Although many people expected that Apple’s Spring Forward event would mostly focus on the Apple Watch, more than half of the event — notably, the first part — covered other topics. Collectively, there were so many interesting developments that their individual significance was somewhat lost, particularly given that long-awaited Watch pricing news wrapped up the event.
That’s why I wanted to reconsider what Spring Forward revealed about some of Apple’s non-Watch products. Some of the announcements signal that big changes are ahead for Apple’s Mac, iPad, and Apple TV product lines, as well as Apple itself. Read on for my thoughts, and add yours to the comments section below…
Mac: Is Apple’s 12″ MacBook The MacBook Air’s Last Gasp?
Apple first pitched a super-slim, lower-powered laptop back in 2008 when it debuted the original MacBook Air, which eventually replaced the MacBook. Seven years later, it’s making the exact same pitch with the 12″ MacBook relative to the current MacBook Air: pay more and give up some processing power and ports for an impossibly smaller machine. 9to5Mac’s Ben Lovejoy described the 12″ MacBook as a laptop for people with “very undemanding needs” who “want the sleekest possible form-factor,” which is “the exact subset of people who were the target of the original MacBook Air in 2008.”
The strategy is familiar, but the MacBook is a game-changer for the Mac family. First, consider the implications of its name: it’s thinner and lighter than the Air, but Apple just went with “MacBook.” How much longer can a heavier “Air” — a design Apple hasn’t updated for years — stick around? I’d argue that the only major things keeping Apple from nixing the Air will be pricing and processing performance. Pricing is easier: following Apple’s current MacBook Air configurator, Apple could immediately release a $999 12″ MacBook with the same 4GB of RAM and 128GB SSD as the $899 11″ MacBook Air. (This assumes Apple’s standard $200 price premium to double the SSD, and $100 to double the RAM.) The only question is whether MacBook customers will care about stepping down from the Air’s 1.6GHz CPU to the MacBook’s 1.1GHz CPU — and care enough that they don’t prefer the far better 12″ display. Assuming that Apple doesn’t continue to widen the gap with new Air processors, the Air can go away quickly.
Also, consider the implications of its screen size: Apple wouldn’t release both 12″ and 13″ Retina MacBooks. That means that a larger model — assuming Apple continues to offer two sizes — would likely have a 14″ screen. We may be close to a point where there are 12″/14″ MacBooks and 13″/15″ MacBook Pros, each with more interesting distinctions and overlaps than today.
Finally, there’s the MacBook’s new USB-C port. 9to5Mac’s Seth Weintraub expects to see it in all new Macs by next year, making cable connections easier and improving the versatility of USB to include video output and two-way power. It’s going to be particularly interesting to see whether that port remains Mac-only, which leads me to…
The iPad + MacBook: Closer Together Than Ever Before
Before yesterday’s event, there were rumors that the 12″ MacBook and upcoming 12″ iPad Pro would actually be the same machine. We didn’t take them seriously, but the new MacBook definitely blurs the Mac/iPad distinction further than before, thanks to its iPad-like weight, low-power CPU, fanless design, and single accessory port. If it had a touchscreen and a Lightning port rather than USB-C, a dual-boot mode with iOS would have seemed inevitable.
Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple is considering the addition of USB ports to the larger iPad, specifically to enable keyboard and mouse support. If the Journal is correct, there are only two possibilities: Apple would either need to add optional cursor support to iOS, or enable the larger iPad to run OS X alongside iOS. Regardless, both the WSJ and Bloomberg have specifically pegged the iPad’s screen size at 12.9″, which is ergonomically questionable for a purely handheld device. The need for a way to rest such a large iPad on a table is almost self-evident, and — unless Apple’s going to build in a stand — a keyboard and trackpad dock would make a lot of sense… particularly in a landscape orientation.
Up until now, couch-friendly iPads and desk-friendly MacBooks have overlapped for certain light work activities. The lighter 12″ MacBook and bigger 12.9″ iPad will certainly increase this overlap dramatically.
Apple TV: Is Apple Setting The Stage For A Big Reveal?
Apple had the opportunity to redefine the relatively slow-selling Apple TV family this week with new hardware or yet another new user interface. I said last week that I didn’t believe that would actually happen, even though the latest information we’ve received suggests that Apple already has a smaller, better-controlled device ready to go with App Store support. Instead of announcing the fourth-generation Apple TV, Apple appeared to be punting the ball by dropping the old $99 model to $69 and announcing only one (admittedly significant) content change: HBO Now.
