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

[gnasher729]

I'm getting three of the $20K watches. How many are you buying?

That's monday, tuesday and wednesday covered. What watch are you wearing on the other days of the week?

----------

Solid 18k gold" that would be hilarious. Right from Apple's website it's just a gold case, which will probably include about 30 grams of gold...far from the weight of a solid good watch.

Excuse me... you can't build a "solid gold" watch. On a gold watch it is just the case that is gold, or the strap as well. And not solid gold but an alloy because solid gold would be the mother of all "bendgates".

 

[ani4ani]

Oh for Christs sake, stop acting so smart on me, please.

You have no idea what your talking about. Neither do some other who have quoted me.

OK, lets take it step by step. It is obviously needed

1.) No one knows the exact mass of the Watch Edition
2.) The Watch Edition occupies roughly the same volume (or at least comparable) as the competing smart watches such as moto360 and Samsung gear
3.) Gold is much, much, much denser than either plastic or stainless steel
4.) If the Watch has the same volume as a Moto 360, it will weigh considerably MORE. Relative atomic mass of a gold atom is 196,67, compared to 55,85 of an iron atom (stainless steel is an alloy of iron, meaning it consists mostly of iron atoms, but includes lots of other elements such as chrome), which is almost 4x. The metallic bond length between atoms in gold is 288 pm (250 pm for iron), so iron atoms are slightly tighter packed, but far from enough to compensate for huge mass of a gold atom.
5.) If you still don't get it, I'll gladly recommend a course in physics/chemistry.

....and that is why there will be very limited gold in the edition watch. Probably limited elements of the case. The Apple watch will have a much lighter "movement" [it wont have a movement, but you know what I mean] than a typical luxury watch, perhaps similar to a quartz watch.

 

[bobob]

Solid 18k gold" that would be hilarious. Right from Apple's website it's just a gold case, which will probably include about 30 grams of gold...far from the weight of a solid good watch.

The Rolex President contains 23.265 grams of gold (excluding the bracelet).

Okay, so I had a typo.

Wow - - that has to be in contention for the world's record typo!

"Oops... my finger slipped 187 times in a row."

 

[Keirasplace]

Oh for Christs sake, stop acting so smart on me, please.

You have no idea what your talking about. Neither do some other who have quoted me.

OK, lets take it step by step. It is obviously needed

1.) No one knows the exact mass of the Watch Edition
2.) The Watch Edition occupies roughly the same volume (or at least comparable) as the competing smart watches such as moto360 and Samsung gear
3.) Gold is much, much, much denser than either plastic or stainless steel
4.) If the Watch has the same volume as a Moto 360, it will weigh considerably MORE. Relative atomic mass of a gold atom is 196,67, compared to 55,85 of an iron atom (stainless steel is an alloy of iron, meaning it consists mostly of iron atoms, but includes lots of other elements such as chrome), which is almost 4x. The metallic bond length between atoms in gold is 288 pm (250 pm for iron), so iron atoms are slightly tighter packed, but far from enough to compensate for huge mass of a gold atom.
5.) If you still don't get it, I'll gladly recommend a course in physics/chemistry.

Not the same volume as Gear or Moto 360, but close, about 10-12% less. But, on the whole you're right. The big watch is close in volume to the Ipod Nano, which is 1.1 ounce. I estimate nano's internals at 1 ounce. Internal volume of the watch probably slightly smaller than the nano. So, internals of 0.8-0.9 ounce seems would be pretty close.

The Smaller watch is almost 40% smaller than the Moto 360; wonder how would that work. Would the smaller watch be cheaper than the bigger one. It should or people would feel ripped off (they'd be getting significantly less gold).

 

[gnasher729]

This is certainly a very likely reason for a 20K AppleWatch, however I don't think it will work the same way. The top-tier cars are say 2-3 times the cost of the more basic options, but are faster, better equipped, and handle better. If the rumours are true, the gold AppleWatch may be well over 20 times more expensive than the standard AppleWatch, but when it comes down to it, they are the same.

Not that I intend to buy one (I don't have an iPhone, and even if I did, I don't think it justifies the price yet) but for sanity's sake, I hope the "Edition' is gold plated (and that "..case crafted from 18-karat gold..." is a bit of an exaggeration), not solid gold, and priced at a reasonable point. Say around $1K. Maybe 2.

When it comes down to it, a gold Apple Watch is gold, and a standard Apple Watch is not gold, so there are nothing like the same at all.

And the case is crafted from 18 karat gold, and a "reasonable" price is not what Apple or the people buying it are expecting.

----------

For those buying, be careful in showing it. Criminals, without knowing how valuable the watch is by sight (or glimpses), may target you just for the possibility that it's a more expensive version. Hell, even if it's the least expensive, they may target you.

"Find my iPhone" will be changed to "Find my iPhone, iPad or Apple Watch". From the start, an Apple Watch will be something that you cannot sell as stolen goods. It will never, ever be working unless the proper owner uses his Apple ID to release it.

 

[Max(IT)]

Meaning, not very close at all.

And you know him personally, to said that?

 

[gnasher729]

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.

You are wrong. A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold.

http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/4808/A-pound-of-feathers-actually-weighs-more-than-a-pound-of-gold

----------

You based your calculation on the average 2 oz weight of a smart watch. Your calculation didn't subtract the weight of the internals. There could be as little as .5 oz of gold in the case.

Do you think an Apple Watch with 18 carat gold case will weigh the same as an Apple Watch with an aluminium case? It won't. There will be the same volume of gold and aluminium, but the gold ways considerably more.

 

[leroypants]

I would love to pay 10,000 dollars for a watch that will be worthless in a few years.

 

[gnasher729]

We don't know how quickly they will depreciate in value yet. Considering it is a watch, I wouldn't be surprised if it were easier to replace the battery than a typical Apple product.

The batteries on all current Apple products are quite easy to replace. You need the proper tools, and you don't find them in the average household, but for the guy in the Apple Store replacing the battery in your iPhone, or MacBook, isn't difficult.

----------

I would love to pay 10,000 dollars for a watch that will be worthless in a few years.

I can sell you a fake Rolex for $10,000. It will be worthless as soon as the battery runs out.

----------

Who would have guessed that Apple's most expensive product ever was going to be a... watch

Found this: "The Lisa-1 ran $9,995 new in 1983, or $23,334 in 2013 dollars adjusted for inflation".

 

[bushman4]

Bands are the key. Most people will not by an AppleWatch that often. But as for the bands to be stylish and give the watch a new look people will buy different bands more often
As for the Gold version this will be popular for those that are looking for a luxury item. The AppleWatch will achieve luxury status and a status symbol in many countries

 

[parapup]

This is part of clever marketing plan from Apple and Gruber - raise the price expectation absurdly high and then release something for somewhat high price and crow innovation, revolution, magic, supply chain might etc.

 

[alestian]

Is the price too high? - YES!!

Nobody in their right mind would pay $10k for this watch. My guess is that this article had to be either misprinted or a joke to see who would react to it. Personally, I think that $500 is too high for the Edition watch, especially since the technology will be replaced in 6-12 months with a newer version. Plus! You can't even take a call on the thing! Truthfully, anyone that spends more than $500 on this watch is either crazy rich, just won the lottery, or out of their mind. It's not worth it. It's not even worth it in regards to the amount of gold on the watch. Really stupid.

 

[bhferguson]

Hasn't anyone seen Rich Kids of Instagram? They blow 20K in a few hours. That's who is going to be buying Apple Edition.

THIS: Haven't seen this mentioned yet:http://loumiranda.com/2015/01/10/is-the-apple-watch-s1-chip-replaceable/ Not sure how realistic that is, but I like it.

I think Gruber is pretty right on with his costs. I definitely think the gold watch is going to come in between 10-20K.

And I wouldn't be surprised if not all the bands were made available separately, helps to differentiate price models.
w

 

[TonyC28]

I think we can all agree that Apple will sell many many more of the "cheaper" versions of the Apple Watch than they will the gold one. Apple seems to have their act together so I suspect they probably aren't betting the future of the company on the sales of a $20,000 (if that's what it really is) gold watch. So if they want to make an expensive watch that only the super rich would consider buying......who cares?????
If I were a millionaire and $20,000 was insignificant to me maybe I'd consider the gold watch. But also remember that millionaires didn't get to have the money they do by needlessly throwing away $20,000.

 

[Tiltasauras]

Question

You know what would be crazy? If everyone is completely wrong about the price (of all of the watches). There's three tiers. The Apple Watch. The Apple Watch Sport Edition. And the Apple Watch Edition. That's how they're listed on Apple's site. Cook said that the Apple Watch starts at $349. He didn't say the Apple Watch Sport edition starts at $349. He didn't say the cheapest Apple Watch you could get starts at $349, he said "The Apple Watch starts at $349."

What if the Apple Watch is $349 and the Sport Edition is less? Why would that be so hard to believe? These things aren't very expensive to produce and at $349 Apple is already at a premium price over the current wearable market.

At this price point Apple would make a killing because they'd sell like hot cakes and everyone would spend their $ on bands, which I'm sure would start at $100 for the leather ones and just move up from there (with HUGE margins).

 

[bushman4]

Regardless of what people believe. Let's remember that this is only an accessory and it's going to be interesting to see what Apple does with price marketing,availability etc
I was just thinking how a woman accessorizes an outfit with perhaps a Chanel or Louis viton bag and a necklace and other jewelry. So why not an Appleeatch

 

[Xiph0s]

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.

