Apple Reportedly Weighing $400 Price Range for Upcoming Wearable Device

[Col4bin]

Watches make no sense to me. Just as easy to pull a phone out and check the time. And why spend a lot of money on something that basically does one thing? Up until smart watches, at least.

Preach on brotha, I'm with you on this point. I'd rather spend the $400 on a real luxury watch, not some piece of geek tech that'll help me pay for my coffee or count my steps.

I'm half-joking here, but it'll be interesting to see how an iWatch will be positioned.

 

[Patriot24]

March 2010: "Apple's tablet to cost $1,000"
April 2010: Steve Jobs reveals the iPad to debut at $499

August 2014: "Apple Reportedly Weighing $400 Price for Upcoming Wearable Device"
September 2014: Phil Schiller reveals the iWearable to debut at $199

You can take it to the bank that the $400 rumor was started by Apple to set expectations and "wow" everyone when they reveal it at half the rumored price.

 

[/dev/toaster]

$199 or $299 sounds way more reasonable. $400 will put it out of touch of most people.

Even at $199 or $299, thats a lot of money for a watch.

 

[jrawl004]

March 2010: "Apple's tablet to cost $1,000"
April 2010: Steve Jobs reveals the iPad to debut at $499

August 2014: "Apple Reportedly Weighing $400 Price for Upcoming Wearable Device"
September 2014: Phil Schiller reveals the iWearable to debut at $199

You can take it to the bank that the $400 rumor was started by Apple to set expectations and "wow" everyone when they reveal it at half the rumored price.

Exactly what I was thinking!!!!!!

 

[/dev/toaster]

March 2010: "Apple's tablet to cost $1,000"
April 2010: Steve Jobs reveals the iPad to debut at $499

August 2014: "Apple Reportedly Weighing $400 Price for Upcoming Wearable Device"
September 2014: Phil Schiller reveals the iWearable to debut at $199

You can take it to the bank that the $400 rumor was started by Apple to set expectations and "wow" everyone when they reveal it at half the rumored price.

I am hoping that is true, because it would be very sad to see it released at $400. (Well, it would be $399)

 

[Piggie]

That question is irrelevant because the iPad doesn't have a phone, and even if it did, you wouldn't be able to carry it around in your pocket.

the8thark makes a good point.

The iPhone and 'iWatch' are both small devices you can carry wherever you go, so they should be significantly diffferent, otherwise there is no reason in having both.

No they are very different products size wise

A iPhone screen percentage wize is probably as far away from an iPad, as an iWatch will be from an iPhone.

The iWatch would be attached to your body, the iPhone is not

The iWatch would be waterproof, the iPhone is not.

The iWatch would be usable at any moment by lifting your arm up, no need to get a device out of your pocket and hold it to see some information.

Jogging, Climbing, Other sports, Boating/Sailing, Not very good to have to get into a pocket and get a device out.

 

[Patriot24]

I am hoping that is true, because it would be very sad to see it released at $400. (Well, it would be $399)

In my mind, $400 is out of the question and only serves to create the expectation that it will be needlessly expensive so that a lower price point sounds all the more attractive.

$400 makes sense if you're talking about buying the iPhone 6 + iWearable (base models with iPhone carrier subsidy).

 

[AppleWarMachine]

I hope that it is at least $400...this will be interesting to see where the price point will be for the iWatch. Will it be the old "Steve Jobs" Apple (only for the rich and cool), creating a brand new premium item and cost at least $400-500 and have some exclusivity, or the new cheap "Tim Cook" (Apple for everybody) watch that is $200-300. Everybody and their grandma has an iPhone (which I guess is good news for Apple), but gone are the days in which Apple builds a premium product for a premium price, which not everyone can have. If Apple builds it, they will come (and pay for it)

 

[Patriot24]

I hope that it is at least $400...this will be interesting to see where the price point will be for the iWatch. Will it be the old "Steve Jobs" Apple (only for the rich and cool), creating a brand new premium item and cost at least $400-500 and have some exclusivity, or the new cheap "Tim Cook" (Apple for everybody) watch that is $200-300. Everybody and their grandma has an iPhone (which I guess is good news for Apple), but gone are the days in which Apple builds a premium product for a premium price, which not everyone can have. If Apple builds it, they will come (and pay for it)

There is a difference between having a premium price point and a suicidal price point. The competition is currently around $200. Apple may be able to get away with a $50-75 premium, but probably not $200-$300 for a wearable.

 

[fallenjt]

I don't know about you guys, but a smartwatch seems something completely unnecessary for me. What is it supposed to do that my iPhone doesn't already do better? Unless Apple comes out with something great, I don't see why I should even consider this.

What is the whole point of an iWatch anyway? Is it Apple releasing it just because other companies are making their own smartwatches? I fail to see why an iWatch is something necessary and how it would fill a supposed gap in Apple's line-up.

If you think Apple make a wearable device just like others' smartwatchs, then Apple shouldnt be able to sell any. Remember, Apple would not sell expensive things with little benefit. As I said in the past and I say it now, smart watch doesn't make sense if it only has similar functions like a phone unless it's also a fitness/health tracker device and never means to replace traditional watches. It should be worn during fitness/exercise sections or health tracking and not too obtrusive.
Bottom line, I don't see it'll be even in the $300 range, but around $250, or $200 preferably. iPhone and iPad price prediction were different because they were the first/one of the kind in the market back then while the "iWatch" is not. It has to price to complete with existing smart watches unless its functions are totally different.

 

[AppleWarMachine]

If it's $400 and tells time, I'm in, that's cheaper then the Movado watch I have now

----------

There is a difference between having a premium price point and a suicidal price point. The competition is currently around $200. Apple may be able to get away with a $50-75 premium, but probably not $200-$300 for a wearable.

...tell that to the people who bought the original iPhone

But either way, it's JUST a watch, or a phone, or computer, etc., it doesn't really matter

 

[fallenjt]

If it's $400 and tells time, I'm in, that's cheaper then the Movado watch I have now

----------



...tell that to the people who bought the original iPhone

But either way, it's JUST a watch, or a phone, or computer, etc., it doesn't really matter

you're missing the point. iPhone was the only one in its class and had no competition back then.
Btw, your Movado is a time piece but also a jewelry. If only for telling time, everyone would buy the $10 watch in convenient stores.

 

[grumple]

There is a difference between having a premium price point and a suicidal price point. The competition is currently around $200. Apple may be able to get away with a $50-75 premium, but probably not $200-$300 for a wearable.

What competition?

If you are referring to Galaxy Gear... um no way I want that on my wrist for any price.

$399 is pretty reasonable for a piece I would actually want on my wrist, compared to what is out there.

 

[fallenjt]

What competition?

If you are referring to Galaxy Gear... um no way I want that on my wrist for any price.

$399 is pretty reasonable for a piece I would actually want on my wrist, compared to what is out there.

Really? With the same functions as the Gear? Apple will make people laugh at them if they make something like that. I would bet the iWearable will focus on different functions mostly.

 

[the8thark]

Put a phone into the iPad.

then the iPad can do all the iPhone can do and more.

THEN Ask the same question. Why an iPhone ?

They weren't adequately able to answer that question with the iPad. What makes you think they can do it with a watch?

The iPad can't make phone calls out of the box. That's the big difference.

Apple WILL answer your question and just like so many people years back who said

I am really hoping Apple will answer this.

The iWatch will tell the time and do many things your iphone does BUT it will also do many things your iphone can't do and that's the reason why Apple will sell a **** load

At the moment I don't see it. But I am sure if announced on 9th September, Apple will sure tell us all.

 

[Patriot24]

What competition?

If you are referring to Galaxy Gear... um no way I want that on my wrist for any price.

$399 is pretty reasonable for a piece I would actually want on my wrist, compared to what is out there.

By all accounts, Apple's wearable will be mainly about sensors and data tracking. This means that there is more competition than the Galaxy and Motorola devices. Fitbit, Jawbone's UP, and other products are also competing in the space at much lower price points ($75-$150).

Also, for a device that will be marketed as a companion/accessory to an iPhone, it probably doesn't make sense for it to be markedly more expensive than the parent device (on subsidy).

 

[the8thark]

Holy crap. 17 pages of nonsense about a product that isn't even proven to be real with a price that isn't even confirmed, on a product that isn't even proven to be real.

Add in articles from a rumour website about a product that isn't even proven to be real with a price that isn't even confirmed, on a product that isn't even proven to be real.
But the articles don't stop coming. That's something

 

[Tech198]

Holy crap. 17 pages of nonsense about a product that isn't even proven to be real with a price that isn't even confirmed, on a product that isn't even proven to be real.

Welcome to MR.

 

[Patriot24]

Holy crap. 17 pages of nonsense about a product that isn't even proven to be real with a price that isn't even confirmed, on a product that isn't even proven to be real.

Yeah, you guys can go ahead and give up on these lines now. Apple's preferred "controlled leakers" have confirmed that the device exists and that it will be announced on the 9th.

It isn't unreasonable to speculate on the pricing details based on past offerings and current competition in the market.

 

[the8thark]

What America?

North America?
South America?
Central America?
The Americas (as in both continents as a whole)?
United States of America?

----------

Apple's preferred "controlled leakers" have confirmed that the device exists and that it will be announced on the 9th

You can go on believing that as much as you want. You know as well as I do that nothing is 100% confirmed till Apple themselves announce it. It's all rumour (even very plausible rumour at times) until that point.

 

[Patriot24]

You can go on believing that as much as you want. You know as well as I do that nothing is 100% confirmed till Apple themselves announce it. It's all rumour (even very plausible rumour at times) until that point.

Apple confirms, denies, and leaks information on a regular basis to a specific set of preferred journalists. Everyone knows it, and no one denies it. There is entirely too much smoke for there not to be fire at this point.

If you prefer to live in a fantasy land where these arrangements do not exist and the information is not real, that's your choice.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Not to mention Surface Pro 3. Or Word 6.0 for Windows, which was the one that followed Word 2.0.

Yeah, I was a little on the fence with the Surface Pro 3, as I haven't seen one for myself, only the MS commercials, which, if I recall, said that the Surface Pro 1 was the bee's knees.

I was also trying to remember the Office versions, because I know they did something quirky with them too, so thank you for the reminder.

Come to think of it, my first Apple product after my "I hate Apple because they got rid of the Newton (I LOVED IT!!!)" phase was an iPhone 3GS, which was, I suppose, the 3rd iPhone.

 

[neutrino23]

It could be that the first version will be very high-end and have a fairly high price. The lets Apple test a lot of the technology in the real world without having to deal with millions and millions of units. This also gives them a chance to set the device as a high-end aspirational device. Then they can come out with version two at a much more reasonable price.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Watches make no sense to me. Just as easy to pull a phone out and check the time. And why spend a lot of money on something that basically does one thing? Up until smart watches, at least.

Whoever put the 2 seconds for a watch and 4 for a phone has a point, but I don't think the wearable, unless it has a a motion sensor to know when you're going to activate the screen (the screen takes most of the battery life), will have the convenience of a watch.

Watch: turn it, look at it, done. (remember the original LED watches, circa 1978, that had you push a button to get the time? LCD ones that displayed time 24/7 were a lot more convenient)

iWatch: Turn it, push a button, read it, done. That "push a button" step is not much fun when you have a load of groceries, or carrying a kid, or riding a bike.

 

[cfountain72]

That's the exact thing I've been telling people who've seen reports of a $400 iWatch. I wouldn't be suprized if the iPad & iWatch price rumors were purposely "leaked" by Apple so they can woo the crowd when they announce the iWatch will start at $249.99; just like they did when the iPad was given a $499.99 price tag.

Yes, I was thinking the exact same thing. As the 9to5 Mac article from last week pointed out, managing expectations is an important aspect of PR. Good PR is about damage control; great PR is about preventing the damage before it even happens. My guess is that the expectations of what the 'iWatch' can/will do had grown beyond reality, and Apple needed to get out in front of that train. Leaking an excessive price is one way to do that.

Peace be with you.