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
Luxury watches depreciate quite a bit from the MSRP, especially when it comes to precious metal watches, and even more so when those same watches are available in a stainless steel version.
Aside from Rolexes and the tier one brands (Rolex is arguably on the fence between tier 1 and tier 2) like Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, and Vacheron Constantin, time pieces coming out of other manufacturers often can be found used for 50% of the MSRP.
A lot of this depreciation has a lot to do with price 'fixing'. Much like Apple, some watch companies are able to legally control retail prices by the way they handle distribution. This companies are able to keep the retail prices at or very close to MSRP (getting even a 5% discount on a Rolex is often pretty difficult unless you are on really good terms with an authorized dealer), thus keeping used market values higher.
But other brands like Tag Heuer, Bell and Ross, Longines, etc, don't have as much power to control retail prices and therefore, and heftier discounts are available for such brands (e.g. 20%) with a reseller/retailer.
All this said, trying to compare how outrageous spending $10K on the Apple Watch Edition vs say a $10K Rolex is a bit ironic, since both are examples of *luxury*.
I'm in the camp that believes a $10K precious metal Apple Watch is outrageous. But if you want to spend $10K on one, by all means, go for it. It's your money. The same way someone else thinks me spending $10K on a mechanical watch is outrageous.
When it comes down to it, you're spending that $10K on either one is because you want to regardless of what other people think.
The unique aspect of luxury mechanical watches is that many people see them as 'investments'. But people who are wise truly understand that 99% of the time, you're not going to make money on buying a brand spanking new Rolex and holding onto it for 20 years and resell it at auction for 5 times what you paid for it. It's just not possible in terms of the volume of watches Rolex makes a year now.
Although, Rolexes have a pretty good depreciation, and retain value quite a bit.
For $10K, I could purchase the watch I'm wearing right now, a Rolex GMT Master II with the blue and black bezel (ref 116710BLNR) and still have change left over (as far as I know, it's still $8950 USD MSRP).
It's not uncommon for watches to go without service for many years (even decades) simply because the owners don't care (or didn't even know about it). But assuming you spend ~$750 for basic service every 5 years, after 10 years you put maybe $1500 into the watch on top of the original purchase. So let's just round up and call it $11500 for ten years of ownership of said Rolex. After those 10 years, it is highly likely that the watch will still have a used market value of about 80% of it's original MSRP.
Granted, I'm sort of guessing on this, but based it on how vintage Rolexes made in the 80s and 90s are going for the same price they sold for back then, if not more.
http://www.minus4plus6.com/PriceEvolution.htm
According to the above chart, a SS Submariner Date went for $3,350 in 1996.
If you browse vintage Rolex dealers, that 1990's Sub-Date goes for around $5K in good condition (checkout hqmilton.com out of San Francisco).
Of course, according to a CPI Inflation Calculator on a .gov site, $3,350 1996 dollars actually is just a few bucks under $5K 2015 dollars (~$4989).
Now the real question is: What will that Apple Watch Edition at $10K in 2015 be selling for on the used market ten years from now in 2025?
I think it's safe bet that if you spent $10K on a Rolex and $10K on an Apple Watch Edition in April 2015, you will have lost a significantly more amount of money on the Apple Watch than on the Rolex (servicing included).
My assumption is based on the fact that the Apple Watch and iPhone are closely tied together. I would hazard to guess that in 10 years, the 2015 Apple Watch may not even work with the 2025 iPhone.
That's a great essay on Rolex watches et al. But I'm not talking about buying an Apple Watch Edition. This is a luxury that people with endless money to squander will make. You'd have to be a straight up idiot to buy an Apple Watch Edition if you were not very rich.
I'm saying that the vast majority of people who buy an Apple Watch will spend WELL below a grand, which wouldn't even get you a sniff at a Rolex or similar. In fact many people will spend $350-$550, which is fashion watch pricing.
So any discussion of Rolex is completely irrelevant here. If you can afford the Edition watch, it will not matter one tiny iota that it will be worth much less in years to come. It's for people who can blow through $100K in a weekend and not even notice.
The entire conversation of 'if I could afford an Edition I'd buy a Rolex' is meaningless because I'd argue that 99% of people who buy an Edition could easily buy a handful of Rolex watches along with anything else that took their fancy.
----------
How do you know what research Apple has done?
I've been on watch forums like that. There is a lot of watch snobbery. Is the movement a 'true' in-house movement and all that nonsense.
I don't believe that the Edition is aimed at hardcore watch snobs. It's more for very rich people that get a kick out of flaunting their wealth. Especially in certain countries where gold items are highly prized. The kind of dude who has his Rolls Royce gold plated for example.
In truth I don't think you understand who Apple is targeting here. But mark my words, they will sell every gold one they make.
There are even companies like Brikk, gearing up to offer diamond encrusted versions. Whether you choose to believe it or not, these will sell.
