In the run up to the Spring Forward event, many people were expecting to see a lengthy exposition of the Apple Watch, to clarify confusion and offer a clean explanation as to how this product plays an essential role in people’s lives. What transpired was not that, at all. Apple’s event was a grab-bag procession of various product announcements, from Mac to Apple TV, concluding with a review of Watch features alongside pricing and availability details.
It did not help consolidate the vision for the Watch. Apple’s messaging for this product is almost the same as it was back in September. The company has not succinctly provided a reason for the Watch’s existence.
That’s not to say it doesn’t have one. I think the Watch is a great product with a good sales trajectory ahead of it, especially the $349 Sport models. The marketing aspects are lacking, so far. The Watch does not have clearly defined themes. Apple’s attempts at promoting three ‘tentpole’ use cases have, in my view, been conveyed poorly.
Since September, Apple has reinforced three lines about the Watch: an ‘amazing timepiece’, a comprehensive health and fitness device and an intimate way to communicate. There’s something amiss here — they don’t pack the same punch as when the iPhone was marketed as a three-way phone, music player and internet device.
The ‘amazing timepiece’ bit is particularly weak, particularly because most people who Apple wants to capture with this product do not wear a watch today. For those people, myself included, the fact that Apple Watch is a good watch has little impact on my purchasing habits.
In addition, watches today are generally good at telling the time. Apple harps on that the Apple Watch is accurate to ± 50 milliseconds but nobody cares. Normal watches do drift away from telling correct time but only by a few seconds — it’s not aggravating. Compare ‘amazing timepiece’ to ‘amazing mobile phone’. The iPhone was a better phone than other phones with features like threaded messaging, one button conference calling and Visual Voicemail. Keeping in sync with the atomic clock is not a concern that the general public cares about.
What’s frustrating is that one area where the Apple Watch can do better than traditional watches, Apple has not promoted well at all. Complications. This is a fantastic example of something arbitrary bitmap screens can do miles better than fixed-in-place mechanics. According to Apple’s site, there are ten different types of complications you can add to every watch face. On traditional watches, you are lucky to get a dial for the date and a dial for the moon phase. Also, unlike physical watch faces, you can remove, add and rearrange these widgets as you please. If you use the calendar for event tracking, add it. Otherwise, don’t.
In fact, the Watch OS includes comprehensive customization features. Just yesterday I spotted a clock-face configuration that I’ve never seen before. These personalization features not only offer incredible utility thanks to the unique conveniences, users love being able to tweak stuff like this for individuality. In the same way we are all discussing what watch/band combination we are buying, Apple’s marketing missed an opportunity to provoke discussion about what styles and what customizations we want to apply to the clock faces.
The complications concept also extends what watches do today, so it’s relatable and is a good demonstration of why the product can be an ‘amazing timepiece’. The software features offer a suggestion that this is a better timepiece, that can show time-sensitive contextual information far beyond the current hour, minute and second displays of normal watches.
The second tentpole feature revolves around intimate communication. The Digital Touch suite (tap, sketch, heartbeat) is interesting but again faces difficulties in presentation. This service relies on the network effect of people having the feature for it to be useful. As such, on-stage demos are weakened by their artificiality. Selling an Apple Watch through Digital Touch will become a lot easier when you can receive a drawing from your actual friends and people you actually care about. Rehearsed demos don’t have the same emotional impact. Hopefully, Apple’s ad team will be cooking up some heart-wrenching commercials for Digital Touch right now. There’s a lot of potential to replicate something similar to the FaceTime ads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu1jHtf_oUc
The network effect problem, naturally, means that selling the Watch on this spoke initially is hard. On Monday, I saw Apple branch out ‘intimate communication’ umbrella to include things like iMessage and WeChat. This is a good pivot to build upon established services. The audio message feature of iMessage makes a lot more sense in an Apple Watch world. I also think the Watch’s animated emoji will help drive interest, as they are not limited to messages. The WatchKit API allows those images to also be posted on social networking services — they are just GIFs. For more serious customers, Apple should also reinforce the usefulness of the Watch at managing email. This stuff needs to be repeated multiple times to sink in. The iPhone ads continue to prominently feature the Mail app and they have done since 2007.
The health and fitness tentpole is — by far — the easiest vector for the Watch right now. It’s simple to portray and doesn’t require a network of friends to get into. It’s also very easy to get celebrity endorsements for health and fitness features, like with Christy Turlington’s blog. Personally, I had never heard of this women until she was introduced by Cook at the event, but she is obviously influential.