It’s possible that Apple didn’t want to distract more from the Apple Watch launch than it did with the 12″ MacBook, but the Apple TV’s glacial evolution has been a sore spot for years. Even so, dropping the price to $69 is superficially puzzling — it cuts into profits, it’s not so different that it’s likely to attract new customers, and it sets a new pricing floor for Apple-branded TV hardware. Why would Apple do any of those things ahead of a refresh?
There’s another, more positive perspective: the price drop suggests that the next Apple TV is coming, and underscores that it won’t be much more expensive. Recall that the first-generation Apple TV quickly stalled out at a $299 price point, becoming a “hobby” for Apple and requiring a complete $99 redesign to reignite interest in the category. 9to5Mac’s Mark Gurman suggested today that Apple’s using this price drop to “make room” for what’s coming next, bringing the current Apple TV closer to the price of a Google Chromecast so that the next-generation model will sit above it. That’s increasingly easy to believe. And since developer support will be needed for an Apple TV App Store, WWDC would be an ideal time to announce a new product with that feature.
Apple Itself
Except for certain watch collectors and people close to Apple’s marketing team, the idea that any version of the “starting at $349” Apple Watch could sell for $10,000 (or more) was considered crazy — up until the moment it was confirmed on stage yesterday, reportedly eliciting gasps from the audience. The discussion of the $10,000-$17,000 Apple Watch Edition has overshadowed the $349+ Apple Watch Sport and $549+ Apple Watch to an extent unmatched by any Apple product launch in recent memory.
Even for Apple, a company that tried to sell the Lisa for $9,995 in 1983 dollars and several other (not particularly popular) computers for inflation-adjusted prices upwards of $10,000, the Apple Watch Edition pricing announcement was a pivot point. It will be remembered as the moment when Apple discarded any shame about being a true luxury brand, embracing the reality that it was leaving money on the table for tacky aftermarket gold-platers to capture. Why should Apple let someone else wrap its products in gold and manmade crystals for a profit when it could come straight from the factory that way?
The Apple Watch isn’t the first ultra-expensive, special edition product to emerge from Apple’s design labs, but Jony Ive’s $977,000 red Mac Pro was a one-off release. Apple Watch Editions may be limited in number, but they’ll be sold in regular stores, and appear to have necessitated the hiring of brand new luxury retail executives. Apple didn’t really need special assistance to sell $349 or $549 watches alongside more expensive iPads and Macs. And it’s hard to imagine it hired executives away from leading watchmakers and retailers just to sell a comparatively small number of gold watches to celebrities.
Apple’s hiring of Mark Newson apparently isn’t a full-time job, and it’s not yet clear whether his work was limited to the Apple Watch or another product. But it’s clear that Apple is bent on transcending its already impressive footprint, and the more outside talent it brings in, the more likely we are to see brand new products — and big new initiatives — rather than iterations on familiar ones.
What Do You Think?
Share your opinions and comments below – I’d love to know what you thought of yesterday’s event, and Apple’s direction going forward!
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
It’s “huge changes” every year. *yawn*
Yesterday was proof that Apple knows it can get away with charging however much they want, and that they absolutely will. That’s all I took from it. From the AppleTV still being overpriced and mediocre, to the MacBook which costs the same amount as it’s Pro counterpart which actually has ports, the $79 USB-C-to-anything-actually-useful adapter, and then of course the hilarious joke that is the Apple Watch, with the $50 uncharge for 4 extra millimeters, $200 steel premium, and of course the ‘luxurious’ gold watch.
I guess i’m back to being too poor to own Apple products.
*upcharge
all my opinion of course. i love apple products. but i was not blown away by yesterdays announcements.
Thats usually the case immidiatly after announcments till the product hits the market and people start using them !
I actually disagree with the premise of this article. I think Tim (and consequently Apple) have done a great deal these last few years to make Apple MORE accessible. Think back to Steve Jobs Mac/iPad days. No Mac under $1000 no iPad under $500. Now (thanks to Tim) the entry level Mac is 10% less and the entry level iPad 50% less!
I think what made Apple fans uncomfortable is the next level of product marketing Apple has entered.
Apple was never (and perhaps will never) be known for low quality, basic products. We can call them need items. You need a computer so you purchase whatever Dell can put forward for $400.
