stainless steel and sapphire crystal and a leather strap.
leather straps typically cost between $100 to $500 from watch companies.
sapphire crystals cost around $50 to $200+ to replace.
It's not crazy.
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
stainless steel and sapphire crystal and a leather strap.
leather straps typically cost between $100 to $500 from watch companies.
sapphire crystals cost around $50 to $200+ to replace.
It's not crazy.
Back then, the mp3 player market was far from mature (I know, I used to own one of the first Creative Jukebox - 6 alkaline batteries than barely lasted a day, 700g, huge). The iPod back then was a real innovation. Moreover, it was pretty cheap compared to the competition - I know that at some point it was even worth it to buy then just to extract the hard drive.
The problem here is that the watch market is both mature and moribond...
Interesting timing, I'm wearing a 1951 Rolex Oyster Perpetual that was handed down to me from my grandfather. I wonder how many Apple Watches will be running in 60 years.
I'm really torn between the sport and stainless steel model. I like the dark version of both, but want to see what the sport with metal bands looks like.
----------
I'm sure no one said that when the iPhone was announced.
----------
I'm sure no one said that when the iPhone was announced.
I think you are totally wrong.
There are a lot of very smart people at Apple, and I don't think they would have put this much time and effort into creating a product that no one will buy.
If you recall everyone mocked Steve Jobs when he announced the iPad. Who would want one of those they asked?
Also, if there is one thing obvious about Apple, it's that people ARE willing to pay extra for their products. They have proved this over and over.
Finally, even nicer low end watches cost more than $349. This one promises to have a computer, a screen, and the ability to tell time more accurately than any Rolex, Patek Philippe, Omega, or Piaget ever made.
For me, a frequent business traveller, I would be quite pleased to have a super accurate watch that can automatically flip time zones wherever I happen to land.
Thats absolutely RIDICULOUS!!! Anyone buying that gold apple watch for $5000 is an enormous idiot and Apple is really pushing it this time!
Lets not forget, its a piece of high technology and with all the technology out their, it never holds its value over time. Also, it is a piece that you wear on you most of the time WITHOUT a case to protect it from possible damage, scratches and wear & tear over time.
So don't expect to get a good price on the second hand market after a while!
Another point, as with all first gen apple products, they are not perfect and I would wait for the second gen to come out.
The only way apple can make sure it hold its value over time, is to make it a sort of limited edition (produce only 5000 watches or so)
Now to the most ridiculous point... The price... At this price point you can have fantastic fully automatic mechanical watches from swiss watch makers that will hold its value even beyond your life and are timeless in design and function.
Here some examples of watches that I would buy before even considering an apple watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wULthj1mCps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOv2gsVVbnM
Omega Speedmaster
and others come to mind... You can even get a Breitling or Rolex at these prices
Absolutely laughable apple, I just hope that your customers have some common sense and don't just buy these watches blindly that you need to charge every day!
Oh by the way, for 5 grand, I can buy 4-5 ounces of pure gold, I think in the long term I'm better off with that
PS: Before I forget, the apple watch is just an accessory for your iPhone *facepalm*
Lets not forget, its a piece of high technology and with all the technology out their, it never holds its value over time. Also, it is a piece that you wear on you most of the time WITHOUT a case to protect it from possible damage, scratches and wear & tear over time.
So don't expect to get a good price on the second hand market after a while!
Another point, as with all first gen apple products, they are not perfect and I would wait for the second gen to come out.
The only way apple can make sure it hold its value over time, is to make it a sort of limited edition (produce only 5000 watches or so)
Now to the most ridiculous point... The price... At this price point you can have fantastic fully automatic mechanical watches from swiss watch makers that will hold its value even beyond your life and are timeless in design and function.
Here some examples of watches that I would buy before even considering an apple watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wULthj1mCps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOv2gsVVbnM
Omega Speedmaster
and others come to mind... You can even get a Breitling or Rolex at these prices
Absolutely laughable apple, I just hope that your customers have some common sense and don't just buy these watches blindly that you need to charge every day!
