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

[V.K.]

Most of the discussion around pricing is in comparison to high-end luxury watches. To which the typical response is that high end watches are not frequently replaced.

IF Apple is somewhat aiming for the luxury market isn't it somewhat conceivable that there would be an upgradability component to the watch? Apple makes a big deal about the S1 being an entire computer on a single chip and calling it an "industry first".

Image

Yeah yeah I know Apple and upgradability or an oxymoron. But Watch is unlike any product they've ever released before. We didn't just get an aluminum watch with a couple colored rubber band options. We got 3 collections with 6 bands in different materials and colors and 2 sizes. Also this is the first new product from Apple to debut with a retina display. Apple is playing up the customization and how easily interchangeable the bands are. Again not typical Apple. There are also rumors that Apple is planning stand alone stores or store-within-a-store just for Watch. Is it not possible then that Apple would offer some type of upgradability where you could take your watch in to be "serviced" and get the battery and even perhaps the SiP replaced?

I'm just having a real hard time with the notion that Apple will price the edition watch at $10-$20K and then expect you to buy a brand new one 2 years later. It just seems like there is a missing piece of the puzzle and without that piece nothing else makes much sense.

perhaps the battery or the processor will be replaceable but even that is far from a given IMO. Gruber and company are pushing an idea of a completley modular watch (for reasons you mention) but it's a pipe-dream
which completely discounts the technical limitations of such strategy. making things swappable always costs space. always. they don't solder RAM onto the motherboard in MBA to kill upgradability but to make it as thin as possible. This will be doubly true for the watch. every mm of thickness and mg of weight will count there.

next, miniaturization progress never stops. it is all but certain that in 2 years they will be able to make a watch that actually fits under a shirt cuff. but not if they lock into the current form. plus, what about adding extra functionality such as various new health tracking sensors. Apple is not going to lock themselves in like that. Regular people buying 350-1000 watches will be able to buy completely new ones every couple of years. Rich people who can drop 20k+ on a fashion item? I don't know how they think but I assume they can afford to buy a new one every few years too.

Some Rolex watches have $5K+ worth of gold in them, including the solid link bracelet. The minimum buy in for a solid gold Rolex with a leather strap, not gold, is about $20K. The Apple Watch Edition having only a leather strap and not a solid gold link bracelet will likely have less gold that an average gold Rolex.


I just don't get this at all, if these Edition prices are true. It's one thing to spend $18K or more on a Rolex that will never go out of style and if properly maintained last your lifetime and your children's lifetime if you leave it to one of them.

But to spend even $10-20K on a watch that will clearly be technologically outdated in 2 years or maybe less. This makes no sense unless you have money to burn. There are reportedly close to 10,000 Millionaires in the US (net worth not including your home) so nearly one in 10 of those people will need to buy an Apple Watch Edition.

One report said Apple should ship approximately 5 Million Apple Watches this year with 17% of those being the high end Edition model. That is 850,000 gold edition models. If they are actually priced that exorbitantly I do not see there being that big of a market for something like that. Are those same 850,000 people going to buy a new $10-20K watch every 2 years....? I think NOT!!!

I think Edition IS aimed at the people who have money to burn and who can afford to drop that much money on an Apple Watch every two years. and that 850K number is a guesstimate by some analyst that should not be given too much weight.

Mr. Gruber don't understand horology.

Men "don't" wear jewelry. Sophisticated men wear a nice watch to enjoy (and impress friends) like a piece of art. A decent watch is something that should last generations. Inside is a piece of marvelous engineering. Some watches don't wear batteries and you don't have to adjust them for 120 years (i.e.: Alange & Sohne Perpetual) and have many, many functions.

I'm not saying people won't spend 10k or even 20k for a gold smart watch. I just think it is not a good call since you'll end up with an obsolete watch in a couple of years. That's the opposite of who normally buys a decent watch.

I think the apple watch would be nice and useful. Unfortunately I find it too ugly being square shaped. I would love a thin and round one with options to change the face (wallpaper) to look as beautiful as Vacheron, Patek Philippe… Not possible today since it won't fit all internals and there's some complications making round lcds. Maybe Apple Watch 3.0 might be that way.