Apple has always existed in the high quality product market. We can call them the desire items. You need a computer but your desire accosts your wallet and purchases a MacBook. Why? A high percentage of MacBook users could have their needs served with a inexpensive Dell or HP. Yet, we desire more. Apple has capitalized on this passion and made billions. Apple users understand desire.
What has made us uncomfortable is not that Apple has moved down into “need” items but moved up into as Phil put it “lust” items. Many of us lack understanding of lust. Lust drives someone past the Ford Fiesta (need), past the BMW 3 series (desire) and settles on the Maserati Quattroporte. Why again? The same reason that moved us from need to desire. The gulf between need and desire is clear in our minds. The difference between desire and lust perhaps is not so comprehensible.
The uneasiness does not stem from Apple becoming a “luxury” brand but that Apple moved in a direction we didn’t expect. Up instead of down.
I was pretty close to spot-on re watch pricing, except for the bands. I don’t find the watches themselves to be priced at an overly ridiculous entry point, but bands like the Link Bracelet at $450 are offensively ridiculous.
It’s probably worth it for the actual band in question, but the band they’ve produced is over-engineered to the point of comedy. Nobody needs tool-less link removal. Your wrists don’t change size twice a week, that you can’t poke them out with a pin, like EVERY OTHER link bracelet in history. No doubt that would have saved at least a hundred bucks on the bracelet price alone.
The price of the stainless modern buckles is another thing. They are charging for stainless steel like it’s a precious metal. That’s really just flipping the bird to app developers whose apps will sell fewer copies, because Apple is indulging Jony Ive’s desire to be in Vogue, by tipping the units/margin balance on the wrong side.
If apple proceed with a one-year iteration cycle on Watch, it’s going to start being a very expensive hobby for eager early-adopters, who won’t like being treated like heroin addicts, despite that being pretty much what we are.
A two-year iteration cycle would at least be somewhat more forgivable, especially since they’re saying the battery is good for 3 years.
I’m sorry to make my comment all about Watch, but the rest is a bit less controversial. Yay for new thinner fanless Macbooks…. I don’t think Apple will put USB connectors on an iPad. A USB-C perhaps.
Though honestly, apple already has a USB-C style connector. The USB-C belongs on cell phones not laptops. It’s the open standards version of the Lightning connector, and feels insufficient for anything larger than that tiny new Macbook that was just released.
I would have liked to see a lightning and USB-C on it though, since they both perform the same function That way, you could at least charge the thing, and plug in a new LaCie designer hard drive at the same time.
The upgrade cycle will likely be every 2 years but considering no one questioned the iPad’s annual renewal cycle, that starts at $500, this really isn’t much different.
Moreover the first-gen iPad was basically a dud by the 3rd gen model debuted. Will the same happen to the Watch? Hard to say but I can’t help but think that Apple has a master plan. Something we mortal humans can’t ascertain. Apple doesn’t do things haphazardly so I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt with the Watch and what the future holds.
Are you really comparing the iPad to a watch? This thing has less than half the features then the gen 1 iPad. this is quite possibly the most ridiculous comment I’ve read on this site, even from the trolls.
The stainless steel seems to be produced through a long factory process: 9 hours to build one bracelet. It seems to compare more to a bracelet from sayTAG heuer. We will have to wait for reports from watch specialists in one month to learn more on this.
They clearly position themselves as swiss watch competitor for an important part of their range of watch. Maybe, they are targeting the same approach than with the iPod: back in 2001, $400 for a walkman would be considered an hefty price. But they manage to sold quite a few iPod. Because it brings a lot compare to a more classic walkman.
I would tend to think the same with a watch. Today $400-$600 is already an somewhat hefty price for a watch. $1100 even more… For a classical watch that have very few features: the time, date and a chronograph. But for a more “smart” and useful watch it could be different.
But in the same time people won’t be able to update their phone, watch, tablet, computer every year. They will tend to share the same budget. So a watch seems a interesting add on to a big phone. A convenient way for glancing for information. But it could tend to take bite in budget allotted to the tablet/phone today.
I currently wear a TAG as my daily-wear, I paid 3 times as much for it as Apple wants for the stainless watch with link bracelet, but I’ve owned it for 6 years already, and expect to own it for another 6 (at least)
These are not appropriate comparisons. The link bracelet likely won’t fit the next iteration of watch. Despite the easy replacement, added sales is a compelling reason to change case design. Two years max out of a bracelet doesn’t in ANY WAY compare to the longevity of my TAG.
