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

[AppleScruff1]

Yes, changing the processor only does so much... But it doesn't stop Apple from offering this option. Additionally, Apple could offer an upgrade to sensors for less than the price of a new watch if users chose to do this.

People won't like paying for a brand new watch every year at full price, but if Apple offers discounts for parts being replaced, users will be more willing to continue with Apple. Apple knows what it's doing.

Apple does know exactly what they are doing. People will buy a new watch every two years.

 

[Fenez]

I don't understand why anyone would feel that Apple would need to update anything for anyone... They sell you the product, it has a life span of whatever the tech is in any particular device and then it's done. Just by offering the update would mean that they think it's not worth the price without any further enticement. If they charge $500 for the lowest iteration of the watch and it seems like a good price for what you are getting then buy it..

 

[manu chao]

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.../QUOTE]

First, I'd probably go for a Japanese-made mechanism, since the last mid-tier Omega I had lasted 8 month before being sent for repairs, and then sent back again....

Second, most of the Swiss-made movements are done by a couple of suppliers, regardless of brand (once you get to the $50k+ range you start seeing custom movements, but they are not necessarily great either, and a cheap Casio will keep better time).

Until about a year ago, the Swatch group was the only company selling mechanical movements (those with automatic 're-winding') to other watch makers. And not too long before that Swatch had threatened to stop doing so which helped spur a competitor to offer such movements.

----------

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???

Because that is how you operate? Whenever somebody accuses somebody else of intentionally lying to further that person's worldview, my suspicion always falls on the accuser projecting his or her own MO onto others.

----------

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+

According to Gruber, the gold alone could be worth $1500-2000. They won't be selling that for $1000 nor $2000. Given Apple's usual margins (and the margins in the gold watch business in general), that would put a floor at $3000 minimum and more likely at $5000.

----------

Okay, listen. Nothing about any version of the Apple Watch is worth $10,000, or even $5,000, for that matter. Subjective? Perhaps. But let's be frank. A Rolex has the potential of lasting you a lifetime. This is an electronic device. In a decade this version will hardly be functional due to the fact that it has software and is obligated to the iPhone. A luxury timepiece, whether or not one feels $15k/$20k (or however much) is justifiable to spend on a watch, doesn't become 'outdated' per se. It just isn't the same with a Smart-watch. It's a damn good thing I actually want the Sport.

Apple clearly thinks they can pull it off, otherwise they would not have offered a gold version. Whether that gold version costs $3000, $5000, or $10000, using your line of thinking, all are way too much too be replaced every two years.

Either Apple manages to get the people who currently spend $5000+ for a gold watch to do so every two, three, four years, or it won't sell any gold watches.

 

[technosix]

Apple grew to be the towering giant with all the cash via their masterful marketing strategies. No other tech company has the brand strength that Apple has.

In the USA especially, people worship money. A good number of Apple enthusiasts are so addicted to Apple, it's money and it's success, they revel in Apple profits as though they were their own. A phenomenon that doesn't exist elsewhere.

It's rather amusing and most certainly unique.

Watches? They'll sell millions at any price. Count on it.

 

[MacMulti]

though i admit i love , but can't imagine myself buying this watch that is only cool only for few months or until next version...count me out

 

[Phobophobia]

The batteries on all current Apple products are quite easy to replace.

Am I offbase here thinking this statement isn't true...?

 

[MarkusL]

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.

You're confusing "accurately" with "reliably". They're not the same thing.

 

[arielp.1404]

i'm suspicious these rumors are whispered by apple,

creating a feeling in the public that it will too expensive, and then apple will come up with lowered prices (which still expensive) , and public will think apple is listening.. and public will buy it..

a marketing strategy.. i think

 

[jhwalker]

Maybe it's just me, but $199 is the top price I'd pay for *any* watch. "Fashion" is a null word to me - I only care about functionality, and there is no functionality on any watch that is worth more than $200 to me :/

I *do* like the look of Rolex - if they were ~$100, I'd buy one

 

[macUser2007]

Apple grew to be the towering giant with all the cash via their masterful marketing strategies. No other tech company has the brand strength that Apple has.

In the USA especially, people worship money. A good number of Apple enthusiasts are so addicted to Apple, it's money and it's success, they revel in Apple profits as though they were their own. A phenomenon that doesn't exist elsewhere.

It's rather amusing and most certainly unique.

Watches? They'll sell millions at any price. Count on it.

Dude, this is a rather broad (and silly) generalization, wrapped in a largely nonsensical comment.

I'd also take it with a grain of salt that you are from the US, as your English leaves a bit to be desired.

