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

[Snookerman]

The problem with pricing the gold watches that high is that this is still a gadget. Next year the $350 watch will have better specs and in my eyes be "better". They will need to
Have a trade-in program or upgrade program of some kind for this to fly.

The gold version is not like any other product that Apple sells. It's not for regular consumers. It's not the Mac Pro of Macs. It's a fashion statement. It's for people who not only can, but want to spend a lot of money. If you need to know the price, it's not for you.

I don't think Apple expect to make a lot of money on the gold editions. Instead, they expect celebrities and rich people to wear them and increase demand for the other two versions. Those are the ones who will bring in the money.

 

[cdm283813]

The difference in price for a stainless steel and a white gold Rolex rolex may be $15k. Same model, no difference except maybe minor design of the dial and for the keen eyed shades of silver. And yet people have bought white gold Rolex watches because they are weightier. If you don't understand that well... You won't.

Same thing may be true for people who want a gold apple watch. They'll be willing to pay for the price difference. However obscene it may be to your sensibilities.

But personally I think apple will keep the gold watches without gold linked strap to keep price down to a somewhat realistic level. Around 4-5k.

Problem here is that I'm a tech geek; not a watch connoisseur. As a current smartwatch owner I see my watch as disposable because it's technology. No different from my current phone (4 months old) which is getting replaced in the next 8 months. If Apple made a Gold plated iPhone 4 back in 2010 for $10,000 would you still buy it used for $8,000 today? It makes no sense to mix technology and precious metals. Technology becomes slow and obsolete no matter how much gold you throw inside of it.
Companies like Rolex have been making precision time pieces for over 100 years now. To put Apple in the same category just because they put a gold housing around $50 worth of tech is insulting to watch enthusiast. Just check out how much precision goes into one of these watches. And then compare it to a massed produced $229 smartwatch.

 

[cdm283813]

The gold version is not like any other product that Apple sells. It's not for regular consumers. It's not the Mac Pro of Macs. It's a fashion statement. It's for people who not only can, but want to spend a lot of money. If you need to know the price, it's not for you.

I don't think Apple expect to make a lot of money on the gold editions. Instead, they expect celebrities and rich people to wear them and increase demand for the other two versions. Those are the ones who will bring in the money.

I agree. Many of these celebrities have money to burn. A $10,000 gadget to them is nothing. Just look at this Inspire 1 quad copter that cost $3399 minimum. You have no guarantees when this thing is zipping overhead. A crash could cost hundreds in repair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ9Lbao6j-c

 

[freediverx]

$20k buys you a new car or an Apple Watch. Are you ****ing out of your mind?

Well, a person who buys a $20K watch drives a $200K car. He owns a few multimillion dollar mansions, not a $200k house. A $20k smartwatch (especially one that depreciates in value over time) is not meant for someone who makes $200k a year.

But of course, a $200k car isn't usually just a $20k model with gold rims. A $20 million home isn't usually just a $200k house with gold toilets and bath tubs.

If accurate, this anticipated pricing scheme is completely novel for Apple in that the top end models would be distinguished solely by the materials they're made from, and the cost of those materials wouldn't come close to justifying the price of the product. In other words, the premium priced models are designed purely for snob appeal.

So it seems Apple is betting on the idea that a) the Apple Watch will have strong and wide appeal, and that b) among those customers there will be a segment with enough money and ego that they will happily pay an obscenely premium price for a gold version to better flaunt their wealth and more clearly elevate themselves from the wretched 99%. The target market would presumably include celebrities, professional athletes, Russian oligarchs, drug dealers, and the newly rich in China.

 

[RnSK]

Actually, you are totally wrong here

You've fallen for the old logic problem: Which weighs more? A pound of gold or a pound of feathers? The weight is the same.

The density of gold means nothing in the context of the weight of the watch. If the watch has 1 oz of gold, plastic, or steel, it's still 1 oz. So the numbers can only be compared like that.

An ounce, pound, gram, or kilo doesn't change based on material.

So...people that know actually understand what this person was saying:

By *volume* Gold is *far, far* more massive than aluminium and steel. That is to say, a cubic inch of Gold is more massive than a cubic inch of aluminium or steel, so, for the *size* of the watch (volume) it would make up substantially more weight, and you'd be able to "feel" it, than the aluminium (lightest) and 31GL Stainless Steel.

It's a common misunderstanding due to over-simplification...which is another way to fall for the "old logic" problem

Note as well that it has already been stated and reported by several outlets that got to handle the Watches that the Edition has substantially more "heft" than the other two...and they occupy the same volume

-K

 

[Mikes1]

If you buy a Rolex today it will contain different technology from a Rolex made several years ago. Mechanical technology moves on just like electronics. Sure a Rolex will last for years buy don't forget they have to be serviced to keep them working properly. I had my submariner serviced at a cost of over £400
I see no reason why an Apple watch could not be serviced and it will tell the time extremely accurately for many years. Of course there will be newer and better models but IMHO it should not be considered such as a time limited consumable like a phone or tablet

 

[Max(IT)]

You people aren't reading the analysis. These are priced as fashion watches are. Disregard what tech is inside them. Millions of people spend that much every day on watches that only tell time and not even as reliably.

Those watches aren't going to be replaced one year later by a better model....
I can't afford it, but I can justify the purchase of a Rolex or an omega, for that price. They are jewelry.
A tech accessory is nothing more than a piece of technology that's going to be obsolete in a very short time.

No, as much as I love Apple, I just can't understand the logic behind a very highly priced Apple watch.
Prices between 360-900$ are the right range.

----------

I'm sorry, I don't care what track record John Gruber has, his pricing estimates and retail expectations are way off. There's no way Apple won't sell the bands alone as accessories after they've emphasized how easy it is to swap them out. And, of course, his prices are way too high all around, especially for the Edition.

He knows Apple better than you and me..... For sure

----------

Your buying a watch. It works without the phone. It has Bluetooth and storage to wireless play music to a pair of wireless overhead earphones if you like. There will be third party apps to monitor your sleep. It'll count your steps and tell you when you stand if you're sitting too long and has many other functions. If you have an iPhone you can take advantage of every feature this phone has, and let's face it you wouldn't be on this forum if you didn't have an iPhone. If you can't afford the model you want go down to the next model in the line or don't buy one at all. Apple makes quality stuff and quality stuff costs money.

If you think it's going to work without an iPhone you're being naive....
It doesn't even has a proper GPS receiver inside.
It's an iPhone's accessory, at least in this first iteration.

 

[ibjoshua]

Gruber's analysis is good but it doesn't seem to take the likely short lifespan of the watch into account. People buy Rolexes expecting to give them to their grandchildren. As others have said if they're charging the prices he's predicting then they must be planning a trade-in on them.

 

[Chaszmyr]

So...people that know actually understand what this person was saying:

By *volume* Gold is *far, far* more massive than aluminium and steel. That is to say, a cubic inch of Gold is more massive than a cubic inch of aluminium or steel, so, for the *size* of the watch (volume) it would make up substantially more weight, and you'd be able to "feel" it, than the aluminium (lightest) and 31GL Stainless Steel.

It's a common misunderstanding due to over-simplification...

Oversimplification?

tl;dr Gold is denser than aluminum or steel, so the gold watch will be heavier.

 

[FelixAng]

I can see it now, visit the Apple Store and spend 20,000 USD on an 18k watch that lasts a day on a single charge or buy Apple Car for 35,000 USD. Hopefully by 2020 the watch will get a week's battery.

Gruber leaves out the most important aspect of spending 20k on a fine timepiece, which is investment and heirloom-worthiness. The Apple Watch Edition will have diminishing returns immediately upon purchase. I know the very rich might consider one, but they usually don't need a convenient little pedometer, or something on their wrist to tell them their emails in tiny print.

As well, the Apple Watch isn't as extraordinary as the mechanics found in a fine Swiss watch; Rolex watches aren't made at Foxconn on some cheap factory line. Of course, Rolex isn't the top of the line in high-end timepieces. The Apple Watch needs a clunky recharge every day, and its functions must be tethered to a source device. That's a burden...

I doubt the premium Apple Watch will surpass 2,499 USD.

 

[technosix]

Apple has the brand strength behind this product. In Beverly Hills and Rodeo Drive alone, Apple may sell hundreds of the most expensive model in just days after release.

Solely within the entertainment community there's enough personal shoppers whose only task is to hunt down and purchase the latest toys for their employers. As soon as the shop owners pass the word out that Apple watches have arrived, they'll be sold in a flash.

This is a price is no object enclave and Apple knows it. One of many around the world. The only "issue" will be if they can keep them in Stock. Make no mistake the top of the line Apple Watch will sell no matter how high the price.

In the luxury lifestyle market, the higher the price, the greater the perceived value which in turn drives up demand. Apple knows exactly what they are doing.

 

[bobob]

As well, the Apple Watch isn't as extraordinary as the mechanics found in a fine Swiss watch

I'd have a better shot at making a mechanical watch at home than an Apple watch.

 

[Piggie]

I'd have a better shot at making a mechanical watch at home than an Apple watch.