The link bracelet for the apple watch is lovely, but given its lifespan it’s INCREDIBLY over-engineered. I don’t care if it takes 9 hours to make one. That’s not my problem. Blame the moron who designed it that way. Try to get the money out of him instead. Nobody needs (or even particularly WANTS) push-button link replacement. Nobody.
“Maybe, they are targeting the same approach than with the iPod: back in 2001”
That price reflected the technology inside it. It was expensive because the tech was new. There was no luxury tax added to the price.
Consider: the internals of a stainless watch are identical to a $399 entry model. The rest of the $1099 price tag for a 42mm space black link version is essentially fluff. There are areas where they could have saved money, considering the product life.
I’ll buy one anyway. I can afford it… but I’m not fond of the idea that I’m paying for Jony Ive and crew to flap their arms around and have fun for no discernible benefit to me.
The fact there was no upgrade path is a bit concerning IMO for long term sales of the uber-expensive Apple Watches.
We dont know that there’s no upgrade path. Apple hasn’t said one way or the other.
As this is a question on everyone’s mind, I expect them to address it upon release of the next iteration of the watch. While everyone knows there’s going to be an upgrade, talking about it before the first Watch has even sold is a bit of putting the cart before the horse.
What about gaming via AppleTV? Apple purchased PrimeSense to do what exactly? Forget disrupting the cable industry. It’s not going to happen in the near term. But gaming is an area that Apple is already prominent in and could transform further and actually be disruptive…now.
Really. HBONow is the closest thing to “kick in the balls” that the cable industry has seen since AeroTV (they recovered and destroyed them). If Disney follows HBO and then Showtime, I think that will be the disruption needed. Then to really kick them in the nuts we need an alternate form of internet connection. Like WiMax promised. As for the App Store and Games on the AppleTV I think like all of their other ventures they will release it when they are ready. Let the Ouyas, SteamOS and other boxes come out first. Honestly if Valve can get a sizable amount of their game catalog to the SteamOS then they have already won.
While I agree they will get there. Before putting games on the Apple TV they need to fix the App Store and Game Center. The last thing the Apple TV needs right now is MORE apps on the home screen.
Wait for WWDC on this. Something is coming.
In my opinion Apple should do as I’ve said a few times in the comments section, they should make 3 new TV models.
TV – device for everyone, it has a completely redesigned UI, new innovative input methods, a remote with built in Taptic Engines to enhance tactile feedback, support for MFi gaming controllers, new content service, handoff between devices for picking up content where left off, and built in ac router, and storage. (Optional Controller accessory for gaming)
TV Play – same as TV except much more powerful with far superior gaming capabilities, putting it on par with current generation console gaming, includes Controller and significantly more storage, as games would all be downloaded from the App Store, and modern console games are sometimes over 20GB. (this model would obviously only be bought by the huge video gaming niche market, PS4 has sold over 20m consoles in about 1.5 years).
TV Pods – much smaller, less expensive, simpler device, without storage, and it simply receives a content stream from an TV or TV Play, so you have multiple TV Pods connected to other TVs around your house. The TVs can send multiple simultaneous content streams to different TV Pods, and thus, everyone in the family can be watching their own content at once.
Just my thoughts. I do hope they do gaming, it’s a huge market, and they could really nail it.
Great read. More quality stuff like this, please!
My only comment about the event was a sense of disappointment that echo’s from the Jobs era of Apple. But hear me out, and I think you might agree.
With the iPod, iPhone, and the iPad, Jobs took to the stage not only to present the latest and greatest from Apple, but to make his case how his product was so much better than the competition. His method for elevating Apple’s take on a product always included a sensible tear-down of why Apple’s competitors really sucked. He made no bones about it, never pulled any punches, and all the while we were falling ever more in love with the iProduct (and with him). He didn’t just make Apple look good, he let us know how other companies were letting us down.
I really missed that in this latest keynote, and not just because its entertainment value (and it was always very entertaining!). By showing us how Apple was better, Jobs lifted the veil on his thinking, letting us in on the secrets inside his head that brought us together to celebrate the excellence of the end result. Taking down the competition a few notches made us aware not only what we had been made to settle for, but it reminded us also to appreciate the thoughtfulness of the Apple way.
