[Someone1234]

> Maybe you can try and explain why the Moto watch isn't selling very well and Apple's is.

The Apple brand. Nothing more. That was my point. Apple released a watch which when announced had year old specs and technology, and when shipped was older yet still. But just because of the brand every major news outlet had a piece about it, every major tech blog had several articles about it, and people drolled over what is essentially a "me too!" product.

> Maybe Apple is a company focused on engaging with customers and delivering products they want rather than what Motorola is doing by launching a watch just because.

Do you have any basis at all for this? Other companies release stuff "just because" but when Apple releases stuff it is to "engage customers?" That comes across so bias/clouded it is incredible.

> Apple was very concerned with making the watch relevant to people. Motorola was very concerned with getting to market first.

Motorola wasn't first to market, smartwatches are years old at this point. This is third generation tech'. Apple entered the market late, nobody was racing to beat them. You could literally go into any major electronics retailer and buy six or more different smartwatches on the day Apple announced the Watch (and that was six months before it shipped).

So, no, nobody was racing to take Apple's toys. Apple was racing to get into a preexisting market last of any major manufacturer.

> So what we have is watches for early adopters (Motorola, etc.) and watches for ordinary people (Apple Watch). I don't think choice is a bad thing here, and I wouldn't think less of someone for making a decision between the two.

Early adopters are 2011. It is 2014-15 we're talking about. Unless the Pebble (1), Galaxy Gear (1), LG Watch, etc didn't ship for the last three or four years...

There's nothing "ordinary" about Apple's brick-shaped watch. Circular watches blend in. They appear like normal watches. Apple's Watch is for tech geeks who wish to stand out.

I think categorising three years and three generations of smart watches as "early adopters" and anything post-Apple as a copycat product is incredible.

[Steko]

> The Apple brand. Nothing more.

So maybe you can explain why review after review also said it was the first decent smartwatch?

If all you had to do is slap an Apple logo on things the original apple tv, iphone 5c, g4 cube, ROKR (well itunes), 20th anniversary mac, various ipod flops would have all been hits.

Instead it tends to be the case that people like to buy the best products. Apple products that sell very well also tend to be reviewed very well. This could be because the press is also in thrall of Apple but we could also look at the reception of Apple maps, bendgate, and antennagate and say maybe the press is more than happy to savage apple when they can.

> Early adopters are 2011.

Early adopters are associated with products that ship before a product goes mainstream. Currently even people with an Apple Watch are early adopters in my view.

> Unless the Pebble (1), Galaxy Gear (1), LG Watch, etc didn't ship for the last three or four years...

Zero of those watches shipped 3-4 years ago.

[Someone1234]

> So maybe you can explain why review after review also said it was the first decent smartwatch?

Because many of those reviews are from people who haven't used another smartwatch. If you look at the dedicate technology press, they're at best lukewarm about the Apple Watch. It is the non-tech press that praise it endlessly. But as far as they know smartwatches haven't existed for years ahead of it.

[astrodust]

> ...as they know smartwatches haven't existed for years ahead of it.

And this is Apple's fault? Blame Motorola for their incompetent marketing, please. Blame HTC for not being able to market their way out of a wet paper bag. Blame Samsung for being at a complete loss for what to do unless they can copy someone, anyone else.

Apple put together a compelling package that combined technology, fashion, and lifestyle and people bought into it. Many of the other vendors put out "a smartwatch" without really building a lot of momentum to it pre-launch. They delivered an answer to a question nobody asked.

Motorola failed to answer the "Why would I want a smartwatch?" question. Apple gave a much more compelling pitch (fitness, health, payment) than Motorola did (Android! On a watch!) People are buying the Apple Watch because they understand it, not because of the logo.

There was a time when the Motorola name was more valuable than Apple's. You'd probably be bitching about people buying Motorola for the logo and nothing more, but it wasn't about the logo. It was about their reputation for making solid, nearly indestructible gear, for making it practical, for making it look good. Other companies might've been first to market with color screens or more bands, but Motorola packaged it up better and sales reflected that. They were utterly dominant for a time.

There's one other company doing this right: Pebble. That team has been working hard and promoting their product. They're doing fantastically well for a tiny company.

Remember, Motorola is a huge company. They should be able to figure this out. There's no excuse for their utter cluelessness.