$4-5k for a 1st Gen watch is just ouuuuch....
No, $350 and up for first generation device.
Everyone needs to stop being so hung-up on the top-end. It isn't meant to be affordable or signal the average price of one of these devices.
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
No, $350 and up for first generation device.
Everyone needs to stop being so hung-up on the top-end. It isn't meant to be affordable or signal the average price of one of these devices.
That is very cool. Though a trade in price isn't quite the same thing as getting cash. And those years in 83 had a good amount of inflation and there has generally be huge appreciation in luxury goods in general over the last 30 years. Really all classes of luxury goods have increased in value. But still you make a great point and your experience really supports these watches as having less cost for ownership than their purchase price suggests.
As for the Apple Watch. Version one may not seem compelling. But don't be so sure that your Rolex will compete as well with the Apple watch available in 2020. The functionality may be too compelling at that point to pass up.
That said, I actually think Apple Watch will do better with folks who don't wear watches. It is easier to conquer an unoccupied territory than to displace a strongly occupied territory that already has a GREAT product occupying it. You don't have a free wrist that you aren't currently using for jewelry, status or function. You will be a tough sale (even though I suspect that the cheaper Apple Watches are priced at a level that you personally can just buy on a whim).
By the way, I have a modest Hamilton Viewmatic, which I've had and used daily since 2007 or 2008 (I don't remember exactly). It didn't start out very expensive and I don't expect it has held any significant value. But I think it looks great.
Doesn't really matter people like the first of everything. The orig iPod 5gb in near mint condition are selling for basically double their orig price at around 800.00 to as high as a grand. If I replace my battery in my iPod 30 gb 3rd gen I might get close to what I paid for it. Nowadays folks are buying up their past and will pay good money for mint electronics.
Obviously the gold Apple Watch is only for rich people that can afford to buy a $5000 dollars watch every year without having to resell it. If you are not one of those people then you shouldn't buy one. You'll be better with a Rolex or something like that. I seriously don't get the Apple Watch either, I think this is going to be one big major failure. The Watch is ugly, it doesn't do much by itself, is litterally just an iPhone accesory and is really expensive. There's not a single thing this Apple Watch excels on.
$500!?!?
Seriously??? Why so expensive and what happened to the $400 price tag?
Comparable Android watches can be had for $250 or less. The iPad only controls a premium of about $100 over comparable (and arguably better) tablets from Samsung and Google's manufacturing partners. Hell, it's cheaper than the competitors with some storage configurations! The iPhone is a similar story.
But this watch that may or may not do as much stuff-- it's double the price of a comparable time piece out today.
Seriously??? Why so expensive and what happened to the $400 price tag?
Comparable Android watches can be had for $250 or less. The iPad only controls a premium of about $100 over comparable (and arguably better) tablets from Samsung and Google's manufacturing partners. Hell, it's cheaper than the competitors with some storage configurations! The iPhone is a similar story.
But this watch that may or may not do as much stuff-- it's double the price of a comparable time piece out today.
$5000 for the Gold one. You think they were gonna give you gold for free? Lol.
The aluminium Sport model is still $350. The stainless steel model was always going to cost more due to it's improved materials.
Oh of course you are right about that. That was not what I was disputing. Watches have not become much more accurate, although they have become more accurate in keeping current. What I mean by this for a lack of better words is that there are now watches that will remain on time for decades even hundreds of years, even taking into account DST and the extra day every four years.
The progress in watches mostly has to do with the addition of functionality such as the flyback mechanism in chronometers (basically the "lap" button in digital watches), more information, more accurate sub second chronometer measurement and independence of gravity through multiple axis tourbillion etc.
It has never been about aiming for a similar accuracy as quartz crystal movements.
Don't know who's going to pay this much money for something that will need to be upgraded every couple of years. I smell a flop.
Gold is not for everyone...
In this day of painted gold jewelry, people seem to forget what a REAL gold timepiece is worth. For those that must have gold, the Apple watch doesn't strike me as an investment device. It's 100% vanity and very little else. So folks need to shut up and stop whining about something they can't afford. If you can afford, cool.
In this day of painted gold jewelry, people seem to forget what a REAL gold timepiece is worth. For those that must have gold, the Apple watch doesn't strike me as an investment device. It's 100% vanity and very little else. So folks need to shut up and stop whining about something they can't afford. If you can afford, cool.
