I suspect the early sales success is due to the hardcore Apple fans that you described, and much of the buzz is about which Watch and which band, not the actual utility of the Watch. Whether or not that success translates to the general public, I'm not sure. Most of the most loyal Apple folks that I know are surprisingly lukewarm to it, and I think that's a reflection of the public's cool reception to smartwatches in general.Ah well, nothing new here. Apple's products have often managed to evoke an irrational emotional response. Hence the whole "religion" meme. But I have yet to see anyone posting messages in photography forums about how offended they are re: the cost of Burberry raincoats, or Louis Vuitton handbags, or, yes, Rolex watches.
I have little interest in buying the Apple Watch right now because its cost is higher than its utility (for me), no different than a Mercedes Benz automobile. But I take no offense in their pricing structure. Clearly, when the entire initial production run of more than a million Apple Watches sells out within minutes of its release, the pricing structure is well within customer expectations. Had they been able to produce ten million, it's a good bet that the watch would still be on backorder today. Charging what the market will bear is the basis for a stable economy going back a long, long time.
You completely ignored what I said in your "that's not true". The stainless steel watch and band, which in any other brand would be $50-$100 over the base metal and fabric/leather band, is $650 to $750 at Apple. The sports band argument is fallacious based on my report. I think someone here is really exerting a lot of effort to cover for Apple's extreme greed.
Here's my take, as a portable music lover since 1967: MP3 players with *removable* media were well-established before Apple started buying up thousands of billboards across the U.S. to push them. To me, the iPhone's real success (ditto the iPod Touch) was the apps, of which the generally excellent browser was just one. The watch has very serious potential - just watch (heh) users dragging their iphones out of pockets and bags, making calls or texting inadvisedly, and there you have a great utility device - right there on your wrist.Here's the question that I asked on Reddit: In 2001, the iPod changed the way we listen to music. In 2007, the iPhone changed the way we access the Internet. In 2015, the Watch changed _______? Right now, the only answer is "how often we take our phones out of our pocket." That, frankly, is not enough.
Well, pissing contest is exactly what you are trying to create by not reading my obvious intent, and nitpicking instead. Now that's known in courts as the Reasonable Man argument.I don't want to get into any sort of pissing contest with you here, Dale. But I most certainly did not ignore what you said. I was responding to your exact words. Here's a direct quote from your post above:
"I was offended by the notion of paying $700 extra just to get a stainless steel case."
The only way to arrive at that $700 number is if you compare the least expensive aluminum watch against the most expensive stainless watch of the same size. So you're obviously not talking about "just a stainless steel case."
LOL! I'm not telling!So ... You've got the watch with a shutter button on it. ... And the phone in the other hand ... How do you hit the shutter button?
Um ... Something else?