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

Rogifan said:
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.

----------



We don't know for sure but all indications are its water resistant but not waterproof.
Click to expand...

Wrong....the likelihood is that a luxury "gold" watch has a hand-made Swiss mechanical movement, whereas as its cheaper sibling will more than likely have a Japanese / Chinese quartz movement. The only difference between the Apple models will be an ounce of "bling" that Apple will probably charge 10 x more than its worth
 
Why can't they standardize the "guts" of the watch to be swappable? Like why couldn't you update this watch with new guts? Why are we assuming you can't, like at the genius bar? Sapphire crystal has been around for years, I don't think the watch face needs to evolve, but why can't the battery and processor be standardized into a "disk" that gets replaced every year or two?

I have a Panerai 00 model I've had for years. It's pretty thick. I don't ever think to myself, "Man I hope Panerai updates this model to make it thinner and lighter next year." It is what it is. I love the size and shape. And I buy new bands and get it tuned up every now and then. Why couldn't that tune up be new internals installed at a genius bar?

I think everyone is missing the mark on having to own this exact watch's internals forever.
 
Wearables are in their infancy... That reason alone would make it a huge gamble for Apple to make the internals swappable, the form factor on these things will change frequently until it is thinner and battery life is way better. They wouldn't risk be locked into one form factor.
 
ani4ani said:
Wrong....the likelihood is that a luxury "gold" watch has a hand-made Swiss mechanical movement, whereas as its cheaper sibling will more than likely have a Japanese / Chinese quartz movement. The only difference between the Apple models will be an ounce of "bling" that Apple will probably charge 10 x more than its worth
Click to expand...

So a non-Gold Rolex isn't hand made?
 
Kaibelf said:
Short version: I know nothing, so I'll just randomly guess with no real logic behind it.

Remember back when people were SWEARING up and down that the iPad would be $1200 to start? They ended up looking like total fools.
Click to expand...

Yeah, these numbers sound like they're really being pulled out of somewhere stinky. I'm surprised, coming from Gruber.
 
Rogifan said:
Somethng else I've been pondering...Apple makes a big deal about the bands and it seems like they put a lot of effort into them. And in that New Yorker piece Jony Ive said "we're not stopping" in reference to coming up with different materials/colors for the bands. I have a hard time seeing them become obsolete in a year or two. So that makes me wonder if the internals of the watch will be upgradeable or if you'll be able to buy a new watch (without a band) to replace your existing one? Perhaps even if the design changes somewhat it will still be able to accommodate these bands. Or perhaps the design of the watch itself won't be changing much for a while and it's all about new/different band styles/colors.

I do think Apple will partner with the fashion industry on watch bands. And I wouldn't be surprised to see some type of MFI program. The question is will these be available at launch or will Apple want to keep the band market to itself for a while?
Click to expand...

I think the connector for the watch will remain the same so that you can use "any" band with the newer watches. Until some time where they want to refresh the line and "force" people to get new bands. Naturally it will be positioned as the new watch is thinner or has some better design necessitating the need for new bands.

That being said - I do think that all watches will be sold with a band. Just like all iPhones come with headphones. There won't be a "watch" only option.

I *DO* wonder if they will have a recycle/upgrade program where if you trade in your old device, you get $X off the upgrade.
 
TommyA6 said:
iPhone's cost $200 in parts, yet Apple sells them for $649+(3x its cost in parts) , and sells tens of millions of them.

:apple:Watch Edition probably has at least 1 oz of gold in it (Probably more, especially with a band). That's $1000 at least, in gold only (not counting electronics, sapphire, bands etc.). At $1799 or $2499 Apple would be losing money or making ridiculously small amounts with each sale, and that ain't gonna happen :p , especially considering the limited market for high end, expensive watches.
Click to expand...

The parts on the iPhone cost way more than the watch. The entry level model costs $349 so I suspect parts are a little over $100. Sure, the sapphire front is going increase cost in the edition model. By how much ? Look at the boules being produced by GTA. They were valued at $20k to $30k. Could we get 250 - 500 faces out of it ? Good chance, and that puts the price of those faces at $40 - $80.

We don't know how much gold is actually in the edition model. Apple hasn't released pricing because it will either be way higher or lower than others have said.

Looking back at the iPad and the rumors on pricing, there were all of these absurd prices being floated around. Apple is well known for leaking false prices so when the real lower price comes out. Once the real price is reveled, people will react with "Oh that is reasonable".

Now, I want to be clear that the prices I suggested do NOT include an expensive band. Look at the edition page at the white sports band. That might be the basic band it comes with. VERY little gold on that and in fact might not be gold at all. That is where the magnet goes.
 
Frankly, I haven't read through all TWENTY-TWO pages of comments here, but doesn't anyone think maybe Gruber is spouting these numbers to artificially fabricate worry and disdain in the media about the Apple Watch so that when the ACTUAL numbers are released (and they're MUCH lower), people will feel a sense of relief and therefore be more willing to buy???
 
wish they would make silicon bands that matches the iPhones cases and iPad cases

----------

apple is pretty smart not to announce the prices....it gets people taking about it..like 22 pages lol
 
odds said:
Frankly, I haven't read through all TWENTY-TWO pages of comments here, but doesn't anyone think maybe Gruber is spouting these numbers to artificially fabricate worry and disdain in the media about the Apple Watch so that when the ACTUAL numbers are released (and they're MUCH lower), people will feel a sense of relief and therefore be more willing to buy???
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised in the least!

(qv: iPad pricing rumors)
 
Quu said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hand an Apple Watch, or any expensive watch to the children. If they want a nice watch, they can find a job, work hard, and buy the watch when they can afford it. I don't mind anyone spending their hard earned money on luxury items. But someone giving a luxury item like that to a fifteen year old child should be slapped.
 
gnasher729 said:
I wouldn't hand an Apple Watch, or any expensive watch to the children. If they want a nice watch, they can find a job, work hard, and buy the watch when they can afford it. I don't mind anyone spending their hard earned money on luxury items. But someone giving a luxury item like that to a fifteen year old child should be slapped.
Click to expand...

I think that's judgmental. I think it's a personal decision and something I wouldn't do. But I would never suggest that the person that does should be slapped. I'm hoping you meant that tongue-in-cheek or in a colloquial way. If not, that's a bit much.
 
cheesyappleuser said:
Why someone would (hypothetically) waste $10k+ in a smartwatch fad is beyond my understanding.
Click to expand...

Wealthy minority will spend 50k+ on a watch simply because they can afford it. It's beyond any reason for the average Joe but it makes a statement to a person that can spare 50k+ on a watch that might cost 10% of that price to make. I will not buy apple watch because it's a gimmick. It will not make my life better in any way, it will easily get damaged and whats most important I do not even wear one anyway. I had to slag myself for feeling so bad after dropping my 5s and denting the case :p
 
gnasher729 said:
I wouldn't hand an Apple Watch, or any expensive watch to the children. If they want a nice watch, they can find a job, work hard, and buy the watch when they can afford it. I don't mind anyone spending their hard earned money on luxury items. But someone giving a luxury item like that to a fifteen year old child should be slapped.
Click to expand...

When the gold watch was given to me, it was not for daily wear. It was meant to be kept in a safe place and looked after until old enough to wear it appropriately.

I think you didn't get that from what I said but that is how I meant it. The fact is people hand down their expensive jewelry and watches to their children, regardless of the ages. But with the Apple Watch you just can't do that because it won't be functional after a few years.
 
elmaco said:
Buy one for $5 000 (don't open the box) and sell it for $50 000 in 25 years.
Click to expand...

No offense but that is the dumbest thing I've read all day. Who's to say that people will even rock phone's the way we know it today. We could have interactive holograms that are projected in front of us in 25 years making the phone obsolete. And that's the issue. Technology is suppose to advance; not stay stagnant.

----------
Night Spring said:
Rumors said the iPad would cost around $1000-1200. Then Jobs got on stage and announced that the starting price will be $500.
Click to expand...

Rumor also had it that the iPad would run a full blown OS, not a phone OS. Hence the reason for the high price.
 
I can't get my head round why anyone would want to spend $349 on something that looks like a Casio digital watch from the 80's that's been given a polish. $5k would be total madness, let alone $20k.

And what's with comparing the Apple Watch with a Rolex? I haven't worn a watch in 10 years and doubt I will again, but I get that for some people they're a fashion statement or piece of jewellery or similar. Just because it's got an Apple logo and Jonny Ive has used every superlative known to man to describe it, doesn't mean it's in the same class as a Rolex. It isn't and it never will be.

I do like the idea of a wearable device for measuring heart beat, aiding with a work out and that sort of thing. I'll probably get one soon. But it will be a modern band device that is designed for the task it performs and not a monstrosity flash back to the 80's.
 
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