Oi. APPLE fanboi! You with the $10k and pocket on fire! Fancy a WATCH? High-end models of Apple's Watch, which apparently has its official release tomorrow, could carry a price tag of at least $10,000. But the 18-carat gold wristputer won't have additional fancy features, according to the Financial Times. Instead, it will apparently come loaded with the same functionality as Cupertino's Apple …
I had an awesome Casio watch at school - clock, date / time, alarm clock, stop watch, timer AND calculator. And a battery which lasted years. This was over 3 decades ago.
Anyway, Casio have a G-shock watch which probably qualifies as the only smart watch to be worth a damn at this time. It has low power bluetooth and an app for phones that can make it vibrate and display a text message and other than that it's just a fancy LCD watch. So the battery lasts ages.
For the longest time (nearly a decade) a TS-150 thermometer watch
Then I got a TSR-100 infra-red thermo-scanner watch
After that a CMD-40-1ZT infra-red remote control watch
Now I got a smartphone for my time telling needs... but I still have those watches (and many more with built-in games)
F-91W
It's still an experiment in progress but F-91Ws seem to be costing me approximately £11 per decade to run. Being the Bic Cristal/Honda Super Cub of watches I'd imagine that they'll still be rolling off productions lines 20 or 30 years hence in very similar form.
Do we need watches to tell the time? If I look around my desk, the time is on my monitor screen, my mobile phone and my desk phone. The office wall clock is superfluous. If I go out into my car there is a clock that is kept accurate by RDS signals over the air. In town there are enough time telling devices to cover the time where there isn't one in sight (a few minutes max). I'm generally aware of the approximate time anyway without seeing a clock. At home, the time is on my TV, kitchen cooker, hifi, DAB radio, alarm clocks.
Why do I need a watch?
Back in the old days, the only sources of time out of the home were the position of the celestial bodies (not reliable in UK because they often hide) or a clock on a church tower. People carried a small pocket watch on a chain in a pocket. Looking at the time required them to pull the watch out (using the handy chain) open the front casing, observe the time, close the case, replace it in pocket. Then, in the 20th Century, advances brought us the little clock that could be strapped on your wrist and observed by just turning a wrist towards the face. Even with busy hands - brilliant!
The other step forward was the quartz watch with the eternal battery life -eliminating daily winding.
Then, in the 21st Century **** me, people regressed back to using the old retrieve from pocket, open case, observe time etc etc, but this time without the handy chain to help them! And all this in a world where the correct time is everywhere and we don't need to look at the time! And daily winding (charging) is back too!
So what are watches useful for? Well, these mobile phones can give us personalised information, that isn't a common and the same for all of us and ubiquitous. Our feed of information and communication that arrives through our phone. The smartwatch is the step forward from the pocket watch on a chain to a quickly observed wrist twitch that happened with the introduction of the wrist watch.
But it isn't. Because most of them are impractical devices using inappropriate tech, that need a button press with the other hand. Only Pebble have got it anywhere near right so far.
Wow! Just turn your wrist to see the time. What WILL they think of next?
Incidentally, rumour has it the Gear already does that. In binary time display if you so wish. As an aside, since I installed the binary face I've had to extend the display timeout to give myself enough time to work out the errrm time.
No ... you don't really need a watch any longer ... unless you find yourself needing to use a sextant and almanac to find your position several hundred miles from land. That's where my Casio GW-500A proves its worth. Resets itself every day, and bang-on accurate to the second.
Or you could dispense with the timepiece and try it with your sundial ... !
Just before Christmas, I brought a health/sleep tracker. Battery lasts ~5 days. Cumbersome, not very ergonomic, kept running low when I did not have a charge cable. It's been sitting at the bottom of my sports bag for the last 2 months... I predict somthing very similar happening to the iwatch...
Men wear watches for 2 reasons.
1 : To tell the time ( This is the obvious one)..
2 : Because it is the only piece if jewellery a man can wear whilst retaining some dignity.
That piece of jewelery can climb to a very tidy sum of money. It can be kept in good condition and where necassary sold for quite a large part of it's initial value. We're talking Philip Patek, Vacheron Constantin etc not Casio here. ( Nothing wrong with Casio, I have one, it's just that Casio usually belongs in the option 1 group )
Apples iWatch thing will initially cost a lot and then when the "usual Apple hype" wears of, it will be worth next to nothing. Kind of akin to pying for a solid golf neklace, only to learn that it is just shiny silver plated necklace from the pawn shop owner who just keeps laughing when you ask for anything above scrap value.