Apple is not trying to make a watch or even a smart watch. they are trying to create a new market category as they did with the iphone. I am not saying they'll succeed but that's clearly their goal. Apple Watch will be even less a watch than an iphone is a phone. but calling it a "wearable computing device" is hardly sexy so they call it a watch. but telling time will be a very small and very minor part of what it does and Apple is not aiming at watch people here. they are aiming at the masses with the entry models and at rich people in general with Edition. so the horology comparison is mostly irrelevant here.

 

[splogue]

I didn't say *I* wore watches while showering. Only that there are people who apparently does that. As far as I can tell, those people also wear their watches in bed -- that is, they never take them off. Apparently. I'm just reporting what I've read in other posts in the Apple watch subforum.

Yep, I'm one of them. I leave my watch on all the time, bed, shower, TV, whatever. I really only take it off if I'm doing something that might damage it or me, like electrical work.

And, no, my watch doesn't smell bad. That's the craziest thing I've ever heard.

Sean

 

[Alon1]

I took another look at the web page and it does look like some of the buttons on the digital crown match some of the the band colors...so how does this factor in. I guess time will tell lol

That's only on the 'Edition' model (which, mind you, also comes in 4 options for the face, which makes my point even stronger) so I guess there are 3 options:

1. I can see Apple making the extra effort for a premium priced item, that they're also not going to carry huge stocks of.
2. There is still the option of selling the band separately and matching it to the face/crown. I would imagine that some people are going to want to play with the colors. Not everyone will choose to match the crown to the color of the band either (for example, some will choose to go with a more ambiguous color like black or white).
3. The digital crown color is replaceable (installed with a color of your choice when you buy it.)

A watch buying experience is completely different from anything else Apple is used to. It's not far fetched to think there would be some kind of fitting process for mid-tier watches and up, such as removing links, adding links, etc.

 

[rowspaxe]

Gruber's $20K price prediction was for a hypothetical gold model with gold bracelet. He is guessing that Apple will show off a gold bracelet option as a surprise when the watch is launched.

Just me or is the whole gold meets tech thing repulsive. tech is utilitarian, unapologetically spartan. i also find the high end watch crowd a little creepy. the irony here is that we are the discussing the guilding of a rather ugly chunk black glass.

 

[V.K.]

That's only on the 'Edition' model (which, mind you, also comes in 4 options for the face, which makes my point even stronger) so I guess there are 3 options:

1. I can see Apple making the extra effort for a premium priced item, that they're also not going to carry huge stocks of.
2. There is still the option of selling the band separately and matching it to the face/crown. I would imagine that some people are going to want to play with the colors. Not everyone will choose to match the crown to the color of the band either (for example, some will choose to go with a more ambiguous color like black or white).
3. The digital crown color is replaceable (installed with a color of your choice when you buy it.)

A watch buying experience is completely different from anything else Apple is used to. It's not far fetched to think there would be some kind of fitting process for mid-tier watches and up, such as removing links, adding links, etc.

3. sounds most likely to me. either the whole crown will be replaceable or perhaps they can just make the colored insert on the crown replaceable.

 

[Robisan]

Like everything Apple, it's all about fashion...

 

[Phobophobia]

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.

do you think it's easy for a user to replace the battery? That's all I care about.

 

[bbeagle]

perhaps the battery or the processor will be replaceable but even that is far from a given IMO. Gruber and company are pushing an idea of a completley modular watch (for reasons you mention) but it's a pipe-dream
which completely discounts the technical limitations of such strategy. making things swappable always costs space. always. they don't solder RAM onto the motherboard in MBA to kill upgradability but to make it as thin as possible. This will be doubly true for the watch. every mm of thickness and mg of weight will count there.