You can make, at home probably the most complicated thing we know exists in the universe, and a million million million times more complex than an apple watch.

 

[ohbrilliance]

If they're priced at $14,210.83 they will sell in bucket loads in China.

 

[FelixAng]

I'd have a better shot at making a mechanical watch at home than an Apple watch.

Let me try this again: Rolex and the high-end timepiece makers don't do digital watches...batteries die/need replacement or charging. A good Swiss watch will last where there's no electricity, and can withstand shock, and resists water pressure.
A fine watch is an individual item, not some serial number repeat product.

 

[mdelvecchio]

You people aren't reading the analysis. These are priced as fashion watches are. Disregard what tech is inside them. Millions of people spend that much every day on watches that only tell time and not even as reliably.

yup. techies are and will lose their minds, because they're thinking like techies instead of fashion consumers. and in the case of the Edition, luxury consumers.

all anybody has to do is look at the store of luxury cell phones at www.vertu.com to understand.

----------

Let me try this again: Rolex and the high-end timepiece makers don't do digital watches...batteries die/need replacement or charging. A good Swiss watch will last where there's no electricity, and can withstand shock, and resists water pressure.
A fine watch is an individual item, not some serial number repeat product.

a Rolex is not a unique snowflake.

 

[Tomasulu]

Problem here is that I'm a tech geek; not a watch connoisseur. As a current smartwatch owner I see my watch as disposable because it's technology. No different from my current phone (4 months old) which is getting replaced in the next 8 months. If Apple made a Gold plated iPhone 4 back in 2010 for $10,000 would you still buy it used for $8,000 today? It makes no sense to mix technology and precious metals. Technology becomes slow and obsolete no matter how much gold you throw inside of it.
Companies like Rolex have been making precision time pieces for over 100 years now. To put Apple in the same category just because they put a gold housing around $50 worth of tech is insulting to watch enthusiast. Just check out how much precision goes into one of these watches. And then compare it to a massed produced $229 smartwatch.

I own a Rolex and like it enough to wear it daily. I would think apple spent more in R&D making the apple watch then Rolex did making their watches. I'm sure you can set up a factory making high quality precised automatic or manual watches for dirt cheap. But high end watch makers have to go the inefficient route of hand made to preserve the mystique of their products. Im under no illusion about my Rolex watch - the value is mostly on brand image, pricing strategy and mot because of costs of manufacturing or however precise they make a low tech 18th century product.

 

[69Mustang]

Actually, I'm not.

So...people that know actually understand what this person was saying:

By *volume* Gold is *far, far* more massive than aluminium and steel. That is to say, a cubic inch of Gold is more massive than a cubic inch of aluminium or steel, so, for the *size* of the watch (volume) it would make up substantially more weight, and you'd be able to "feel" it, than the aluminium (lightest) and 31GL Stainless Steel.

It's a common misunderstanding due to over-simplification...which is another way to fall for the "old logic" problem

Note as well that it has already been stated and reported by several outlets that got to handle the Watches that the Edition has substantially more "heft" than the other two...and they occupy the same volume

-K

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. So If I put 1 oz of gold on a scale it will be heavier than 1 oz of aluminum, steel, or banana peel on that same scale?

The topic was never about density or volume. The poster I quoted, incorrectly used the density of gold to bolster his argument. The topic was simply about using the total weight of the watch to calculate the value of the gold. Using the average weight of smartwatches (2 oz) as an example, people were incorrectly calculating $1800 worth of gold in the watch; based on the current $900 per oz value of 18 karat gold. From that 2 oz, the weight of the internals has to be subtracted. Increase the weight in the example, then you can get 2 oz of gold, but on a 2 oz total weight watch it ain't gonna happen.

What you said is true about a cubic inch of gold. But it has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing, which was equivalent weight not equivalent dimension. To be fair, it probably would have helped for you to know the original topic.

 

[mdelvecchio]

I doubt the premium Apple Watch will surpass 2,499 USD.

yeah, right. it's a solid 18k gold watch.

as for heirlooms, you don't get it -- the people who buy at this price point don't give a crap about leaving watches to their descendants. it's about STATUS. have you not seen the $20,000 - $40,000 Vertu cell phones?

----------

Gruber's analysis is good but it doesn't seem to take the likely short lifespan of the watch into account. People buy Rolexes expecting to give them to their grandchildren. As others have said if they're charging the prices he's predicting then they must be planning a trade-in on them.

how does that explain luxury cellphone maker Vertu and their extremely high prices? the wealthy elite don't care about passing down their watches or phones. it's a symbol of wealth.