Everyone has aspirations about living healthier lives — Apple is capitalizing. The relative success of fitness bands (with no brand anywhere near the size of Apple) shows that this market is huge. It’s hard to make a judgement until I have a Watch in my hands but it also helps that the fitness features are very well fleshed out in terms of software. The two apps, Activity and Workout, are very polished. There’s even a companion app for the iPhone. Thanks to the way the Activity app is designed to track three separate metrics, I’m pretty sure users will get a sense of accomplishment out of these apps, even if they don’t complete all three rings every day. The targets seem achievable and standing up every hour to get a nice badge is the epitome of gamification. The Workout app serves the needs of more serious users, with fitness routines for the gym and such.
Apple’s video in September did a decent job at enumerating these aspects of the Watch, but the marketing could definitely have been better to date. There is little talk about the fitness features, despite their focus inside the software. To me, that indicates a disconnect — when genuinely useful features are not being portrayed to the public well. I’m not sure why it doesn’t have the impact it should — I think it comes down to the bits of Apple’s press for the Watch that doesn’t come under the three headline categories.
I count marketing as product marketing: the way the product has been made is an essential part of the overall way the product can be presented to consumers. Quite simply, the Watch does too much stuff resulting in a fuzzy mess of features. Due to the maturity of the iOS platform, the Watch requires more breadth of functionality than when the iPhone or even the iPad debuted. However, it still does too much which indicates to me Apple is unsure exactly what the Watch’s purpose is itself. ‘It only does everything’ is not a good way to sell products.
That Home Screen is complicated, if you’ve never seen it before.
Combine that with a raft of third-party application software and you have a right mess to disentangle. I think the iPad had similar issues (and still does in many respects) but it’s baseline feature set was not as muddled like the Watch’s. Play video, surf the web, read stuff. Much cleaner than the vagueness of selling ‘an amazing timepiece’. The iPad also had a ‘we already know how to use it’ factor that the Watch simply doesn’t. The iPad had familiar interactions and familiar use cases.
This product would struggle to find its footing if it wasn’t backed by a company with such incredible brand power. The Heart Rate glance is such a great gimmick it will sell a few hundred thousand devices by itself. Apple is reining in third party developers somewhat (having Kevin Lynch demo everything rather than individual company representatives, limiting initial API) but it still leaves the array of miscellaneous features seen here as a big messaging problem. Maybe this random mixture will be less intimidating when the Watch can be handled in person but for now it crowds out the headline features, complicating the message. That Home Screen is a little bit daunting the first time you see it.
‘There’s an app for that’ was a great iPhone advertising campaign because it relied on the core iPhone pitch being solid too, so that the App Store became the gravy. The Watch is a bit imbalanced on that scale.
Just to clarify my position, so it cannot be misconstrued, I have little reservation to say that the Watch will not be a success, especially the Sport model. Apple is an established company with enough resources to overcome the issues I have presented above in influence alone. I’m just saying I see this as a poor launch of Apple’s newest new product category. When friends ask me about why they should buy a Watch, I struggle to offer a good answer, even when I think that they would benefit from owning it. That is the ultimate consequence of Apple’s mediocre marketing to date.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
It’s difficult to market because it’s the most personal device Apple makes. It represents the end of the spectrum that is bordered on the other side by the desktop Mac. Just like people had serious doubts about the iPad, the speculation will subside once people have had a chance to use the device.
“Personally, I had never heard of this women until she was introduced by Cook at the event, but she is obviously influential.”
Now I just feel old.
No kidding. I think we’re all officially old.
Christy Turlington, Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford… when I was Ben Mayo’s age, these people were so famous that they invented the term “supermodel” to describe them.
Hey – those models (including Christy) were in George Michael’s “Freedom” video! Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure that we’d have to explain the concept of music videos to these youngsters, too.
She was in Time’s Most Influential People of 2014, though, for her charitable work re: safe childbirth in third world countries.
It’s obvious you didn’t know who Ms. “T”urlington is (not Burlington, actually Burns now) – clearly not much impact from that endorsement.
I also dont know the woman Tim Cook invited on stage.
Lately Apple events are feeling weird and very scripted. With all the people they are invite on stage and the silly forced scripted jokes while demoing.
