Woz: World-changers to Apple Watches, why pay for an overpriced band? Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak has slammed Cupertino's decision to charge hundreds of dollars for Apple Watch models that offer users little more than an overpriced band. Wozniak made the remarks during a Reddit AMA post in response to a reader's question. "I worry a little bit about - I mean I love my Apple Watch - but it's …
I'll quote one of our past governors "Who's to say which is more important, sports or education." said during a strike of University of Hawaii professors while a multi million dollar baseball stadium was being constructed on campus.
The same can be said about straps and watches.
The obvious to Woz. I have a lot of respect and affection for him. I like that his personal watch is huge and impractical, since it uses Nixie tubes to display the time. It's an item of 'self expression' for him, since he's a proud hands-on geek.
However, leaving to one side the argument over the utility of smartwatches, if you wish to sell lots then you have to appeal to people who have a different view about their own image.
Unlike a lot of people, I really don't give a shit what other people choose to buy. The world is full of stuff even more nugatory than an Apple watch, that people are prepared to splash large sums on. If that's what they like then its none of my business.
But from a personal point of view, I am finding it harder and harder to justify splashing cash on tech gizmos that are heading to the obsolete graveyard in short order. If Apple were supplying a genuinely luxury wristband and watchcase, and they also offered an upgrade service where the electronic innards could be replaced with a new watch module/ latest display tech then it might feel a bit less of a waste. But the situation now, in 4 years when the battery won't charge anymore, I think there will be a few regrets around.
The purpose of the watch is to prove that they have money to burn. It may sound beyond stupid to us, but some people genuinely need to prove they have money to burn. It makes a real difference to how they are treated. If the watch is useless after a few years then all the better, because wearing a new Apple watch shows they have money to burn regularly.
From a business point of few selling 10,000 hundred dollar watches for $1000 is just as good as selling 1,000,000 ninety dollar watches for $99. The only down side is a boat load of high margin products can be turned into landfill if one of the senior executives does a Ratner.
The watch business could wither and die and you would not notice the difference to Apple's profits. What matters is that about 20% of phone owners are happy to pay double for a phone if it has the Apple logo on it. With a determined effort, Wozniak could change that. I thought he knew better.
A few people but I think that's an overly derogatory position. More simply, lots of people have the money that they can buy an Apple Watch as just another fun gizmo. They might have several great watches already, buy one of these and play with it for a bit before it goes in a drawer, the way we might by a Pi or some £10 remote control helicopter.
If you're wealthy, you don't need a great justification for spending £500.
This talk of "entitlement" and "needing to feel important" is simply a response from jealous people who want to prove that they're better than those who are rich. Why bother? You're neither better nor worse. Just poorer.
I'm with you, it seems that tech has stopped innovating and has become a fashion statement, the ultimate consumerism with no benefit other than to ensure money passes from the gullible to the rich.
Sadly the sort of person who buys the high end no added value products isn't buying it for innovation, it's just tech dick waving.
There's definitely a market for it though I can't help but wonder how hollow someone's life has to be if they need to show off like that.
Of course, if anyone wants to gift me a Lamborghini Aventador or other supercar I'm more than happy to show off in it...
Since it needs an iphone anyway, I suspect such a gadget can be under $30 retail inc postage including decent case and strap.
I wonder what all those < $20 Chinese watches do, often more functions with an Android phone than iOS. (Via Bluetooth). Some have camera and SIM, appear to be complete "Dick Tracy" and more gadgets. They are being used to cheat in exams.
I wear a watch, and it's far easier to lift your wrist up and just see the time. Plus it looks nice, and cost £20.
Compare this to digging in your pocket for your phone (made harder if your jeans are particularly tight or your thighs have gained weight), or looking at your smart watch to then realise you didn't charge it last night and it's dead.
>Who actually wears a watch anymore, and why? Serious question.
@ jake
You've told us before that Mrs jake keeps horses, and so I assume she also rides them. Surely it would be easier for outdoors people such as her to tell the time without letting go of the reigns with one hand digging into a pocket?
Not everybody wakes up next to an alarm clock, eats their breakfast under the kitchen clock, drives to work with a clock on their dashboard, sits in front of a computer with a clock on teh desktop etc etc. Many people do, I grant you, but surely you can agree that not everybody does?
When travelling in some of the world's more "interesting" places I find a watch a far better solution. There I use the cheapest waterproof Casio available. Apart from being waterproof, dustproof, more shockproof than me (withstands falling down gorges better, actually, much better) and utterly undesirable to people who'd mug you for a phone or chop your hand off for a Rolex. It's also totally reliable, lasts years, lets you tell the time day or night and doesn't want to connect with anything else. As a final advantage, work can't contact you on it.
I also wear a watch when I am speaking or similarly "on the clock" but don't want to be obviously checking the time.
That said, I hope your cheap Casio watch is not a F-91W, or that your skin is sufficiently pale, lest you win a trip to Cuba (now, watch the downvoters for suggestion that US DHS sometimes uses odd criteria)
So, essentially, it's either affectation, or because marketards say so, or because you think you need it (spot the difference between the three & win a beer!).
I have an issue with the "just look at wrist to see the time" answer, for one very simple reason: For several decades now I've been silently counting to five after somebody looks at their watch, and then asking "what time is it?" They always need to look at their watch again. Over the last decade or so, I have changed the question to "without looking at your wrist, what time is it?" They always look at me blankly.
The barns & arenas all have large wall clocks (and thermometers) easily viewable from wherever we are dealing with the horses. Making weird hand movements when training flight-or-fight critters is contraindicated.