 

[Steviejobz]

Lot's of crazy speculation here. I do not doubt Apple will charge a lot for a gold bracelet as gold is gold. But that's a one-time purchase. Then you can interchange the watch component each year which should cost less but prices scaled in line with the material.

I'm a huge Apple fanboy but this is more a device than a classic timepiece regardless of how Apple wants to market it. But there is always a market at each price tier and the masses will likely gravitate to low- to mid-range. No different than current watches, cars, or anything.

For me I will keep my Rolex and Panerai for evening attire, events, etc. But the Apple sports watch is perfect for every day banging around, gym, etc.

PS: Since the bands are disconnected from the device, can't someone else create knock off bands? I'm sure I can get a old band closer to the price of gold than the premium Apple will sell it for.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Those watches aren't going to be replaced one year later by a better model....
I can't afford it, but I can justify the purchase of a Rolex or an omega, for that price. They are jewelry.
A tech accessory is nothing more than a piece of technology that's going to be obsolete in a very short time.

If you think it's going to work without an iPhone you're being naive....
It doesn't even has a proper GPS receiver inside.
It's an iPhone's accessory, at least in this first iteration.

it works without an iPhone -- time, music, fitness tracking. GPS is only needed for route tracking, which I never do because I take the same routes. the difference in accuracy is minimal since I'm not at pro athlete.

as for being obsolete -- you're thinking tech, not jewelry. as jewelry it continues to do exactly what it did on the day of purchase. just like other jewelry and watches. it doesn't somehow become less than it was just because a newer one comes out.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Problem here is that I'm a tech geek; not a watch connoisseur....

Companies like Rolex have been making precision time pieces for over 100 years now. To put Apple in the same category just because they put a gold housing around $50 worth of tech is insulting to watch enthusiast. Just check out how much precision goes into one of these watches. And then compare it to a massed produced $229 smartwatch.

1. You state you are not a watch connoisseur then proceed to tell us how Apple putting an gold case around $50 worth of tech is "insulting to watch enthusiast." How would you know if you are not one?

2. Gold is $1200 per ounce, Stainless Steel is $40 per pound (scrap/recycled), and Aluminum .81 cents per pound (new). The Edition watch is 18K Gold, not gold plated.

3. Is the watch enthusiast Apple's target demo for the Edition version? It doesn't appear to be the case to me, but rather fashion conscious ultra-wealth individuals.

4. It's ignorant to suggest the Apple Watch is merely $50 worth of tech. Maybe the raw electronic parts, but certainly not the R&D and brain power which you are discounting. But a stainless steel Rolex Sumariner is identical to an white gold one other than the color and the price tag which is about a $22K difference.

5. It's routine for the higher end products to have more margin. A BMW 4 Series convertible has a MSRP nearly $9K higher than it's coupe model counterpart. Is it an insult to convertible lovers that they have to pay $9,000 more for the exact same car except that the top goes up and down?

 

[mdelvecchio]

While I personally don't believe Apple is stupid enough to sale a $10,000 smartwatch I do believe that the highest end model will still be $1000 plus which is ridiculous in my head. It's a shame that Apple didn't focus on a sub $250 price tag to dominate the market first and then start releasing these uber models for people with disposable money. Their making the same initial price mistake like they did in the beginning with the first iPhone. Only problem now is that people will buy this product because of the Apple logo which is going to make the sales look great.
Can't wait to see what pebble has in store for us in the next few days. Apple is off its rocker this time around and they need to come back down to Earth. Maybe because of Apple companies will produce much better options which will totally undercut them. Hopefully Apple won't try to block the competition.

it's hilarious how many times people like you say that Apple is crazy. yet here they are, the most successful public company in the history of the world. you never learn....

 

[Rogifan]

Years ago Gruber was hand picked and anointed by Steve Jobs himself, as a "chosen insider". Ushered into Steve Jobs inner circle, he is privy to information that if leaked serves Apple well by wetting buyers appetites in advance of various Apple product releases. Therefore it's not unusual for his prognostications to be very accurate.

Think of him as another part of Apple's skillfully orchestrated marketing strategy. Much like the way Steve groomed and used Walt Mossberg, an older guy with next to no tech skill or knowledge until groomed by Steve and Apple so as to draw in the older demographic. It didn't hurt that Walt was already working as a non-technical writer with the New York Times. Jobs didn't miss a trick when it came to loading the dice in his favor.

It's highly likely that true to past practice, Grubers "speculation on prices" was sourced straight from the horses mouth.

Nope. Gruber himself has said he doesn't get leaks from Apple. This is pure speculation on his part. Normally like his site and what he writes but this time unfortunately I think he went for page views.

 

[MacOSXI]

What a mess !