Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm not sure if a $4K luxury item will work when it's almost identical to a "cheap and common" steel option. I think people who spend that kind of money on a watch want it to stand out.

The fact that the internals will date very quickly doesn't help either.

And then the battery life.. having a phone in my pocket whose battery is drained is one thing. Having a dead device on my wrist is another. Unless Apple is under-stating the battery life, I can't see myself getting a first-gen.
 
Looks like Apple is on the right track with the Watch, because a lot of the moaning and whining in this thread reminds me of the first iPhone reaction threads in 2007.
 
$500 for stainless is high.

Probably deliberate. It reminds me of initial MacBook air pricing:
  • High enough to naturally throttle demand while production ramps up.
  • High enough to fund excellent customer support while new-product bugs are worked out (E.g., allow for plenty of "no-questions-asked" replacements for tough customers)
  • High enough to repel buyers who just want to bend it on YouTube :)

It's aimed at early-adopters. The watch for the masses will come in gen. 3 or 4.

Except that the aluminum sport version will be $350, which is right in line with high end sport watches, but, of course, that is high end, and also high end sport watches have GPS built-in. My guess is that the $500 model will exist to make the $350 model look inexpensive. IMHO the dark aluminum is the best looking, least gaudy version as well.
 
How much is a series 1 iPhone worth now ? Not one of those can work now and I bet they are sought after by collectors.
 
$4k for the gold is insane. This falls under the more money than sense umbrella. If it were a standard watch then I almost could understand it; however, this is a watch that will get some kind of revision long before any standard watch needs a battery replacement (if it even has a battery). When you're buying tech, even in the form of a watch, you have to realize the investment and how long that investment will last. Surely one could buy and never update, but I doubt that will be the case. $500 seems slightly higher than I expected as well, especially since you absolutely need an iPhone in order to use most of the features and the overall investment is quite high considering.
 
Can these watches really get resold as an investment by a later generation? I have buddies who have Rolexes as their daily watch. So lets say they bought it full price in a store for $10,000 15 years ago. Could they really take that relatively run of the mill Rolex and walk into a watch store and sell it back for $10,000? Or would they have to ebay it to get full value (and is there any chance someone spends $10,000 over ebay on something that could be a fake?)

No i don't think in any way the Apple Watch is an investment. But neither is my iPad mini. It is still a nice thing to own.[COLOR="#

I bought my first Rolex, a SS DateJust in 1983 for $900. Wore it everyday for 12 years, and a dealer gave me $1600 trade value towards a new Rolex. I've never lost money on a Rolex, on my fifth one now, and it's the last watch I'll own. Unless I get an Apple watch as a novelty.
 
Ouch such a high price point for the stainless. I think Ill be waiting for the next gen before investing that kind of money on less than a day of battery.
 
I'm not sure if a $4K luxury item will work when it's almost identical to a "cheap and common" steel option. I think people who spend that kind of money on a watch want it to stand out.

The fact that the internals will date very quickly doesn't help either.

And then the battery life.. having a phone in my pocket whose battery is drained is one thing. Having a dead device on my wrist is another. Unless Apple is under-stating the battery life, I can't see myself getting a first-gen.

You could say the same thing of a "cheap" $35K BMW 320i vs. a hefty priced BMW M3 at $70K, both build on the same chassis, similar interior and exterior. Different guts. Rolex and other high end watch makers have stainless steel models and they have 18K gold and 24K models as well as platinum. Many identical except for the metal and cost of that metal.

Here is the truth: people who spend that kind of a watch do want it to stand out which is why they buy the showy gold model and let the hoi palloi wear the cheap stainless or aluminum model.
 
The gold one is mostly for the vertu type crowd who only want you to be aware that they spent a lot of money on their watch, might as well strap on a wad of cash to your wrist. I'll stick with my Rolex, about 12 years old and just had it appraised for insurance and its doubled in value.
 
Looks like Apple is on the right track with the Watch, because a lot of the moaning and whining in this thread reminds me of the first iPhone reaction threads in 2007.

Heh. You should have been here when the iPod was announced. "The world doesn't need another MP3 player... and who's gonna buy it at $400?"
 