Oh by the way, for 5 grand, I can buy 4-5 ounces of pure gold, I think in the long term I'm better off with that
PS: Before I forget, the apple watch is just an accessory for your iPhone *facepalm*
I don't disagree that it will sell. However I do question how many people actually want a watch that is a computer at certain price points. I think the $350 model will sell decently. Those that would spend 5K on a watch (to me) are more likely to buy something more classic regardless of how fashionable the Apple Watch looks like.
At least that has been my loose research based on the watch aficionados I know
It doesn't concern me as I have zero interest in a smart watch (and in watches in general) and this isn't even remotely within my means anyway.
I'm sure there's a market for this, Apple has already started to position it as a luxury fashion accessory, where prices are high and "irrelevant".
I sure as hell wouldn't consider an Apple watch if I had $5k to spend on a watch, though.
I'm sure there's a market for this, Apple has already started to position it as a luxury fashion accessory, where prices are high and "irrelevant".
I sure as hell wouldn't consider an Apple watch if I had $5k to spend on a watch, though.
Will Samsung be able to muscle into this market too ? Or will it just be Apple alone from the Tech companies offering watches over 1000 pounds ?
I also wonder how many Rolex's will be around in 60 years time. Pretty sure watch technology would have moved on so much in that period of time, most people will be using it in some form or other...
No. You are dead wrong. Go back to the archives here if they go back that far and read all the negative iPod comments. I was around here and vividly remember the conversation. People here were viciously mocking the iPod. Few saw it as a technological breakthrough or something the market was demanding. And the $400 price tag was well more than the average price of a MP3 player like the popular RIO. Of course the average MP3 player couldn't fit 5,000 songs.
I agree the watch market is mature and moribund. But that's not the market Apple is going after. The Apple Watch is no more just a watch than the iPod was just another MP3 player.
For all it's flaws the Apple Watch seeks to reintroduce the concept of having a slab of data on one's wrist to a generation who previously rejected it. It's Watch 2.0. A Rolex, a Casio, a CITIZEN, and other traditional watches, do not converse with your phone; have the ability to accept apps and give you information of all sorts, not just time and date, and if its a chronograph, timing info.
What Apple is attempting to do here is reinvent the watch market just as it did with portable music. So, yes, there is a direct comparison between the iPod and Apple Watch.
Apples and Oranges.
Even a brand new COSC certified Rolex can lose or gain seconds every day and still be within spec.
The fact is, your watch can only tell time, and not very well. So it's more of a sentimental fashion statement at this time. Plus I suspect each time you have it serviced, you spend more than you would to buy an Apple Watch.
But this Apple Watch isn't trying to be what your Rolex is. It's a fitness bracelet, computer, communicator, and on top of all that it can tell better time than any mechanical watch on the planet.
So on the one hand, you really can't compare them, because the functionality is different. However, if you do just compare the only thing your watch can do, the Apple Watch can in fact tell time better.
What you are left with is the reality that what you are wearing is piece of jewelry that means something to you. And you are comparing that to wearable computer.
Finally, if you purchased a Rolex Oyster Perpetual today (because obviously, you're the only one here who was gifted your grandfathers watch) it would cost eight thousand dollars; quite different from the $500 for the stainless Apple Watch.
Most people can't justify spending $8K on a watch that tells the time inaccurately.
Don't get me wrong, I have a lovely mechanical and inaccurate watch of my own that I do love, and I expect it to outlast any Apple Watch. So I get why you like a mechanical watch. It just isn't the same thing as an Apple Watch, nor is it trying to be.
Well the point is that you dont want to pay 4000 each year for a watch. Where is your fisrt gen iPhone? Yep, in the garbage or broken or forgotten somewhere.
This is another market. We have to wait and see, but the prices for something that is not subsidized and will likely be replaced each year or two by a new version seem high.
Also, let me remind you that Apple has failed many times... not with the same fanfare they have succeeded.
I don't think they have the engineering prowess to do this. I have a suspicion that some of their best engineers are not there anymore, for reasons that are only speculative.