And while I do not necessarily "worship" money, if you so dislike it, perhaps you should get rid of all that you have, by sending it to me?

Or at least give it away to the poor, so they can get a cheap Chinese clone at least.

 

[MH01]

I agree completely with you.

Apple is already advertising that this watch is all on one chip. Apple will announce that the watch can be upgraded by just buying the core of it in the next iteration.

This totally makes sense. Whatever version you buy can be upgraded next year for $200-300.

This will make the watch last longer, which is what people want, and totally change the game. You'll get people to buy the more expensive exterior, buy more bands, knowing this will last a long time. This is Apple's path to more money - increasing the selling of high margin bands, and coaxing people to the higher end watches. Apple wants people to keep spending money, and releasing a watch that is obsolete in 1 year is not the way to do it for watches. Apple knows this, haters don't.

And the prices will be $349, $499 and $1099. This will increase the upgrades. With bands between $29 and $2000. That's where Apple will make the money - on the bands, not the watch.

Why would apple offer upgrades, which it never has in its history, when they can sell you a new product every year or two. Forget the haters, apple could not care less about them, it's the sheep apple cares about.

People upgrade computer components , not watch components, sorry but a company that can sell almost the exact iPhone every two years calling it the "s" version and make record sales, Apple knows exactly what they are doing, Apple will never offer upgrades for the watch.

----------

Who said they weren't?

What they don't have at any level is $20 board made in Foxconn sweatshop

He he he.

Yeah apple is taking on the watch Giants, no matter what spin they put on it, still made in a Chinese factory.

 

[MacrumoursUser]

Apple does know exactly what they are doing. People will buy a new watch every two years.

Its bonkers i know.

----------

Dude, this is a rather broad (and silly) generalization, wrapped in a largely nonsensical comment.

I'd also take it with a grain of salt that you are from the US, as your English leaves a bit to be desired.

And while I do not necessarily "worship" money, if you so dislike it, perhaps you should get rid of all that you have, by sending it to me?

Or at least give it away to the poor, so they can get a cheap Chinese clone at least.

What is wrong with his english?

 

[Rogifan]

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.

But weren't some of those iPad guesses thinking it would be running OS X?

----------

Who said they weren't?

What they don't have at any level is $20 board made in Foxconn sweatshop

And are gold Rolex watches more expensive than non-Gold Rolex watches? That's my point.

----------

Changing the chip only does so much. What if next year, there is a better heart rate sensor, maybe one or two of the other sensors that didn't make the first gen make it in next year, maybe there is a better screen / speaker / mike, maybe there is a FaceTime camera?

All sorts of possible hardware improvements that can't be added by just changing the chip.

So, no, changing the chip doesn't protect against technological obsolescence, at all.

Maybe when changes like that occur Apple will allow you to trade in just the watch for a new one? As I said in another post, Apple makes a big deal about these bands and how interchangeable they are. I just can't see them making the bands obsolete that quickly. So either the design will stay the same for some time or even if it does change slightly it will still accommodate the bands. Apple can always make the watch feel new/fresh by updating the band lineup. If you look at some of the Android wear watches that really are trying to look like a traditional watch one would guess their design isn't going to be changing that frequently.

----------

Apple does know exactly what they are doing. People will buy a new watch every two years.

Not if they're thousands of dollars.

 

[gnasher729]

I don't understand why anyone would feel that Apple would need to update anything for anyone... They sell you the product, it has a life span of whatever the tech is in any particular device and then it's done. Just by offering the update would mean that they think it's not worth the price without any further enticement. If they charge $500 for the lowest iteration of the watch and it seems like a good price for what you are getting then buy it..

Well, fact is that an iPhone 4 today is worth less than an iPhone 6. The gold watch is definitely not "tech", it is jewellery. The stainless steel watch will probably come in different prices, and some will be in "jewellery" territory.

 

[Col4bin]

Yeah, these numbers sound like they're really being pulled out of somewhere stinky. I'm surprised, coming from Gruber.

What else would you expect from an insecure, Yankees loving dolt, who doesn't allow comments on his overrated blog?

Honestly, these suggested price speculations are out of control crazy. If the Apple Watch had some amazing groundbreaking features, I could maybe understand these laughable price points (to a very minor extent). But as of now, it's basically a mini iPhone on your wrist. To fully justify this type of cost to the public, Apple will need to prove without a shadow of a doubt that we all CAN'T live without an Apple Watch. (Honestly, from everything we've seen thus far, the product simply isn't compelling enough to match this ridiculously high pricing structure and Gruber's over-inflated ego.)