Like most things Apple, there is no intrinsic value, just some hype and then all you are left with is a half eaten piece of fruit.... Before the Appletards get all butthurt, it's Ok not to love Apple, they are just another commercial entity that are very successfull at shafting their customers... Steve jobs didn't design good prducts, he designed good marketing...
If they really sell this for $10K, you don't think people are going to buy it and be left to twist in the wind, do you? Seems pretty much dead certain anyone who buys one of those will get some sort of specialized service with it that will either trade it in or replace the insides for x number of years with every Watch upgrade. The guts will cost Apple less than $100, pretty simple to do.
The only risk with buying the initial model is, what if the Watch flops and there are no future versions? Then you have to hope that someday the handful of gold Watches sold become a collector's item for the same sort of people who collect Edsels or Tuckers.
"Kind of akin to pying for a solid golf neklace, only to learn that it is just shiny silver plated necklace from the pawn shop owner who just keeps laughing when you ask for anything above scrap value."
Your solid golf necklace will be worth more than scrap value, so long as it has an MOT.
So the only logical solution is to buy a fake Rolex/Omega from a market stall in China.
You get the accuracy of any other quartz watch and not only do you get the same respect from anybody stupid enough to care about how much your watch costs, but you get to laugh at them behind their back.
And if you get mugged for it - you have the last laugh.
http://daringfireball.com/ has guesses at the prices. Apparently these are purely guesses, Gruber hasn't been given the wink from anyone at Apple or anything. But if he's right, then yes, all but the low-end model are soul-crushingly expensive. And who wants to pay $350 for a watch with a rubber strap?
First, I understand the traditional high end watch market - I sport a solid gold Omega chronometer. But there's a difference between my excess and that of those who buy an Apple watch. In a few years, my battery won't have died because my watch is self-winding. In a few years, my watch's functions will all work because there are no chips, operating systems, or radios. In a few years, I will be able to replace my leather strap because it's been a standard design for decades. OTOH, in a few years, gold Apple watches will be melted down for the gold content and non-gold models will only be useful as paperweights.
@HildyJ - may I congratulate you on your taste. I'm not being sarcastic, I truly believe that a decent person should wear a decent watch. Casios are fine for teenagers, but adults should wear an adult watch and an Omega is a fine choice. An Apple watch, less so, and a Pebble is simply a wrist advertisement for living with your mum.
You guys are aware the the top end Casios are labelled Edifice and are expensive as other premium brands. If you are into tech you can get an atomic radio controlled solar powered one which will keep it's value and still work when you give it to your grand kids after you have expired.
I once read somewhere that many CEOs of Fortune 500 companies wore Timex watches, the implication being that they were there to make money, not spend it. They were not pretending that they are Edmund Hilary (Rolex), Steve McQueen (Heuer) or James Bond (Omega, usually).
I've also read that many members of the Russian government have watch collections worth many times more than their annual salary...
There is an appeal to a reliable, accurate and inexpensive watch... it is no more or less than it needs to be. It shows that you know what you need and how to get it without being ripped off. Really, EMP blasts aside, there is little downside to a Quartz watch over a mechanical movement - the mechanical watch will require servicing every few years just, as many quartz models will require battery changes.
There is also an appeal to more specialist watches. And mechanical watches have a fascination to me, the same part of my brain that loves LEGO Technic and taking things apart.
I truly believe that a decent person should wear a decent watch. Casios are fine for teenagers, but adults should wear an adult watch
Why? My current watch isn't even a Casio...it's a £5 Casio-a-like from eBay. Are you contending that I am somehow less decent than someone sporting an expensive watch? How does that work then?
It was aced by an Anon commenter above in a truly excellent post.
Summarising what he said there are two reasons for wearing a watch. As a timepeice (for which a Casio is perfectly adequate, I wear once myself) or as the only socially acceptable piece of jewellery a man can show off as a status symbol without looking like a total knob.
So he's saying that we should give up our perfectly adequate Casio combination timepiece/stopwatch/alarm clock/etc for a single purpose timepiece which has the virtue of being an expensive status symbol you can flash at people to impress them.
