldn't notice it if I had just kept using my newer iPad, but that happened very quickly. Just the short battery life alone will sounds the death knell quickly for this. More classic watches pretty much keep going forever and don't hinge their working life on another device to start with.
    Successful trade with: Clockwork.....(and what a trade!)

  12. #32

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    371

    Default

    I understand what people are saying, but the I think the thing which people are missing is the Apple Watch (even though it is called a watch) is actually more than a watch.

    Yes it will tell the time just as well as a Seiko, Casio or Tag Heuer watch, but it also does other things as well. It is your fitness monitor, it will allow you to read your emails, sms, remind you of things, give you directions, play music etc etc. These are things which my current watch can't do. The Apple Watch is a great piece of technology. That has value and commands a price. With the Apple Watch I can ditch my Fitbit, I can also get rid of my daily ritual of checking my heart rate every morning and night. I am sure there will be other things which the Apple Watch will do for me as well.

    The Apple Watch is also a piece of jewellery. Good jewellery also costs money. In my opinion, the Apple Watch and the various watch bands look great. The watch does not look like a swatch or a casio calculator watch. It looks like an expensive watch. As a rule, jewellery which looks better commands a higher price.

    I think you need to consider all of these things (and more) when you look at the price of the watch and when you value what the watch is worth. You can't just compare it to an regular watch as it is not a regular watch.

    Having said all of that, I would love it if the Apple Watch was cheaper. I think it would have been great if Apple priced the watch really low and used it as a gateway to get people to buy iPhones or upgrade their current iPhone. But I think the Watch is reasonably priced.

    There are lots of things I don't like about the Apple Watch too. I don't like the fact that you will have to charge it everyday. I don't like the fact that it is not waterproof (only water resistant). I would also prefer if they had a way to have the watch face always on (without killing battery life) as I often take my watch off during the day and set it on my desk and just glance at it to tell the time. I am sure that once i get my hands on one or read reviews, here will be other things I don't like about it. That's why I am still torn about wether the Apple Watch will replace my current watch as my main watch or just be a second watch for me.
    Last edited by changa; 12th March 2015 at 11:12 AM.
    iPhone 6 128GB Space Grey, iPad Air 2 -128GB Space Grey, 11" Macbook Air, 27" Core i5 iMac, Mac Mini, Airport Extreme

  13. #33

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    5,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by changa View Post
    ...
    Having said all of that, I would love it if the Apple Watch was cheaper. I think it would have been great if Apple priced the watch really low and used it as a gateway to get people to buy iPhones or upgrade their current iPhone. But I think the Watch is reasonably priced.
    Here's the thing... If you buy into Apple watch, you are adding a new part of the Apple ecosystem to your ongoing costs. I dont mind doing that with a camera, but for a watch? No. I dont care how much it seems to be able to do... It is simply not worth the expense, to me. I can't afford it anyway, but even if I could, I just wouldnt. I can't imagine anything more infuriating than being forced to upgrade frequently. Apple builds obsolescence into all their products, it seems to me, these days. Oh, I know things dont stop working just because a new one comes along... but... actually... many do. for example, I wanted to stay on the Mavericks OS. I was singularly unimpressed with how Yosemite was behaving in its first and second release... but software I did want to use and which was being updated in a way I wanted access to... meant I had to update. The same thing applied to iOS between 7 and 8. Now, all of that is OK for now, but it seems to me that updates come faster and things become obsolete faster than they used to. Its annoying. and to spend money on a watch which wont even work without a phone which probably costs the same... I just find it absolutely awful. But, like I said... you're lucky you can just decide to do that. I have a friend who is just now working out which he will have... he has a huge income too... but for Joe average... its just not even remotely justifiable. Not a bit.

    Oh, also I'm happy to keep my fitbit. It tracks my sleep. Apple Watch does not. Nor is it ever likely to be a viable option, given the shitty battery life.

  14. #34

    Default

    I think what people are missing with the $24K Watch Edition is that it would be almost exclusively aimed at celebrities, high profile businesspeople, entrepreneurs, and the like (don't forget the extreme wealth had by many in the Middle East).

    Now, to elaborate, think of Kim Kardashian - who probably has hundreds of millions of followers worldwide. Imagine seeing her selfie, with her Apple Watch Edition in Rose Gold with a Rose Grey Modern Buckle? Then all of her followers would say "Oh, I want an Apple Watch, too!". They would then, most likely, want either the Sport, or regular Watch. Maybe even a third-party Rose Grey-style leather band, seeing as the Apple one is either not compatible, or costs more than the Watch itself?

    The point is, the Edition is an object of desire and exclusivity: you see someone driving a $200,000 Mercedes Benz, but you can only afford the $40,000 entry-level model. Good enough, as it has the same badge, and is designed and engineered by the same company.
    MacBook Pro Retina 13" (Mid-2014) iPhone 6 iPad mini 2

    leafnight.wordpress.com | Twitter

  15. #35

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Castlemaine area.
    Posts
    3,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lawrencium View Post
    The point is, the Edition is an object of desire and exclusivity: you see someone driving a $200,000 Mercedes Benz, but you can only afford the $40,000 entry-level model.
    The argument has been made (with some effect too) that producing the 1 series BMW and the A Class Mercedes-Benz has actually cheapened those brands.