 

[apolloa]

Am I offbase here thinking this statement isn't true...?

Nope your not, you need a heatgun, steady hands, guitar picks and luck to not damage an Apple device while taking it apart, the iPhone is better as it has screws, all iPads are glued together.
Just go and watch those iFix it videos, and then you'll also see why they give Apple devices very low reparability scores.

 

[diddl14]

Besides the gold and jewels, think this is the difference between a $1000+ and $20.000+ premium watch.

 

[Piggie]

Apple does know exactly what they are doing. QUOTE]

Nope. They are guessing and doing all they can, and putting all they can into place to hope their guessing/planning pays off how they hope.

No one can predict how this is going to end up.

iPhone or Apple TV

As great as Apple are, they cannot see how the future will pan out and will have to react to the market.
Any company can try and push and use every trick they know, but it's the public that will decide at the end of the day.

 

[Col4bin]

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.)

All true examples of luxury purchases, no doubt.

However, were comparing luxury watches here. These types of watches are built to last a lifetime. I sincerely doubt that this first-generation Apple Watch toy will do the same.

----------

I do not believe it will be obsolete in a year. But technology does move along at a very fast pace. You can not believe they will last more than possibly 3-4 years at best though.

Even at that pace, it would be nice if they could make these so that the internals could be upgraded instead of having to replace the watch completely. A simple open up the back, pull the internals, put the new ones in and away you go. Would certainly be a lot cheaper for the consumer. But not nearly as profitable for Apple. But that is only wishful thinking on my part.

I will never be a fan of a throwaway watch at the prices believed rumored that these are to fetch.

I guess this could be true if you like the current bulky and square look of this watch? I mean the screen isn't even edge-to-edge. No thanks.

 

[Rogifan]

Besides the gold and and jewels, think this is the difference between a $1000+ and $20.000+ premium watch.
Image

Where is Apple selling a $20,000 watch?

 

[bobob]

If you're looking for a luxury mechanical watch in the first place, then why are you even looking at the Apple Watch at all - - it ain't mechanical. Don't get me wrong, I covet those beautiful hand-crafted Swiss masterpieces as much as the next guy, but they are simply a different animal.

However, if you're in the market for a wrist-mounted information device, then the Apple Watch offers far superior functionality. The mechanical watch is the equivalent of an old feature phone - - it does one thing: tell time. The Apple Watch provides much more information relevant to our connected world.

Personally, I don't see them as a conflict to each other - - I will be owning both of them!

 

[gnasher729]

Am I offbase here thinking this statement isn't true...?

You are. I said the batteries are easy to replace - for someone in an Apple Store with all the right tools. It's not my fault if you read only the first sentence of my post and ignore the second one. Here's a hint: Apple has a price list with prices for replacing any batteries in any Apple products (except for the older MacBooks with user replaceable battery). They wouldn't have a price list if the battery was hard to replace.

 

[Rogifan]

What else would you expect from an insecure, Yankees loving dolt, who doesn't allow comments on his overrated blog?

Honestly, these suggested price speculations are out of control crazy. If the Apple Watch had some amazing groundbreaking features, I could maybe understand these laughable price points (to a very minor extent). But as of now, it's basically a mini iPhone on your wrist. To fully justify this type of cost to the public, Apple will need to prove without a shadow of a doubt that we all CAN'T live without an Apple Watch. (Honestly, from everything we've seen thus far, the product simply isn't compelling enough to match this ridiculously high pricing structure and Gruber's over-inflated ego.)

Funny how people who state their opinions as fact call other people out for having an over-inflated ego.

 

[gnasher729]

Nope your not, you need a heatgun, steady hands, guitar picks and luck to not damage an Apple device while taking it apart, the iPhone is better as it has screws, all iPads are glued together.
Just go and watch those iFix it videos, and then you'll also see why they give Apple devices very low reparability scores.

There is Appoloa again, with more imagined faults of Apple. That truly must be an obsession with you.

Nobody replaces watch batteries themselves. Nobody ever has. And nobody replaces iPhone or iPad batteries themselves.

Replacing the battery _is_ easy for someone with the right tools and practice. That's why you take that phone or iPad to an Apple store, and they replace the battery. Easily. And no luck involved.

----------

By who? You think Apple will even maker batteries for that thing after 10 years?

For a $5,000 watch? I can assure you that in ten years time, Apple will turn an Apple Watch with broken battery back into a working Apple Watch. They may replace more than just the battery.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

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.

No offense, but do you honestly think he meant practical value? I suppose you've missed the articles about Apple I Computers that are auctioning today for $600k+???? That was the guy's point...geez.