John Gruber, Daring Fireball:
Apple has several products that lead their markets in revenue or profit. What makes Apple Watch different from every other product the company makes, though, is a measure near and dear to the company’s soul by which they cannot claim Apple Watch to be number one: nicest.
This is a very interesting point. At its core, to me, is the concept of fashion. Some people are happy to run around with running shoes and sweats, while others are careful to color-coordinate with the latest fashions, top to bottom. And this applies to the Apple Watch, far more than any other Apple product.
John continues:
Traditional watches are Apple’s competition for nicest watch. And Apple Watch just isn’t there. It’s not even close. Don’t get me wrong — Apple Watch is nice, and always has been. I think that’s ultimately what defined the minimum viable product for the original Apple Watch.
There’s an elegance to a beautifully crafted wristwatch. While I’d argue that Apple Watch has its own elegant elements, as a whole it’d be hard to place the Apple Watch on the same fashion shelf with high priced timepieces such as the Jaeger-LeCoultre Ultra Thin Moon or the Constantin Patrimony Grand Taille.
I do appreciate the beauty, the art of mechanical watches. But, to me, they belong in a different category. The Apple Watch is about functionality first. And that priority limits where Apple Watch can go in terms of fashion.
Apple could have made something that did what the original Apple Watch did years earlier, I’m sure. But it wouldn’t have been nice enough. But as nice as Apple Watch has always been, there are many watches that are nicer. And that makes Apple Watch unique in the history of the company. What successful product has Apple ever made that wasn’t at least arguably the nicest in its category? Apple Watch is the first.
Very interesting. My thought is that Apple Watch has disrupted the mechanical watch industry, and the concept of fashion driving what people put on their wrists. For good or for bad, that ship has sailed.
All that said, this point is just the tip of the iceberg in John’s Apple Watch review. It is appreciative of the Apple Watch design, incredibly detailed (incredibly!), and well worth your time. Here’s the link again, just for convenience.
I do agree with what you’re saying, but consider this difference: I could conceive of carrying two phones (say, one a work phone and one a personal phone) or even a phone and an iPod. I don’t think that would strike me as odd. But wearing two devices on your wrist? That would seem very odd to me. So I think though they are different products, they are competing for the same wrist and thus MUST be compared.
Quite a few people have been wearing a Fitbit-type device and regular watch (one on each wrist). I don’t know that it would be odd for me to wear an Apple watch on one wrist and a fashion watch on the other.
Well, I haven’t seen it so you MUST be making it up. 😉
I would guess a low-profile small Fitbit on one wrist and a watch on the other might not make me cock my head, assuming the Fitbit (or other brand) were sufficiently different-looking than the watch. But a watch on each wrist? Feels like you want to sell me one in an alley.
Actually, fashion is a key component to a wearable technology. If it has a negative effect, people won’t wear it.
The early predecessors of smart watches were goofy clunky, and ugly. Timex’s data watches and the Casio calculator watches being the more nororious offenders.
Apple’s making of the (now discontinued?) “Edition” editions in gold and ceramic were inteded to push the image of the Apple Watch as something fashionable. To court the fashion press, they stepped into the high end watch market.
I suspect sales of the Edition were never the point, but more the publicity. In that view, the Edition succeeded. I see the Apple Watch on the wrist of more and more people from all walks of life, men and women, few of whom are tech enthusiasts like us.
er… he makes that point. And explores the difference.
Oh, the Casio calculator watch!!!! When I was a young boy I so wanted one of those! Even though I don’t recall a time when I needed to do math when I was out and about. But with one of those babies, I COULD.
Personally I think it’s a dumb point he’s going on about, owing to his being a watch nerd. A smartwatch isn’t in the same category as pure jewelry watches. Entirely different use cases and form factors. Just like a smartphone isn’t a phone.
Rest of th review is good tho.
(Note: it seems several commenters don’t know what i’m referring to. It isn’t this quoted section per se, but the many paragraphs Gruber dedicates to how mechanical watches look better than the AW smartwatch. read the review)
Cool stuff.
Reminds me a bit of my pre-iPhone tendency to carry a phone, an iPod touch, and occasionally a camera as well. I don’t miss that at all.
yes he makes that point, and hammers on it for paragraphs about how mechanical jewelry watches look nicer. it’s still irrelevant.
i never said looking good wasn’t a key part of AW. what i said was to go overboard about how mechanical watches look better isn’t relevant.
wearing two watches is entirely stupid.
again, my point remains the same — Gruber’s contention that non-smartwatches look nicer than smart watches is unimportant; certainly not as important as he makes it out to be.
I had to skip the beginning rant.
I understand that it’s a counter-point to Tim’s, “We’re #1”. But that was an answer to all the “traditional” watch makers’ declarations that smart watches will never catch on or surpass their own products.
I liked John’s review but that whole beginning part really needs to be cut out. We get it. What’s next? Judging how well your Airpods look next to your ear rings?
That’s exactly it!
On, and on, and on. It feels relentless to the point of being counter-productive. Even the dude from Hodinkee (whatever the site is) didn’t go on about crap like that… and he’s from a “watch” site.
I think Gruber is not adequately describing the “niceness” of mechanical watches for his non-watch fan audience. Their beauty lies not just with the casing but also the internal mechanism. A fine mechanical watch has dozens of tiny moving parts working to turn 2 or 3 arms at precise rates. There’s an elegance to them that you can’t see but can appreciate if you have that understanding. It’s akin to Steve Jobs’ dedication to making Apple products beautiful inside and out. In that respect, I see the validity of Gruber’s point, though he does not express it adequately.