Ultimately, I don't know what all the fuss is about. The vast majority of people on this forum will never even see a gold Apple Watch, much less buy one. So why so much chatter about less than 1% of Apple Watch sales?
The big question is how well the regular watches will sell, and how excited the public is for this new segment that Apple are moving into.
Since you can't buy a high end timepiece for $349-$600, it's not really relevant to be talking about such items, or to try and compare them.
----------
That's awesome. Apple are not competing with Patek Phillipe or Rolex. They made an expensive Casio which starts at $349. Can you buy a Rolex for that price? Of course not.
Apple is offering a fashion watch with smart watch functionality at a pretty disposable price. They happen to be offering a small run of gold ones for crazy rich people who like to flaunt their wealth and could care less about longevity or whether it is a good investment. But for most of us, it won't even be on our radar.
Since when is jewelry the same price as the base materials?
That's like saying Armani is charging $200 for some jeans? How dare they, denim is just 50c a yard.
Apple is not selling you a lump of gold, they are selling a creation that just happens to be made of gold. Of course, it isn't a product for 99.9% of Apple Watch buyers, so who really cares?
----------
I bought a Tag Heuer s/el back in the day. Stainless with a grey face.
Of course in this day and age it looks a bit like a tiny lady watch, because they made watches pretty small back in the 90s.
Always loved that link bracelet.
They went a bit overboard with the pricing. The stainless steel looks great, but $500 for a strap? :| it's more than the watch itself
The manufacturing differences between a fossil and a high end bracelet are insane. That's like comparing a set of stamped peice of junk steel wheels for a car and forged and milled BBS wheels. Both are made of metal but yet car manufacturers like BMW gladly pay BBS $600 PER wheel. Wow those BBS scammer guys must be a huge rip off and BMW must have the most incompetent staff on earth to be ripped off so hard. With your logic you should pitch Ferrari and BMW a deal to save them billions of dollars.
You completely failed at understanding my point. Interest =/= target demo. What you like is inconsequential. Let's say $100 jeans are marketed toward me and I buy a couple pairs every year. Do I like every brand of $100 jeans? Do I buy every model that comes out? No, I don't. But I'm still buying jeans priced within that range, where as someone buying $40 jeans is being targeted by a different market. Point: Apple Watch Edition is not for people who are buying $100 to $500 dollar watches. It is for people who are already spending that much for a watch. That's it. It isn't about whether you personally like it or not.
----------
And there will be plenty more people who can afford it, who won't buy it. Anecdotally this says nothing. The watch is for the premium market, not your every day watch buyer. It matters not if you have no interest, plenty more do.
Prices are far too high
These prices are far too high for what they are. They may well sell at first (especially to early tech adopters and hardcore Apple fans), but I suspect there will be a great many regrets down the line.
I didn't see any mention of replaceable batteries in the keynote (correct me if I missed it). 18 hours of usage in 2015 doesn't sound great to me either. We all know batteries have a limited number of charge cycles, and that they lose power and durability over time. If the starting point in 2015 is 18 hours mixed usage, how long will it last in two or three years time?
Wearables are a new market. Great advances can be expected in the next 5 years. These watches will be obsolete in two years, and curiosities after 5. Non-smart watches of a similar value will still be going strong by then, whatever price was paid for them.
I accept that the materials in a gold watch are expensive. But when the battery goes its just as useless however its packaged.
The price points should have been much much lower.
The original macbook air was nearly twice the price of the other macbooks. It sold, but not in huge numbers. When they made it cheaper, it sold incredibly well. I expect it will be the same with the
watch.
These prices are far too high for what they are. They may well sell at first (especially to early tech adopters and hardcore Apple fans), but I suspect there will be a great many regrets down the line.
I didn't see any mention of replaceable batteries in the keynote (correct me if I missed it). 18 hours of usage in 2015 doesn't sound great to me either. We all know batteries have a limited number of charge cycles, and that they lose power and durability over time. If the starting point in 2015 is 18 hours mixed usage, how long will it last in two or three years time?
Wearables are a new market. Great advances can be expected in the next 5 years. These watches will be obsolete in two years, and curiosities after 5. Non-smart watches of a similar value will still be going strong by then, whatever price was paid for them.
I accept that the materials in a gold watch are expensive. But when the battery goes its just as useless however its packaged.
The price points should have been much much lower.
The original macbook air was nearly twice the price of the other macbooks. It sold, but not in huge numbers. When they made it cheaper, it sold incredibly well. I expect it will be the same with the
watch.
It wasn't in the keynote but the battery will be replaceable.
The Apple Watch Battery Will Be Replaceable
There is no ridicule and they'll sell all of them; Apple understands marketing better than you. That's a fact. I don't think I need to elaborate on that. They've hired enough people from in luxury retail to understand that one better than you and your buddies too...
