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

People buy the expensive watches because they last forever and are timeless - that is they don't date. They do one function and they do it forever.

Apple watch will be obsolete software in a few years, need new batteries in four years or less.

I can see it being $2000, but I think grubber has it wrong, there are no gold bands because they need to keep the price low, not because of some last minute reveal.

Apple wanted people why spend $20,000 on a watch once every 10 years, to buy a apple watch for $2,000 EVERY year.
 
alestian said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can take phone calls on an Apple Watch.

Not that I'd spend $10-20k to take phone calls on my wrist. $349? Possibly :p
 
Tim Cook is blabbing on about it being life changing, yet his examples of why are pretty weak.

I think they have are few more tricks. Why announce the watch and show off everything, but not release until 6+ months later? Giving opponents a chance to start copying things like the crown, the touch draw messages etc.

There must be something more to it than that.
 
High priced Apple watches are ridiculous on so many levels.

When you buy a high quality time piece you are buying the engineering, craftsmanship, artisry, and exceptional movement. The Apple watch, the core, is a piece of tech made on an assembly line no matter if it's in platinum or gold.

And why would I want to spend 1000s of dollars on a piece of tech that is wrapped in gold???? When the "face" of the watch will probably be outdated tech in a mere 2 years?? I'm a fan of Apple products and I think a watch from them is intriguing but people who buy a very high cost one definetely have more money than sense.
 
groovyd said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can anyone here honestly say that Apple is going to keep this first gen watch up to date 8 years from now? And what if Apple Watch 3 has 7 day battery life, thinner, has more sensors and can actually be a stand alone device that makes/receive calls and is cheaper? It would be silly if Apple to keep upgrading the guts because it ties you to the same body.
Or better yet what if the Apple Watch is a huge flop? $5k to $10k is a huge gamble on a fashion tech accessory?
This could be Tim Cook's biggest mistake.
 
Tiltasauras said:
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).
Click to expand...

You might be on to something.

Clearly the sports watch had to be the cheapest. The band is plastic. There is no sapphire display. The metal is just standard aluminium cnc 'd.

Either the $349 is the sport price, or as you have said, the short is cheaper.

Sadly I think the sport is the cheapest. The watch will be $499, sport $349, edition $999+
 
Last edited:
myforwik said:
As much as I hope it is true, there is no way.

The watch sport is already said to use an expensive ion fused glass, plus go through 100% depth anodising, which means it will hold exact color even when chipped and scratched, plus it will weight considerably less than normal watch. where as the normal watch is just a screen from smart phones and a standard iron metal polished.

I bet the sport is at least $99 more, probably $499.
Click to expand...

Normal Apple watch has a sapphire crystal cover, while the sport edition has gorilla glass or a similar type of GLASS.
Sapphire is much more expansive than gorilla glass. Also, the Milanese loop or SS link band are much more expansive than a rubber/plastic sports band.
Apple watch sport will start at $349, not the regular Apple watch.
 
Hold On there, partner....

Not quite....
1 Troy ounce contains 2.75 grams more"...
So what is the difference between a Troy Ounce, and a standard ounce. This is a very common question, and one that most people have trouble answering without some reference.
Surprisingly there are 2 totally different methods for calculating silver/gold vs the method used to calculate everything else.
The most likely explanation is that Gold, Silver, and even Gun Powder are such universal and important materials, that a standard measurement system is not an option but a requirement. That unfortunately means that the people from the United States are at a small disadvantage, when it comes to properly measuring these things with the standard machines we might use in day to day life.
Exact measurements are as follows
1 troy ounce = 31.1034768 grams or 480 grains
1 ounce = 28.3495231 grams or 437.5 grains
Basic elementary school math will tell you that 1 Troy ounce contains 2.75 grams more of metal than the standard ounce. So an ounce of Gold would weight 2.7539537 grams more than an ounce of sugar.




LordVic said:
Weight is Weight is weight.

2oz of gold weighs the same as 2oz of steel, or 2oz of plastic.

When it comes to mass, the makeup of the item is irrelevant, the same mass on earth will weight the same no matter what the makeup

What would you rather have land on you, 30 oz of feathers or 30 oz of brick,

Spoiler: they both weight 30 oz

now if you believe the Watch will weigh considerably more than 2 or 3 oz? I'd be surprised. it would feel very heavy on the wrist.
Click to expand...
 
Patriot24 said:
People are going to go nuts when Apple announces prices for real. The doomsday predictions will roll in swiftly. I think John is right, though - it is a fashion play, not a tech one.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, iOS and maybe OS X will now have to support watches that very few people use. More bloat :/
 
IJ Reilly said:
I get what you are driving at, but if Apple's online advertising is to be taken literally, they will be selling ten configurations of the Sport (all five Sport bands colors in both watch sizes); 18 configurations of the Apple Watch (the black and white Sport band in both sizes, the black classic buckle in both sizes, the three other classic buckle colors in 38mm only, the three colors of leather loop in 42mm only, and the steel link in two colors and both sizes); and "six uniquely elegant expressions" of the Edition, though only five are actually pictured.