Women buy both watches and jewelry, so they represent a huge target demographic for Apple Watch.
Whether people are familiar with Turlington or not is totally irrelevant, because with her Apple has killed two birds with one stone.
First, they are doing outreach to the aforementioned target demographic (women) who are not customarily included in tech discussions (how many other women did you see on stage during that keynote, or any other?). So showing her work and having her speak directly with Cook (however awkward) creates an important perception: women are important to Apple.
Secondly, it’s a massive boost to Apple’s reputation as a socially conscious company, thus expanding on its halo effect (which is a huge motivating factor for many consumers). By emphasizing her work for women around the world, and her success as an athlete, this makes for a very precise message to the demographic they are targeting.
I agree the demo was sub-standard Apple fare, but having Turlington participate was by no means a mistake.
Using a white supermodel to advertise a watch which costs more than the average African makes in a year isn’t representative of a socially conscious company i’m afraid.
The marketing is mediocre because the product is mediocre…..for now.
I’m sure they are working on new ads that will come out after the April order/shipping dates.
I think the product is excellent, and far from mediocre. I just don’t like the fact that I have to pay $1300 for it, instead of let say … some price LESS than the product it’s an accessory for.
The only problem I have with the Watch (ignoring the existence of the Edition), is that it’s an accessory for your phone that in many instances will cost an order of magnitude MORE than the already VERY expensive phone.
It’s the “We made this for rich assholes” factor that grates on me.
Apple is supposed to be about improving people lives.
What exactly is excellent about it? I broke no new ground in the smart watch field. So what is impressive? The battery life? The features? Where is the wow?
There is a $349 model which isn’t ‘for rich assholes’. I am only pissed because seemingly the space black stainless can only be purchased with the link bracelet which is $449, and probably $499 when you calculate the added space black factor. So you’re forced into paying $449-$499 when you could have paid $49 for the black sport band which would go very well with it…
You should be allowed to purchase a watch (set price) and any band you want with it (set price) and added together you’re quoted a price for your setup. They’re just pissing people off if you can’t choose a sport black band with the space black stainless, instead of being forced into paying $449-$499 for the link bracelet, which you don’t want.
I mean think about people going into an Apple Store and being told that it only comes with that band….
Sorry, but it’s not. You are wrong.
A decent watch costs more than the Apple watch for the same fit and finish. Way more.
We’re not talking about run off the mill quality. It wipes the floor with anything below a longiness.
That level of design and craftsmanship of course is not cheap.
Also, you don’t have to go for the 1k link bracelet that’s up with the quality of breitling one, for example.
Get the sport, and thank god, because you are never going to have a better watch for a cheaper price.
Just try to find a square watch under 1k! That’s right… Square watches are more expensive.
Specially once like the Apple watch that can not be made without expensive CNC machining that takes a big investment and more time, more electrical energy and better quality metal to make.
Take a tissot quadratic that retailed for 500 (cheap for a square watch), unlike apple’s, it was made from forged steel (the cheapest), and it’s steel grain was hidden away with chrome (cheap way to hide cheap steel)
Apple doesn’t do that.
You get more than what you pay. Much more.
And also is the best featured smart watch. Competitors bolster cheaper watches, but not in the same in design, construction, and specifications. For example, you can’t find a watch that has both heart rate monitor AND nfc at the moment. It has one of the densest (300dpi) displays, and of those displays with more that 250 dpi, it is the unique that has a anti scratch glass AND an ambient light sensor.
But people aren’t informed of that, and the author is right.
@chrisl84: Off the top of my head, the build quality looks beyond excellent. Far better than Google’s or Pebble’s.
You say it “broke no new ground” but you could just as easily look at that positively and say that it has a similar feature set to all the other smart watches out there. It does everything I want a smart watch to do (except perhaps replace my phone, but that’s not to be expected on a 1.0 product), and it actually DOES have quite a few features that other smart watches do not.
It’s better designed than any other product in this category IMO, and because of the iOS ecosystem it has more apps and can do more things than the others. AFAICS, design-wise, it beats everything out there. That’s not to day that Samsung and Google aren’t going to learn some lessons and (maybe) come out with stellar “2.0” versions of their gear, but for now, there isn’t anything better out there.
Apple hasn’t had a remotely non-pathetic marketing campaign since the “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” campaign. Why has Apple never advertised that iphone and iPad games can be played on any TV using AirPlay, an Apple TV and the iDevice as a controller?
Apple needs a real marketing firm.
It’s worth noting that Steve Jobs was deeply and personally involved with picking advertising. He personally picked some of the songs they used to use on iPod ads for instance. His taste in music was impeccable, and he had his finger on the pulse of the “new.” Most of that music was unknown until it became an iPod advert for instance.
Contrast this with the lame, entirely forgettable music that was playing at the last event. The dreary, uninteresting advertising over the last few years, etc.
Everyone was so happy that Apple didn’t fall apart when he died, but to argue that they are just as good or just the same as they always were is incorrect. The way I see it, there are lots of little “holes” like this all over Apple today. Places where they don’t do as well as they previously did, because Steve Jobs is DEAD.
I don’t think it’s possible that Steve Jobs would have approved all the fake gold finishes they use nowadays at all either. I think it’s a gigantic FAIL that Ive apparently doesn’t see this. It brings his designer credentials into question even more than his poor sartorial efforts, his awful choice of cars, and his tricky-tacky house. Steve had all that stuff nailed down before he was 20.
Apple has lost its way since Steve died. Lobotomized Mac Minis, soldered RAM everywhere, not a single slot in any Mac, an insane obsession with thin and now their new overpriced and underpowered netbook. The Apple Watch will fail because it’s simply a fashion accessory with a few useful functions. If Apple were really serious about developing a smart watch there would have been connectors in the band slots for optional sensors or batteries in the bands.
The GOLD finishes are for the Asian market! It’s there where the money is in the next 50-100 years! With all the crisis here in EU and USA people won’t rush out and buy expensive Macbook or expensive watches. But the next Gold rush is in Asia. People there love anything in Gold Color true or fake. I just wonder how LG or Samsung didn’t notice that, though they’re Asian companies or are they already infiltrated too much by Western culture? Probably with all the copying they do they don’t see their own markets.
Lag.
I hadn’t mentioned the Apple Watch to my kids, but my daughter especially wanted one when she saw the ad on TV. Too bad she doesn’t have an iPhone. So, there’s that. Also, I think much of Apple’s marketing strategy in recent years has been to show a multitude of real world, or at least someone’s real world, uses in an ad. Well, it’s kind of hard to do that when no one in the “real world” can yet be using one. I suspect come May or early June you’ll start to see ads for this product more closely resemble ads for iPad and iPhone.
iPhone was innovative (full touch interface, copied by anyone) but was not better than others. Just think about copy and paste and appstore lack. They improved it year by year.
http://cdn23.us1.fansshare.com/photos/christyturlington/christy-turlington-1053981668.jpg
Now do you care who she is?
I thought that was Janet Jackson as I scrolled down and wondered why a picture of her was on this comment section…oops
So we should care who she is because of how she looks?
I think you missed my point. While it has been corrected, the article initially referred to her as Christy Burlington. The author could not be bothered enough to do a simple Google search to figure out who she is. My post was more a comment on the authors poor journalism.
nope.
Same with the new 3DS. Blech, I say!
Ken Segall wrote about Apple marketing on his blog last year. He said Steve was joined at the hip with Apple’s marketing firm but Phil Schiller was not. Honestly I think Apple marketing needs a shakeup and maybe Schiller offered an early retirement or given a different role in the company.
I heartily endorse this idea.
It was easy for Apple to identify a few aggressive “bad eggs” (Katie Cotton, Scott Forestall), and fire them. It’s also easy to identify new hires that “don’t fit” in Apple’s culture.
It’s much harder to identify people at Apple who fit in fine, are not necessarily “bad eggs” or aggressive but that are simply not the person for the job anymore. Phil hasn’t done anything “wrong” but he should probably still go.
“When friends ask me about why they should buy a Watch, I struggle to offer a good answer, even when I think that they would benefit from owning it.”
“In fact, the Watch OS includes comprehensive customization features. Just yesterday I spotted a clock-face configuration that I’ve never seen before. These personalization features not only offer incredible utility thanks to the unique conveniences, users love being able to tweak stuff like this for individuality. In the same way we are all discussing what watch/band combination we are buying, Apple’s marketing missed an opportunity to provoke discussion about what styles and what customizations we want to apply to the clock faces.”
“Personally, I had never heard of this women”
Nor had I.
In any case, there is a typo. Please check.
I hate to keep bringing up pricing but one of the most obvious flaws in regards the Sport model is in fact that pricing. They could have easily made the Sport model out of “regular” aluminium or even polycarbonate, and no one would have been bothered by it. It would have been $100 or even $200 cheaper, and thus competitive with other similar products in the market. A sport model of the watch at or below the $200 price would have sold like lightning.
You keep nagging on this…. that’s not Apple and never will be. And that’s a good thing. Let the plethora of other companies make the cheaper stuff out of cheaper materials. Apple is in fact so successful because it doesn’t play in that commoditized low end market.
How is it “not Apple” if they made the Sport from the same aluminium that they make all their MacBooks out of, instead of the new “hardened” aluminium, thus raising the price by a hundred or so? no one would have cared if it was not made out of “super-aluminium” or whatever they are calling it.
How is it not Apple to carve the watch out of their fancy polycarbonate that they already use for the 5c, the Apple TV, etc.?
They “upped” the quality of the materials, (aping the Edition models), when they didn’t need or have to causing a huge price increase. Because: Fashion.
@Gazoo Bee
I for one am glad that they made it out of the hardened aluminium and don’t mind paying the higher price for it. With the watch being on your wrist it is going to get banged and hit on things even if you are careful and the stronger aluminium will help protect it better. With my phone I can put a case on it to protect it.
A laptop doesn’t go through the same kind of use so there is not need to put anything on it. I can’t put a case on my watch to help protect it. So I am glad that they used a stronger alloy to help protect the casing better so that it doesn’t look completely dinged,scratched and beat up from wearing it in less than a year. That to me is worth the extra money.
I highly doubt that the aluminum is raised therices to 350. No, like all other apple products, you are paying a premium for the brand.
I’m sure the market research suggested they could still sell at the higher price point. Bad business to leave money on the table that customers were willing to give.
And if there market research is wrong, you’ll see them come down in price, still managing to turn a profit.
Strike up the music…..and Action:
In comes jogger running and checking the time.
In comes coffee drinker sipping and checking his heart rate.
In comes teen studying and texting with phone in pocket.
In comes grand parents getting medication reminder while unable to locate where they put iPhone.
Fade out music…..insert graphic Apple Watch $17,000.00
In comes the grand parent that has fallen but can’t get up….
You make some good points, they are obviously still figuring this out. And we can keep in mind that this is the first all new product launch WITHOUT Steve. I bet he’d be more convincing…
“The Heart Rate glance is such a great gimmick” – why is this a gimmick? For exercise and athletes, this is a very useful thing. There’s a fat burn zone where you want to keep your heart rate in, and being able to glance at that would help you stay there longer. Did I misunderstand you?
No he misunderstood it’s usefulness by not understanding it.
Fitness. Right now I sit here with a (very ugly) FitBit Surge on my wrist. GPS built in, HR monitor, exercise profiles and hell, it will feed the data into the Apple health app. The built in GPS was the kicker for me. I really, really don’t want to carry my phone will running. So what I am saying is these devices already exist.
The question I have is Apple going to have a website to look at your metrics? FitBit, Garmin, Polar, etc do and it is by far the best way to look at your data. I have used the apple app and it is in a much lower league.
Maybe they should change there’s an app for that to, theres a watch screen for you? (or just a watch for you)
Everyone will have different apple watch uses that will be the killer feature for them.
For me it will be when I go kayaking on a new river and I need to know where I am. I did this all the time on my iphone last year and it was such a PIA, I almost dropped my iPhone in the water multiple times. At that point I knew i wanted something on my wrist to solve this. This goes along with hiking and biking too.
The watch at that moment becomes that single device (just like the ipad) invaluable at that moment (time)
Theres a time for that?
The hate on this device is getting pretty crazy, allot higher than the iPad… Probably due to the 10k versions.
I hope the sports one will not become thought of as the douche product like google glass did.
But really I dont need someone telling me what I should wear. If they think i’m a douche for wearing a 350 watch thats usefull to me so be it.
“Apple Watch is accurate to ± 50 milliseconds but nobody cares” Wrong. If it wouldn’t keep time within 1 second _always_ I wouldn’t even consider buying it. Until 1997, I couldn’t make that demand of any watch I could afford. Since then, the only feature a watch had to have was the ability to sync to the atomic clock via the WWV radio signal. I’ve put up with annoyingly huge G-Shock watches because they were the best choice for that capability. The Apple Watch is going to be smaller than the watch I’ve been wearing for the last 10 years. And it’s going to let me leave my phone in my pocket even more than I already do.
I think he argues that most watches are capable of being accurate time pieces these days. But can’t be sure.
Overall, I agree. I think Apple hasn’t done the greatest job of controlling the narrative of this product. First, introducing the $10k version at the event wasn’t the ideal move. They should have focused on the regular consumer versions at the event. Then, over in Paris during fashion week (which was ALSO this week) introduce the gold version. That would have prevented some of the crazier headlines after the event in California and focused regular people on the product that was actually being marketed to them.
Second, there’s a ton of confusion over battery life. Apple has stated its 18 hours. But, they haven’t hammered hard enough that this is 18 hours WITH usage. There are a lot of people out there assuming 18 hours is the battery life if you just have it sitting on your wrist doing nothing.
I also agree about focusing on the watch aspect too much. Its a selling point, but not a tentpole. There’s no added value to the fact the watch is extremely accurate to most people. Probably the best approach would be to focus on 3 or 4 big features and, almost as a throw-away, toss in “oh, and it also keeps accurate time”.
On the whole, I actually think its a good product- I just don’t think Apple knows how to sell it yet. That may be due to the fact that they don’t know what features most people are going to like. Others have echoed this, but the key feature is likely “You’ll use your iPhone less” which is a difficult thing for them to say.
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been wearing a Pebble for a little over a year now, and I’m looking forward to upgrading to an Apple Watch, eventually. I think it’ll be an amazing and successful product, but portraying the reasons why to my fiancé, brother, friends and coworkers that don’t wear a watch (smart or otherwise), has been a bit tough. I love my Pebble for a few simple apps, a great weather watch face I can switch to quickly, and, largely, for notification triage so my phone isn’t constantly vibrating and I can judge what needs immediate attention and what can wait. I know an Apple Watch will improve on all of these fronts, but how much and why it’s worth the extra money has been an issue that even causes me to flip flop on how soon I’ll be picking up a Watch to replace my perfectly functional Pebble. If one of my favourite companies can’t sell me on a product category I’m already sold on, there’s something definitely missing in their marketing and communication.
This is article is really on point.
Ultimately, Apple lost its great communicator, Steve. Perhaps his best strength was communicating a need. Apple simply doesn’t have that anymore.
Yes, there’s a strong demo guy, Craig Federighi. Yes, there’s a speeds and feeds guy, Phil. Yes there’s a product and design guy, Jony. And yes, there’s definitely a person managing vision, Tim.
But there is no one to sell the product and communicate what is being solved.
Thought exactly this the other day and made this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8z6l-FKFMw
They need to build more hype and show hoe beautiful the product is.
I agree. I do not think the show was very well planned out. All the time they spent, talking about the other Apple stuff, which can do so many things. Then, to talk just about how great the phone is, only to then show something for which they say you don’t need to use your phone for. The lady that can on stage was pointless I thought. But, later on I realized her purpose. It was to waste time. Apple did not have enough to say about the watch, to last the length of time they had.
What the watch does is save time. Of course it tells time, but the differentiating fact about a smart watch is it saves time. Yes, it is a companion to the phone, but that is how it saves time. It more quickly and efficiently, and less obtrusively, performs many of the functions we previously relied on the phone to perform. And that is its killer feature.
Will it save time? Navigating a 2 inch screen with a digital crown? Verse opening an App on my iPhone with a nice screen size experience? At best it will save 4 seconds per use…. Now also, you cant actually type on the Apple Watch so you will not be texting from it/browsing the internet/sending emails/and likely few will take phone calls. So for the most part people will still be using you phone the majority of the time. The Apple Watch might save you a combined 2 minutes of time per day verse picking your phone off the table next to you and just using it instead.
Time will tell. All watches tell time, but ?watch actually saves time. That’s the tag line at the end of a thirty second spot showing people glancing and quickly responding to notifications that previously would have required them to pull their phone out of their pocket or purse.
I like your article. On the intimate communication tent pole, why can’t I do the same over the iPhone when it’s released? Not every one of my friends and family members will have a watch on day one or after, but they have their iPhones. If you open that intimate communication capability to the iPhone too, it will increase that form of communication than just to the few with watches… it shouldn’t be seen as a watch only sale feature. Where is “Continuity” for this??? What if my watch is charging…will I miss these while only on my phone?
