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 Pricing to Reportedly Start at $500 for Stainless Steel, $4,000 for Gold
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A lot of people here may not realize that the closest competition to Apple in retail revenue per square foot is Tiffany's and Cartier. Little bits of gold, for a thousand dollars and up, sells quite well enough thank you. And some people buy new bits of gold bling and bangles at Tiffany's and Cartier every year. A thousand dollars and up isn't a problem for these types. A good percentage of them would not blink at some $4k Apple watch gold bling.
People who don't walk out of Tiffany's and Cartier with little bags of holiday gifts every year, maybe the gold Apple Watch isn't meant for them. Go shop elsewhere. Costco or someplace.
The people who fly in their Gulfstreams, the Apple watch isn't for them either. They can acquire some custom Patek instead.
People who don't walk out of Tiffany's and Cartier with little bags of holiday gifts every year, maybe the gold Apple Watch isn't meant for them. Go shop elsewhere. Costco or someplace.
The people who fly in their Gulfstreams, the Apple watch isn't for them either. They can acquire some custom Patek instead.
$2000 to $4000 steel mechanicals like my Omega Planet Ocean or my Seamasters and Spacemaster will retain or even appreciate in value for decades to come. For example, one of my Seamasters is worth about $1000 more today in its current state than when I bought it in 1995.
In two or three years the first generation stainless Apple watch will be languishing in a drawer alongside my first generation iPhone... and will probably be as useful.
Still a better purchase than a Casio at the same $500 price point though. And certainly better than the hockey puck being sold as a Moto 360. That thing is a joke.
In two or three years the first generation stainless Apple watch will be languishing in a drawer alongside my first generation iPhone... and will probably be as useful.
Still a better purchase than a Casio at the same $500 price point though. And certainly better than the hockey puck being sold as a Moto 360. That thing is a joke.
In terms of utility per unit of time, I would say the gold AW is priced more like Harry Winston than Tiffany or Cartier.
Hear me out.
A chronograph from Patek might cost around 60-80000 USD.
But it can be worn for 30, 40, 50 years or more.
Every 5 years or so, there will be regular service to do which will cost around 1000-2000 USD.
Assuming you buy the watch for $80k and use it for 40 years and service every 5 years for 2k, that's annualized cost of $2400.
The Apple Watch you will not be able to use, under any scenario, for more than 5 years because parts will become unavailable, it will depreciate to almost nothing and the battery performance will degrade to 0.
So if you use it for about 2-4 years, that's an annualized cost of about $1000 to $2000.
So again, the price of owning a gold Apple Watch is quite expensive compared to a normal high-end watch such as a complicated Patek Philipppe, worn by those who shop at Harry Winston.
No need, the stainless steel ones hold thier value just fine, unlike the apple watch, once the second generation comes out
imagine not charging it daily .....mind blown, that would be worth another 4k upgrade Fyi - no need to upgrade a Rolex on a yearly basis, the models don't change
I like the concept of the Apple Watch and I want to buy the stainless steel model. 500 would be my limit for that so I will buy it if the rumors are true. I don't wear a watch normally but I like the features of the Apple Watch and love its design too.
If that price for the rose gold one is correct, it's still less than 6 shares of Apple stock, pre 7-to-1 split. If only you had purchased 100 shares back when everyone was saying Apple was doomed.
How could it possibly...
...when glass and aluminum and plastic cost less than steel and sapphire?
-K
I seriously always thought the Apple Watch Sport was going to be more expensive than the Apple Watch
...when glass and aluminum and plastic cost less than steel and sapphire?
-K
One important thing it probably cannot do that tends to be an issue with sports. Survive water.
When I do sports I like to not worry about water from my body/atmosphere/beverages. This Im betting will not stand up here.
You've just described a growing multi 100 billion dollar industry. Time for Apple to take their cut from those millions of potential customers. Better Apple than some Kardashian.
$4000 and making it out of gold is a big commitment on a 1st gen device you know will be an outdated brick in 12 months.
How does this not apply...
...to someone with a more expensive iPhone, or iMac, or Macbook, or Mac (Pro) than you exactly?
If, given the traditional Apple product matrix of Good|Better|Best since like...the late 90's, where in this case Good|Better|Best maps to material builds across Watch Sport|Watch|Edition...how, in your mind, or anyone else's...is this materially different in ANY way?
You do realize that the metric you used is pretty much the same as ones used by Apple product detractors in general, do you not?
-K
...to someone with a more expensive iPhone, or iMac, or Macbook, or Mac (Pro) than you exactly?
If, given the traditional Apple product matrix of Good|Better|Best since like...the late 90's, where in this case Good|Better|Best maps to material builds across Watch Sport|Watch|Edition...how, in your mind, or anyone else's...is this materially different in ANY way?
You do realize that the metric you used is pretty much the same as ones used by Apple product detractors in general, do you not?
-K
Steve would never have let 3 versions that have no functional difference other than a "trim" level make it to market. Steve's version of an Apple product was a single form that offered the best quality, function and experience to as many people as possible. Apple used to pride itself on making one thing that was the best that it could be and overall gave the best user experience.
If this was a Steve product, there would be one trim of watch in the two sizes with the different band options. The design and interface would have been much more refined and the true innovative parts would be much more up played. My goodness, Apple created a new type of aluminum for the sport watch and it is hardly mentioned. There is a brand new UI and UX that has the potential to set the bar for every wearable product that comes after it. Instead, the only piece of prevalent marketing Apple seems to have out the is "Hey everybody, we're making a watch! Look how cool it is."
The rose gold case and Milanese Loop band alone, even when gutted of the dead battery and aged electronics, will not depreciate to almost nothing. Just try to buy one in good condition 3 or 4 years from now for "almost nothing".
Whether Apple or a nice thriving 3rd party industry ends up making mucho money in the gold Apple Watch refurb business is yet to be determined.
Yeah... amazing quality mechanical watches will always be amazing. A computer? Will get old/slow/unfixable.
If they exist, they'll all sell in China where those who can afford them have unlimited grey money and already treat Apple like a designer brand.
I seem to recall a black MacBook that was priced very differently from even a loaded white one. Or is color not trim?