Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch Launches April 24, Price Ranges From $349 to Over $10,000
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I really want Space Black with a spare black sport band.
If my gf wants an engagement ring though and this is my engagement item, then a $2K ring justifies me getting this too.
People sketchy on price, seriously...
Have you been on the internet and seen all of the ridiculous pricing for watches and their shoddy designs and version of 'fashion' out there? Apple Watch ***** all over them in design and is priced very reasonably in comparison.
If my gf wants an engagement ring though and this is my engagement item, then a $2K ring justifies me getting this too.
People sketchy on price, seriously...
Have you been on the internet and seen all of the ridiculous pricing for watches and their shoddy designs and version of 'fashion' out there? Apple Watch ***** all over them in design and is priced very reasonably in comparison.
I was hoping the same thing, but I also had interest in the Milanese Loop, which I was happy to see comes in at $649 and $699. I guess that is the route I will go if I decide to buy one.
Except the lifespan of a designer watch is 10+ years, not 2. The
Watch is an insult to fiscal responsibility.Er probably because some people want the functionality of a watch with some apps, rather than just a watch or just a phone.
Just because you don't want one, does not mean that anyone who does is a moron.
People said that about the iPhone 6 and '#bendgate' yet they sold 750m of them.
Not a single one of these watches is trying to compare to your Tag Heuer. For one thing, good luck finding a Tag that sells new for $349. And for another if your Tag is a mechanical watch, then this Apple Watch is thousands of times more accurate. If you have a quartz watch, then your Tag is still nowhere near as accurate, and you paid hundreds of dollars for a movement that is worth about $50 tops.
Beyond that, the Apple Watch has hundreds of other utilities, whereas your watch can tell time, less accurately.
My guess is yes, it will track steps without needing to be linked to your phone. The accelerometers will be internal, after all. GPS, no.
It will be interesting to see how much biometric information it can store before you need to link it up to your phone. Will it record heart rate for an hour without needing the phone, for instance?
Just my guesses, but I'd put money on the watch tracking steps without any need for the phone.
Maybe in the south or Smalltown, USA, but you'd be sharing a flat with 3 roommates here in Boston at that salary.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...01/25/cheat-sheet-10-richest-cities/21394881/
I don't know if anyone's posted this yet: Apple's 'Gold'
but it makes the $10,000 price even more ridiculous. For those expecting to melt these watches in 5 years when they're obsolete to get the gold out will find out they're getting less than half of the gold than you thought you'd be getting.
but it makes the $10,000 price even more ridiculous. For those expecting to melt these watches in 5 years when they're obsolete to get the gold out will find out they're getting less than half of the gold than you thought you'd be getting.
Agreed, that's some way out pricing. I still don't know about the true utility of a smart watch but apple should have no problem selling the lower models.
Yes this is what I'm hoping but still nothing confirmed. And I wonder as well how much it will store before needing to connect to the phone.
I just don't have any interest in this product. This is the first time Apple has released something that left me cold. Do people even still wear watches? I mean I have my phone if I need to know what time it is.
I don't have a lot of hope for this product, it might be Apple's next big bomb. It's expensive and it doesn't bring anything unique and useful to the table, in my opinion.
I don't have a lot of hope for this product, it might be Apple's next big bomb. It's expensive and it doesn't bring anything unique and useful to the table, in my opinion.
Let's say you wanted an Omega Planet Ocean today.
That would cost you $6100. Interestingly the same watch in gold is $28,000. So you see how much gold ups the price.
You'd need to get the watch serviced every 5-10 years, at a cost of $500-$1000.
So you could in fact buy a brand new Apple Watch every time they release one if you wanted to. The difference is that the Apple Watch has more functionality and more features, along with vastly superior time keeping. The Omega is certainly a nice watch, but it is hard to justify your comments about how outrageous the Apple Watch is in terms of price, when you have a couple of watches that cost more than a grand, and don't tell time all that well.
