Skip to main content

Opinion: How soon is too soon for an Apple Watch 2?

Watch4

Apple’s<a href="http://9to5mac.com/2015/03/29/apple-store-revamp-for-apple-watch-revealed-magical-tables-demo-loops-sales-process/" target="_blank"> upcoming retail overhaul</a> for displaying the Watch

A lot of my techie friends are saying that the entry priced-Apple Watch Sport will be their pick next month, and not because of the exterior look. The theory is that Sport is the cheapest way to experience Apple’s new product category in 2015, and since the second-gen Apple Watch will inevitably be upgraded, why pay a premium this year for nicer materials such as stainless steel and sapphire glass?

Despite the Apple Watch’s desire to marry jewelry with technology, it hasn’t lost the baggage gadgets carry, namely the reality that they’ll be outdated and replaced in a relatively short period of time. If the Apple Watch evolves anything like the original iPad did when it became the iPad 2, the differences could be dramatic.

Personally, when I think about getting more perceived value out of a higher-priced stainless steel Apple Watch rather than testing the waters with the cheaper aluminum model, I’m more concerned with how soon the Apple Watch 2 will be announced rather than how much more functional the newer device could be. No matter what happens with the first-generation model, an Apple Watch 2 will come to market. How will Apple balance keeping the Apple Watch evolutionary momentum going with keeping the first-generation model “modern” for enough time to satisfy early adopters?

The reality is that anything goes after the current Apple Watch launches on April 24th. Apple’s history of updating products shows that the company never rules out deviating from the typical 12-month product upgrade cycle. The Apple Watch upgrade cycle is history waiting to be written, but some iOS devices (not considering the stagnated iPod touch) have remained at flagship status for more than 16 months, while others were upgraded after just 7 short months.

If an Apple Watch 2 powered by an S2 chip with even more sensors arrives 6 months after the original Apple Watch goes on sale, original Apple Watch owners wouldn’t lose any functionality from the product they only recently bought; there will just be a newer version to decide to buy or not, and a mild dose of frustration for those who didn’t hold out for the second-gen model.

Here are some of the possibilities illustrating how long the original Apple Watch will remain the only Apple Watch:

The Apple Watch could be the next iPad 3, in terms of time spent as the current model (and maybe weight and thickness, if the next-gen watch slims down). The iPad 4 was unveiled just 7 months after the iPad 3, moving the tablet launch month from March to October. While the iPad family benefitted from having a better flagship product, customers who had spent $500+  to have the latest tablet enjoyed a rather short bragging period, even given natural evolution in the tech world.

Apple Watch ceramic render

<a href="http://9to5mac.com/2015/04/02/apple-watch-second-gen-concept/" target="_blank">Apple Watch ceramic render</a>

Measuring the Apple Watch’s lifespan is more complicated for a few reasons: it received an early pre-announcement before launch, and will be sold into a small list of countries at first. Apple originally unveiled the Apple Watch in September 2014, and customers won’t be able to own the device until April 2015. That’s a 7-month span — about the lifespan of the iPad 3 — that you could loosely consider as part of the product’s life cycle. Add 12 months without a hardware update from the time it goes on sale until the next release, and we’re looking at 19 months with the first-gen Watch being the only Apple Watch we know. Calls to innovate would inevitably follow.

With that in mind, it’s not impossible to imagine an Apple Watch 2 update taking place at the end of this year, although I admit I would feel a tad slighted as an Apple Watch 1 customer. Spring 2016 (historically more likely) would satisfy me.

The Apple Watch could be the next iPhone 4. Remember how long it felt between the iPhone 4 unveiling and the highly anticipated iPhone 4S announcement? 16 months in between meant everyone was more than ready for the “iPhone 5” before Apple revealed the iPhone 4S, featuring nearly identical external hardware and an improved camera paired with Siri. If Apple used March 2016 to reveal the next Watch, that would amount to 18 months in between the announcement and successor, but only 11 months between shipping and the next version. Both the second-gen iPhone and second-gen iPad took this approach.

Keep in mind also that the Apple Watch will only be for sale in nine countries next month, with additional markets likely lighting up in the months that follow. These markets will supplement Apple Watch sales, adding new potential customers during a lengthy product cycle similar to the iPhone 4’s Verizon launch in January 2011, and the white iPhone 4’s delayed release in April 2011.