Total: 34 configurations. That's a lot, even with the odd omissions. Whatever they do with the actual pricing and availability, it's going to be fascinating (and it should also be said, no support can be found for Gruber's pricing argument).
Click to expand...

I agree re: Gruber. I normally like what he writes but this time I feel like he's either not thinking clearly or unfortunately went for page views.

I think the blog below does a good job of outlining what most likely will happen.

https://adamross100.wordpress.com/2015/02/21/apple-watch-a-different-perspective/
 
From what I've read this watch (Apple Watch) isn't even water resistant let alone safe to swim or dive? How can Apple market a sport watch or an expensive gold watch that could be ruined in a rain storm?
Is the correct?
 
ani4ani said:
I agree with you totally. The real issue for Apple is that everyone of their watches is going to do exactly the same as each other, all based on a tiny $20 board and chip made in a Chinese sweatshop by Foxconn, put together in a matter of minutes. The movement in a Rolex can take several weeks to manufacture alone with hand assembly.
Click to expand...

And what does that have to do with gold? A gold luxury watch is more expensive than its non-gold counterpart even though functionality is essentially the same.

----------
imwoblin said:
From what I've read this watch (Apple Watch) isn't even water resistant let alone safe to swim or dive? How can Apple market a sport watch or an expensive gold watch that could be ruined in a rain storm?
Is the correct?
Click to expand...

We don't know for sure but all indications are its water resistant but not waterproof.
 
iWatch pricing

firedept said:
I would still rather spend my money on a watch that is going to last forever. Not for months. Anything with three 0's behind it for an Apple Watch is crazy, but I am sure there will be people with more money than brains that will go for it.

I will always be more impressed by a Patek Phillipe or Cartier, hell even by a Rolex before some Golden Apple.
Click to expand...

Com'on its an Apple $ 10K is a golden bargain !
 
Rogifan said:
I agree re: Gruber. I normally like what he writes but this time I feel like he's either not thinking clearly or unfortunately went for page views.

I think the blog below does a good job of outlining what most likely will happen.

https://adamross100.wordpress.com/2015/02/21/apple-watch-a-different-perspective/
Click to expand...

Seems more reasonable. I still like the concept of the watches and bands being sold a la carte, but since nobody else has picked up on the merits I will have to hang onto it a pet idea of my own.

----------
Max(IT) said:
Since Steve jobs defined he as an insider, I think your knowledge about him could be wrong
Click to expand...

Not based on actually reading what he writes, no. And Steve is no longer with us.
 
myforwik said:
People buy the expensive watches because they last forever and are timeless - that is they don't date.
Click to expand...

OK. I'll stipulate that this is true and there are no other reasons why one might by an expensive watch. What about other "low end" luxury items like:

A $100K BMW 7 series that will depreciate 50% in 3 years.
A $700 pair of Ferragamo shoes, pretty much worthless the moment they are worn
$25K to fly from NYC to LA on a midsized chartered jet -- $ gone in 4 hours
A $2K bottle of 1999 Estate Cabernet Sauvignon Imperial -- $ gone in 1 hour

Why do people by these items? They don't last forever nor are they timeless -- they are all "of the moment." (Yes, even a bottle of fine wine has to be uncorked and enjoyed at some point or it will spoil.)
 
When I was a boy I was given a gold rolex by a family member. It was already over two decades old by the time I got it. Still beautiful and working fine.

Can you see yourself handing down an Apple Watch to your kids? I just don't see that happening.

By the time your kids are old enough to receive it (lets assume they are about 5 years old now and you will give it them when they're 15, so 10 years from now) the watch wont work with whatever phone they have and the battery will be dead and isn't user serviceable.

That turns it from a Watch into a Bracelet. Might aswell just melt it down for the gold at that point.

But what do I know, maybe Apple will sell tons of them regardless.
 
I think people are making a mistake here in thinking that the world cares about the watch being "timeless" and a smart watch being quick to be obsolete. Bottom line is this. Watches tell time, your smart watch, no matter how out of date, will always be able to tell time (even if for only a day per charge).

Its like saying that people would never buy an expensive gold bracelet because it only sits on your wrist and doesn't do anything at all. People buy expensive gold bracelets all the time because its a status symbol just like this watch will be. If anything though I think that the mistake is making a gold watch and a leather band, if anything they should have made no gold watches as all, and made gold bands instead to put on a black watch. You can use a smart cover from an iPad through multiple iPads, you could use the band on multiple apple watches so it makes sense to offer expensive gold bands but make the watch part disposable and less expensive
 
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