An iPhone 1 NIB is worth thousands of dollars. The value of a Rolex used is, well, do people actually buy used Rolexes? I see a lot for sale in pawn stores and eBay, but do people actually buy them? On eBay, it looks like 95% of the Rolexes don't sell - which to me means there's not really a good secondary market for them, at least at the 4 figure price and up.

You are looking in the wrong place. Serious watch sellers sell their watches on chrono24. 2nd hand Rolexes sell like crazy and in most cases go up in price. So your perception of that market is quite wrong.

I bought a Rolex (Black/Blue GMT Master II) last year for €6200 (which is a steal) through a connection of mine. The jeweller has called me repeatedly to ask me to sell it back for a higher price. He has many people on his waiting list for a 2nd hand Rolex and is unable to fulfil all requests.
 
And WHAT is the difference between the stainless steel 500 bucks and cheapo one for 350 ? JUST the stainless steel ? Only hope to get a year or 2 out of it anyway - so WHY go Stainless ?

Also TAKE MY MONEY - I want one NOW
 
And WHAT is the difference between the stainless steel 500 bucks and cheapo one for 350 ? JUST the stainless steel ? Only hope to get a year or 2 out of it anyway - so WHY go Stainless ?

Also TAKE MY MONEY - I want one NOW

Looks like the only other difference is that the stainless model comes with a stainless strap whereas the sport model comes with a plastic strap. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect additional straps to run $95. So that leaves about a $55 gap between the two models for the upgrade of having all stainless look, if that is what one is going for. (Personally I like the aluminum model, and only the alum. model w/ black band).
 
$500?! For essentially a watch that is going to last a couple of years.. Apple will refresh the watch on an annual basis.
 
And WHAT is the difference between the stainless steel 500 bucks and cheapo one for 350 ? JUST the stainless steel ? Only hope to get a year or 2 out of it anyway - so WHY go Stainless ?

Also TAKE MY MONEY - I want one NOW

I was under the impression the stainless version also had a sapphire face instead of gorilla glass, but I could be wrong.
 
If this pricing strategy is correct, I'm pretty confident Steve Jobs is spinning in his grave over Apple's fascination with fashion.
 
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.

While there will be depreciation, I doubt it will be that much. Even 2 year old iPhones in good condition sell at better than 5% of their original price.
 
Very few people would buy the $4-5K watch other than really rich folks. What it will do however is give the Apple haters something else to latch onto and hate even more.
 
And WHAT is the difference between the stainless steel 500 bucks and cheapo one for 350 ? JUST the stainless steel ? Only hope to get a year or 2 out of it anyway - so WHY go Stainless ?

Also TAKE MY MONEY - I want one NOW

Looks like the only other difference is that the stainless model comes with a stainless strap whereas the sport model comes with a plastic strap. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect additional straps to run $95. So that leaves about a $55 gap between the two models for the upgrade of having all stainless look, if that is what one is going for. (Personally I like the aluminum model, and only the alum. model w/ black band).


The main differences between the the two models are case material (aluminium / stainless steel), crystal (toughened glass / sapphire) and case back (composite / ceramic).

I also think the stainless steel straps will be an upgrade and it will start at $500 with the plastic sport band.
 
Today I learned by reading this thread that apparently people still buy gold Rolex's. I thought that went out with my grandparent's generation. Give me a smart looking leather banded watch.
 
The gold one is mostly for the vertu type crowd who only want you to be aware that they spent a lot of money on their watch, might as well strap on a wad of cash to your wrist. I'll stick with my Rolex, about 12 years old and just had it appraised for insurance and its doubled in value.

Says the one bragging about how much his Rolex is worth. :rolleyes:
 
I understand some people spend 5-10k on fancy watches, and good for them. However, this isn't a fancy watch. This is a micro computing device that will be outdated in a year or two, need a full battery replacement a year after that (and not the button battery kind) and completely obsolete a couple years after that. Spending that amount on this is crazy.

I sure hope Apple has a recycling plan for these. They need a set way to recover that gold.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.