Apple took nearly 6 months between the original iPhone unveiling and the release, then announced the iPhone 3G 12 months later, a month before its release. Similarly, the original iPad was announced 3 months before going on sale, then replaced after 12 months. Again, bear in mind that the Apple Watch has 7 months lead time between announcement and release, longer than either product.

Apple Watch Things app

Native Apple Watch apps are coming in 2015. Adding native app support from third-party developers — not just extension-like WatchKit apps — to the Apple Watch will be a big deal on the software side. An SDK for creating such apps is on its way this year. Showing it off in June at WWDC, then letting developers ship in the fall a year after the Apple Watch’s first unveiling, would pad the extended life cycle.

Changing this aspect of the software would “update” the Apple Watch lineup without changing the physical product. Come next spring, a March or April Apple Watch 2 announcement would give original Apple Watch customers adequate time to own Apple’s new device before being asked to consider upgrading to the newer, better version or not.

There’s also chatter that new materials are being considered for the casing of the Apple Watch. From the perspective of someone interested in spending a little more money for nicer materials while hoping a newer version doesn’t surface too soon, I’d still be satisfied with my purchase if a revved Apple Watch lineup added new material options while offering the same internal hardware and features. It’s the promise of new sensors and improved battery life that tempt upgrading.

Apple-Watch-packaging

So what should you make of all this information? For me, this is an exercise in determining the value of paying a premium for materials that deliver nearly the same utility — for $200 more, the sapphire front will be more protective by some factor than the Ion-X glass found on the Sport model. I would be more likely to upgrade from an Apple Watch to an Apple Watch 2 if I only paid the utility price for a Sport model, but investing in a stainless steel first-gen model would make me hold on to my purchase a little while longer than I might otherwise consider with a tech product.

As I mentioned above, other people are considering these issues when deciding which Apple Watch to purchase, even if they’re already sold on the utility of the device. If you knew the Apple Watch 2 was actually 24 months away from being announced, would you consider paying more for a nicer version now?

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ql0Z8Il73s]

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. blockbusterbuzz - 9 years ago

    I’m saying 2015 Holidays at the earliest, Spring 2016 at the latest.

    • blockbusterbuzz - 9 years ago

      Wanted to add that, an all ceramic model would be beautiful if it could be a single smooth piece that houses the heart rate monitor along with the rest of the body.

    • 1sugomac - 9 years ago

      There are six types of updates they can do to the Apple Watch line.
      1 – Software updates- Watch OS will probably be on an annual release schedule
      2 – New bands – use your imagination
      3 – New materials and finishes while maintaining the form factor – ceramic, white gold, anodized aluminum in new colors
      4 – Update the internals while maintaining the form factor – new S2 chip.
      5 – New form factor that maintains backward compatibility with old bands
      6 – New form factor that requires new bands

      I think we will see Apple use a variety of updates in the next few years.
      I think we will see #6 in 5-7 years.

  2. Jono Young (@chsweb) - 9 years ago

    I plan to get the Apple Watch Sport. I don’t care what it is made of, I just want the functionality and the ability to control my Appel TV from my watch soon. I will also need a few native Apps from Strava or Garmin to extend the life of the watch.

    I am in the market for a good fitness watch. Most watches that I am looking at cost as much as the Apple Watch Sport, so to meet my functional fitness needs for a fitness watch and to get so much more from an Apple Watch – it just makes perfect sense.

    I am not sure what the Apple Watch 2 will offer, but I am certain the Watch OS update that comes for the Apple Watch 2 will bring some new stuff, even to the first generation of Apple Watches too. I suspect I will have this watch for 4 or 5 years, I don’t need much – what has been proposed already exceeds my watch needs.

    • Lagax (@Lagax_) - 9 years ago

      “I am not sure what the Apple Watch 2 will offer, but I am certain the Watch OS update that comes for the Apple Watch 2 will bring some new stuff, even to the first generation of Apple Watches too.”

      I think they are going to take an iOS approach here: as long as it doesn’t completely cripple the device all new software features will come to the first generation…

    • SpeckledBilagaana - 9 years ago

      Anodized aluminum 7000 alloy is ⅓ lighter than stainless, and about as durable. Sapphire is only slightly more scratch-resistant, and actually less impact-resistant.

      The “Sport” title threw me at first, but now I prefer that model. Especially since I want the blackish-color, but refuse to fork over $450 for a stainless band—what a rip-off!

  3. garyconrad2014 - 9 years ago

    If they release the Apple Watch 2 before the Apple Watch 1 that will be too soon. Wait maybe that is better …..