This is EXACTLY right. The reason why Porsches and Rolex maintain their value is that for years and years they have a TIMELESS design (no pun intended). A rolex from 1970 still looks really damn good today. This first generation apple watch is going to look completely stupid and embarrassing when Apple Watch 2 comes out. Especially when Apple Watch 2 is like 75% thinner with a 25% battery life increase to boot (and probably solar charging). Also what people are forgetting is that there is actually 'electrical fatigue', meaning in 3-4 years the watch might not work at all. Then what? You have a 10 thousand dollar watch that can't be returned or repaired, so .... Apple is going to give you a new one? Okay that just defeats the purpose. If bought a 1970 porsche (in 1970) I want THAT car -- not a replacement.

 

[IJ Reilly]

And you know him personally, to said that?

What a peculiar question. No, just to read him. How about that as a way to judge?

 

[technosix]

There's a high likelihood that Grubers just doing his job of floating a trial balloon regarding price. It wouldn't be the first time.

Look how successful it is... This thread is proof positive of all the interest.

 

[elgrecomac]

Trying to keep an open mind

I've stated before on this board that I don't wear a watch and have yet to understand why I "need" an apple watch. What will be the killer app that makes me reevaluate my position? Any why would I buy a first gen device from Apple anyway....why should I be forced to QA it for the most profitable company in the history of the world...which the first gen buyers will be doing?

And the obvious dawned on me today: why would anyone buy a high priced version of the device (with projected pricing spread of $350 to several thousands of dollars) with NO difference in functionality or capability between the high and low priced watch? So the case is gold and has a nicer band but, really, a potential 10x difference in price for the same functional electronic device? Wow! Apple marketing IS the best in the history of advertising!
And, as others have said, in a year does Apple expect people to flip the watch on eBay to buy a newer, thinner, better battery, better functionality watch? Unlike a iPhone where the older. Versions have a secondary market because it is a phone, gps , web browser, email device, the watch is a dependent device needing to be tethered to an iPhone well,.....I still don't get it.

 

[69Mustang]

You are wrong. A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold.

http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/4808/A-pound-of-feathers-actually-weighs-more-than-a-pound-of-gold

gnasher please. I refuse to believe you are that obtuse. To make that true you'd have to use two different types of measuring systems, and that's exactly what they did. It even says so in your link. That's like comparing 2 tons and 2 metric tons and saying they weigh the same. Using the same standard measuring method, a pound is a pound is a pound. I'm just going to chalk that up to you messing with me.

To make it worse: a troy ounce = 31.1 grams. a standard ounce = 28.3 grams. 10 troy oz = 311 grams and 10 standard ounces = 283 grams. Feathers don't weigh more no matter how the math is jiggered.

The absolute worst? Comparing two different pounds. Your link compared 12 oz of gold to 16 oz of feathers.

In this case, I am happy to be wrong.

Do you think an Apple Watch with 18 carat gold case will weigh the same as an Apple Watch with an aluminium case? It won't. There will be the same volume of gold and aluminium, but the gold weighs considerably more.

No I don't think that and never said it in any quote. The 2 oz weight was used as an example; an example used by you as well to calculate the possible value of the gold in the watch. Remember the $1800 estimate you made? You didn't account for the weight of the internals. I hope you weren't saying the watch would possibly contain 2 oz of gold in addition to the weight of the internals. That would be almost 2x the amount of gold in a Rolex Presidential (1.1 oz) case. The whole watch is approx. 5.5 oz and I doubt the gold watch will be that heavy.

Several people have mentioned the volume of the gold vs aluminum and steel. That is a completely separate issue that can't be used to argue the example of a 2 oz watch.

 

[groovyd]

I think the top category price will directly depend on Apple's policy of upgrade or not. If they have an annual swap out or internals upgrade program then I think it will break $10k territory, otherwise $5k tops with people trying to resell year old top of the line for half price on ebay which people will buy into as it will show them as someone with top echelon status but achieved always half price and a year behind.

That would give the gold watch about a 6-8 year lifespan before it is worth more to melt it down and recycle the gold than keep reselling it as a smart watch.

 

[lederermc]

...

I can sell you a fake Rolex for $10,000. It will be worthless as soon as the battery runs out.


Found this: "The Lisa-1 ran $9,995 new in 1983, or $23,334 in 2013 dollars adjusted for inflation".

Worthless the day you buy it.

 

[groovyd]

I think it would be very clever of Apple to simultaneously announce some sort of upgrade program that locks them and the buyer into some annual upgrade cycle of say 25% of the value of the device to swap it out for the latest. This way they know when they sell a watch they are actually selling a lifetime of upgrades and exchanges that they can cheaply turn around as refurbished. Creates a guaranteed revenue stream out of every customer.

 

[viorelgn]

Gruber was clearly smoking crack when he blogged that. There would be ZERO point in making a song and dance about easily replaceable straps, if they were going to ship them together. That would have made no sense whatsoever.