A $149 Apple Watch - Watch Only Concept/Prediction

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by odHbo, Aug 4, 2015.

  1. odHbo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #1
    I've owned my Apple Watch for about 3 months now and I love it. Love. Love. Love it.

    Anyway....

    From my personal observation, John Ives and his team have taken digital time keeping to the next level and the time keeping aspect of the Apple Watch alone (to me) is worth a significant portion of it.

    Apple Watch owners, please chime in with your thoughts. I obviously don't know if this is possible (at all) so this is just a prediction...

    I would like to see a Apple make a "watch only" version of the Apple Watch and my guess would be it would start at $149 to be competitive. It would get the core idea of the Apple Watch into the hands of a lot of iPhone users.

    Features:
    • Bluetooth (for music and notifications)
    • Digital Crown
    • Raise to view display
    • Force Touch
    • Contacts button with digital touch
    • Classic Buckle Band
    • Built-In Apps (Time related, calendar, messages, photos, music, camera shooter, maps, remote, passbook, mail, weather, keynote, apple store and settings)
    • I want to say sapphire glass screen (but probably not)
    • Magnetic charger
    • 3 days of consistent battery life. (time keeping)

    38mm Stainless Steel with Classic Buckle $149
    42mm Stainless Steel with Classic Buckle $199

    38mm Space Black and Rose Gold with Classic Buckle $249
    42mm Space Black and Rose Gold with Classic Buckle $299

    38mm Stainless Steel with Leather Loop $349
    42mm Stainless Steel with Leather Loop $399

    38mm Space Black and Rose Gold with Leather Loop $449
    42mm Space Black and Rose Gold with Leather Loop $499

    38mm Stainless Steel with Link Band $549
    42mm Stainless Steel with Link Band $599

    38mm Space Black and Rose Gold with classic buckle $649
    42mm Space Black and Rose Gold with classic buckle $699

    It would be compatible with all of the existing bands but the watch would be a bit slimmer than current model. It would not have the ceramic covered sapphire lenses, Apple Pay or taptic engine. I assume those are expensive parts and they take up a significant amount of space inside the watch. The idea is the taptic engine and sapphire lenses are like touch ID; a feature you don't notice you want/need until you've have it. With the additional space inside, the watch could have a slightly larger battery and would last quite a bit longer than the "premium" models due to the lack of consistent sensing the sensors do. It's designed for looks only and not sport/fitness so no need for heart rate sensors and it would only come in stainless steel, rose gold stainless steel and space black stainless steel. Base models would come with the classic buckle in a few colors. For added buying appeal, there would be a few "exclusive" watch bands for it that would only come with the "watch only" version.

    Annnndd they would call it, the Apple Watch.

    I imagine that Apple will eventually stop making all of the current models to give them some resale value and forever exclusivity as future generations are announced. The basic "Apple Watch" name can be passed down to this simplified model. The Apple Watch Sport would be updated in some way along with the Apple Watch Edition and the current Apple Watch will get a new name of some sort.

    Just my prediction. Any thoughts are welcomed to the discussion.
     
  2. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #2
    Getting rid of haptic notifications defeats the very purpose of the Apple Watch for many, if not most, people.
     
  3. MF878 macrumors regular

    MF878

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    #3
    The wisdom of the Macrumors-Forums-armchair-product-managers strikes again.
     
  4. Gregintosh macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    #4
    Yeah, I think Apple needs another product called "Apple Watch" to stock along side the "Apple Watch" because there's no chance of creating confusion that way. Even a generation later, people will already have certain expectations of what an Apple Watch is.

    Also, all you did was remove 3rd party apps and notifications. A watch with built in Mail, Messages, photos, music, etc. can hardly be called "watch only" anyway. And on that note, having mail and messages without notifications is like being served steak without a fork and knife.

    This idea was so bad I think I got brain cancer thinking about it.
     
  5. noobinator macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
  6. jasie02 macrumors 6502a

    jasie02

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2014
    #6
    Exactly like $200 new original priced iPhone, or $200 new Rolex, or $10,000 new Porsche, the chance of they happen is lower than sun will set at east and rise at west.

    Luxury will never == low price, and Apple, Rolex, or Porshe are not interested on making product affordable.
     
  7. Michael CM1 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #7
    I am trying to be nice because I like your enthusiasm. But holy balls you're way off on the math.

    You're saying you want a thinner watch made out of stainless steel and perhaps sapphire with a larger battery. Then yank out NFC, the sensors on the back (one of the best selling points). But you're still keeping almost every app of use, meaning it's not just a time-keeping device and would still need the same processing power. Then you want to throw in the classic buckle band instead of the sport bands.

    Then you want to start at $149 and $199. Dude, that's probably not enough to pay for the parts involved.