I'll point you to the Q3-Q4 2015 earnings report for future reference... You won't have to wait long to be wrong.
Wrist watches emerged 1914-1919, so centuries of heritage would be a stretch unless your talking about pocket watches too. Most wrist watches that appeared then though were glorified pocket watches strapped on the wrist. Watches became really popular in the 1920s.
BTW, I'm sure carriage makers had centuries of experience when Auto hit big around 1900 and plenty collected those carriages too.
Last edited:
These prices are far too high for what they are. They may well sell at first (especially to early tech adopters and hardcore Apple fans), but I suspect there will be a great many regrets down the line.
I didn't see any mention of replaceable batteries in the keynote (correct me if I missed it). 18 hours of usage in 2015 doesn't sound great to me either. We all know batteries have a limited number of charge cycles, and that they lose power and durability over time. If the starting point in 2015 is 18 hours mixed usage, how long will it last in two or three years time?
Wearables are a new market. Great advances can be expected in the next 5 years. These watches will be obsolete in two years, and curiosities after 5. Non-smart watches of a similar value will still be going strong by then, whatever price was paid for them.
I accept that the materials in a gold watch are expensive. But when the battery goes its just as useless however its packaged.
The price points should have been much much lower.
The original macbook air was nearly twice the price of the other macbooks. It sold, but not in huge numbers. When they made it cheaper, it sold incredibly well. I expect it will be the same with the
You do know that the battery stats reflect the smaller watch don't you. The bigger one is 33% bigger, which means it would have at least 33% more battery (and possibly significantly more).
As for battery.
USually it is 70% loss if you do 500 full cycles 100 to 0% each day. If your watch doesn't reach 0%, but 25% at the end of the day, you can reach 730 charging cycles. That's the most usual case for cell phones and probably the most usual cases on average day for the watch too (that'S the usual design goal). So, the battery would reach 13h after 2 years if you use it as described by Apple.
Current batteries for cell phones are about $15 (got mines replaced by someone for $30-40 (if you don't want to do so yourself), so I don't expect more than $25 bucks to replace this small battery. So, your concern is not founded. If battery tech improves it even last longer...
As 50% on average (a light to moderate usage), You'd get 1200 cycles, battery takes 3 years to reach 13h.
The thing is that a Ipad or Iphone can also be killed in 18h or 13h; usage of course has a huge effect on battery time.
Apple Watch Launches April 24, Price Ranges From $349 to Over $10,000
That's cute. But Apple hasn't hired anyone from the watch industry. Fashion industry does not equal watch industry. And if you read the comments the fashion world is making about Apple's watches, they (the fashion world) aren't impressed. So I'm not sure how smart those hires were.
That's cute. But Apple hasn't hired anyone from the watch industry. Fashion industry does not equal watch industry. And if you read the comments the fashion world is making about Apple's watches, they (the fashion world) aren't impressed. So I'm not sure how smart those hires were.
Last edited:
I see many people suggesting Omega, Tag, and Rolex as alternatives to the $1100 SS Black.
Please link some watches from these bands at that price range, because I'm not seeing them.
On another note, is the Sport version only compatible with sport bands? They never mentioned that you can use any of the bands on that watch.
Please link some watches from these bands at that price range, because I'm not seeing them.
On another note, is the Sport version only compatible with sport bands? They never mentioned that you can use any of the bands on that watch.
iPod - Will be a flop
iPhone - Will be a flop
iPad - Will be a flop
(today) Watch - Will be a flop
While i agree, this survey is hardly exhaustive. The big revelation in the watch run up was the number of real or imagined watch snobs at Mac Rumors. I cant help feeling a number of posters were googling "expensive watches" and then posting. I find conspicuous consumption creepy--but I would never begrudge someone a big house or fast car.
In a sea of boring comments (why the people here feel the need to criticize someone with the desire of buy a $10.000 Apple Watch? ), this is a very interesting news.
Now we need to know how much it will costs.
----------
And how do you know who was hired by Apple, exactly?
They hired TAG heuer executive one year ago....
A frequent costumer which knows about watches can get a 20-25% discount very easy buying Rolex, the best selling models above all (114060, 116610ln...).
Most of the people buying high end watches are not watches-freaks, they are just people with plenty of money who want to buy fancy things which fit their overall look.
I think the Apple watch edition will sell very well, why? You say it's a mainstream standard cheap content covered with a fancy body. You know what? The Hublot big bang uses modified ETA Valjoux movements, as many many other multi thousand dollar luxury watches using ETA modified movements (2824, 2892, V7750...), dubois depraz chrono modules...