This post has been deleted by its author
And your watch was how much? And how much do you spend every 2-3 years on a service (£300ish) and oh it tells the time and date. For the record I also had an Omega Chronometer - certainly a decent enough watch but I wanted more than something that just tells me the time so I stopped wearing it. But now the Apple Watch will probably convince me to wear a watch again.
This post has been deleted by its author
The difference is the Apple Watch is likely to be around $349 and yes it may only last 4-5 years before you decide to replace it but your Omega / Rolex probably costs you at least that per year by the time you factor in depreciation, loss of interest on the money, insurance and servicing.
As a simple example - my wife has an Omega - the insurance is about £100 a year and it costs about £200 every 2 years for a service / battery replacement. So at least £200 per year excluding depreciation which is probably at least that again (certainly in the first few years) - actually makes the Apple Watch look relatively inexpensive.
£100/year for insurance? Think you need to shop around more.
£200 for servicing/battery changes every 2 years is only spent by tossers who like to say their watch is serviced by "craftsmen" meanwhile letting the watch company cash in on your stupidity.
A decent independent local jeweller can replace a battery for a few quid and a watch shouldn't need serviced for years and years. Especially if it's Quartz.
I agree that a watch is there to tell me the time rather than act as a fashion statement but I still much prefer wearing my Tag than wearing my Casio (which I wear at work).
Colour me cynical if you like, but does this uberwatch have some special type of battery for it to cost so much for a service?
Or will a cell off a card from the local pound shop do equally well?
Shock - horror - Crapple not the first with overpriced bling for the gullible.
Disclaimer. I'm a pocket watch man myself. Clock, timer, stopwatch, alarm, calculator etc. Also makes phone calls and sends texts. Battery life only a couple of weeks though.
£100/year for insurance? Think you need to shop around more.
You don't even need to do that most of the time: watches are generally included under the personal possessions cover of your home insurance even out of the house. You may need to check the level of cover for a particularly fancy watch but my £800 O+W is covered without me even needing to declare it.
@Roger Anderson
"A decent independent local jeweller can replace a battery for a few quid and a watch shouldn't need serviced for years and years. Especially if it's Quartz."
You have to be careful there, especially when the watch is waterproof. Many types of watch use pressure in the case to keep water out, so any operation involving opening the case (like changing batteries) has to be done in a little chamber pressurised to 3/5/whatever atmospheres.
Few local jewellers have one of these chambers, yet most will happily take your money, and skip the part where they tell you that your watch is no longer waterproof.
As always, we need to see how well, or not so wel it will work. I like apple products, but i am not the type that really needs a watch and a mobile i just use once a day. So i have a android phone, and no watch, as i don't require ( and want to stay up to date every minute of my life). May be it's great, may be it's. Ot...we know in a couple of months..l
My original Omega needed to be wound every day - it worked better if you did it at the same time every day. And you needed to clean and lube it every year - remember that? Eventually, after several bands wore out, I had the jeweler cut the band lugs off and solder on a little ring, and used it as a pocket watch for many years.
And our original iPhone is still working beautifully as an iPod - remember the nice stand they came with? And it still retains a fair resale value, should we ever decide we don't need a music player...
I'm not anxious to buy an Apple Watch for myself, but I'm really curious to see where the technology goes.
I'm no blind fan of Apple, but I too would prefer sensible discussions about certain topics (especially product design and user experience) without the tribal name-calling.
Apple have their business model, which enables them to do some very interesting things (and frustratingly limit their products' functions on occasion). It is inevitable therefore that they will be cited in conversations across a range of topics.
It's the iTards who are basically responsible for creating the anti-apple brigade.
When logical thinkers actually look past the marketing hype (magical?), and then look into the patents (rounded corners, swipe to unlock), and comment on how Apple are as innovative as they claim to be, the iTards come out in force to attack the commentor and try to shout them down for not mindlessly worshipping at the sphincter of Jobs.
So the more you attacked us for daring to think for ourselves, the more we fought back, until it got to the point where we thought "bugger always defending, lets mock and ridicule each new product from the outset". This of course started to hurt your precious iFeelings because you were now being treated with the same level of respect as you showed towards others.
You reap what you iSow. iNow iSod iOff iAnd iStop iWhinging.