    About the only way this price point could be hit is by going with aluminum and glass, putting in a ridiculously underpowered SOC to run some tiny computer that only keeps time. You would need some communication with a phone or network to automatically set time. The magnetic charging is out, all sensors are out.

    Honestly, you'd be better off to suggest a shrunken iPod nano. It's $149. Take the EarPods away and substitute a sport band and you almost have a watch. But it's too big. So maybe a shrunken version of it would have enough room for the three day battery.
     
  8. samiznaetekto macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    #8
    The most useless fantasy in the history of MR.
     
  9. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    Competitive to who? Its not a smart watch at that point and its now competing against a flooded market with tiny margins.

    I see no value in a non-smart watch from apple - just my $.02
     
  10. Trius macrumors 6502a

    Trius

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    #11
    Highly doubtful. Who are they competing with? I can't imagine them releasing a watch without the Taptic engine (they're proud of that one). With the mission of creating the best product, this just wouldn't make any sense for them.
     
  11. odHbo thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #12
    That's a fair point.

    All of you make fair arguments. For the record, I don't believe Apple needs to sell their current Apple Watch for anything less than what it is currently priced at.

    Alright. I retract my statement. Everyone wins.
     
  12. Bromeo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Location:
    Near Seattle
    #13
    Apple puts product and customer experience first. Price is always right about what you'll be willing to pay, and usually a bit more than what you'd really want to pay. Interestingly, Apple has stated they have lower margins on the Watch than the iPhone, so they're being a bit more price-aggressive than usual. That's probably good since Apple Watch may inspire more iPhone sales.
     
  13. Sheza macrumors 65816

    Sheza

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Location:
    Croydon & London At The Same Time
    #14
    No, this is not a good idea and they will not do it.
     
  14. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #15
    Oh I do, I think the SS version of the apple watch is over priced, and depending on the band, the price goes up to 1,000 for black stainless steel and gold is priced at 10,000.
     
  15. dotme macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Location:
    Iowa
    #16
    We can debate whether or not Apple wishes to sell the watch to the *majority* of iPhone owners, but if they do, the current $$ barrier to entry is obviously too high because most iPhone owners haven't bought one. This isn't an issue while supplies are constrained of course, but that won't last forever.

    I'm in the market for an Apple watch, but I care more about price than the array of "sensors" packed in the current product. I don't need or want something to monitor how often I sneeze. If I'm worried about my health, I'll seek professional medical assistance. What I do want are notifications and communications capabilities without having to pull out my iPhone, and - before you tell me to go get a Pebble - I would prefer those features in an Apple product.

    There's nothing wrong with the Apple Watch and current pricing, but if the goal is to get one in the hands of every iPhone owner, a simpler version with a lower price tag (~$200-~$250) would probably help. As it is, I feel I'd be paying extra for fitness and health sensors - whistles and bells - I neither care about, nor ever plan to use.
     
  16. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #17
    And yet, for me, the health and fitness sensors were the main draw. I doubt I would have bought the watch if it was just for notifications, since I don't get enough notifications to justify the cost, even if it was priced very low.

    So basically Apple is betting there are more users like me than like you. ;)
     
  17. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #18
    So you think the Watch Sport is reasonably priced at $349/399, but the SS model is overpriced $200? The price differential isn't really any different from other Apple products ($100, $200, etc. more for higher end models).
     
  18. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #19
    No, both are too expensive. I'll be getting the sport model for a number of reasons, but that doesn't mean I'm ok with the price.

    What I find is how fast the price goes up on the SS model, depending on the band, I mean you can opt for black SS model for over a 1,000.
     
  19. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #20
    Well, that's because the black SS model is only available with the link bracelet. In reality, it's only a $100 difference between the standard SS and Space Black link bracelets. They either wanted to make the Space Black as exclusive as possible to drive people to pay more in order to get it or sort of a limited edition so they can test the DLC coating in the real world before expanding it. I bet the difference would come down to only $50 if they offer leather bands with the Space Black in the future as there's not as much to DLC coat.
     
  20. Brian Y macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    #21
    I know what Apple need to do - knock between 60-90% off of the price of a product, then it'll sell like hotcakes.

    I'm sure if Ford dropped the price of a Focus to £3,000 they'd sell a crapload of them too. Meanwhile, an iPhone 6 Plus should be £200, and the top of the range MBP should be £500.
     
  21. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #22
    Apple Watch C:

    unapologetically plastic for only $149.99
     
  22. jasie02 macrumors 6502a

    jasie02

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2014
    #23
    You mean this for $149 ebay price
    [​IMG]
     
  23. fanta88 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2015
    #24
    There's no way this will happen.

    However, if your larger point is that the Apple Watch is overpriced, I'd have to agree. Aside from some issues I have with my AW, I love it...but I concede that it is expensive.
     
  24. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #25

    sure, why not. LOL
     

Share This Page