To be quite honest, I do have a dive watch, but because I only get into the dive gear to scrape boat hulls and replace zincs these days, I haven't used it in years.
Yes, I am jake. Glad you noticed. Dick Tracy is a cartoon.
For several decades now I've been silently counting to five after somebody looks at their watch, and then asking "what time is it?"
And for the same several decades I expect those people lucky to have been on the receiving end of your pointed and somewhat arrogant questioning have no doubt been asking themselves something very different.
"And for the same several decades I expect those people lucky to have been on the receiving end of your pointed and somewhat arrogant questioning have no doubt been asking themselves something very different."
Nope. I just ask 'em what time it is. They always have zero idea. I don't take it past the question & reaction stage. No point, really, when you think about it. It's just a personal[0] chuckle. Try it, you might be amused by it ;-)
[0] I have used this several times in half an hour when interviewing someone to fill a job ... three strikes, and they are out.
I'll give you a quick challenge.
Lets go to a lovely crowed beach in blighty.
We'll go for swim.
See who's time piece is the easiest to read afterwards.
Is it the waterproof lump of metal on my arm that never needs charging. Or the £500 phone that is afraid of water and being left unattended on the beach.
Why would you go for a swim if you're so constrained for time that you can't wait a few minutes to dry off and retrieve your phone from your bag on the beach? Your example is contrived at best.
I can see that there are definitely some circumstances when having a watch is useful. However I think most people in Western society can, and do, get along just fine without one.
I don't. There are so many clocks around me* AND my daily life doesn't depend on to-the-minute scheduling. Also, after I while you develop (or possible rather re-develop) a feeling for time. At least I did. I usually 'know' the time, accuracy is around 15-20 minutes. give ot take.
About that other thing: no surprise there - why would you pretend to be Dick Tracy when you are jake?
* BTW old cheap POS tablets make wonderful clocks, especially if you run a Nixie tube clock simulator
I have a job where knowing the precise time is important. I have a nice, mid priced Tag Heuer which was given to me years ago. Seven years on one battery, I can see the time day or night, keeps perfect time, waterproof to any depth I'm likely to reach while alive, looks reasonably snazzy. If I bought a watch myself, it'd be a $20 Casio, but the Tag is quite nice. I hope it lasts another fifteen or more years.
My wife has just bough me a smart watch - a no name Chinese one with colour touch screen for £9. The built in apps are pretty useless, and most of the notifications are annoying, but ironically it is good as just a watch, as it has a large bright display which means I can tell the time without glasses.
My cheap & cheerful Casio digital watch is over 20 years old now, but it tells the time, has an alarm that wakes me up, shallow waterproof so can cope with being worn for recreational swimming / snorkelling & battery lasts significantly more than a year.
Smart watch vendors, give me a shout when a smart watch only needs yearly recharge! Meanwhile I'll do "smart" functions on my phone
I've got a review of the original IBM pc that says it's ~average~, but ~redefines~ the PC keyboard. I'm reminded of that because I've read reviews of the original Apple Watch wrist bands, which say that if Apple isn't actually -redefining~ the wrist band market, it's certainly defining it: that the Apple wrist bands were market leaders, and better than what you would pay $1000 for elsewhere.
I'm not a wrist-band guy myself, but Woz isn't either, and doesn't pretend to be. Perhaps being in the jewelry market isn't a bad thing for todays Apple.
Dear Random Poster,
Thank you for your selflessness in appointing yourself the proxy voice of "The Internet" (*) but we're not really sure you're qualified to put your personal opinion in the mouths of everyone else out there.
Seriously, we don't like it when you do that. Stop, or we'll come round to your house and give you a wedgie. All six billion of us.
Regards
The Internet. (No, really, for real this time, not just another random tosser replying to the first.)
(*) WTF is "The Internet"- as a representation of a social group- supposed to mean these days anyway? Every man and his dog's been on it for years. My guess is that it's supposed to be everyone that likes to consider themselves a part of The Internet.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Well this isn't the company that Apple was originally, or the company that really changed the world a lot."
Global poverty
Disproportionate wealth gap
Global warming
Starving billions
Rampant consumerism
AIDS, Ebola, Malaria
Antibiotics
War in the middle east
Apart from making some shiny new tech I can't see how Apple have improved any of the above
"Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak has slammed Cupertino's decision to charge hundreds of dollars for Apple Watch models that offer users little more than an overpriced band."
I don't understand why he would wait this long to comment on these watches, or why he'd decided seling a massively overpriced watch is silly but selling massively overpriced phones, tablets, and computers basically since the Mac came out was not. Apple has been pretty firmly in that "look at my shiny" market almost since the start*.
*Granted some some get the Mac from 1980s to present because of having a nice graphics or video editng workflow going on it. Even then, though, all too often I see them buy these eye-wateringly expensive Apple monitors when you could get one from some other vendor (that would also plug in and work fine with the Apple) for a fraction the price.
As for the other point... I think the underwear analogy is bad but agree with the sentiment.
>I don't understand why he would wait this long to comment on these watches, or why he'd decided seling a massively overpriced watch is silly but selling massively overpriced phones, tablets, and computers basically since the Mac came out was not.
Overpriced the i-stuff may be, not-innovative they may be, but they have pushed the market forward in terms of productisation of tech we don't need.
The watch, on the other hand, is not only stuff we don't need, but is also stuff which doesn't work that well for any purpose. At least a smartphone works well for reading el reg on the train home.
All the good things about Apple came from Woz, all the BS marketing and lock in came from the other article, it is nice to see that the real brains behind Apple Technology is still out there somewhere and not locked in the "must have/buy" cupboard with the rest of their world.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