  4. PMZanetti - 9 years ago

    People who view it as buying a super-cool iPhone accessory will buy the Sport, because its all you need.

    People who view it as buying a watch, or buying a fashion accessory, will buy what looks good.

    Neither is the wrong decision. And AppleWatch 2 factors in precisely nowhere.

    • Gazoo Bee - 9 years ago

      Agreed. And simply put.

    • SpeckledBilagaana - 9 years ago

      The “sport” model is a nice looking watch. Many people have commented how much better it looks in person. The only visible difference in the stainless is that it’s shiny, and that’s only the chromed model. The flat black model isn’t all that different looking than the aluminum sport model, plus you have to pay the outrageous $450 for the band on the stainless model. Shiny stainless scratches fairly easily, and scratches are far more noticeable on a shiny surface.

      I want a watch which is also a smart watch, not because it is cool, and not as a fashion accessory. I like that the “sport” is much lighter, and the screen is half as reflective as the ultra-hyped sapphire.

      Saying AppleWatch 2 factors nowhere is simply shortsighted. Like many companies, I am certain Apple has already planned out future versions. You don’t start out with a product which has everything, unless you want it to be a one-time hit. You map out your upgrades over the coming years to keep consumers interested and coming back. I suspect the first thing Apple will do is make the watch a little thinner. We all know how fixated they’ve become on thinness. Looking at the iFixIt teardown, I’d say there is plenty of room for that in the case design alone. Then there are the obvious upgrades, such as a skin temperature sensor for example. That would be very useful in detecting stress. Perspiration sensing will also be added at some point. I used to think these options were expensive or bulky or impractical, but competitors already have these features in less expensive product offerings.

      I’m sorry, but there are big reasons to wait for version 2 or even 3. I suspect 2 will include minor upgrades. When it comes time for version 3, Apple will need to make a big splash to regenerate interest in a 3-year-old product, so I expect that is when more significant changes will likely happen. By then the competition will likely have more features than the Apple Watch. For example, last year Intel bought out a company making smart watches with superior technology to Apple’s current offering. If wearables become more popular, I expect serious competition. And the competition’s products will work with both iOS and Android, making them all that more appealing to the general public.

      The future holds great things in wearables. We’re only scratching the surface at this point in time.

  5. beyondthetech - 9 years ago

    I’m thinking that if Apple said they’re able to replace the battery of the Watch, who’s to say they can’t replace the logic board as well? Wear and tear will be more applicable to the Apple Watch than an iPhone or iPod, so it’s possible that they would open up a special “Watch Genius” division within the Genius Bar to gut out the chassis to replace its internals and let the user keep the rest of their Watch.

    Having a customer invest hundreds to thousands of dollars on a piece of technology that could be made obsolete would not bode well, and since Apple is all about the customer experience, being able to minimize the impact of upgrading should be somewhere in their agenda.

    That being said, I’ll remain cautious and just get two Watch Sport models for me and my wife. For only $15-25 on Amazon, you can buy a TPU case from the first two known companies set to produce them – Luvvitt and Spigen. ActionProof on Indiegogo has committed to making The Bumper, which is another type of enclosure for the Apple Watch for only $20. All those are big savings from the next step up of $200 each to the next model.

    • Lagax (@Lagax_) - 9 years ago

      This is not possible. Because Apple is all about customer experience. They don’t do that with iPhones, too. And it’s not a big difference, it’s basically almost everything on the one logic board…

    • toproy - 9 years ago

      Very unlikely to happen. The repair strategy more than likely will be whole unit swap for issues like batteries, displays etc. This is the current strategy for iPads and iPods. Only the phones get the modular treatment and even that is limited.

    • SpeckledBilagaana - 9 years ago

      Apple will redesign the innards so the processor won’t work in the old model. They will do that because it will be required in their improvements, and they have no motivation to make old products upgradeable. In fact, quite the opposite. In recent years Apple has gone out of their way to make all their products LESS upgradable than before. You can no longer upgrade memory to your Mac, nor the hard drive. iPhones and iPads are not upgradeable in any way, nor will they ever be.

      I would confidently bet the farm that the current Apple Watch will most definitely NOT be upgradeable.

  6. Jody B. Settoon - 9 years ago

    I am going to get the stainless steel model. Is it possible for Apple to make any upgrade to fit in the existing case and you would not be buying a whole new watch.