How is the phone going to know what your heartbeat is, or tap you on the wrist though? Most of the things in the communication category can’t be done on a phone.
Complications, notifications, and the power of siri (with a ton of new ways to interact with her on it). That should have been their focus.
In fact keeping the apps compartmentalization away or hiding it better may have been a plus as well. That’s a small screen, this is a product that is suppose to be super fast and easy to interact with, you don’t want people having to search for a particular app on it.
Why show Instagram on stage? That’ll be an awful app.
I think you and others are completely missing the point with WATCH. Everyone is looking for the killer app it seems. The killer app IS THE WATCH. It’s an extension, adding convenience, a more nuanced interfacing with your technology, it provides efficiencies by its very size, it offers quick, quiet access to the server and incoming stream of communications (your iPhone and beyond) and a new means to communicate and capture information for your life. It eliminates some steps and hassles, more so than just the phone. Indeed I’d argue that the iPhone + WATCH will become more than those two devices on their own.
The phone (or smartphone) has always been a bit goofy in terms of interfacing with technology. It’s come a long way of course, and the iPhone specifically finally solved the goofy problem. The WATCH helps solve that problem.
Your marketing comments are understandable, but won’t matter in the long run.
I wear a watch on a daily basis but where I seem to struggle with this new product is the price point. I can guarantee that I look at my phone much more than I do my watch. I glance at my watch more than anything and I suspect it will be more or less the same with the Apple Watch with the exception of getting used to it. It just seems odd to think about the phone costing less and being more of an importance than the watch which is essentially just a companion to the iPhone.
I am sure I’ll probably end up getting one still and I’m sure with each new iteration the details and executions of the exterior and interior will also become more refined and relevant and applicable to other people.
Curious to see what the life cycle of each watch will be though, each year seems likely but longer periods would justify the cost a little more I think.
Big problem is that it is not waterproof, only water resistant. Wanted this for swimming laps. Will hope 2.0 is waterproof.
2007 iPhone:
-revolutionary mobile phone
-widescreen iPod with touch controls
-breakthrough internet device
Stil holds for iPhone now:
-great communications
-great entertainment
-great internet device
2015 Apple Watch:
-great timepiece
-great fitness device
-intimate way to communicate
But I just have a feeling the magical 3 isn’t enough. It should be more like a number of tentpole features, as every new iPhone or iOS/OSX update has. Which means, adding to these three, there should be:
-(personal) fashion
-replacement of keys and wallet
-“there’s an app for that” watch edition, meaning quick showcase of some cool apps without lengthy on-stage developer presentations
Ok, I guess I will stir this up. Why exactly is this a great fitness device? Because it counts steps? there are countless devices that do. Because it has a built in HR monitor? again.. many devices do. Because it does both? Nothing new. Does it do it better?
Here is going to be the first complaint about the watch as far as fitness. The HR monitor. wrist based monitors are notorious for bad readings. They are touchy. Too tight? issue. Sweat puts moisture in between the sensor and your wrist? The monitoring drops. I have tried the Nike cardio watch, Polar v800 with HR and a few others and they all had the same issue. The best I have found for optical monitoring is the rhythm plus and that because you place it up your arm where it has a better chance of keeping contact. I know.. Apple is the master of hardware but this is going to be a tough nut and I am pretty certain they will just smooth the data to compensate which isn’t a real great way to train.
Next, GPS. GPS isn’t just for tracking. It is how you get reliable pace. I know personally and from others I run with that there is no desire to pack your phone during a run. No phone, no GPS. That is an issue.
Now lets talk metrics. I am sure it was meant to be inspirational to have the model explain how the watch is helping her run marathons. The question is how? I am working with the fact that a runner, much less an endurance runner is not going to have their phone with them. Too much weight, too much discomfort. What you end up with is HR data (maybe) and distance. That isn’t a whole lot.
Yes, I am aware that that the watch is an activity tracker and not a sports watch. But you put someone on stage claiming it is then its fair game.
Data. Garmin connect (yes, sports watch territory) and hell, even fitbit will let you view a host of data for activity you do. Very detailed data presented in an very clear website. To my current knowledge Apple is presenting all data in the health app and nothing else. I have imported data into the app and I hate to say it but unless all you are looking at is steps and questionable HR data it’s pretty useless. Oh yeah, it tracks sleep in a device that has to charge at night.
