Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Reportedly Weighing $400 Price Range for Upcoming Wearable Device

iGuardian said:
So in countries with carrier subsidies, you could buy two iPhone 6's for the price of a single iWatch?

At $400, count me out.
Click to expand...

This comment doesn't make sense. An iPhone is 650 to start. A carrier subsidy would mean two contracts and $4800 in the subscription costs.

----------
H.Finch said:
it all really depends on the update schedule for me. If Apple released one of these devices every 3 years, the price would be fine. Keep in mind most people (who wear watches) don't buy a watch every year...

I think Apple should release it, and then only focus on the software updates on it. No harware updates... Just let it be great from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what Apple does. Stop selling hardware and give free software updates forever.
 
For those who think 400 is too high, when has Apple ever released a rev A product that was at a price point consumers thought was "fair"? And if there is anything I've learned about Apple over the years it's NEVER buy a rev A product. Buy a rev B at the earliest, but C is when things start to get properly dialed in.
 
I think what most people here are forgetting here is the rumored Apple watch isn't about showing time or tweets or Facebook updates, but loaded with a plethora of sensors that will interact with the health kit framework/software in your iPhone that will put it in a class apart.
 
There's still too many unknowns at this point. If it's a standalone device $400 may not be that expensive if the feature set is there. If it's an accessory priced at $400 it will need a considerable value proposition over an iPad Mini for the average consumer to warrant the price tag.

I'm still not convinced it's a watch. For Nike to drop the Fuelband and for Apple to bring in so many athletes to test the device I've got a feeling it's not just another smart watch. For Apple to make ground in wearable's they need to do one of two things:

1) Create a smart watch so unique and compelling consumers are willing to start wearing watches again. I'm not sure this is realistic, very few people wear watches at all anymore and only a small market of consumers need/want this type of functionality. Simply extending your phone to your wrist is not innovative enough and that's all we've seen from most vendors so far.

2) Create an all new type of wearable. Google Glass is a unique wearable. You may or may not like it, but it's drastically different then everything else out there. If Apple can create something that unique, with new and useful functionality they'd have a much greater chance for success.

I'm hoping for a souped up Fuelband with notifications, improved Siri, and a week long battery life. Knowing that every device looses battery longevity over time I will never buy a wearable that ships with only a day between charges. In 6 months to a year it will only last half that and if it can't make it through a full day it's useless to me.

If Apple's wearable tracks all your vitals with high accuracy I can see a real game changer. For fitness and for anyone watching their health or with health issues having this data available to you is invaluable. Imagine if you could provide copies to your family doctor during a checkup, or if you were involved in an accident and an EMT worker could connect to your wearable and get your status and a log of the events leading up to their arrival. Imagine if it could notify people around if you or even call the emergency if you have a seizure, stroke, or hearth attack. Imagine if your data was uploaded anonymously to iCloud and checked for the early warning signs of different conditions and compared with other users to better diagnose issues.

I'd pay $400 for a device like that in a heartbeat (bad pun intended).
 
Last edited:
emir said:
To be honest, although very unlikely, the iWatch that would be the best for me would go like this;

- Just a band, unpretentious with no screen, lightweight and laying low. Not screaming to people's faces "Hey I am wearing an expensive Apple accessory look at me!" Something that is at most as pretentious as one of those balance bracelets.
- I should have it on my wrist for days, At least 3 straight days of battery life.
- Tracks all kinds of data ranging from fitness to sleeping to vitals. I can check on them using iOS 8 health kit on my iPhone.
Click to expand...

I want the same thing. Just a band with one LED for VIP notifications. This thing should have self kinetic charging that last for years (The more we wear it, the more it charge).
The most important things is not a screen but the sensors inside.
As for the price, $400.00 is alright if it can save some of my medical bills.
 
I need to see the device and understand what it does and how it interacts with my iPhone before I can debate what I think it is worth.

But people need to remember this is Apple. Apple will charge more than the competition because they can so I'd expect it to start at at least $349. If it's more than just a health device (i.e. a fully fledged smart watch) then the price will be far, far more than $400.
 
MacrumoursUser said:
Never liked watches in the first place. Never liked that feeling. It can cost 5 bucks for all I care I'm not puting it on my wrist.


P.s. And it's not faster to look at your watch compared to iPhone.
Click to expand...

Tom8 said:
What a ridiculous thing to say. Of course it is faster to look at your wrist than to reach into a pocket and turn on a phone screen.
Click to expand...

MacrumoursUser said:
1 second compared to 3 seconds? Who's ridiculous again? I didn't get the first time.