Uh... no. It didn't. The iPod took the industry by storm as there were very few devices that did the same thing at the time. It was "innovative". Particularly the interface.
Unlike the "wearable" market of today.
Price is about what I expected. Apple products have always required a premium price point. A macbook is always going to cost more than a dell laptop with comparable components. Specs on a high end Android that costs $799 are going to be higher than an iPhone at the same price. What you are paying for is the Apple experience.
I didn't think anyone would buy and iPhone when they came out, nor did I think anyone would pay that much for an iPad, but I was wrong on both accounts. I don't know why anyone is paying this much for an watch, but I wouldn't be surprised to see lines out for these things.
I didn't think anyone would buy and iPhone when they came out, nor did I think anyone would pay that much for an iPad, but I was wrong on both accounts. I don't know why anyone is paying this much for an
watch, but I wouldn't be surprised to see lines out for these things.well, I'm making much more than $45K per year, but I can't afford a $1000 watch, because you know, the same year I need to spend $800 for an iPhone and maybe another $599 for an iPad (at least every other year) and why not other $1800 for a Macbook (at least every 3-4 years).
Life isn't easy
So then the Apple Watch is not intended for someone living in Boston making that income then.
This discussion is getting a bit silly. It would be like going on a Rolls Royce forum and whining about the cost.
Some things in life will never be affordable to some people. That's life. I'll probably never own a castle or a private jet, but that doesn't mean that they should not exist.
Even a fairly low income person could save up $349 if they felt so inclined.
They probably spent $199 on their phone, plus $100 a month to keep it. If they upgrade every two years that's about $2,800 every two years on cell phones. More when you factor in carry cases, and other accessories.
People buying the AppleWatch are iPhone users and it syncs with the iPhone. Why would someone buy the Pebble watch instead? Also how do you figure that it's $150 overpriced?
id bet money its not replaceable
apple doesn't replace batteries in iPods or iPads either. only in phones and laptops.
Since you keep using the 'keeping time' argument... A $100 Atomic solar g-shock will keep the same time accuracy as the Apple watch and won't need to be recharged either.
Most of us who buy expensive watches (I have a PO also) wear them for style or as jewelry. For $350 you're getting rubber/plastic made in China in the bargain.
The biggest missing information
Spending $500-1000 on a watch is a lot, but isn't that unusual. However, spending $500-1000 on a watch that will be out of date and therefore have minimal resale value in a year or two is unprecedented. I had really hoped that Apple was going to lay out an upgrade policy that would allow you to have the latest version of the watch without spending that kind of money every year or two. Who would want to do that?
I suppose that if the overpriced bands can be used on future versions it would dull the pain a bit, but they haven't even said they will sell you a watch without a band so it might not even be possible to reduce the price of upgrading.
I am very surprised that they have not addressed this very obvious issue in any way.
Spending $500-1000 on a watch is a lot, but isn't that unusual. However, spending $500-1000 on a watch that will be out of date and therefore have minimal resale value in a year or two is unprecedented. I had really hoped that Apple was going to lay out an upgrade policy that would allow you to have the latest version of the watch without spending that kind of money every year or two. Who would want to do that?
I suppose that if the overpriced bands can be used on future versions it would dull the pain a bit, but they haven't even said they will sell you a watch without a band so it might not even be possible to reduce the price of upgrading.
I am very surprised that they have not addressed this very obvious issue in any way.
Couldn't people have argued the same thing back in the old days? They had a perfectly good pocket watch that told the time, why have a wrist watch?
I find it very easy to glance at my wrist, but reaching into my pocket is a whole other thing. Especially if I'm in a meeting, or working with a patient, looking at my watch makes me look like a distracted tween. In some states pulling a phone out and looking at it could get you in trouble with the law, while driving.
I predict it is going to be a massive hit. And I don't accept that it is expensive. It is well under the price of a decent watch.