So, while I have no real interest in an Apple Watch, I do enjoy a good ribbing; I like it when Apple flexes a bit, shows us how they are doing things right where the competition is doing the exact same thing, but totally wrong. By its absence of the tear down, it felt a bit as though Apple wasn’t correcting anything, but simply participating in something along with everyone else–on the same field and at the same level.
Some would argue that this isn’t true at all, and it would have been nice if Cook had made that argument as loud and clear as Steve once did. The ship has sailed for lamenting the loss of Steve, but this is something Apple can easily do on its own–and he’s already shown them exactly how it’s done.
Really really good post.
Something Jony Ive said in a interview is that when they starts to work on the iPhone, they find that all of the then existing phones suck. But I said also, that designs this time doesn’t feels the same of the competing products.
“Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple is considering the addition of USB ports to the larger iPad, specifically to enable keyboard and mouse support.”
It is possible that the “USB port” will be a USB-C port to replace the current Lightning port.
The new 12″ MacBook uses the USB-C which replaces not only the standard USB, but also the MagSafe connector, and the Thunderbolt connector. We will likely see USB-C replace those same connectors on future redesigns of the MacBook Pro.
It’s not inconceivable that Apple will also replace its proprietary (no other company uses it) Lightning connector with USB-C on future iPhones and iPads too.
As for saying that a USB port is necessary “specifically to enable keyboard”, that really doesn’t make any sense, since we have been able to connect Bluetooth keyboards (separate of built into covers) for years… and no one wants to have to have a wired USB keyboard instead of a wireless one.
Also “mouse support” doesn’t make any sense either. Not only because a Bluetooth wireless mouse would be preferred, but because iOS and iOS apps are not designed for a mouse+cursor interface. A mouse or trackpad is useless if you don’t have a cursor onscreen to guide you. Also, a mouse defeats the use of multi-touch gestures on an iPad.
The only possible reason for using a mouse with an iPad is if Apple decided to run an ARM version of OS X on the iPad, and then run all of our Intel OS X apps (slowly) in emulation on the iPad… But that makes no sense either… Especially since we now have the 12″ MacBook which is a full Intel computer that is almost as thin and light as an iPad.
Good points, I think you could be right that they may use a USB-C for the iPad Pro (iPad Plus I hope). Apple is highly unlikely to use multiple ports on an iPad I think. I’m unaware of how much power a lightning cable could give, but I think if the USB-C offers a lot more, they’d go with it, because it may take too long to charge an iPad with that size of a battery. I mean the battery will be insanly large. So that’s one reason I could see them using that.
I don’t see Apple using an USB-C connector on a non-Pro iPad/iPhone. Why? Because this connector in technology agnostic. It could be use to output USB 1/2/3/4/5/6, it could be used to output HDMI, provide the connector include a small computer that output the expected output signal. So the Lightning connector could still be used in 8 years (it’s important for connectivity in the iDevice ecosystem). A USB- connector could be obsoleted sooner than that.
When I see a product labeled PRO, I expect it to work for professionals. I’d like a Mac Book PRO which is intended for professionals in Audio/Video/Design/Photography. What the hell do I mean? 32Gb RAM, 2Tb SSD, 15 and 17 inches screens. Professionals don’t really need an ultra-light computer in gold color, leave that for the hipsters; professionals need power, performance, they need to be able to use professional devices, professional software, seriously! Does anybody in Apple read this?
Apple didn’t update the MacBook Pro line. They introduced a new MacBook (not “Pro”). It’s clearly targeted towards casual users, not professionals.
12″ & 14″ MacBook
15″ & 17″ MacBook Pro
I was depressed after the keynote. Excited about the new Macbook as I believe that the cloud will become more and more vital to computer users. What depressed me was the $17,000 price tag of the larger-sized Watch Edition. I got this sickening feeling that Apple is going to move into the super-premium sector with all its products and that really hit me, true or not. I don’t want them to move everything out of my price range and that outrageous price made me think it might happen.
I had a similar feeling, but not *exactly* the same.
I’ve got nothing but love for Apple, but this move has definitely changed the perception of the brand, and I don’t just mean into luxury products.
Apple is renowned for making things people don’t know they wanted until Apple has made, polished, and finished it into something that fills a void we didn’t previously know existed in our lives. This is why so many have loved and invited Apple into our lives. For many of us, it’s personal.
