Apple Watch: The world is watching, but will the rich be impressed?
The first pre-ordered deliveries of the smartwatch should arrive on Friday
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.I’ve voiced my concerns over “wearable” technology before: my issue with the majority of pieces is that I’d never want to wear them. However, it seems that I am in the minority when it comes to the Apple Watch – the first pre-ordered deliveries should be with consumers on Friday.
If you just fancy one now, you’ll need to wait until June: sales are already such that analysts have estimated it will shift more than two million units by the end of May, making it the most popular smartwatch in the world (current leader Samsung shifted approximately 1.2 million in 2014, accounting for almost 20 per cent of the market).
I will admit that the Apple Watch is a pretty piece of kit. The main question for me is: exactly who are they marketing it to? I wonder what proportion of sales are geared towards Apple’s “Sport” models, retailing around the £300 mark, rather than their “Edition” range, the priciest of which costs £13,500.
The inbuilt heart-rate monitors, personal-activity goals and “fitness milestones” suggest a big chunk of their prospective sales will be to fitness fanatics, biting into the activity wristband market that is, currently, probably the most successful slice of wearable tech. Curious consumers will possibly also shell out for those, even if they end up languishing unloved in a drawer next to a dusty Tamagotchi. But for all its gold and polished leather, is an Apple watch seductive enough to prise a luxury customer away from a flashy timepiece?
It reminds me of fashion’s foray into mobile phones. LG has produced them with Jil Sander and Prada, while Vertu has collaborated with Zegna, none with a huge degree of success and all eclipsed by Apple. Why? Because although Apple’s phones are aesthetically attractive, they are primarily functional devices.
Some people may be entranced by the functions that Apple’s watch has built in – although, personally, I can’t think of anything worse than a watch tapping me on the wrist like a teacher, telling me to answer my emails; or talking into my wrist like Captain Kirk. (Apple Watches will be ubiquitous at sci-fi conventions.) But then – cover your eyes, Apple guys – I don’t think luxury watches are really about ever-increasing gadgetry.
It’s great if your watch can plunge below the water or withstand both sub-zero and Sahara-like temperatures. But it’s just something to boast about, Patrick Bateman-style, while flashing your business cards. That’s why vintage, mechanical Rolexes still do a swift resale trade. They don’t have the up-to-date techy stuff, but they still have the aesthetic (and financial) impact.
I don’t think that the design – or the luxury – is enough to wrench a raft of Daddy Warbuckses away from their Rolexes. Apple will sell plenty of the Sporty Spice. Just not much Posh.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments