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

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.
 
draugminaion said:
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.
Click to expand...

The many people in this thread who claim they'd rather "buy a Rolex" likely have no idea of the maintenance costs.
 
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1415185276.794392.jpg

Why would I stop wearing this and replace it with a crappy Apple Watch?
 
If those really are the prices - then :apple:Watch will never be a mass market device - Maybe that's what they are going for? Geeks with loads of disposable income and no taste. :eek:

People already moan about paying $500 for an iPhone! Which by the way you also need to be able to use the watch.

Plus - UP3 is $140 and coming soon. So if they have finally made some durable hardware - I'm in.
 
MN7119 said:
Who would pay $5,000 for a watch that will be obsolete in 1 year when they launch Apple Watch 2? You can buy a real Swiss watch that will keep its value for life.
Click to expand...

Someone who can afford it. Not you.

Also someone who sees what they get for their money and isn't obsessed and panics "oh my god my watch is obsolete" when a new model is released.
 
gnasher729 said:
Someone who can afford it. Not you.

Also someone who sees what they get for their money and isn't obsessed and panics "oh my god my watch is obsolete" when a new model is released.
Click to expand...

Someone with awful taste too. Forgot that part. More money than brains. Those types. ;)
 
KALLT said:
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.
Click to expand...

$500 for the standard model (not the cheap sport model) was about exactly what I expected.
 
Apple Watch Pricing to Reportedly Start at $500 for Stainless Steel, $4,000 f...

No way I'll pay $4,000 then next year they come out with a slimmer and better looking version, with way better battery life! That's the key: battery life. It will keep improving but your "timeless" first generation $4,000 Apple Watch battery life won't, unless you upgrade each year.
 
Why would anyone pay $4000 for a watch you know will be updated yearly. It might be worth it if the refresh cycle was every 3 years but you know it won't be. Might as well spend that money on a nice Tag, Omega or Rolex.

On top of that all models of the watch function in exactly the same way.

I'll most likely go for the stainless steel version which seems best value for what you will be getting in a first gen product.

With later generations when the battery life is extended and the design refined etc it may be worth going for one of the gold options but not right now. The only people who'd go for the gold options will be the rich and watch collectors.
 
BvizioN said:
And screw the tag, zenith etc. All they do is tell you the time. I know what time it is anytime and anywhere.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...screw artwork as well, all it does is take up space on the wall, I can look at a photo of it.

As a watch collector, I can understand why you don't understand. Owning fine watches goes beyond telling time. Tell a woman that cubic zirchonia is all she needs, as it looks like a real diamond....
 
I have the feeling that at Apple they are pretty sure they can sell whatever gadget they throw in the market, given the huge base of loyal customers they built in the last 4/5 years. Big numbers everywhere, a PR machine that blows out everything on their path. Never have to answer "bad" questions in public, and carefully hide any problem that may raise any question. When something escapes from this circle and goes public, here we have Tim Cook doing the dirty job and addressing any complaint. Everybody here knows that this watch is a version 1 model and that it will be (planned or not doesn't matter) obsolete in a little time.
 
I'd like one, (not the $4K gold, don't be silly!) but I know enough to hold out on first gen tech. Also I am interested to see how it bears up under use. Are there going to be cases for it? Screen protectors? I jest, but a watch is far more likely to be clipped or hit. So how will the Apple Watch stand up in real world tests.

So maybe I'll opt for the second generation version when it comes out. Maybe.
 
$500 isn't that bad for a stainless steel smart-watch, but to tell the truth - it doesn't really nudge me to buy it instead of my current watch. my current one was about $650 iirc, but is made of titanium so its really light and looks very nice. i guess i'd pick one when it goes into its 2nd iteration, but if apple really want me to get on board instead of me keeping it in my "maybe" list, then:

i want a metal bracelet.
i want it to be a bit different from everybody's. i mean, when i go to buy a watch, most companies have several lines with several models/designs - so picking something you like that won't be identical to someone else's isn't all that hard. you get face colours, hands' colours and what not. just offering it in grey/black and gold (for higher tiered model) doesn't cut it for me.

oh, and i want a better battery. i don't mind charging it, but i do mind charging it every night. so what, if i forget one time then I'm screwed for the day? once every 2 days is ok, everything beyond is superb.
 
nebo1ss said:
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
Click to expand...

i have a chestband as well, but it's a pain to wear all day and it isn't so automatic when syncing the data to my iphone to whatever web service.
 
The silly thing is for me anyway.

I'd rather have a dark coloured, let's call it a deep space grey aluminium one that a gold one.

Lighter in weight, I'd prefer the look.

Is this a UK/US thing going on here?
Myself, Gold can look really, and I mean REALLY tacky.

It's like if you go into a very high quality and tasteful building, subtle colors, high quality materials, stunning design, no chrome, no gold. All beautiful.

Then you go into another persons home who THINKS they have taste.
Gold taps, gold door handles, Gold lights, Gold trim around things.

It just screams no taste and tacky, perhaps as gold seems to be the lowest form of wealth display and has been over done.

I'd much rather have say a Black Titanium Watch that gold. Way more classy looking, Stronger, Lighter, in every way a better product.

Am I along in thinking, a lot of the time Gold = tacky when it's more than a tiny amount, like a fine delicate chain or something just subtle.
 
Keirasplace said:
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.
Click to expand...

I still don't think anyone will want to pay $2,000-$2,500 for an old obsolete piece of technology, even if it has a gold case. I guess we'll have to wait ten years to see who's right. :p
 
I still don't get the whole watch thing period, and I used to collect watches. Still have them all too. Haven't worn one in 10 years.

I will be stunned if sales are significant at which point I wall have to concede I was wrong... but it will be surreal.
 
DudeDad said:
Hmmm...screw artwork as well, all it does is take up space on the wall, I can look at a photo of it.
Click to expand...

Poor analogy. The watch hides under your sleeves and serves one purposive. Tells you the time. And while you call these watches artwork, allow me to go outside and puke.
 
They need a $199 version to suck everybody in.

No, not like cheap Android phones. Apple won that argument.
It's a fancy WATCH. $199 and up.
 
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