Oh gosh I hope not. In good condition with original box it's quite the collector's item and worth good money. Unopened ones go for even bigger bucks. I suspect an original high end Apple Watch will become a collectors item because even fewer of those will be bought than original $500 iPhones.
Well in fairness, mechanical watches have not changed a lot in the last 60 years.
The problem though is that fashion and style changes.
The first nice watch I bought was a Tag Heuer s/el (now known as Link). Even though it was a mens watch, it was probably only 38-40mm in size, which by today's standards with the trend toward larger watches almost looks like a lady's watch today.
If you look at older Rolex watches from 20-30 years ago, the reality is they do look pretty dated, and their small size is out of step with modern looks.
They are going to lose or gain several seconds a day, since mechanical watches are never going to be as accurate as a watch that can pull time from an atomic clock. And every few years, you will need to send it in for servicing, something that can easily cost over a grand.
So all you are left with is a dated fashion statement.
I enjoy my Omega Planet Ocean 45.5mm watch a lot. But do I believe that in 20 years, it's necessarily what I want to be wearing? Probably not, who knows. And it's for that reason I don't buy the argument that if I buy a Rolex for $10K today I can give it to my grand children. Who knows what they will want to put on their wrists in 60 years?
I think the whole passing a timepiece on to grand children is some BS marketing fluff designed to make $10K seem like a reasonable investment for a watch that's not even that good at telling the time.
It takes more than just a nano SIM slot, it takes a full working 4G LTE Radio, and the battery capacity to power such a system for more than a day. I don't think Apple could do this, and keep the watch the size/weight they wanted by supplying it with sufficiently more battery power to power the standalone radio systems. You would need something about half the size of an iPhone to do that.
The question ought not to be whether the gold Apple Watch is "worth" $4k or not "worth" $4k based on the gold.
Yes, gold is freaking expensive... Yes, they priced it to be comparable to other wristwatches and smart watches that would contain that volume of 18k gold.
Watches are an interesting market... Patek Philippe's Grande Complication runs about $750,000 and does less than an Apple Watch.
The question is simply whether or not the product, rightly or wrongly priced, has a market.... will people buy a $4000 Apple Watch?
How many wanted to buy a $10,000 Lisa even though it was quite unique for its time?
Yes, gold is freaking expensive... Yes, they priced it to be comparable to other wristwatches and smart watches that would contain that volume of 18k gold.
Watches are an interesting market... Patek Philippe's Grande Complication runs about $750,000 and does less than an Apple Watch.
The question is simply whether or not the product, rightly or wrongly priced, has a market.... will people buy a $4000 Apple Watch?
How many wanted to buy a $10,000 Lisa even though it was quite unique for its time?
Good luck everyone who will get 4K "Beta" version of that watch. You will not regret to have that as it will have retro value after iWatch 3 is released.
18months after the release you can pick those $500 for $80 but who would buy it with outdated OS.
Gold one will have value of it's weight in gold and no more.
18months after the release you can pick those $500 for $80 but who would buy it with outdated OS.
Gold one will have value of it's weight in gold and no more.
I would not even pay $4000 for a watch that would last me a lifetime. But there are people who do. So let's wait and see. I am not sure if people are missing the obvious: The $4000 gold option is not meant for the mass market.
And I have no clue where the idea comes from that people will upgrade this each year. Yes, I know, there are people who upgrade their iPhone every year, because their old iPhone magically stops working when a new one is released (or something like that), so these people will have to upgrade also the Watch each year. I'm not one of them. I still use an iPad 3.
In near-daily use. Not by me, but I don't throw a device that expensive in the garbage. But someone who does certainly won't have a problem with upgrading the Watch quite often.
Well, let's see when the Apple police stops people on the street, forcing them to buy a new Apple Watch after a year.
Yes. But my experience is that they usually succeed with the products that get the most "Too expensive/nobody needs this/I will never buy this" comments at the beginning. iPod. iPhone. iPad. Now Apple Watch.