    The same effect is likely to hurt the Apple Watch edition and leave it looking rather like an example of sartorial gaucherie. None of that means that they won't sell but I can see them selling to the same sort of people who buy diamond encrusted iPhones rather than the sorts of people who buy Rolex watches.
    iPad Mini 4 128Gb 4G | iPhone 6 64GB | MacBook Pro 13" i5 2.4GHz Retina | Mac Mini i5 | Apple TV 3 |

  16. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff3DMN View Post
    None of that means that they won't sell but I can see them selling to the same sort of people who buy diamond encrusted iPhones rather than the sorts of people who buy Rolex watches.
    And there it is; if there's a market for it (and said market is highly valuable), why not take advantage of it?

    I mean, as far as I am aware, there isn't really a market for diamond-encrusted laxative pills. 18-karat gold watches and Rolls-Royces, on the other hand...
    MacBook Pro Retina 13" (Mid-2014) iPhone 6 iPad mini 2

    leafnight.wordpress.com | Twitter

  17. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lawrencium View Post
    I think what people are missing with the $24K Watch Edition is that it would be almost exclusively aimed at celebrities, high profile businesspeople, entrepreneurs, and the like...(snip)...
    Now, to elaborate, think of Kim Kardashian - who probably has hundreds of millions of followers worldwide. Imagine seeing her selfie, with her Apple Watch Edition in Rose Gold with a Rose Grey Modern Buckle?...(snip)...
    The point is, the Edition is an object of desire and exclusivity: you see someone driving a $200,000 Mercedes Benz, but you can only afford the $40,000 entry-level model. Good enough, as it has the same badge, and is designed and engineered by the same company.
    There are a couple of marketing models embodied in what you're suggesting here. No question, the rose gold edition and matching strap is targeted at those with enough money to pay for them. The question is, will they?

    The "sleb" endorsement model is a well-trodden path. I'm not sure how much it would cost to shift the likes of Roger Federer, Maria Sharapova, Lewis Hamilton, various of the top ten supermodels...and even any of the KKKArdashians from their current brands. But my bet is A LOT! And I'm sure Swatch Group, who has mastered this strategy for the past few decades has them locked in to pretty tight contracts. No doubt Apple has the money if needs must....

    The "halo model", as adopted by the luxury car makers among others, is equally well-known. The thing is there needs to be obvious and significant differentiation between the "halo" model, and the rest of the maker's product line-up in terms of functions, features and exclusivity. I may be missing something, but the Apple Edition has the same functions and features as the Apple Watch and Apple Sport bar an 18c case/buckle, and nowhere have I seen Apple say they'll only make 10-50-100 of the Gold Editions, so that they have scarcity value. Finally, there is the obsolescence issue, which isn't a factor for the luxury mechanical watch brands.

    It all makes me scratch my head, and conclude -- based on Apple's recruitment of folk from the likes of Burberry and LVMH and the demographic recently seen at store line-ups -- that the RG Apple Edition watches are aimed fairly and squarely at the new generation of "brand victims" -- the newly rich of mainland China! I have no problem with that, but it looks like a "cash in" strategy, rather than one that creates persistent, tangible brand value.
    Last edited by TimboC; 12th March 2015 at 04:02 PM.

  18. #38

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Castlemaine area.
    Posts
    3,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lawrencium View Post
    18-karat gold watches and Rolls-Royces, on the other hand...
    Diamond encrusted iPhones and $20000 iWatches invoke mental images of yellow Bentley Coupes driven by drunk sports stars rather than Rolls Royces
    iPad Mini 4 128Gb 4G | iPhone 6 64GB | MacBook Pro 13" i5 2.4GHz Retina | Mac Mini i5 | Apple TV 3 |

  19. #39

    Default

    Another Pebble user here. For those debating about 'going back' to wearing a watch, it's the notifications that make it worth the while...but I think the Apple Watch is too expensive and the battery life and waterproof rating are too low. That's why I've backed the Pebble Time on Kickstarter.

    Love my Apple products but they've missed the boat on this one.

  20. #40

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Adelaide SA
    Posts
    1,066

    Default

    I've been looking forward to getting the apple watch purely for the fitness tracking abilities. I've worn a watch all my life so it won't be a big leap to wear this. Photos, Facebook and Twitter notifications don't interest me at all. Daily charging doesn't concern me too much either. I remove my current watch every night before bed and place it on my desk, so placing an apple watch on a charger won't be much different.

    Im planning on getting the black aluminum with black rubber strap. Not sure of size yet. I think the 42mm will be too big for me. I'll wait for cheaper third party straps to come out if I want a metal strap. Gosh $649 for the steel strap is ludicrous even for Apple.
    iMac 24" 2.8 GHz (2008), Macbook Air (1st Gen), iPhone 3g, iPod Shuffle 2g (Product Red), Apple TV, Airport Express (N).

    Successful Trades : grfxninja, Boddiz, Phaze, iMarty, f1_Power, Jimdrum, Clockwork, iSlayer, Brentnal, Atomic, Danno74,
    Darbgod, Loc04t, Swoffam & Itsanobscured

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •