Sidebar Sidebar
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

Can i have just a slim "lifestyle" band that takes my fitness and activity movements and syncs them with my phone.

Can it also have a little display (1 line oblong - integrated into something resembling a nike fuel band) to show me my notifications for when my phone is in my pocket.

I really am not bothered about trying to view photos, send email or similar functions on a tiny screen when i just bought a iPhone 6+
 
quagski said:
By the time Apple Watch is released there will be plenty of other wearables that will take care of all day heart rate tracking at a much cheaper price. They already exist.
Click to expand...

of course microsoft already made one, but who knows when they're going to exit the smart watch business.
 
Keirasplace said:
Since phones are worth 20-25% of their value after 4 years, you are wrong. In the case of something like that, which has an esthetic value outside of its gadget value, the devaluation would be even slower. So, the low end model would probably be worth 50% of its value after 5 years and probably 20% after 8 years (Considering you paid $350, that's not bad at all). The stainless one would be worth about 35-40% after 8 years (again not bad for something that's a lot more than just a watch).

The top end models would devalue even less since they're esthetic value is higher and their intrinsic value is also higher (in the case of the gold model). For the top model, I'd expect it to be worth 50-60% of its initial value after 10 years.
Click to expand...

Do you think they will still be functional in 8-10 years time?

From the rumours we've heard so far the battery life for the first gen could be marginal from new, with estimates of less than 24 hours, so how long will it last after a few years of daily recharging?

Also, it needs to link with an iPhone for most of it's functionality. I very much doubt it's going to be compatible with the latest iPhone running iOS 18 in ten years time so will you also need to hold on to a vintage iPhone as a companion?

I can't see the gold model holding 50-60% of its value if it's basically just a brick.
 
It already looks outdated, who would spend $4k on a smart watch that will be obsolete within a year or two.
I'll be sticking with my Omega, doesn't matter what I'm wearing or what I'm doing its instantly timeless and sophisticated. Not too mention it holds its value.

Smart watches are one of those tech ideas that always sound better in theory than work out in practice. Technology for technologies sake.
 
Keirasplace said:
The top end models would devalue even less since they're esthetic value is higher and their intrinsic value is also higher (in the case of the gold model). For the top model, I'd expect it to be worth 50-60% of its initial value after 10 years.
Click to expand...

Why would you spend so much money on a device which by then will be either dead or will only have a few hours of autonomy? If the brand new watch has around a day of autonomy, you will not even be able to go through your day after a couple of years. And after 10 years, not much will be left.
The esthetic value doesn't mean much when the electronic is outdated - would you still pay thousands for a gold iPhone 3 with a dead battery, no OS upgrade possible and inferior performances?
 
farewelwilliams said:
then don't get one?

i for one find use for the apple watch. all day heart rate tracking is worth the $350 imo. but definitely not the $5k watch.
Click to expand...
You can do that much cheaper. I have a chest band and associated $40 watch with a battery that last two years that I use for cycling which does it very well.

I love the idea of the Apple watch but the battery life makes it a non starter for me
 
What happens to the price of my $4k watch when Apple releases next year's update?

Apple should be smart enough to realize, that fashion, unlike technology does not update yearly. A good pair of shoes, a watch, a coat, or glasses can last many many years.
 
It's safe to assume that the electronic "guts" of an Apple Watch are worth the thin end of $350, if that's the selling price for the most basic model. So if you've spent a few thousand dollars on one, and you want an upgrade, it's probably well within Apple's powers to charge you a couple of hundred bucks to take it out the back, use some special tool to pull the face and/or back off, and replace the electronics and battery with the latest and greatest. If you've spent a few thousand dollars on the watch, that's going to seem like a pittance.

It's not like you throw a gold Rolex in the garbage if the mechanism needs a bit of TLC, after all. You take it in, and you pay a few hundred dollars to get it refurbished by a professional.
 
beanbaguk said:
Madness....another watch collector here with a couple of Tags (including a very limited edition one), and a Zenith.
.
Click to expand...

I don't think this apple watch is aimed to old people or mechanical watch collectors. And screw the tag, zenith etc. All they do is tell you the time. I know what time it is anytime and anywhere.

Lot's of people over here will have to eat their words in a few moths time.
 
Nike sportwatch & polar WearLink costs $220. I love it, but it's plastic with a black&white screen and it lasts ~1 year - you can't replace the strap.

I think the price is fair.
 
sockatume said:
It's safe to assume that the electronic "guts" of an Apple Watch are worth the thin end of $350, if that's the selling price for the most basic model. So if you've spent a few thousand dollars on one, and you want an upgrade, it's probably well within Apple's powers to charge you a couple of hundred bucks to take it out the back, use some special tool to pull the face and/or back off, and replace the electronics and battery with the latest and greatest. If you've spent a few thousand dollars on the watch, that's going to seem like a pittance.

It's not like you throw a gold Rolex in the garbage if the mechanism needs a bit of TLC, after all. You take it in, and you pay a few hundred dollars to get it refurbished by a professional.
Click to expand...

Problem is, Apple is not a company that is focused on longevity. They are focused on immediate sales, and obsolescence. It's of no concern to them how many land fills you pile stuff into, they'd just assume that you buy a new one every day and toss yesterday's into the waste bin.
 
flyinmac said:
Problem is, Apple is not a company that is focused on longevity. They are focused on immediate sales, and obsolescence. It's of no concern to them how many land fills you pile stuff into, they'd just assume that you buy a new one every day and toss yesterday's into the waste bin.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's obviously not going to work as a business model with a $5000 watch, is it?

I'd like to think that in a company of that size, at least somebody noticed. So they'll have some idea about how to handle the question of upgrades.
 
sockatume said:
Yeah but that's obviously not going to work as a business model with a $5000 watch, is it?

I'd like to think that in a company of that size, at least somebody noticed. So they'll have some idea about how to handle the question of upgrades.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I just don't see how the built in model of obsolescence can work with the iwatch. Especially a $5,000 iwatch...but even with the lower cost models. People are used to watches lasting a longtime. Heck, watches are passed down from generation to generation. Will people be willing to have to upgrade their iwatch every couple of years? I just don't see it.
 
This is all about marketing, and a well known sales technique.

Selling a 4k$ gold while it's not even worth 500$ in parts and gold aims at making believe 500$ is not a rip off for a standard stainless iwatch, and also it aims at giving some high-end image to these watches.

As far as gold iwatches are concerned, the main purpose is not to sell them, they are faire-valoir for the rest of the line.
 
It should be obvious to anyone that the gold or silver Apple Watch is meant for affluent people that don’t mind paying $4000 for this. This isn’t a watch you’ll save up for either, it’s a luxurious item with a short lifespan.

I am more worried by the alleged $500 price tag for the stainless-steel Apple Watch, otherwise known as the standard Apple Watch. That’s a pretty steep price for an item that does a lot less than your iPhone or iPad but is priced in between. If you’re interested in the Sports Edition but don’t like its plastic band, you will be quickly approaching the same price too, if you buy Apple’s own bands only.
 
Supermallet said:
If the Apple Watch has zero aesthetic appeal to you, then there's no price point at which you'd want it. So they could charge $10 or $10 million and it wouldn't matter.

However, it does have an aesthetic appeal for many people, myself included.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'd take it for 10 bucks. And if anyone was to ask why I'm wearing such a hideous watch, I'd say it was only 10 bucks.

Whoever let this thing out should be fired. It's not innovative, not beautiful, not impressive.
 
Last edited:
I can't see this thing being 500 bucks. It looks nice to be sure, but really, 5 hundred dollars for a watch that doesn't last the entire day, no GPS and needs your phone if you want to track your running?
 
I love watches.

But:

1) the intrinsic value of even the very expensive, well-regarded watches is nowhere near how they're priced, and their prices are only justified by perception, just like diamonds, jewelry, and other designer luxury goods.

The watch industry, and the Swiss, in particular, have done a great job reselling the same handful of basic ETA movement designs inside watches ranging from $300 to many thousands of dollars. For a movement that costs tens of dollars. Add some cosmetic embellishment, a minor complication, give it a new name, jack up the price, and watch the freaks fall all over themselves. Quartz movements cost even less.

And if you believe that the value is added and prices justified by the cadre of horologists painstakingly assembling those watches, note that they do make pretty good salaries, but those costs aren't coming from their labor, as specialized as it is. All that marketing and brand positioning is what costs the big bucks.

2) I suspect that the top-end Apple Watch will be positioned, and sold as a limited edition, far from the cheaper mass-market models. Apple won't fret about the number of the Edition watches they sell, any more than the number of 20th Anniversary Macs they sold.

Finally...nobody cares what kind of watch you wear. These threads inevitably turn into some kind of bragging contest.
 
OllyW said:
Do you think they will still be functional in 8-10 years time?

From the rumours we've heard so far the battery life for the first gen could be marginal from new, with estimates of less than 24 hours, so how long will it last after a few years of daily recharging?

Also, it needs to link with an iPhone for most of it's functionality. I very much doubt it's going to be compatible with the latest iPhone running iOS 18 in ten years time so will you also need to hold on to a vintage iPhone as a companion?

I can't see the gold model holding 50-60% of its value if it's basically just a brick.
Click to expand...

Because changing battery... NEVER HAPPENS. Except I know probably a hundred people who got their Iphone battery replaced for less than $50 (mine was $30). If I did myself It would cost about $15.

As for the watch, you can run apps on it, play music, probably record voice memrs on it, probably look at photos, it can collect info from sensors or data you entered (say in a calendar app) and then sync it later. You can use it to interact with any compabilte Blue Tooth LE or NFC device regardless if the phone is around.

Seems you didn't even go to Apple's web site. Of course, it can also tell time... Many watches do well with just that one function...

As for the rest, you ARE a funny person. You can easily replace batteries. Rechargeable batteries these days can last 2-3 years easily with once a day charges. Current densities (charging and discharging fast is what uses the battery the most, this means there is less stress from the watch on this battery than the phone one).

BTW, I'm still using the 3GS and just replaced the original battery at the 5 year mark? That's more than 5 years of pretty high use (charge every 1 to 3 days, Average 1.5 days). Considering the watches are much more rugged and of narrow use, why on earth would 8 years be unlikely, especially in the most expensive one.
 
levitynyc said:
I have a Tag watch I bought 5-6 years ago for around $2500. If I sold it, I could probably get roughly $1500 for it now as its in near mint condition. An Apple watch with a degenerating battery that will be obsolete within 2 years will lose 95% of its value in 5 years.

I seriously don't understand the purpose of the Apple Watch...and I've owned 6 Macs, 4 Apple TVs, 7 iPhones, 5 iPods and 5 iPads.
Click to expand...
The obsolete thing remains to be seen.
A Rolex gets service every 4-5 years which can cost up to $700.
Service on an Apple Watch could include swapping out the internals (computer, battery) with the latest version for the price of a new Apple Watch Sport ($350-ish). The internals are the same, after all.
 
bp1000 said:
Can i have just a slim "lifestyle" band that takes my fitness and activity movements and syncs them with my phone.

Can it also have a little display (1 line oblong - integrated into something resembling a nike fuel band) to show me my notifications for when my phone is in my pocket.

I really am not bothered about trying to view photos, send email or similar functions on a tiny screen when i just bought a iPhone 6+
Click to expand...

You are requesting features that are exactly delivered by the Gear Fit and the Microsoft Band.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back