However, by bringing Apple to the luxury world of watches means dragging a whole lot of people into a space where they can’t go and are, in fact, not welcomed. Not invited.
A $17,000 watch isn’t for everyone. In fact, it’s for the few of the few. Apple is casting it’s line into an exclusive realm wherein most of it’s demographic can’t participate, and whose participation isn’t welcomed. For Ive, Cook and Newson it may be a dream come true: designing luxury products for luxury people. Paris Hilton will probably buy four Editions after Kim Kardashian buys three.
However, for the rest of us, this move doesn’t fill a void. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. It reminds us of a gap: you can’t afford this, you’ll never afford this, this isn’t for you. With the Apple Edition, Apple is sewing the seeds of exclusivity, and of course it’s going to make people a little uncomfortable. But at the moment, that’s not what Apple’s interested in. Nothing personal.
I’m not worried at all by the gold watch move. The people buying gold are in practice sponsoring the product for the rest of us, and as far as we know, the only thing they get for their money is gold. That is, the rest is precisely the same. I can live with that.
Another thing is, the stainless steel version and its pricing doesn’t seem so ludicrous now that there’s a gold version above it in pricing. To me it feels as if Apple was trying to make sure that the Watch was to be taken seriously by watch people, so that there won’t be two categories of watches – smart watches and real watches.
If you read the New Yorker profile of Jony Ive, you’ll notice how disturbed he was by the thought that people would think that he was a “Bentley person”, because, as he said, “he’s not”. A lot has been made out of some random quotes by others about him liking “bling”, whereas he said that the car was out of pure design interest (I don’t think he feels the need to prove much of anything at this point, and surely not by bling – but that’s just me. I have no problem believing him though).
The more logical reason for Bentleys, by the way, is a car project. Cars, like watches differ from computers in that they are markets that are stratified in a different way – there has always been luxurious cars, watches have probably been a luxury for most of their existence. And it’s probably true that many intricacies of design appeared only in the design of luxury items. (As an aside, what Apple is good at is making excellent design at a price with a margin that is comparatively low – luxury items get away with their design because the margin is sky-high. This explains a designer’s interest in such items. What’s really difficult is creating a process to create excellent things at a price that is still possible for people to stomach – this is what Apple is good at. Don’t expect them to throw it away – it’s where their money comes from, and I’d venture it’s a much bigger pride for a designer like Ive to sell tens of millions of excellent watches than selling runs of 200 watches to people like Paris Hilton, where unlimited price tolerance can disguise the laziness of the designer in designing the process.)
So, since Apple always enters markets in a very careful way (that’s how they succeed), it makes sense for them to make a thoughtful nod to the existing segmentation (how I hate that word), while adding their own touch to it. As you can see on Apple’s Store page, paying $16,601, or $16,651 more for the 38mm size, for an Apple Watch Edition gets you a nice strap and a yellow case (and a charging cradle, whereas the Sports edition includes two bands), while the function is exactly the same. Pay $200+ more than the Sports edition and you get something even more durable, and very nice (but sometimes more vulnerable) bands for an additional $100+. This is the Apple I recognize.
I fully agree with you. Exactly. But that feeling of exclusion lingers even though I don’t want the thing.
Great post!
Despite claims and hints to the contrary, I was frankly surprised by the price of the Edition. As “luxury” as the Apple brand has been over the years, Apple products have generally subscribed to the Andy Warhol “Coke” theory of American products. The iPhone in your hand is the *best* phone you can buy, but an iPhone is an iPhone and no amount of money can get you a better iPhone.
This watch makes a different argument. You can’t have this watch; like at all. You shouldn’t want this watch. Despite the unwritten understanding between Apple and it’s customers that we buy Apple products for the way they look, Apple has always been able to convince us that because of an intense focus on design and integration, the way Apple products look actually makes them *work* better. This watch doesn’t *work* better, it only means that *you* are better, because you can afford it.
I think the Apple Watch is great! And I think the Edition looks really great, I just don’t understand why Apple would be interested in changing our perception of the company from ultimately inclusive to decidedly aspirational.
^^^This, this, and this.
My thoughts exactly. But better.
Love the Warhol reference: it’s perfect.
There’s a good argument to make that the Watch on your wrist is the best Watch you can buy. Nice point about the Coke theory, by the way.