    • Lagax (@Lagax_) - 9 years ago

      They could do that, but they won’t. Too much hassle, it is better for them if you just buy a new one, …

  7. Nis del Rey - 9 years ago

    this is also my biggest concern. its too expensive. and im sure there will be upgrades every year like with all the iphones, ipads and ipods. it would make sense. i dont know what to do. i really want the $700 dollar one. would end up paying around $800 with taxes for a watch that in a year people wont even pay one third for it if i try to resell it. i dont know if its worth the expense. its a luxury really. i only hope the battery life is at least one day with normal usage because although apple is claiming 18hours im sure theyre exaggerating and does not reflect the average user.

    • Lagax (@Lagax_) - 9 years ago

      Well they say what these 18 hours apply to… Let’s see if that’s true… I suspect not, too… Expect 15 hours, but that’s ok…

    • toproy - 9 years ago

      On that price range and with the use the watches get, you will never recoup your investment.
      Maybe many years from now as a first generation devise.

      My opinion on the matter is, get what fits your budget and what fits your lifestyle. Worry not about when will the next one come around.

      Just remember this is not a phone. It’s a thing they will be attached to your body most of the day. Materials in the phone are not as important, largely because it’s not attached to your skin and it’s not visible all the time.

      This is not just a utilitarian item, it is a fashion item too much like a pair or rare snickers or nice shoes.

      You don’t think about the resale value of worn shoes, and are also not that worried about if it will be outdated soon.

      Judging by the profile picture of the article’s writer, sure, utility is the greatest factor. But he does not strike me as the gentleman that would spend more than 10 dollars on a haircut either.

  8. 89p13 - 9 years ago

    Much as I would like to get the Stainless Steel model – I’m holding out for the (rumoured) Titanium model – and hoping it has additional sensors. As a diabetic, to be able to have the next gen Apple Watch continuously monitor my blood sugar would be worth so much more to me.

    I think that the early adopters will love their watch, but I’d rather wait and get what I’m hoping will be coming in a year or two.

    YMMV

    • Robert - 9 years ago

      I hope you get what you want.
      There are some huge technological challenges to making such a sensor, especially if it is to be accurate and small enough for a watch. Also some regulatory hurdles in various lands.
      I hope Apple are working on sensors that could change people’s lives rather than making watch thinner.

    • dksmidtx - 9 years ago

      Having several family members with diabetes, I so hope you are right, but I think that may be a gen 3 or 4 device to be able to monitor blood glucose levels without an actual blood sample (can that even be done today in any fashion)?

    • darthque - 9 years ago

      I hope you get it too. Now THAT kind of functionality justifies the price.

  9. bellevueboy - 9 years ago

    1000% agree. All I want the watch is for pay. And I know next version will be thinner with longer batterry life and while I m making wishes have a FaceTime camera. So I will get the stainless steel one next time.

    • Lagax (@Lagax_) - 9 years ago

      The next version won’t be thinner and have better battery life. That’s not possible.

      Most likely it won’t be thiner as this is a pretty good thickness for a watch. There is no reason to make it thinner…

      • bellevueboy - 9 years ago

        1. Thickness is good for watches as we know them today. But it’s apple.
        2. Every year I think the same about iPads and iPhones and MacBooks so I guess we will wait and watch;);) see what I did there?

      • Robert - 9 years ago

        This is a different product. Every new iPhone and iPad is thinner than the one before. But the watch is different, it can’t get much thinner without making the digital crown impossible to use. Some who have been hands-on with the device have already complained that they can’t easily manipulate the crown in the way they expected to. This device will not follow many of the patterns that we have come to expect with other Apple products.

  10. James Alexander - 9 years ago

    April 25th. To soon.

  11. Robert - 9 years ago

    This product will have a long user upgrade cycle. Apple have voiced this expectation in their own store training materials that envision customers saying ‘I’ll have this for a long time’.
    I expect Apple are working on adding battery life to the hardware, getting the software ready for native apps, and adding new styles. We might see some new collections in 2016. I don’t think we’ll see a thinner form any time soon because of the battery life problem. I won’t upgrade until their are several significant advancements and I don’t think we’ll that for 3-4 years.

    Most people put a case and a screen protector on their phone because the aluminum and glass will get scraped and dinged and scratched. Who’s planning on putting a case on their Apple Watch Sport? The harder SST and sapphire will look good for much longer!

    • bellevueboy - 9 years ago

      I think eventually it will get its own sim(ultra Zeno like 1000 times smaller than current sim ;)) and apple will phase out iphones as it faces more pressures from carriers on subsidy. I m kidding but then again it’s apple and I often wonder how will they make a shift for users who have got used to the $200 iPhone. This might be a trial.

      • Robert - 9 years ago

        The watch can not replace the phone. No one is going to hold their arm in a fixed position for more than a short few seconds. Will you ever be able to view web pages on the tiny watch screen? Will you twist you arm around to use a camera and be able to see a preview image? The watch simple can’t do the things we rely on our phones for. Furthermore, people like to speak privately on the phone (we often warn people if we have them on speaker), so do you think people would walk around with their watch to their ear to make a private call? The watch will complement the phone but never replace it and they should not compete with each other.

  12. Mathieu Lecomte - 9 years ago

    I think new models or updates for this product will not be as cyclical as the other apple products. the watch inner components will not need to be upgraded as often as a phone or a tablet since there is not as much need for speed of computation or capacity. The only thing would likely be the quality or longevity of batteries.

    When you compare to the universe of the Swiss watch makers and where Apple seem to want to position the product against the luxury brands, I think the renewal rate of the Apple Watch will be longer than other products.. but you are all allowed to disagree :)

    • Robert - 9 years ago

      Exactly!

    • Tim LeVier - 9 years ago

      One might suggest that they change the form factor, make it thinner, etc. But I don’t think that will be the case. If they ever make it “thinner” I suspect they’ll keep the same external dimensions and use more and more space for battery. If the external dimensions got thinner, I would think the digital crown would become useless. If that gets too close to the skin, it’ll just be a problem. What I really want to know is what it’s like to wear the watch while wearing a golf polo on a cloudless day, playing 18-holes in the sun without a golf cart for shade relief. Will it get hot and burn up like an iPhone? I just don’t want to be the guinea pig on this one.

      • Robert - 9 years ago

        Excellent point!
        The digital crown will become useless if the watch gets much thinner!
        A supposed, significantly thinner model will NOT happen for this product.

        When Apple update the watch product range it will be to add “collections” and the focus will be on keeping fresh with fashion.
        They would be crazy not to do a Marc Newson signature collection.

        Don’t expect yearly leaps in technology!
        It may be a number of years before an owner of the launch version feels they must upgrade for technological improvements.

        The replaceable battery is one indication that Apple expects the product to be worn for years.

      • Gazoo Bee - 9 years ago

        I disagree about the thin-ness. It will get thinner because as it is right now, it’s biggest aesthetic drawback is it’s very “chunkiness.” Also Apple fetishises “thin.”

        If battery tech improves, they won’t keep the device the same thickness and put in more battery. Apple pretty much NEVER does this with any of their products. They keep the battery life the same and reduce the thickness of the device.

        In regards the digital crown, there are many, many, watches that are 10 times thinner and still have a crown on them for winding it up. The giant “chunky” watches that a lot of men wear today are a complete anomaly in the history of watches. Most wrist watches are far smaller and thinner than any smart watch has ever been. If Apple keeps prioritizing style (and they will), the watch will likely get much thinner over time.

      • dksmidtx - 9 years ago

        This may be the first time Apple’s “keep same battery life but slice off more microns” won’t work because 18 hours is unacceptable to begin with. Yes, we (me) will still buy Gen 1, but it needs to stretch through a weekend at least, which is 72 hours, which is a LONG way from 18. Or, this may be where they really are working on that solar recharger tech they tried to patent (heck, my Seiko Solar has that and yes, I know its battery needs are infinitesimally smaller than a smartwatch). Or how about a super-fast rechargeable battery – say 80% in 5 minutes; NOW you’re talking. As for chunkiness, none of us have seen one in the flesh, but even in the pictures it is on the thick side for a watch (again, reference my Seiko Solar). I know oversized watches are a trend, but not really for the general public.

        So no 7.5mm watch until they can bring on that quick charge, battery topping solar, combination.

  13. fishbert (@fishbert) - 9 years ago

    > why pay a premium this year…

    $350 entry is already paying a pretty steep premium this year.

  14. Atlas (@Metascover) - 9 years ago

    That we are still thinking about gen 2 shows that this time, Apple rushed a little too much. I think the watch is great, but it could have been better had Apple waited. I think however they did the right choice, but it’s clear that first gen will be limited compared to the second one which’ll have better battery and maybe more sensors.

    • kpom1 - 9 years ago

      Rushed? They announced this 7 months ago and it still isn’t out. If anything, they are taking a long time to get it right the first time. I think they know that most people won’t be buying replacements every year.

  15. I’ve got to think they have hardware upgrades in store for Apple Watch 2, specifically battery life and GPS.

    The biggest differences between Apple Watch and other smart sport watches is the ability to track GPS via the watch and track your sleep. Because of battery issues sleep isn’t an option. The Watch 2 needs to have built in GPS. Imagine being able to go on a run without your phone or armband, have the watch track where you run, and have music stored on your watch which plays via bluetooth to your headphones. The lack of GPS is the biggest complaint of mine. Granted the accelerometer will track how far you’ve gone, steps, etc without the use of the phone, but GPS is more precise.

    • Gazoo Bee - 9 years ago

      I agree on the GPS but I don’t think the Apple Watch will ever be a “sleep tracker” nor do I think it should be. The reality is that people don’t wear watches to bed and only a small subset of the population wants to “track their sleep.”

      Even if it acquired the necessary battery life to do this, I don’t see anything but the smallest group of folks actually availing themselves of the opportunity and wearing a big clunky watch to bed each night.

      For this to work, the device would have to be very small and very lightweight, almost a whisper on the arm. The Apple Watch on the other hand is purposely heavy. The Apple Watch is not going to be that device probably ever, but certainly for many years yet. People waiting for this feature will be disappointed.

      • I agree. I currently have a FitBit One which is tiny and comes with a nylon wristband for sleep tracking and I myself can’t stand it. But as health tracking catches on more and more it may be something people want more.

        Also, “a whisper on the arm,” do you work for Apple, because that sounds like something they’d describe a device as.

    • Robert - 9 years ago

      GPS would be a bad idea because it is battery intensive. Sure a map of your run would be nice, but this is a limited use case. What else would you need GPS for without your phone?
      If you take your phone on a run with you a few times, the watch will learn your stride and how it changes with the intensity of your heart beat and pace. Once the Watch learns this you can leave the phone at home and still get a very accurate measurement of your run distance, without GPS!

      • You’re right. I can’t think of much outside of running that would require GPS where you wouldn’t have your phone as well. But, Apple is clearly planning on making a large foray in to the health and fitness industry and if they want to be a legitimate option for serious runners and athletes, then GPS is necessary. There are plenty other watches (that are cheaper and have better battery life) that have GPS. Granted they don’t have the extra communication features, which for me makes up for the cost, and is why I will be getting an Apple Watch over say, a FitBit Surge.

        Not to mention it opens up a few more communication features as well. You could go on a run or walk and then send the route to a friend. You can create a route on Maps your laptop, then just like driving directions, send it to your watch and it will give you turn by turn directions as you go.

        Carrying around a phone isn’t a big deal to me. I have pockets and I have a large enough build that an armband isn’t intrusive. But for someone like my wife who has a small build, armbands (and increasingly large phones) are obtrusive. When she works out she’s generally using an old iPod Shuffle because it can clip to her shirt and won’t get in the way.

        The more the Apple Watch can work independently of an iPhone the better it will get.

      • Gazoo Bee - 9 years ago

        I disagree. Sure GPS currently would kill the watch, that’s why it isn’t there right now. There are many reasons why it should be there though and why it would be nice if it were there. The Watch ultimately needing to operate by itself, without the necessary adjunct of an iPhone is one of the most obvious ones.

        I think it will happen eventually. And a cell-radio too (also a big drain on the battery currently).

  16. Gazoo Bee - 9 years ago

    I’ve come full circle on the pricing of the Apple Watch and now believe it to be “cheap” so a new model can’t come soon enough for me and I would be prepared to upgrade yearly in fact.

    The reasoning goes like this:

    – Ignore the f*cking Edition Watch. If you are lucky you will never own one.
    – competing devices in the market before Apple entered were in the $250 zone.
    – Apple often enters a market like that with a device roughly double the average cost.

    So it’s totally “normal” for Apple to come out with a smart watch in the $250-$500 range, and this is exactly what they have done if you ignore the “Edition” nonsense.

    People then argue as I have in the past, that the cost of the bands is also high and that the total cost of ownership is more in the $1000 range than the $500 range. Multiple bands put you into multiple thousands of dollars very quickly and it all seems rather insane.

    However, if there is an Apple Watch 2 next year, you won’t have to buy the bands again will you? In all likelihood, the attachment mechanism is going to be the same for a long while. Your replacement Apple Watch is going to be either $350 or $500 or it’s going to be less. This is NOT that expensive. It’s not more expensive than buying an iPhone or any other little tech device every year. The presence of the expensive bands, and the very existence of the “Edition” crap, has given the device an aura of “expensive” but it actually isn’t.

    • I am not saying that Apple watch is expensive, because all Apple products are comparing to other brands. If they can sell at their desired prices that is very good for them. Apple watch will sell very well in US, however I doubt that they will have similar success in Europe and even less in Asia. Many people will buy other brands even if they are marginally cheaper.

      But Apple Watch 2 could really be much better device. Lets see what 3rd party developers will come up with. I also think that Apple wants to do a lot more with vital data.

      • Gazoo Bee - 9 years ago

        Well, there really aren’t any “other brands” that do the same thing though. So you might be mistaken about that. Also, always good to remember that people are not actually rational and don’t make reasonable decisions on things like this.

  17. cafesitter (@cafesitter) - 9 years ago

    I will buy stainless and then the new one when it comes out and give the old one to someone in the family just like I do with iPhones. That way I will not feel bad after upgrade and will have a watch buddy…;)

  18. The number of opinion and speculation articles on this website is really getting out of hand…..

    • Zac Hall - 9 years ago

      Your opinion has been recognized.

    • guacho8 - 9 years ago

      The number of opinion and speculation from readers on this website is really getting out of hand…..

  19. Tim LeVier - 9 years ago

    I feel like Apple will keep the Spring cycle of refresh for new products until they learn the “natural demand” to get supply correct. Once they’ve got the data, they’ll move the annual refresh to the Sept/Oct time-frame. When introducing a new product refresh, they don’t want to be too close to the holidays because with the fans lining up and draining supply, Apple needs those 2-3 months to fill the initial demand so that they can properly stock for Holiday demand. Nothing would be a worse PR blunder than to rope in and convert a new customer at the holiday time than to have that customer be completely put off by the supply struggles. Sure Apple has updated Specs on existing machines like MacBooks in November, but those are under the hood type improvements that generally go un-noticed and don’t greatly affect supply/demand at the holiday time.

  20. Jim White-Termini - 9 years ago

    If Elon Musk was part of the design team you would simply “swap out” the S1 chip/guts and back plate sensors for an S2 chip/guts and new back plate with updated sensors. Thus preserving your investment in the materials of the case/band/face.

  21. Cameron Scott - 9 years ago

    I would not mind an update to the Apple Watch, which I would finally buy, if they did the following:

    1) Untether the watch from the phone
    2) Improve battery life to at least 3 or more days
    3) Create a sports edition with an “actual” low entry cost point.

    • Gazoo Bee - 9 years ago

      1) will happen within a few generations most likely
      2) will never happen at all
      3) you’re quibbling about $100

      Seems to me like you are actually determined to deny yourself the Apple Watch pretty much forever. At least until you see everyone else wearing them and change your mind about all of this stuff. ;-)

      • Milorad Ivović - 9 years ago

        Untethering completely is wishful thinking – Certainly it will gain some independence, but it’ll still require the phone for loading apps, and changing settings.

        Apple isn’t in the business of reducing its sales opportunities. Every watch customer means a sticky iphone upgrade, so those who might be looking at an android phone have a $350-$1000 reason to stop looking.

        It’s what they call a sticky sale.

      • Milorad Ivović - 9 years ago

        btw, I *absolutely* agree with you about the battery life. Apple won’t make people lug around an extra day worth of battery for no good reason. instead, they will improve processing speed and device capability as battery tech improves.

        Nightly charging is an absolute non-issue, and people are always making a huge deal about this for no good reason. When you’re asleep, who gives a shit.

    • dksmidtx - 9 years ago

      I think the opposite is true from Apple’s perspective – wanting the watch will drive the necessity of owning an iPhone – convert even more heathens to the religion…

  22. Tom Adams - 9 years ago

    There is no doubt I will wait because I definitely don’t feel like buying another iPad 1. The iPad 2 is still usable to this day, the iPad 1 feels like a brick in comparison both in performance and in dimensions

  23. kpom1 - 9 years ago

    My guess is that we’ll see expanded band options in time for the holidays, and eventually Apple Watch will be updated in accordance with the iPhone cadence, but it won’t happen this year. January-February 2016 is perfect timing for Valentine’s Day and Chinese New Year.

  24. Smigit - 9 years ago

    I’d say an iPad 3 to iPad 4 cycle is very unlikely. By and large, the iPad 4 was one of the most minor updates to an iOS lineup Apple has made, with the possible exception being the 2014 iPad Mini. Really the only reason for the iPad 4 to have shipped when it did was to shift the product cycle to match other iOS devices and to get the newly announced lighetning connector into the product. Sure it had a faster chip, but I doubt they’d have gone through a refresh for that alone.

