Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

An In-Depth Look at Apple Watch Band Options and Potential Pricing

I thought $349 was too much for a disposable gadget that requires a second disposable gadget to function. For $10k the iWatch better come with a free iPhone to justify this price :D

Maybe Bell&Ross or IWC will decide to sell a $350 version of their watches :p
 
So Apple is becoming a fashion shop.

May make the presentations a bit different. "Here you see the model showing the gold watch with white straps in combination with the new taupe iPad. Next is the new maroon iPad. Don't they look marvellous?"

I do understand the value of the name "Apple" and marketing it to the fullest. But have some difficulty combining high priced fashion accessories for the "beau monde" with quality software and innovative hardware for practical/daily use.
 
gnasher729 said:
The gold watch is supposed to contain about $2,000 worth of gold. It's not gold plated. The body is full 18 carat gold.

The price of $900 per ounce was for 18 carat gold. Which is not pure gold, because pure gold is too soft to use for anything, but a gold alloy. So the cost is exactly what was calculated. 2 ounce 18 carat gold about $1,800.
Click to expand...

If the entire watch is approx 2 ounces, you're not getting 2 ounces of gold to fit that equation, unless frame and internals are sold separately.;) I stand by my original assertion. There will be far less than $1800 in gold in the watch.
 
Rogifan said:
I don't think Apple will let you buy a watch without a band, so the open question is if they allow you to pick any combination you want or if they limit it to the models within each collection as shown on their website.
Click to expand...

Why would they worry about anyone buying a watch without a band? What would be the point? It would be shocking if they limited buyers to the combinations currently displayed online. Another consideration is rationalizing inventory control. Stocking multiple watch models and band styles and colors is going to be headache enough. But if they sell them only bundled, the problem is only multiplied.

Then too someone could very easily walk into an Apple Store looking for a Sport model, find them in stock bundled only with band colors they don't like, and walk out without one. But if they can choose another band style they like, Apple gets the sale, quite possibly at a larger price tag.

Imagine the nifty packaging Apple could use to show off how the different models would look with the different bands. They want you to find the one you love, the one you cant leave the store without. Why they'd put a single impediment in the way of satisfying that desire defies any logic that occurs to me.
 
J0m083 said:
So Apple is becoming a fashion shop.

May make the presentations a bit different. "Here you see the model showing the gold watch with white straps in combination with the new taupe iPad. Next is the new maroon iPad. Don't they look marvellous?"

I do understand the value of the name "Apple" and marketing it to the fullest. But have some difficulty combining high priced fashion accessories for the "beau monde" with quality software and innovative hardware for practical/daily use.
Click to expand...

Apple has always been a fashion shop. Just the demo, and the fashion (called interior decoration when its inside the house) has changed.

You think Apple prices now are actually higher than what apple charged in the 1980s? Find an old magazine and you'll be surprised :). There's a reason why Apple wasn't a mass market seller back then.
 
Seannyb said:
I really doubt the space grey aluminum model will be $50 more than silver. Do black iPhones and iPads cost more? Nope.
Click to expand...

I'm doubtful about this part as well, this speculation came from Gruber, he takes the black MacBook for example. I think however a black Sport Apple Watch would have to have at least one extra feature (no matter how small) to justify a higher price tag.
 
The only way I see $10k+ pricing working for the gold watch is if Apple offers some sort of pricing incentive for Edition owners to trade up when the next model comes out.

People who buy, say, a gold Rolex are willing to pay the huge markup over the gold per ounce price because the watch is timeless.
 
Keirasplace said:
You think Apple prices now are actually higher than what apple charged in the 1980s? Find an old magazine and you'll be surprised :). There's a reason why Apple wasn't a mass market seller back then.
Click to expand...

Don't need a magazine. Then I often bought Apple hardware (mac, monitors, printers) to the tune of several apple gold watches. But those were for production and support, not accessories or fashion(able).

Addentum : I use Apple products to make a living and remember John Sculley and the shift in focus from good products to endless sales talks.
 
Last edited:
bbeagle said:
The Apple Watch's case will only be about 2oz. 18K Gold costs about $900 an ounce. That's only $1800. So, I'd bet The Gold watch comes in at $2499 - $2999. Apple is still making a ~ $250 to $750 excess profit on the gold watch compared to the regular watches.
Click to expand...

Are you trolling guys like me or do you really believe that? The parts for an iPhone cost less than $250 while Apple sells it for $650 on average. But you think in Apple's first foray into high fashion that they are going to take margin on the project that wouldn't be particular great for one of their budget PCs?

Have you priced out the material costs for a Hermes handbag that sells for $10,000? How about the material costs for a high end bottle of wine that sells for $500? Are you ready to tell the entire luxury good industry that they shouldn't actually exist and that no one will buy their over priced products?
 
I ain't reading this on principle. Too many normative articles making broad speculations that will most likely be wrong.

The current trend of "Guy writes an article about the Apple Watch. What happens next will blow your MIND!", really gets my jimmies rustled. lolz.
 
Lostanddamned said:
Honestly, I don’t give a monkey’s about the price of the Edition. I am far, far more interested in the upper ceiling of the standard Apple Watch.
Click to expand...

What do you consider to be a "standard" Apple watch? They've already given that number out. Question is how much you are willing to pay for cosmetic upgrades. As with iPhone and iPad memory, it's these upgrades that make most of the profit for Apple.
 
iPadCary said:
As God is my witness, NO ONE is gonna pay $15,000 for a frackin' AppleWatch.
NO. ONE.
Click to expand...

Sure they will. Not millions, but a few thousand probably will. It's all about the image. And your $349 watch will have the same internals and do the exact same thing. The big money is for the bling.
 
Overhead

TallManNY said:
Are you trolling guys like me or do you really believe that? The parts for an iPhone cost less than $250 while Apple sells it for $650 on average. But you think in Apple's first foray into high fashion that they are going to take margin on the project that wouldn't be particular great for one of their budget PCs?
Click to expand...

The price of materials isn't the sole cost to make anything. This is why I find teardowns disingenuous and click-baity...

TallManNY said:
Have you priced out the material costs for a Hermes handbag that sells for $10,000? How about the material costs for a high end bottle of wine that sells for $500? Are you ready to tell the entire luxury good industry that they shouldn't actually exist and that no one will buy their over priced products?
Click to expand...

Here's the thing:
Apple has never said they were entering the "luxury goods industry". If anything, they are planning to disrupt it somewhat. You hire those people and figure out how - You get Burberry to figure out how to Burberry-esque, you get TAG to figure out how to get TAG-esque...they idea is to do "Apple-flavored" versions of these things. Apple is only luxury or expensive to people that make less than 6 figures a year...remember that :)

Apple isn't trying to do what people think they are...because most people lack both insight and imagination. They aren't even looking at the history, at things we've seen time and time again.

You'll note that the punditry *always* imagines ridiculous things because they are ridiculous ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back