If you have a Sports edition, it has all the functionality and it’s the best to do sports with because it’s the lightest and the sports band is the most resistant to water (and not an absolute disaster to replace, same for the watch, actually). The sports/fitness theme is one of the three biggest reasons to get the Watch to begin with, remember – maybe the biggest to many – in practice, if not before the purchase.
The Watch, in turn, is probably the most durable Watch you can get on its own, but not optimal for sports, as it’s heavier and the non-fluorelastomer bands are more vulnerable to water. Still not a bad idea with a sports band, but it’s more of simply a ‘nice watch’. (I think this is actually the hardest and most important spot to hit, culturally speaking – once you’ve done that, it “legitimizes” and creates a halo for the other two editions. Actually, I think all three editions create a kind of halo for the other two – so you have the optimal sports watch, the nice watch and the piece of jewelry: they all get a bit of those qualities thanks to the other two.)
The Edition, in turn, is probably less durable than at least the Watch, and heavier, but an even nicer piece of jewelry, according to some historical conventions, but maybe not exactly optimal for an athlete, even if they do sell it with a sports band as well.
I’d say the Watch as a whole is only aspirational if what you want is a piece of gold jewelry. But there’s no good reason for everybody to want that. Apple is in fact making a good argument that you will want the Sports edition (unless you want a nice band…, er, a nice watch). In each category, I would argue, their prices are not bad at all. Would you get away with making something this good and selling it cheaper?
(maybe next year)
Apple Watch will have a yearly upgrade. That doesn’t mean everybody have to upgrade yearly so I don’t understand the whining. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade every year. Why does Apple have to set a price point for you to be able to do that. Last I check nothing no other company make that consideration when pricing their goods. You cannot expect companies to not create new products until you can afford to upgrade. If you deem the Apple Watch to be worth it’s price and pull the trigger to buy it, you should remain happy with your purchase even when the upgraded versions are out because it was still a good purchase.
I can’t keep thinking that in one or two year, a Macbook can be more efficient with a A10 or A11 processor. It could be faster and use less energy. iPad and Mac could be even more close. With AppKit and a small subset of the Mac isolated in a particular iOS app, it’s easy to imagine a iPad with a keyboard Smart Cover that could be a convertible done well.
I like the idea of a MacBook powered by the same CPU as an iPad. It would be great if some future MacBook could run both OS X and iOS apps simultaneously (vs. via dual boot, as suggested in the article).
I agree: to me, this keynote was a prelude of Apple becoming a “lifestyle” brand, rather than a just tech company, for the foreseeable future.
Is anyone else sad at the thought of losing MagSafe?
Its probably harder to pull off (!) with a device that weighs the same as a leaflet, but if you trip over that cable the 12″ MacBook is going to fly a long way. Maybe into the nearest wall.
Feels like a step backwards. Would have been nice to have had magnets for iOS devices too.
Agreed about missing MagSafe but I will say I’ve had two situations now where my old Air wasn’t heavy enough to keep itself planted and went with the MagSafe cable.
The greatest updates that Apple released were in 2012 and they’ve taken steps back ever since, they destroyed the Mac Mini with the latest release (removing the Quad Core processors) and now they’re destroying Mac with a low powered ‘netboot’ version of the MacBook. I’ve got a vast number of Apple products and always have, but in the last couple of years, they’ve even started to annoy me – on a regular basis. From the ‘comedy sketch’ style keynote presentations with live bands to a lack of innovation in Apple TV, MacBook Pro and iPhone as of recent. I haven’t said ‘wow’ for years and that’s kind of sad, Apple needs to find the innovation that maintains interest and that’s been absent for a long, long time. I loved the Apple brand, it was exciting, but now it’s just frustrating and boring, I want to be amazed, but it’s been three years already.
Don’t forget the bugs, the bugs they have let slip that last few years are just ridiculous. I often find myself saying “frigging Apple” a lot, something that used to be reserved for Microsoft.
Apple used to make a products to solve problem … And 3 colors for iPhone, new MacBook , IWatch colors , IOS, OS X colors …. shows it is not any more solving problem. It is become fashion and toys. It begin access bigger market and make bigger money but it begin losing the apple core. It may take 5+ years to spoil OSX and iOS
I think you are forgetting something:
http://www.everymac.com/images/cpu_pictures/apple_imac_colors.jpg
In a 14” model would be a bit more space again for a fan and more batteries so they hopefully could use the same i5/i7 processors of the current MacBook Air. THEN the MacBook Air can truly die.
