Teens Not That Interested in Apple Watch

[Maura]

According to a report on MacRumors today, U.S. teens are not overly interested in the Apple Watch, especially when compared to the iPhone or iPad.

Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster has released his latest semiannual teen survey, where he polls around 6,200 U.S. teens about their device usage and plans for buying devices.

Munster’s figures show that only 11 percent of those polled said that they planned on buying an Apple Watch, which is a drop from 16 percent in the fall survey. The main reason for buying an Apple Watch given by that 11 percent was style, then design. Only 5 percent of those polled own a smartwatch.

“We believe the lower purchase intent reflects a wait and see approach to the Watch as it seems unclear what will be the ‘killer app’ for the Watch,” said Munster. “We expect teens to be a good market for the Apple Watch given the popularity of the iPhone, but believe it will take time for influencers (celebrities) to make the watch popular among teens.”

However, while they might not be that bothered about the Apple Watch, the teenagers polled by Munster are still very interested in the iPhone and iPad, with the devices still being the most popular smartphone and tablet respectively among the teenagers.

Source: http://www.macrumors.com/2015/04/14/teen-interest-in-apple-watch-wanes/

 

[s2mikey]

Not surprised. The Apple watch isn't as cool as teens want it to be. I don't see teens wearing watches very much either, if at all. Just not their thing.

 

[skimonkey]

It's so expensive for these young ones....just sayin....

 

[LeCaid]

It's so expensive for these young ones....just sayin....

...and for everybody else. Unless you're a retired professor and buy the $17,000 Edition for your wife on their 50th Wedding Anniversary.
Now that everybody knows who they are and where they live, he might want to hire a bodyguard and install a high tech alarm system...



Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

 

[skimonkey]

...and for everybody else. Unless you're a retired professor and buy the $17,000 Edition for your wife on their 50th Wedding Anniversary.
Now that everybody knows who they are and where they live, he might want to hire a bodyguard and install a high tech alarm system...



Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

This is an item that I would probably buy as a gift for my husband before I buy it for me. However, the Sport Edition will be the one I will afford and not the $17k edition! Wow!!

 

[The OB]

This is an item that I would probably buy as a gift for my husband before I buy it for me. However, the Sport Edition will be the one I will afford and not the $17k edition! Wow!!

Entirely agree! When we are talking price we mean only the case/band. My understanding is that whichever model you look at, they all have the same operating system and mechanical innards and, given the same apps, will do exactly the same thing. It's not as if you're comparing some fine Swiss chronometer movement with some cheaper quartz timepiece.
Andrew


Sent from my iPad Air2 using Tapatalk

 

[twerppoet]

Entirely agree! When we are talking price we mean only the case/band. My understanding is that whichever model you look at, they all have the same operating system and mechanical innards and, given the same apps, will do exactly the same thing. It's not as if you're comparing some fine Swiss chronometer movement with some cheaper quartz timepiece.
Andrew


Sent from my iPad Air2 using Tapatalk

And if you believe that the Swiss Chronometer movement watch costs them even a 10th of the $50,000 dollars they charge. . .

Fashion is fashion. The price of a fashion product is not remotely related to the materials or the cost of production, or the value of the features. Not even close.

You know, a cheap $50 quartz watch tells time better than a purely mechanical high end watch.

 

[The OB]

And if you believe that the Swiss Chronometer movement watch costs them even a 10th of the $50,000 dollars they charge. . .

Fashion is fashion. The price of a fashion product is not remotely related to the materials or the cost of production, or the value of the features. Not even close.

You know, a cheap $50 quartz watch tells time better than a purely mechanical high end watch.

I don't think my point quite came across. It was more simply that regardless of price or model of Apple Watch, you will get exactly the same "movement", firmware and its processing of any app. So you are right...it's fashion that will dictate the price with the Apple watch, not what it can do or what it's screen will show.
Personally, I wear a Swiss made Omega Seamaster certified chronometer with a mechanical movement and again agree with you, although I don't know where I could pay $50,000 for one or even 20% of that It loses more time over a month than any quartz watch ever will. So, yes, I do know that difference. But gee we would be talking only say ten minutes per year during which I am aware of the difference in the technology and (my point) of the differing innards of such watches.
Andrew

 

[twerppoet]

I don't think my point quite came across. It was more simply that regardless of price or model of Apple Watch, you will get exactly the same "movement", firmware and its processing of any app. So you are right...it's fashion that will dictate the price with the Apple watch, not what it can do or what it's screen will show.
Personally, I wear a Swiss made Omega Seamaster certified chronometer with a mechanical movement and again agree with you, although I don't know where I could pay $50,000 for one or even 20% of that It loses more time over a month than any quartz watch ever will. So, yes, I do know that difference. But gee we would be talking only say ten minutes per year during which I am aware of the difference in the technology and (my point) of the differing innards of such watches.
Andrew

I understood your point about getting something different, function wise, for the price. But it implies that the difference you are talking about is intrinsically worth the extra money. Once upon a time fine mechanical watches meant accuracy and durability. Now it's only a perceived value, much like fashion.

So, it would be like Apple selling a more expensive watch with different innards, that still did absolutely nothing different.

Now if you'd compared a mechanical watch that had extra features, and therefore was worth extra, then I'd feel more agreement with your argument. But there aren't a whole lot feature differences between cheap watches, mid-priced watches, and supper expensive watches. It's all fashion and other perceived values like artistry. Mid priced watches do have some better features, mostly in longevity and durability. Expensive watches improve on this not at all, in some cases are actually less durable. Gold isn't anywhere as durable as good steel.

So, if you'er going to compare the Apple watch to the traditional watch market, it fits almost too well. The cheapest Apple Watch does exactly what the most expensive does. All the differences in value are perceived values.

The disconnect is not from the fact that it is a watch that offers no better features for more expensive models. It is because it is an electronics device. It's there that we expect feature differences, things we can tally up on a bullet list to prove that one is a more useful product than the other. Faster, more RAM, more storage, etc.; those are how we shop for computers, not watches.

 

[twerppoet]

Oh yes, the $50,000 figure came from some article I read a few weeks that mentioned supper expensive Rolexes and such. The perceived values there were all fashion, collectability, etc. All based on an assigned value that has nothing to do with what the watch actually does. It is worth a lot of money pretty much just because people agree it's worth a lot of money.

Undestand I'm not criticizing this. Just noting that we often assign value to things for nothing but perceived features. Art, gold, history, etc. These are good things. They just aren't specs that you can put in a bullet list to say "it's worth more".

Whether the Edition Apple Watch will achieve this kind of perceived value is still up in the air. But that's what it is about. Not whether it does more.

 

[The OB]

Can't disagree with much of what you say, particularly about the kind of watch that will do much more than merely tell the time. But if I was stranded on a desert island or, heaven forbid trekking to the South Pole, a mechanical self-winding good quality watch (with more expensive built-in reliability) that requires no daily battery charging, would for me be more than just a perceived value.

But since it's most unlikely I'd be stranded on a desert island (unless I decide to do it when I no longer like Apple products) the new Apple Watch is something I may buy just for the reason that it will do far more than my mechanical watch (grabbed a quick picture of it, below) although I will probably wait for an updated version.

But I appreciate I have somewhat hijacked the thread by introducing stuff about mechanical watches. Your points about perceived value within the range of Apple Watches are quite valid.
Andrew

 

[twerppoet]

I agree that a mechanical watch would work far better in the 'stranded on a deserted isle' scenario. However; I'm wondering how much use you'll get out of knowing what time it is?

That's a nice looking watch.