Apple Watch Display Rumored to Be Going Up in High-End Parisian Department Store

[cdm283813]

People are forgetting that the Watch bands are interchangeable and will likely be interchangeable between revisions. Since the majority of the cost of the gold watch is in the band itself, you no longer have this problem of an expensive paperweight... Just change the face, keep your bands.

Also, never underestimate how much a rich person will pay for looks.

I can see a band lasting at least 2 generations but no guarantees after that. With Apples quest to make devices thinner I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[santaliqueur]

The gold will take them some time to sell out if they ever if it is going to be between $2000 - $4000

The gold watch is going to be a lot more than $4k.

 

[Keirasplace]

Well, data shows that there are more people like me than people like you, when 75% of the people are using iphone 5 or newer...

It is their choice, Apple forces nothing. That'S the point. Unless technology improving is all Apple's fault ;-); a conspiracy I tell you.

----------

It's odd the direction Apple seems to be going with this.. And to be honest, I really am not all that fond of it. Was it really a smart idea to try and make EVERY product so mainstream? Gold phones, fashion watches, overpriced clothing executives... It's a long ways from the PowerBook G3 days, that's for sure. Whatever happened to understated elegance? Wish that was the direction Apple was pushing with all of this.

----------



I agree with your post, everything you said is fact.. But is it a good thing that Apple is trying to emulate companies like Bentley or any of the other companies that are for the very rich? Hopefully this is only a way for Apple to make more profit, which I think it is, and not some shift in how they view their most important customer base, everyday people. I would really hate to see Apple start to make decisions that are based predominately towards what the very rich can afford. All of this seems completely against what Apple was founded on. Could you imagine Steve Jobs showing/trying to sell/introducing a 4,000 gold watch on stage? Apple is supposed to represent the counter culture I thought? Not the mainstream.. Think different, right?

Who do you think bought Mac's in the 1990s? The poor? If anything, Apple'S prices now are more democratic than they've ever been. Everything but the edition watch is in line with their previous pricing policies.

Watches are different than anything they've sold before. So, they need to try something different. Selling is a tech device has totally failed for everyone else BTW.

 

[69650]

Shows who their target market is. This is basically a giant high end fashion store. I don't think they even sell any tech products. Most high end watches seem to be targeted at men but Apple seems to be targeting the iWatch primarily at women.

 

[Keirasplace]

They definitely wouldn't be sweating on $4K, but I am also pretty sure they wouldn't be interested in a product like this. In all honesty, the Apple Watch could be considered as a top of the range Ford of watches; nothing wrong with that at all, but when "real" quality watches can cost 100's of thousands, folks with this kind of money don't buy top of range Ford, they buy Rolls Royces, Ferraris, Lamboginis etc.

Considering your "lamborginis" don't really do what the "Ford" watch does. So, they'd need both. Find the whole metaphor quite belabored.

It is probably they'll actually both buy the edition watch AND the Ferrari. Having that much money means not having to choose at all.

 

[nando87]

It's funny that normal people always thinks and knows and tells you what "people with money" do.

 

[Tech198]

The same way they spend 2x the avg per capita income on a luxury car that will depreciate by 10-20K the second they drive it off the lot and another 30K the two years after that.

I think the only thing that will be different, is the Apple car won't depreciate in value the second u drive it home.

 

[TallManNY]

We'll have to wait and see what happens. I know plenty of women who buy handbags often, as well. But they usually do that because they want to change up their look or what have you. I don't know anyone in either gender who buys the same watch year after year in order to stay up to date with the latest and greatest version.

It remains to be seen whether the Apple Watch Edition will be regarded as a true "collector must have" or simply as a very expensive watch that is only going to be in style for a year or two before being replaced with a better version thanks to newer technology.

I think Apple probably feels that the Edition will be regarded as a collector must have; but I know from my own circle of friends and acquaintances that watch collectors are some of the most particular people I've ever met. I think it could go either way.

I don't think watch collectors are really in this game. Now if I were a watch collector, and a fairly well off one, then yes this is obviously a must have. But I'm also a guy who comments on Macrumors and who just bought his fourth iPad today. But do those guys (and I assume they are all guys) move a million of one unit in a year? If they don't, then I don't think they matter. 20% of serious watch collectors might buy the Edition and I'm not sure if it will matter. How many of those folks are there?

This is about a bigger world. Will the fashionable types who drop $5,000 for a handbag or a $1,000 for a dress they wear 10 times, will those ladies want this watch. Those folks outnumber the watch collectors ten to one. Maybe 100 to 1. In NYC an apartment just got listed for $150 million. It is not being regarded as a joke. There are folks with money to burn in this world. There aren't thousands of them, there are millions of them. Heck might even be tens of millions of them. The question is if this watch ends up appealing to the folks who make a million dollars a year. If it does and appeals in a big way that will be significant. Because if Apple is smart, the margins on the Edition is going to be insane.

----------

I can see a band lasting at least 2 generations but no guarantees after that. With Apples quest to make devices thinner I wouldn't bet on it.

Interesting point. They might go along with something more like the ports and try to keep them lasting a long time.

It would be neat to have a "retro" band that has been discontinued.

Wow I'm getting ahead of myself here. Talking about a retro "old school" watch band.

 

[a0me]

Because they can afford it (or are OK with racking up debt). It really is as simple as that. There are luxuries in life that will never be understood by others.

Some people don't blink about a $400 dinner for 2.
some people will spend $400,000 on a boat that gets used 5x a year.
etc...

Don't try to wrap your head around it.

The real question is why would they -people who can afford it- buy a $5,000-$10,000 Apple Watch when they could be buying $30,000 timepieces from Patek Phillippe, Breitling or Franck Muller?

 

[MoreAwesomeDanU]

It is their choice, Apple forces nothing. That'S the point. Unless technology improving is all Apple's fault ;-); a conspiracy I tell you.

And what does this have anything to do with our conversation?... My point was that

- Apple products, like all technology do get outdated yearly
- People do tend to upgrade them on either yearly or biyearly basis (iPhone, iPad, etc)
- Luxury items do not get outdated like technology, especially timepieces, which usually stand the test of time.

So something like a smart watch being marketed as a luxury timepiece simply does not make sense.

----------

The same way they spend 2x the avg per capita income on a luxury car that will depreciate by 10-20K the second they drive it off the lot and another 30K the two years after that.

The same way they buy $10K dresses for ONE occasion.

The same way they fly in a private plane that costs 20X a first class ticket on a commercial airline

There are a lot of very wealthy people in this world. Maybe not on your block but they exist just the same. It's absolutely nothing on them to get $5K bottle service in Vegas. You really think they are sweating a $4K watch that makes a statement?

And they would buy the apple watch over their $100,000 Patek Phillippe watch because....? I'm sure that would make a much better statement than some gadget strapped on your wrist.

 

[ani4ani]

Considering your "lamborginis" don't really do what the "Ford" watch does. So, they'd need both. Find the whole metaphor quite belabored.

It is probably they'll actually both buy the edition watch AND the Ferrari. Having that much money means not having to choose at all.

At best they might buy one for the kids.

 

[DonutHands]

Apple Marketing = Genius. No one can touch them in that department.

We shall see, this is Angela Ahrendts marketing. Not classic apple marketing.

 

[cube]

Macbook Workstation

 

[apolkowski]

The current leader in the wearable market is Fitbit. They sold 3.5 million units last year.

Pebble sold 3 million in a one year period. (one report said 1 million one said 3 so I took the larger number.)

If Apple sells 6 million, Apple will be the single biggest player in the wearable (smartwatch/fitness band) market. The market is growing, but it isn't a massive market yet. 6 million is a pretty aggressive goal.

Sorry, I did not express myself clear enough. I wanted to say, that I do not believe in 1 million per month and the low sales level will be a spectacular catastophy for Apple.

 

[Sir Ruben]

To the commenters who are asking who pays that kind of money for tech that will be outdated in a year, you need to take a step back and looking at the bigger picture. See the following example, the names have been changed to protect the innocent.....

Joe Bloggs started out in a below average wage job. He liked nice things but was restricted to spending his money on the important things in life. If he fancied something nice he would plan in advance for it and maybe sell a few older unwanted things to go towards it. Money was tight and his financial outgoings had been honed to perfection so that every last cent of his pay would just about get him through the month and cover the bills.

As time went by Joe Bloggs progressed in his career and now he earns MUCH more. All of a sudden money is no longer a barrier to nice things, and so buying an expensive item is less of a consideration. Because of this the bar is raised, now buying a $2000 watch is no more of a consideration than previously buying a $10 dollar watch. To him $2000 is nothing. Pocket money. Is he a fool throwing his money away? Nope, he is just living to his income.

Now consider people thousands of times richer than Joe Bloggs. Money is flowing and largely insignificant. They have luxury cars, sports cars, boats, massive houses, holiday homes, basically living the high life. There are many people like this in the world. They are just living to their means and shouldn't be frowned upon for it. That is the normal standard of their lives, way above the working class.

And that, is why many people will buy the gold Apple Watch even though it will be outdated in a year. It literally doesn't matter to them and thats fair enough. They will discard it and simply buy the next model on a whim and not even notice a dent in the bank account.

 

[CJM]

The upside I've been seeing the last few years is that all this nerdy tech we're used to geeking out over becomes fashionable and apparently geeks are now cool.
I guess Apple's trying to sell that idea to the super rich, too.

 

[jdag]

The real question is why would they -people who can afford it- buy a $5,000-$10,000 Apple Watch when they could be buying $30,000 timepieces from Patek Phillippe, Breitling or Franck Muller?

1) because they can
2) because they want to
3) because they (likely) are not making an either/or decision and can (likely) afford both
4) because they can
5) because they want to
6) continue this loop

Like I said earlier, don't try to wrap your head around the affordability, practicality, functionality, technology life span, etc. it doesn't matter! If someone can afford a $4,000+ watch (Apple watch or any other watch), they (likely) have many other "unnecessary" luxuries. And, that person is (likely) not thinking "I could get virtually the same Apple watch for $349 with a lesser band". It doesn't matter to that person!

Or, they are living far beyond their means...but that's a different issue altogether.

 

[splogue]

Yeah, Apple seems to be targeting people with high disposable income since the margins on the gold versions is much higher than the others.

The smart choice would be to get a lower end model and buy the difference in gold bullion...but there are enough millionaires and billionaires around to make Apple quite a fortune.

I totally agree. Heck, even if you bought the difference in Apple stock, you would likely come out very well indeed.

Sean

 

[Chupa Chupa]

They definitely wouldn't be sweating on $4K, but I am also pretty sure they wouldn't be interested in a product like this. In all honesty, the Apple Watch could be considered as a top of the range Ford of watches; nothing wrong with that at all, but when "real" quality watches can cost 100's of thousands, folks with this kind of money don't buy top of range Ford, they buy Rolls Royces, Ferraris, Lamboginis etc.

Well the Apple marketing and top exec brain trust seems to disagree with you given that Ive is personally hitting all the high end stores. I'm not sure why a store like Galeries Lafayette would go out on a limb like they are if they didn't believe its ultra wealthy base couldn't be persuaded to buy in to the high end Apple Watch. What do you know that all these experiences sales and marketing professionals don't?

But you make my point -- they can buy a $4K watch as a toy, not a quality timepiece, and think nothing of it when they toss it like last weeks caviar. Their purses do not limit them to just one watch anymore than it does pairs of shoes or suits. And it's not about quality, it's about image. They want what is hip. And the Apple Watch is going to be hip if Ive and Ahrendts, and Schiller want to keep their stock options and reps worth something.

If there is a perception the Apple Watch Edition is an elite item out of reach of the hoi palloi they will want to be seen with it on. Obviously they don't need the functionality because they have human assistants and trainers for that.

----------

And they would buy the apple watch over their $100,000 Patek Phillippe watch because....? I'm sure that would make a much better statement than some gadget strapped on your wrist.

You make it sound like its a zero sum game for them like it must be for you. It's not. This isn't a high pressure, life altering economic decision for them. They already own several high end watches. This is a fashion bauble for them. Like costume jewelry. $4K for them is like $100 to you and me.

 

[abshole765]

Gold version going to be thousand(s) of dollars.


Y'all enjoy that soon to be obsolete tech on your wrist.

At least y'all be able to pawn it for 1/4 the price.

because otherwise the average joe will think of the Apple Watch as a dumb gadget rather than a replacement to a watch.

You really see this as a replacement to a watch?

The watch industry is feeling the big quake already like what Apple did when they revolutionized the mobile computing and telecommunication industries

Haha.

 

[ani4ani]

Well the Apple marketing and top exec brain trust seems to disagree with you given that Ive is personally hitting all the high end stores. I'm not sure why a store like Galeries Lafayette would go out on a limb like they are if they didn't believe its ultra wealthy base couldn't be persuaded to buy in to the high end Apple Watch. What do you know that all these experiences sales and marketing professionals don't?

But you make my point -- they can buy a $4K watch as a toy, not a quality timepiece, and think nothing of it when they toss it like last weeks caviar. Their purses do not limit them to just one watch anymore than it does pairs of shoes or suits. And it's not about quality, it's about image. They want what is hip. And the Apple Watch is going to be hip if Ive and Ahrendts, and Schiller want to keep their stock options and reps worth something.

If there is a perception the Apple Watch Edition is an elite item out of reach of the hoi palloi they will want to be seen with it on. Obviously they don't need the functionality because they have human assistants and trainers for that.

----------



You make it sound like its a zero sum game for them like it must be for you. It's not. This isn't a high pressure, life altering economic decision for them. They already own several high end watches. This is a fashion bauble for them. Like costume jewelry. $4K for them is like $100 to you and me.

To answer your first question, I am in Marketing and to comment on your second point, $4k does not buy you a high end watch. Folks who buy high end are not interested in a $4k watch, that is my point.

 

[Keirasplace]

To answer your first question, I am in Marketing and to comment on your second point, $4k does not buy you a high end watch. Folks who buy high end are not interested in a $4k watch, that is my point.

Wow! Your argument is really weird for someone in marketing.

- Lets say we have a person of means; stats say that person of means is much more likely to already own an Iphone

His options are regarding a smart watch
- Not wear one at all (hates watches)
- Not wear one at all, but continue wearing only his mechanical watch
- Switch to Android phone and get a cheap Android Wear Watch
- Wear a Apple Watch, or the sport or edition variant along with traditional watch
- Only wear Apple Watch or sport or edition variant

If that person is one of means, owns an Iphone, and they want a smart watch, the options are realistically limited to those:
- Wear Apple watch exclusively
- Wear Apple watch, along with any other traditional watches

I'd say that many in this bracket already own nice watches and will continue wearing them.
- Last option, which one to buy
- Apple watch (metal)
- Apple watch (Edition)

Personal choice will dictate which one they pick. Money will not at all enter the equation for those people, doesn't matter if its 4K, 2K or even $350. They'll by it if they like it and it will not compete with traditional watches because they're two very different markets.

The expensive smart watch and the traditional smart watch, even if they are bought by the same people, are two completely different product. They have watch in common only by pure convenience. Buy one product doesn't preclude the other, and vice versa.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

To answer your first question, I am in Marketing and to comment on your second point, $4k does not buy you a high end watch. Folks who buy high end are not interested in a $4k watch, that is my point.

I didn't ask if you were in marketing, but congrats I guess. Now I'm more puzzled why you don't understand the ultra luxury market better. Your point is the mega-rich are not interested in a 4K watch. I agree. But my point - the one you want the ignore is it's more than just a watch... It's the 'it" thing to have and be seen wearing if Apple does its positions right. A 4K price tag is just another reason they'd buy if it's perceived as "hot" with as much thought an avg. person buying a loaf of bread. It's not a low end Rolex they are buying, it's a high end, very exclusive, Apple Watch.

 

[ani4ani]

I didn't ask if you were in marketing, but congrats I guess. Now I'm more puzzled why you don't understand the ultra luxury market better. Your point is the mega-rich are not interested in a 4K watch. I agree. But my point - the one you want the ignore is it's more than just a watch... It's the 'it" thing to have and be seen wearing if Apple does its positions right. A 4K price tag is just another reason they'd buy if it's perceived as "hot" with as much thought an avg. person buying a loaf of bread. It's not a low end Rolex they are buying, it's a high end, very exclusive, Apple Watch.

You asked me what these people in marketing didn't know that I fdid...anyhow, I'll repeat my point. You seen to have this view that somehow a trinket Apple watch costing of $4k is somehow "it" quite frankly I think it would be something quite embarrassing. Just my view, but since you agree that the mega-rich won't be interested, then we are left with those who cannot and those who probably could.afford it..so let's take the latter group and try and understand the appeal. Perhaps owning would be an indication of their life asperations? It certainly won't be for the functions offered by the watch or the "experience" since they could be acquired for 10th of cost. Perhaps, they want to show that they can afford it? Personally, they could make the same statement, better, by wearing a secondhand Rolex, or an Omega? I just don't see it being the thing people want to be seen wearing. To me, the message would be I have just spent an extra three and half grand on the same watch as that guy for a couple of hundred dollars of gold plate.

I guess if someone really wanted a smart watch and wanted what is perceived to be "best" available (read most expensive) then perhaps, but I don't know?

Anyhow just my view, I guess time will tell how popular an "expensive " Apple watch will be.

 

[splogue]

The gold watch is solid gold, not plate. And gold plating doesn't cost anywhere near a couple of hundred dollars. It is very inexpensive to do because it uses hardly any gold. That's the whole point of it.

The gold in the watch all by itself will probably cost Apple around $1200. That's a guess, but it is a good one.

The cost difference won't be just the cost of the gold, either. It never is. Gold watches always command a premium well above what the metal is worth. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any point in the manufacturers making them to begin with. They do it because the profit margins are higher and they make more money.

Sean