As well, a second USB C port and a card reader (microSD for example, that’s tiny). That be my dream MacBook, would by it immediately. In spacegrey *drool*.
this apple watch thing looks really close to the MARK OF THE BEAST! like really? all ur bank info and health info on a small device meant to be worn everyday to monitor everything you do in LIFE and someone ppl they made it so ppl actually PAY to be enslaved further! damn this is creepy
Lunatic haha
First they came for the 17″, and no one said anything. Then they soldered on RAM and no one said anything. Then they came for the magsafe, and no one said anything. I haven’t left Apple- they left me.
I am just a regular Apple user, no expert whatsoever and not even a native speaker…
That said, for me there is a difference between “design” and “fashion”. For a long time now Apple has been a company focused on the design of its products. And obviously many people are willing to pay for their design, be it HW, SW or the integration of both. Now I have the impression that with new executives like Angela Ahrendts Apple will become a company (also) dedicated to fashion.
Fashion is something very hard to grasp, it´s constantly moving and nothing “absolute”. In my home country, some years ago nobody would ever dare to have a car painted in white. Now it´s quite “fashionable” to have a white car. Is white better now than it was years ago ? No. And we all know, in a few years, nobody will want a white car, it will look “old fashioned”.
Some day Apple could just change the colors of the next iPhone or Watch instead of improving on technology or, well, its design. I hope I´m wrong.
I think you missed an important piece here. It looks like Apple has abandoned Thunderbolt in favor of USB-C, my thought is either the iPhone 6s or 7 and iPad Air 3 are probably going to lose it’s Lighting connector in favor of USB-C (especially if there is any truth to a “iPad Pro”).
Not a big deal to me but I’m sure some are going to grip about jumping from Lightning to USB-C so quickly after jumping from the 30 Pin dock connector to Lightning.
Before we get ahead of ourselves, a few thinigs need o kept in mind:
1. The USB C connector may not be useful in higher current devices. The USB B connector has current limitations due to the contact size. I will make the assumption that the contacts on the USB C are roughly the same size, so the current limitations are probably similar. This means for anything that has a power supply bigger than the 12″ MacBook’s 29W, the USB C will probably not work. This would be true for the Air’s 44W adapter, the 13″ Macbook Pro’s 65W adapter, or the 15″ Macbook Pro’s 85W adapter. They could make it so that the 29W Macbook could charge the Airs and the Pros, but I don’t hink most people would want to have a 3-4 dat recharge time.
2. I personally do not believe that there is any expectation on Apple’s part that the Edition versions of the Apple Watch will sell very many units. I have seen numbers of 500K units(out of 15 million total units) being put forward by analysts. I don’t think that will be anywhere near correct; I think they may actually sell 100-150K units. A lot of comparisons have been made to the Swiss watch industry, and I think that is not a valid comparison. What you get with a Swiss watch is history (there are many Swiss watch brands that have more than 150 years of history), and an object that is a handmade (by extremely skilled craftsmen that often spend hundreds of hours creating and assembling a watch0. People can see, and feel that. What you get with an Edition watch is essentially the same functional parts as a Sport watch, just in a gold case. The high end Swiss watch will have complications like minute repeaters, perpetual calenders, chronographs, and possibly be certified. These complications are NOT available in lower priced Swiss watches, and add to the functionality of the watch, over and above what you would get with a regular watch. The Apple Edition watch doesn’t have any functional improvements over a Sport edition watch, and neither of them has the hand made aura of a high end Swiss watch (put another way, there is no differentiation between the Edition and the Sport, aside from the case material). Case material alone, for those who boy high end Swiss watches, is not enough for them to buy a particular watch. The Edition watch may appeal to fashionistas and rap/hip-hop artists, but not to real watch aficionados, and ceratinly not to serious collectors.
Lets face it, an Apple Watch may be useful for 4-6 years and then it is pretty much junk (as the battery dies and or as the replacement internal electronics go obsolete). Swiss watches tend to increase in value over time, many of which have sold into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, far beyond their initial selling price. Aside from the Gold content value of the Edition, I don’t see any of the Apple Watches (any of them) doing that.
Kostas
The correct comparison is to other watches made of similar materials, not to other Apple Products.
$10K isn’t anything for someone who wants a regular watch made of gold.