Not necessarily. Apple does not have to make things 'user swappable'. Apple can simply require you to take your watch to the Apple store where they will upgrade it for you, and you can get it back the next day. This is similar to regular watches - you take them in to get them repaired, get the battery replaced, get the watch strap replaced. In this way, the chips could be soldered and still upgraded.

----------

$20,000 for a smart watch that's going to be outdated in one year?

Lol

Apple Trolls are a unique breed.

They'll exaggerate to the max - saying the watch will cost $20,000... and joke about how awful Apple is because of that high price. Then the real price will be $1,000 - will they say 'sorry'? Nope. They'll just move on and find something else to exaggerate and troll about. Apple trolls are 'never' wrong, they just keep moving the goal posts.

 

[NoNig]

We will see in a while

----------


That supposed a fixed form factor.
I don't believe Apple would keep this form factor for two generations in a row, especially with improvements in power consumption and battery technology.

I suppose you're right. But, just imagine the internal form factor to remain the same, thereby making it easier for a sort of trade in/upgrade program.

Of course, a business model requiring people buying new watches (much like they do now; regarding iDevices and to some degree PCs) does make more sense.

I just imagined it as a sort of way to lure people into some confidence, that their (potentially) four figure watch wouldn't be outdated or near useless within a half to an entire decade.

My laptop, runs just as good today as the day I bought it. It's an Early 2008 MPB (+ SSD). My phone (a 16 GB iPhone 4) still has some time left before it's passed on to my son (who is three years old) instead of buying him a brand new iPod Touch.

In that regard, I'm actually not a very good consumer. I use my tech until it breaks beyond repair or reason. I'm also not that interested in bling-bling or fashion statements - which also puts me outside the potential user base for the Apple Watch Edition. I could, however, imagine myself buying the Vanilla or Sport (TBH; they had me at the heart beat thingie).

On the other side, I do know some people who spend a lot of money on watches (Rolex, Tag Heuer and so on) an they are a different crowd entirely.

The Vanilla and Sport, have their own pretty - in my opinion - obvious target audience.
The Edition however, throws me off a bit. The 'easy' choice/reasoning would be to write the target audience off as being show-offs or that kind of thing.
But; what could be the reasoning for a 'typical show-off' to buy into what essentially is a piece of tech in gold? What does that do them good, other than being slightly more expensive?

It does sound a lot like, those hating on Apple users, for spending more than they should - just because of the Apple logo, finally have something to back them up.

But, like I said before. It was just a thought

EDIT: I do apologize for the typos. The combination of poor skills in writing in English and Danish auto correct on my iPad seems to be a recipe for disaster. I hope you'll forgive me.

 

[V.K.]

Not necessarily. Apple does not have to make things 'user swappable'. Apple can simply require you to take your watch to the Apple store where they will upgrade it for you, and you can get it back the next day. This is similar to regular watches - you take them in to get them repaired, get the battery replaced, get the watch strap replaced. In this way, the chips could be soldered and still upgraded.

----------

I didn't mean user-swappable. but even Apple-Store swappable requires some extra space. it has to. you have to add a battery compartment which has to be accessible in some fashion. that also means something to hold the battery in place and some screws. same for the processor. it's impossible to do this without serious space sacrifices.

 

[rowspaxe]

Apple Trolls are a unique breed.

They'll exaggerate to the max - saying the watch will cost $20,000... and joke about how awful Apple is because of that high price. Then the real price will be $1,000 - will they say 'sorry'? Nope. They'll just move on and find something else to exaggerate and troll about. Apple trolls are 'never' wrong, they just keep moving the goal posts.

Do you think the "apple watch chip and sensors to be annually upgradable" crowd will be sending any apologies? I think $350 is fair price for a useless two year tech fling--anyone spending real money on this is a little foolish, in imo

 

[IJ Reilly]

Define a "good watch"?

You can get a lot of decent watches that will look good, keep accurate time and last for many years and still cost less than $200. They may not be horological masterpieces but to the vast majority of people, they are "good watches".

A good watch is the one I buy. The rest of them are questionable, as are the people who buy them.

 

[Thunderhawks]

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.