I see no problem here, whatsoever. A $20 Casio digital watch will do the same things (usually more) as a $20,000 Chopard and a $100 Pulsar will do the same as a platinum-cased, diamond-marked $100,000 Patek Philippe. Let's not even get into those amazing but ultimate useless $400,000 Hublot monstrosities.
If you want seriously tough watch, you don't have to part with more than $1000 - even if you're diving. (Unless you're doing military/technical diving.)
But that's function and the difference is everywhere. A $10 t-shirt will hide your nakedness just as well as a $200, designer shirt. (Sometimes better, what with rips bing 'in' again.)
My Longines watch was bought by my father in 1942 for £5 - Or a nearly 2 weeks wages for a working man. It is now worth about £1,000 or nearly 2 weeks wages.
It has been cleaned/serviced 5 times in its lifetime. The last one was 2 years ago and was £150. The total cost of ownership, so far, in real money is about £0.20 a week. I think that I can afford that for something that tells the time, looks good, and of course has a certain reverse-snobbery chic.
My top of the line Android phone has a full HD screen and I have bluetooth and WiFi enabled all day, every day. The battery rarely lasts less than a day and half, and more often than not, about 2 days. So why does the iWatch, with smaller screen, more efficient OS(allegedly) and less features, last less than a day on 1 charge? I have my own theory (the iWatch is shit), but a more technical answer would be appreciated...
Remember that this is V1 of the product.
The first leccy cars were also shite. (G-Whizz....)
Now that the battery tech has improved then the cars are getting better. I went for a test drive in a PHEV on Saturday. You hardly knew when the petrol engine cut in to charge the battery. In a traffic jam on the M3 it was on leccy. No pollution perfect. When we got going again, the petrol engine started up to charge the battery.
The first jet engines were horribly polluting and innefficient. Now?....
I forsee that in 5 years these devices will last for around a week between charges as battery tech improves.
There is nothing like a behmoth (As Apple is) entering the market to stimulate the boffins to improve its obvious weak points. That generally benefits all the other players in the market.
Will I buy one? No chance. I hate anything on my wrist. If someone were to come out with a pocket watch then I might consider it.
So all you fanbois, hipsters and medallion men please go out and but these things. Then the rest of us can benefit from the advances in this sort fo tech in years to come.
> I understand what you are saying, but there is 1 major problem: nothing on the iWatch is V1. Its all mature technology, its just a different package.
So the comment I heard on t' radio, that "the iWatch is the first piece of new technology that Apple has produced since the iPad" is untrue?
Nevertheless, a high price serves a purpose. A gold designer watch declares "if you mate with me, there will be money for some fun, and for the child". Any other functionality is incidental.
The latest news is that Apple's 18 carat gold is not an alloy with other metals, but a composite with lightweight ceramic material. Still 18/24ths gold by weight, but only about 7/24ths by volume. See how Apple gives you less, but still gives you what you want?
The main purpose of the watch is to handle 95% of interactions without taking the iPhone out of your pocket/bag, and to register notifications instantly instead of next time you happen to look at your phone. It's the iPhone giving us back our lives at last.
“Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
'I have a well-deserved reputation for being something of a gadget freak, and am rarely happier than when spending an entire day programming my computer to perform automatically a task that it would otherwise take me a good 10 seconds to do by hand.
'Ten seconds, I tell myself, is 10 seconds. Time is valuable and 10 seconds' worth of it is well worth the investment of a day's happy activity working out a way of saving it.'
Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See, published 1990,
I have a Swatch - tells the time great - I do have other watches though but the cost to repair crystal glass fronts or change battery/waterproof too expensive.
I don't see that much of a market - I am already carrying 2 phones (one of those an iPhone 5S) and a tablet. For Telehealth - there are already good (sub £100) devices to take blood readings/heart rate/weight/oximeters)
If the Apple (or any other smartphone manufacturer) watch could connect to Bluetooth headsets/take calls/calendar/have Spotify app then I'd be all for it - and leave the phone at home...
At first it was $5K, then it was $10K and now they say "at least $10K". Is everyone competing to estimate the highest price? Regardless, if they sell something like this I imagine it'll include free or very cheap upgrades/swaps to the latest model. That's comparatively cheap and will get a lot more takers for it than it would otherwise (though there is still a market for stuff like that with no upgrade path, or all those gold plated gem encrusted aftermarket phones from companies like Vertu wouldn't sell)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