    The minor update that was the iPad 4 doesn’t fit in with the expectations that Apple would use the second generation to make big strides on improving their first gen device. Also a late April launch means you’re looking at close to a five month cycle of you’re going to release before Christmas, which is very short.

    If I had to guess, mid to third quarter next year seems more likely. Apple will likely have supply issues for some time, so a quick move to a second release while the first is in high demand doesn’t seem likely to me.

  25. dksmidtx - 9 years ago

    “It’s the promise of new sensors and improved battery life that tempt upgrading.” You are right and I think this will be the key for many first gen owners. If the “2” is really a “1s” with slightly improved internals, ,I’ll wait for the 7.5mm/3 day battery model to follow. For that period, the space gray sport model will do just fine.

  26. SpeckledBilagaana - 9 years ago

    As for Apple Watch II, I’m not expecting much. Maybe slightly different materials or bands.

    As for improved battery life, there is only so much you can squeeze into a product of this size, and the processor won’t likely get noticeably more efficient. Besides, if it will last the average customer a full day’s use, there’s no point in a slightly longer lasting battery anyway.

    I doubt the price will drop much, if at at all, considering Apple’s history. $25-50 isn’t going to make or break a sale, so there is no point in Apple losing money there.

    On the other hand, Apple will likely want to make the watch “New and Improved” for Christmas, so I suspect version 2 in time for the holidays. But it might be little more than an OS update to. Apple can always claim “new and improved” even if the first version gets the very same improvements. (They’ve done it before!)

  27. Michael McCarthy - 9 years ago

    The biggest issue for me is being WATERPROOF. Swimmers, divers, athletes all around need this. The Limited Water Resistant, will never work long term. I need that functionality. Maybe aftermarket vendors like Aquaflood who upgrade the IPOD shuffle to make it completely waterproof for me to swim laps and train for triathlons may upgrade the Apple Watch to make it waterproof.

  28. spiffers - 9 years ago

    My wife and I are both going for the “cheap” Apple Watch Sport, waiting for gen 3 to buy a “nice” one. I dont poop money, so the Edition is out of my reach, and with past experience with first and second generation iPhone, I dont think its worth to pay the premium for the steel one until the third generation.
    I will probably go for 1 gen sport, 3 gen steel, 5 gen sport, 7 gen steel and so on.

  29. I actually intend on not being an early adaptor for a change and will probably wait for the next generation of the apple watch before i make a purchase.
    I think by that time the device will have more to offer and as i see it as a not necessary device i am more than happy to wait for a change.

  30. I’m left wondering if the 7 month span was precisely what Apple had planned for. Moreover, I wonder if Angela Ahrendts had anything to do with it. You see in the fashion world, because of time for production, shipping, press – Spring/Summer collections are announced the prior winter and vice versa.

    What I’m getting at here is: with Apple’s own positioning of the  Watch as a fashion accessory through partnerships with Vogue and Christy Turlington Burns – Will they follow the fashion world in previewing the next generation  Watch at the September iPhone event, and then launch it in March/April on a continual basis?

    If done incorrectly, they’ll put a strangle hold on there sales from preview to launch of the current generation. However, if done correctly – by featuring software enhancements that will improve the current generation too, they could breathe new life into sales of a product that for all intents and purposes is 5 months old.

  31. dksmidtx - 9 years ago

    My gut says additional materials (platinum, titanium) and more bands for Christmas 2015, with AW2 launching spring 2015.

  32. Alan Gottlieb - 9 years ago

    I love Apple products. I have the retinal iMac, the latest retinal Mac Book Pro, the iPhone and two iPads. However, even though I collect watches, I could never buy the Apple watch.

    Watch manufacturers have sent years to perfect watches that don’t need battery replacement or wind themselves. So, why should I buy a watch that requires a daily charge? It’s just too inconvenient.

    Secondly. you must connect the watch to your iPhone. So, if I forget my iPhone, much of the watch’s functionality is gone.

    Personally, I think the watch is a great toy for gadget geeks, and will sell well to that group. However, I don’t believe the product as it exists is really useful enough to justify the price.

Author

Avatar for Zac Hall Zac Hall

Zac covers Apple news, hosts the 9to5Mac Happy Hour podcast, and created SpaceExplored.com.