To circle around, the Apple watch is an activity tracker. Getting people off their A$$ and moving is a good thing and I applaud it. What are the chances though that the hourly “move” alerts will just be treated like any other glance? Look and move on. If you are actively trying or a bit more serious this watch is going to be a bit disappointing. Its a fitness tracker and not a sports watch unless you want to haul your phone around. Try hiking with your phone as guidance. Wait.. don’t.
Sorry, bit a runner nerd rant but Apple really shouldn’t market this as a serious health device. Its not. At least not yet :)
Well, you are not the only one who thinks the Apple Watch marketing they did on the keynote is kinda crap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alXya_qowbE
Hello
Some comments are great here. Some others are the same and again the same.
– Apple is not and was never created to make a better world. Apple’s goal is to make money.
– Apple don’t focus on people who buy cheap plastic watch, or male neards who want the biggest and most technobutch watch to prove they are men.
– Apple focus middle class and rich class. If most of middle class use Appke Watch, other people will follow, even if they have to get a visa or a credit of buy a second hand firstgen watch. Why? Because the business is on Health data and on Apple Pay commissions.
– Most of low middle class is ok to spend 200usd for a shit Armani china watch just for name. Most commonly buy an entry swiss ugly watch like Tissot or Zenith between 500 and 2000.
– 170000 is NOT to expensive, as it is a limited edition. People who buy 20’000 watches have usually several, and will buy a gold applewatch because it is funny and limited. People under them will see it on stars and rich, and so will buy the low and middle watch instead. This is marketing, as it works for years with Vuitton and such pseudo luxury brands.
– First Hayek (Swatch ceo) and Biver (Hublot, Tag Heuer) were almost laughing at an Apple watch. Then they said it was not a problem for Swiss watch. Now…. they are just totally affraid, and announced that all their brands will feature sort of smart features or kind of nfc paying system. Why? Because brands like Tissot, Tag Heuer, Zenith have not a so strong history and image like Omega, and a poor design not higly recognizable. These brands could simply disappear int he next 10-20 years. If you can centralize all your notifications, train ticket, keys, remote and all on your watch, you’ll get a smart watch, not a Zenith. Or maybe a smartwatch and a high quality mechanical watch, but not a middle one. And most of that, not a Swatch, even with NFC.
– Most important if Apple absolutely don’t care of some freaky geeks who bought ugly G-SHOCK and so wll buy ugly Pebble, at the opposute they care of women, who just vomit seeing a pebble, a microsoft band or any other giant Motto. If stars and rich have a limited gold watch, the middle will get the entry. If women buy apple watch, all men will buy it also, just to be able to communicate with, send a hearthbeat or a flower.
I understand the feeling that marketing is poor. I think the opposite. Their marketing, because it seems poor and simple, is absolutely machiavelic. Especially because the WHOLE Apple Watch marketing is now focused on women, and women will make men to buy it.
Agree. Wild thought – what if the apple watch is just a v0 for the new iphone? Say 2 generations down(not necessarily annual refresh) apple watch gets its own sim and camera. Apple may be training users for a post carrier subsidy era with the high price and no compelling reason to buy for now. At the moment I an worried about an immediate price drop like the original iPhone.
I find that opinion more completed and clarity about of the ‘Because’ of or about the ‘Purpose’ of that category Smartwatch i think that is a Under category of product this is is not a primary category such as smartphones or tablet because this type of device (smartwatches) need to have an integration with the external things of the life such as a standard integration for live in the planet because it’s principally is an complementary device. The same things i think about Goggle Glass when the things of the planet or the metropolis city is ‘Virtual’ that product doesn’t have the same purpose of smarthphone indispensable
Apple Watch yes Watch nothing to see or especially good about it. They should have made it a necklace then it would have been an Apple Necklace. What ever your marketing the worst, phony and worst move to hire an non savvy person who was fired three times and doesn’t have a clue about Technology, and marketing. She is paid $50m and more and this is what you call smart, CEO Tim your the leader and she is your follower. To see your stores run as they are reflect your poor decision and mindless second person since the worst follower Johnson to be in place. Until you realize the stores look messy, and the employees are everything that represents a bad feeling when you bring children in your stores. Tattoos piercings and horrible non existent dress code, looks like a circus not a retail company. $5k a sq foot, yes but very much should be $7k SF if you attended to your customer better.