I'm guessing the watch will be upgradeable
Some thoughts on the watch's upgradeability, profitability, and why the watch might be the ultimate integration master stroke by Apple:
http://idlebandwidth.com/2014/10/18/apple-watch-the-ultimate-integration-play/
Some thoughts on the watch's upgradeability, profitability, and why the watch might be the ultimate integration master stroke by Apple:
http://idlebandwidth.com/2014/10/18/apple-watch-the-ultimate-integration-play/
We can keep trying, but I'm not sure it is going to stick.
The title of this story/discussion is part of the problem. While "Apple Watch" is the name of the specific line of models they're discussing, it is also the generic name for the product line as a whole. People are seeing "Apple Watch Pricing to Reportedly Start at $500" and flipping out.
This is partly Apple's fault for how they have named the lines.
I generally do bring my phone. Not always, but often. That said, since I already HAVE my phone, why do I need the watch? There's no compelling reason to spend $350+ just to have notifications on my wrist. I appreciate their strategy. I just think it's foolish. I think Tim and Jony are desperate to silence the nay-sayers once and for all. They've made a big point about how this was created post-Steve. That's what this is all about. We can innovate without Steve! Trouble is, the watch isn't particularly innovative at all. It's beautiful, but there's nothing compelling about the feature set. It will appeal to a select group of Apple diehards, but I think the audience is very, very small and certainly not sizable enough to make it a success.
Are you kidding?
Have you been to Dubai? Try Russia too. Try China. Don't underestimate the demand for tasteless.
Have you been to Dubai? Try Russia too. Try China. Don't underestimate the demand for tasteless.
I think the folks who are here saying that those who can afford $4k for an apple watch will just drop the $4k again in a couple years are grossly over assuming. Apple doesn't design devices tailored for Paris Hilton. The people that most of you consider "rich" are still not in a position where they can justifiably drop $4k on a novelty product, at keast not in any form of consistency that would make it make sense for apple to make product for this demographic. My gut is telling me they'll roll out a trade in to reclaim precious metals or something like that.
Last edited:
I can afford it but I really don't think it's a smart move to buy one knowing it would be oudated next year. I'll rather buya $20,000 rolex.
Where on Earth have you seen a 5GB iPod for a grand? I found one eBay just now with 4 bids for $151:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-20...1376?pt=Other_MP3_Players&hash=item20ef651030
There's a factory sealed, brand new one for $700:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/FACTORY-SEA...1060?pt=Other_MP3_Players&hash=item2a31786864
I think you're way overestimating the value of an original iPod. The Apple Watch won't do any better in terms of appreciating in value. Someone else mentioned the 20th Anniversary Mac, suggesting the Apple Watch will be a "collector's item" like the Mac. Trouble is, the Mac isn't a collector's item. You can now buy the $7500 20th Anniversary Mac for as little as $1500 on eBay.
Yes, Apple products hold value better than other products, but ultimately everyone wants new and better. If you're buying an Apple Watch because you think it will appreciate in value substantially over the coming years, I suggest you talk to a competent financial planner instead and do something productive with your money.
Last edited:
If I get an
watch it won't be for just those reasons. If you think those are the only functions that would make the Watch attractive, you are not a very observant person.When the
Watch is closer to release, and its capabilities/limitations/pricing are more clear, I'll make my decision. It will be based on ALL the capabilities (not on any subset that you can come up with), and how I think they will fit into my life.
I wouldn't say that is what this is all about. It is about expanding their business and offering a new product line in a developing space.
The optics regarding when the project was started and making it a success without their former leader are important, but not a reason to dump the amount of time and resources into this product that they have.
All of your other thoughts on the utility of the device are valid. We'll see how it all pans out in a few months/years.
Now you're on record. You have to buy the rolex. I have better things to do with my $20,000.
That's not anywhere close to "near mint" in the first link. Second link is about what the guy oosted (and that's a fifth gen not first). I don't see a problem here.
I think this is the first time ever that a new Apple product dissapoints since Steve Jobs came back. I would count the iPhone 6 too but that's not a new line.
So you can buy about 5 Apple Watches or one "real" Rolex.
Should be enough Apple Watches to never feel "dated".