2 seconds saved woohoo!
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that the point I made was literally correct and yours was literally incorrect? Yup, I'm just ridiculous!
 
spjonez said:
2) Create an all new type of wearable. Google Glass is a unique wearable.
Click to expand...

Unique? Google Glass couldn't be more conventional. Think of a mix of computer and a glasses and there.. your Google Glass. Nothing an average designer couldn't think of. Uniqueness is an iPhone that defied traditional wisdom of what you think of a smartphone at the time. I bet Apple could make a better Glass than Google's one today if they want to bother.
 
ChrisA said:
I take issue that Garmin is the leader in this area. The best wrist mounted watch-like devices are made by Suunto. People will pay quite a lot for a Suunto device. Especially the very specialized ones like dive computers. They are well made.

As a company Apple is much more like Suunto than Garmin.
Click to expand...

1) Not sure why you are so up in arms. ("I take issue...") I said "like" as in "one example." I didn't say Garmin was THE best sport watch, I said it was the best running watch.

2) Since you bring up the subject, yes, Suunto makes some great watches, but for pure road running, their options are limited. Their flagship "running" watch isn't really a running watch, but a multi-sport watch. It's best for the triathlete and off road runner, not dedicated road runner.

The FR620 I use as example, which is the same price as the Ambit3, is designed mostly for road running and so has different features than the Ambit2 like measuring ground contact time, vertical oscillation, VO2 Max info, and optimal recovery time. It's not a matter of which is better it's a matter of which is better for the intended purpose of the user.
 
Holding off opinion until this is actually substantiated. Until then I will continue to be entertained by the Fanbois loosing their minds over the rumored price.
 
hipster wear

I get the iFit, FuelBand, Misfit market for monitoring your activity or lack there of, but those things are under $100, do we really need our wrist to show SMS, missed calls, etc?


if your concerned about missed calls and texts look at your phone, wouldn't it be easier in the end to return the text or call on the actual device rather than a device connected to the device
 
I don't think this will be a standalone device at all. It will work with your newest iOS devices.... iPhone 6 and 5S etc. I don't think they are concerned what anyone thinks about the price. At 400.00 they will sell millions of them. 2% of their buyers are in this forum and are more logical when it comes to spending. As for the masses,they don't care. It's apple,so they'll buy it.
 
thekeyring said:
None of the iPad models cost $1000. Unless you're talking about adding a ton of accessories, too.

A 32gb, WiFi iPad Air is only $599.
Click to expand...

Unless you buy the 128gb cellular model
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    127 KB · Views: 66
khunsanook said:
For those who think 400 is too high, when has Apple ever released a rev A product that was at a price point consumers thought was "fair"? And if there is anything I've learned about Apple over the years it's NEVER buy a rev A product. Buy a rev B at the earliest, but C is when things start to get properly dialed in.
Click to expand...

I thought that was the Microsoft paradigm! (DOS 3 was good, Windows 3 is where it took off...)

:eek:
 
username: said:
I have a feeling there will be a lot of fitness related hype around the iwatch, and I expect it to be primarily a sports device, given the recent fitness related ads currently being run by apple, and the fact it was supposedly tested by athletes in development. So I would say the point is to help with exercise and monitoring health primarily. A new area for apple for sure, not so much filling a hole as entering a new market, which is surely a good thing
Click to expand...

Well, quite probably there will be a lot of fitness-related stuff. However, if the main purpose of the iWatch is to help with exercise and health, then US$ 400 is too expensive for it.
 
Looks like a lot of the regular MR posters are going to have to ask their parents for a raise in their weekly allowance in order to pick one of these up AND given the numbers of posters that say they aren't in the market at THAT price - looks like their parents have turned them down, oh well.
 
matrix07 said:
Unique? Google Glass couldn't be more conventional. Think of a mix of computer and a glasses and there.. your Google Glass. Nothing an average designer couldn't think of. Uniqueness is an iPhone that defied traditional wisdom of what you think of a smartphone at the time. I bet Apple could make a better Glass than Google's one today if they want to bother.
Click to expand...
That's actually a new product...a smart watch is not, which is what i think the posters point was.
 
heisenberg123 said:
hipster wear

I get the iFit, FuelBand, Misfit market for monitoring your activity or lack there of, but those things are under $100, do we really need our wrist to show SMS, missed calls, etc?


if your concerned about missed calls and texts look at your phone, wouldn't it be easier in the end to return the text or call on the actual device rather than a device connected to the device
Click to expand...

The watch hasn't been announced. We don't know any features. You are not allowed to criticize it yet.
 
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