IWC, Panerai, Hublot, AP... you name it. But there are a bunch of snobs who think they're connaisseurs and that their AP ROO, IWC... is super exclusive and not inherently a common thing like the Apple Watch edition when their watch's movement is basically the same you can find in a less than 1000$ Hamilton, but decorated and covered with a fancy body
So, let the market talk. The luxury watch market is all about perceived quality, design and marketing. I don't think the Edition is a product for me, but I don't confuse that with being a bad quality, badly design, or badly marketed product.
p.S: How much do you think a Rose Gold ceramic Hublot Big Bang will be worth 20 years from now? I bet less than an Apple Watch Edition, and they have sold and are selling tons, I mean TONS of 10000+ $ Hublots, a brand without history.
Last edited:
A frequent costumer which knows about watches can get a 20-25% discount very easy buying Rolex, the best selling models above all (114060, 116610ln...).
Most of the people buying high end watches are not watches-freaks, they are just people with plenty of money who want to buy fancy things which fit their overall look.
I think the Apple watch edition will sell very well, why? You say it's a mainstream standard cheap content covered with a fancy body. You know what? The Hublot big bang uses modified ETA Valjoux movements, as many many other multi thousand dollar luxury watches using ETA modified movements (2824, 2892, V7750...), dubois depraz chrono modules...
IWC, Panerai, Hublot, AP... you name it. But there are a bunch of snobs who think they're connaisseurs and that their AP ROO, IWC... is super exclusive and not inherently a common thing like the Apple Watch edition when their watch's movement is basically the same you can find in a less than 1000$ Hamilton, but decorated and covered with a fancy body
So, let the market talk. The luxury watch market is all about perceived quality, design and marketing. I don't think the Edition is a product for me, but I don't confuse that with being a bad quality, badly design, or badly marketed product.
p.S: How much do you think a Rose Gold ceramic Hublot Big Bang will be worth 20 years from now? I bet less than an Apple Watch Edition, and they have sold and are selling tons, I mean TONS of 10000+ $ Hublots, a brand without history.
1. The Big Bang will be worth much more than an apple watch edition in 20 years. Why? One is a timepiece and the other is a gadget.
2. Hublot stopped using the modified 7750 movement 5 years ago after they bought the assets of BNB Concept.
Every Big Bang apart from the Unico and rare high complications sold today uses ETA derived movements. The so-called HUB4214 and HUB4100 are just ETA mods, if not decorations.
"Once is a timepiece and the other is a gadget". Well that's what you say, I could say one is a fashion-oriented mechanical watch and the other is a smart watch. None of them can keep their prices if you compare them to pedigree watches. An ETA gold Hublot sells at higher price than a Rolex Daytona 116520 (and even the steel ceramic one I think). Is it strange that a gold design watch with the movement of a 800USD watch sells at 15000 and a gold Smartwatch with the same electronics than a 349USD smartwatch sells at 10 000? I don't think so.
Put it the way you want, Big Bangs are only sold because their perceived quality and design -and marketing of course-, their internal components follow the same philosophy as the apple watch edition. And they sell tons, and to people with lots of money and some of them more watches, and nice watches.
Not to talk about SevenFriday watches which are directly China Made.
Last edited:
Really watch collectors don't work like that, the bling crowd which is wholly different does. Perhaps Apple is counting on that narcissistic crowd for success?
Yeah and your son will put it in a drawer.
Back in the 90s, my first big pay check, I proudly went down the the jewelry store and bought that s/el I had wanted for a while. I was so proud of that thing, thought it was the coolest design.
Today I don't like the face color, I think the dial is too small, and I think it looks dated. I keep it in a box at the back of a closet. If I sold it on eBay I'd get $500 for it tops, if I were lucky.
To think that a child of mine would want it would be optimistic. Either the smart watch thing takes off, and he or she will be wanting one of those. Or they will flop and kids of the next generation won't wear watches, like millennials today.
Times and tastes change. Thinking that the vast majority of watches purchased today will become heirlooms is pretty wishful thinking.
Take a look at the Submariner. Once the James Bond watch, super cool. But look at a pre-2010 example with its cheap jangly bracelet and non-ceramic bezel, and its comically small face, would you really want to wear one just to say you had a Rolex?
I think that most people who buy an Apple Watch will probably be in the $500-$600 range, which is fashion watch pricing, not family heirloom pricing.
----------
I read an article the other day that was implying that the Edition may not even be for the American market as such.
There are some cultures, and I'm thinking Asia and the Middle East, where something being gold IS a very big deal. Whereas if you look at the trend here in the US, even though a ring of gold is still traditional for a marriage, how many people do you know who got married in the last ten years actually buy gold, most of it is white gold these days.
The same article was talking about brand perception and Apple has more of a luxury cache in other countries too, their products being that much more expensive than other compatibles.
I don't think Apple blundered into this whole watch thing without some seriously smart people making some very shrewd decisions. I expect the nay sayers to be surprised, especially when the Edition is on backorder and people sell them on eBay at a premium.