I agree, Apple may have to rename the thing:

Pomme d'Or

Already sounds more like one needs it for prestige etc.

 

[adammull]

I didn't mean user-swappable. but even Apple-Store swappable requires some extra space. it has to. you have to add a battery compartment which has to be accessible in some fashion. that also means something to hold the battery in place and some screws. same for the processor. it's impossible to do this without serious space sacrifices.

You're assuming space is an issue. The Apple Watch they've showed us is already smaller and thinner than any Panerai, AP, Hublot, etc. You're assuming people want thin Cellini style Rolex watches when most, at least men, I see, don't. They want a somehwhat larger watch that can easily hold the current guts of the Apple Watch, much less the thinner guts from five years from now.

It will have swappable or upgradeable guts. I'm sure it will be locked down genius bar only style swapping, but that is how this is going to work. People aren't going to buy completely new watches when they're made out of gold.

 

[Thunderhawks]

I suppose you're right. But, just imagine the internal form factor to remain the same, thereby making it easier for a sort of trade in/upgrade program.

Of course, a business model requiring people buying new watches (much like they do now; regarding iDevices and to some degree PCs) does make more sense.

I just imagined it as a sort of way to lure people into some confidence, that their (potentially) four figure watch wouldn't be outdated or near useless within a half to an entire decade.

My laptop, runs just as good today as the day I bought it. It's an Early 2008 MPB (+ SSD). My phone (a 16 GB iPhone 4) still has some time left before it's passed on to my son (who is three years old) instead of buying him a brand new iPod Touch.

In that regard, I'm actually not a very good consumer. I use my tech until it breaks beyond repair or reason. I'm also not that interested in bling-bling or fashion statements - which also puts me outside the potential user base for the Apple Watch Edition. I could, however, imagine myself buying the Vanilla or Sport (TBH; they had me at the heart beat thingie).

On the other side, I do know some people who spend a lot of money on watches (Rolex, Tag Heuer and so on) an they are a different crowd entirely.

The Vanilla and Sport, have their own pretty - in my opinion - obvious target audience.
The Edition however, throws me off a bit. The 'easy' choice/reasoning would be to write the target audience off as being show-offs or that kind of thing.
But; what could be the reasoning for a 'typical show-off' to buy into what essentially is a piece of tech in gold? What does that do them good, other than being slightly more expensive?

It does sound a lot like, those hating on Apple users, for spending more than they should - just because of the Apple logo, finally have something to back them up.

But, like I said before. It was just a thought

EDIT: I do apologize for the typos. The combination of poor skills in writing in English and Danish auto correct on my iPad seems to be a recipe for disaster. I hope you'll forgive me.

Being also European, I do the same. I use tech until it breaks (2008 MBP upgraded and 4S iPhone) or a previous generation is affordable, but not too far away from the latest. EBay make that possible.
(Never need or buy the latest, but I want it. If that makes sense.

There are certain understatement items with subtle snob appeal (black American Express, LAMY pens, Rolex, Tag Heuer, Haute Couture and there are loud ones.
Lamborghini, Ferrari etc.
The Apple watch doesn't fit any place, because it comes from a computer company.
So, if it isn't practical and knocks my socks off with usefulness, I will skip it.

People blessed with waste money may make it successful though.

We'll see! For now I am neutral on it until I see what it does and what price to benefit ratio it gives.

 

[CFreymarc]

Forget the apps, the real third party money here is custom wrist straps.

 

[kustardking]

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.

Apple cannot make a fashion watch in the 10K+ Patek, Audemars Piguet, etc. market. Anything "millions of people" (assuming you don't mean of the millions of millionaires) are buying is in the < 1K range. Also, one does not disregard the tech in the better watches - mechanical craftsmanship is one of the hallmarks, and something that Apple via China/mass production will NOT achieve. You are suggesting that people pay 10K+ for a shell. The Apple Watch simply isn't that nice.

As to reliability, I'd trust a 30 year old mechanical watch sooner than a 4 year old smartwatch, with its OS abandoned and obsoleted black-box SOC.

