On Gruber, Apple Watch, and fanboyisms
This is the second post about Apple Watch I’ve written (the first one is only in Spanish, I’m afraid), and in this case the reason to talk about it is simple: I’m going to comment the newest post from John Gruber, whom in his yesterday’s blog post combined some bright comments with others not so bright in which he showed how seeing only whites and blacks -no greys in between?- can be a real problem. And I quote:
Apple only enters markets where they can be a market leader in quality. They unabashedly claim to make the world’s best computers (portable and desktop), the best phones, the best tablets, and the best MP3 players. The best. Of course not everyone agrees with that. But many of us do, and even those who prefer, say, Lenovo laptops or Google’s Nexus phones and tablets, would agree, if they’re at all reasonable or have any sense of taste, that Apple’s products are in the running for “best”.
The Apple Watch only works for Apple if it is, in some sense, the best watch in the world. Not the best smartwatch. That’s not enough. The best watch, period. The best thing you can wear on your wrist.
How many times does he use the word ‘best’? I’ll tell you: ten times. The problem is not him saying that those are the best products on their categories ever. The problem is that he has no ability to add that those are the best products for him.
In my humble opinion, Apple doesn’t make world’s best desktop computers (I’m afraid the MacBook Air hasn’t still a competitor), the best phones, the best tablets, or the best MP3 players. Again, in my humble opinion. Those are fantastic products, great in many ways, but also worrisome in others (like the absence of user control on them).
Those pretty unreasonable comments continue when Mr. Gruber himself miss absolutely the point and contradicts himself (emphasis mine):
Apple Watch is not a product from a tech company, and it will not be understood, at all, by the tech world. Apple creates and uses technology in incredible ways. The Apple Watch may prove to be the most technologically advanced product they’ve ever built. But again: Apple is not a tech company, and Apple Watch is not a tech product.
I won’t make many comments about tech people ability to understand Apple Watch (I guess fashion/jewelry people understand it far better, right?). What I can’t stand is the ‘Apple is not a tech company, and Apple Watch is not a tech product’ affirmation. First of all, name me a non-tech Apple product ever. Second, Mr. Gruber, if you point out that the Apple Watch is not a tech product, how can you say this just afterwards?:
But Apple Watch is not just a piece of jewelry, and it’s not a mechanical device. It’s a computer.
You should read back your articles before publishing them, Mr. Gruber. Reconsider that. Because you mix those categorical, pretty unreasonable affirmations , with some real interesting comments.
The best one is the one he talks about Apple Watch as a product that Apple wants to become the best watch in the world. Not the best smartwatch, no -bright observation: Apple didn’t mention that word on the keynote, nor the use it on Apple Watch’s website-. The best watch (for them). The problem is that trying to become the best watch is something that will face a big problem pointed out by Mr. Gruber:
All computers have lifespans measured in just a handful of years before obsolescence. If you buy a $6,000 mechanical watch and take care of it, you can expect it to outlive you and become a family heirloom. Paying even $1,000, let alone a multiple of that, for a premium Apple Watch seems like folly if it’s going to be obviated by faster, sleeker, longer-lasting versions in just a few years. And I don’t see how it won’t be replaced by faster, sleeker, longer-lasting versions, because that’s how all computer technology goes. Apple Watch is not a tech product, but technology is what distinguishes it — and computer technology gets old fast. A Rolex purchased in 2007 is every bit as good today as it was then.
If Apple Watch is a computer, it will be affected by the same problem the rest of the tech devices face: obsolescence. Spending $1k or $5k in the most expensive editions is not very reasonable if we take into account that Apple has sense not only for its design (or shouldn’t have it). It has sense (or should have it) because of the combination of design, hardware and software, as it happens to be the case with any other successful product Apple has ever built. And because of the frantic rhythm hardware and software advances, we’ve got a problem.
It seems possible that someone would spend $350 yearly on each new year’s Sport edition. That update isn’t that reasonable on the other editions, that probably will suffer for much longer update cycles.
Apple can’t compete with traditional high end watches (the Rolex example is good proof of that) in longevity, so Apple can only bet for his traditional philosophy: update those watches with several software and hardware enhancements, and wait for customers to religiously pay for the Apple magic.
The Cupertino’s company has proven that this works with smartphones, but this is not much the case (well, not the exact case) when you talk about tablets, laptops or even those watches that in my opinion are not that interesting (and we’ll see what happens with the battery).
Of course, I’m a tech guy. Maybe that’s the reason I don’t get a business that is not a tech business.
C’mon.
P.S.: This post is an adaptation from the original Spanish version, here.