 

[CFreymarc]

Define a "good watch"?

You can get a lot of decent watches that will look good, keep accurate time and last for many years and still cost less than $200. They may not be horological masterpieces but to the vast majority of people, they are "good watches".

Replace "watch" with "smart phone" and the "horological" with "telecommunication" and this what was said after the iPhone announcement.

 

[StyxMaker]

Okay, so I had a typo...obviously it's still not "SOLID" gold...besides, Rolex, Bentley, Piaget, Tiffany's---they don't offer average consumer options alongside their trademark items.

Don't confuse 'solid' and 'pure'. It is solid 18k gold, it is not solid pure gold.

 

[Fenez]

How can anyone possibly think that the internals will be replaceable.... All the watches from the most expensive to the cheapest are supposedly the same... So what people are saying is apple is going to go through the trouble of making a $400 device upgradable? What reason would they possibly have to do that? A watch that cost that much is a consumable that you throw away when its life span is done.. The life of any tech device is relatively short... The bands maybe able to be reusable but for them to make the actual watch upgradable is just stupid.

 

[StyxMaker]

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.

Yes, weight is weight, but weight is not mass.

----------

From what I've got, it requires an iPhone even for app setup.

Fitness tracking without GPS is a joke.

As jewelry it will stop working in 3-5 years when its tiny battery will cease working. It DOES become less with the time.

Fitness tracking may be about how far you walk or run but it's not about where you walk or run. GPS is not necessary.

----------

It's beginning to feel like Apple owns MacRumors.

In what way?

----------

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

----------





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".

When a person speaks of a 'solid gold watch' it is assumed they are taking about the case not the 'works' (be they mechanical or electronic). Solid gold does not mean pure gold, it means it's not gold plated.

 

[doelcm82]

The band is a necessity, it's not an accessory like a case. I can't see one not being included. It might not be the one you prefer, but it has to have a band.

I agree. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the Edition watch priced without the band. I once accompanied a friend into a Louis Vuitton shop, where he bought a small address book for about $500. The pages were a separate product priced at $45.

 

[dav1dd]

Alternatively, we could all go off and live our lives and wait for the product to actually be released. Looking forward to 5 years of analysts predicting how much the car will be - and all the different models etc etc.

 

[doelcm82]

Alternatively, we could all go off and live our lives and wait for the product to actually be released. Looking forward to 5 years of analysts predicting how much the car will be - and all the different models etc etc.

I think most of us will wait and speculate concurrently. We don't have a choice about waiting, and speculating is fun if you don't let yourself take it too seriously.

Going off and living our lives is an option. If you took that option you wouldn't even know about the rest of us discussing it in your absence.

 

[V.K.]

You're assuming space is an issue. The Apple Watch they've showed us is already smaller and thinner than any Panerai, AP, Hublot, etc. You're assuming people want thin Cellini style Rolex watches when most, at least men, I see, don't. They want a somehwhat larger watch that can easily hold the current guts of the Apple Watch, much less the thinner guts from five years from now.

It will have swappable or upgradeable guts. I'm sure it will be locked down genius bar only style swapping, but that is how this is going to work. People aren't going to buy completely new watches when they're made out of gold.

Yes, I do and I think it's a pretty easy assumption to make. Firstly, according to the reports it's thick enough so that it does not fit under a shirt cuff. Apple can't be happy about that.
Secondly, the battery life as reported by Apple itself is anything but stellar and I can't imagine they are happy about that either. Android smart watches have lousy battery life too and their teardowns show them to be stuffed to the brim with huge batteries. it was like that with the original iphone too. and it will be with the Apple Watch. that's one thing I am absolutely sure about. space will be at a premium in a device like that and every spare mm of it will be taken by a battery.

I also don't agree with you that most people will be ok with huge watches. women won't and many men won't either. I don't know about the percentages though. Perhaps I am wrong on this one - I would be quite curious to find what percentage of men will go for the bigger version. I made a cutout and I would be ok with the smaller one but not if it doesn't fit under the cuff.