Apple Watch Pricing to Reportedly Start at $500 for Stainless Steel, $4,000 for Gold

[ChrisCW11]

Get real

I mean Apple tax aside, unless the watch is solid gold there is no reason for it to sell this much. I am sure there is not going to be more than 1 oz of gold involved and even 1 oz of solid gold is only around $1000 US.

Taking $100 worth of electronics and wrapping it in a $3900 - $4900 package is excessive even by Apple standards.

But no doubt there will be numerous hipsters lining up to get their $5000 gold iWatch on the day it is released, so what do I know. The reason I am not a billionaire is because I don't have the will or conviction to want to rip people off. Apple knows a sucker is born every minute, cha ching!

 

[gnasher729]

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!

When you buy a watch, the idea isn't that you sell it again later. People only sell their watches if they run into financial difficulties, or their heirs might sell them when they die. I don't expect the first to happen, and I don't care about the second.

When I buy a watch I buy it to wear it. Any scratches just give it character. The only piece were scratches are a problem is the glass, and sapphire crystal, from personal experience, stays scratch free for many, many years.

 

[Tech198]

That's allot of money, even for me...


Why the big difference ??

For $4,000, it better be fashionable...

 

[Jimmy James]

I'm not going to pay that much for a piece of secondary disposable tech.

 

[Andrei90]

I was talking about the $500 one. The gold I can understand.

My apologies, I read $5000. I don't remember a $400 price tag for the stainless steel watch, they only said "starting at $350" and I guess we can all assume that's for the sport watch.

 

[gnasher729]

I mean Apple tax aside, unless the watch is solid gold there is no reason for it to sell this much. I am sure there is not going to be more than 1 oz of gold involved and even 1 oz of solid gold is only around $1000 US.

Taking $100 worth of electronics and wrapping it in a $3900 - $4900 package is excessive even by Apple standards.

But no doubt there will be numerous hipsters lining up to get their $5000 gold iWatch on the day it is released, so what do I know. The reason I am not a billionaire is because I don't have the will or conviction to want to rip people off. Apple knows a sucker is born every minute, cha ching!

It _is_ solid gold. And how much do you think do you pay for _any_ jewellery that contains $1,000 worth of solid gold? Don't worry, there will be buyers.

 

[robbyx]

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.

And what capabilities do you think this miracle watch will have? Come on, be realistic. It's an overpriced accessory for your iPhone. If you want to pay $350 to get notifications on your wrist, go for it. But you're going to be the minority. There are only so many possible things it can do given the state of technology today. And how do I know this? Because I *AM* a very observant person, unlike many people on here with their fantasy ideas about what the wonder watch will do.

 

[gnasher729]

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?"

One group was people wanting a 1.8" hard drive to put in their camera. The iPod cost the same as the hard drive from Toshiba, except that Toshiba had none left to sell.

 

[robbyx]

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.

My apologies. You are correct. I read that wrong. But I'm still curious, where have you seen a near mint original iPod for $1000? I'm sure if you buy an Apple Watch, never open it, and sell it in 15 years, you can probably double your money. Or you could invest that money in any number of different ways to yield a far greater return. Who do you think made more money, the guy who bought a first generation iPod and now sold if for double what he paid, or the gal who bought $400 worth of Apple stock 15 years ago? Collectible consumer goods are anything buy a sound investment strategy.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

So I'm not sure you can yet, at this point draw any comparisons from how long many keep other Apple products that have gone thru many years of improvements.

Yes, I see your point. But Apple has created a lot of non-traditional early adopters who because they are not "text book" will buy gen 1 and then wait for gen 3 or later. They spend $$ upfront and then are happy with what they have or they are the type that keeps a product until it dies or is no longer supported.

Traditional early adopters understand what they are signing up for and eagerly dump last years product for this years.

Yeah, a hybrid sport + activity + daily use watch WITHOUT GPS. What's the point? If I have to carry my iPhone anyway to track my run or hike, why do I even need the watch? Sorry, I don't get it. It's a grossly overpriced notification screen for your wrist with a bit of biometric tracking thrown in for good measure. Not compelling at all.

But that's you. GPS running/walking/cycling apps are already very popular. The competition on the App Store is fierce because its such a robust market. A lot of people do exercise w/ phone in-hand, or pocket, or arm. My Garmin FR620 has a "live tracking" feature that only works if I have my phone with me.

I'm not sure how you can say the watch is "grossly overpriced," at $350. Except for not having GPS it has the potential to do a lot more than almost any other sport watch or activity tracker on the market. It may not be a perfect product, but what product exists that works for everyone? But that's a different topic.

 

[GizmoDVD]

I'll take the $500 one. It'll probably work, unlike the Pebble.

 

[Tech198]

lol..

All Apple needs now is a monocle :

http://m5.paperblog.com/i/80/805796/the-worlds-top-10-best-images-of-dogs-wearing-L-6HiVLp.jpeg

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110120224435/uncyclopedia/images/f/f0/Bowler_hat_and_monocle.jpg

 

[ZCT]

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.

The iPhone 6 has received glowing reviews, and has told tens of millions of units. How is that disappointing?

 

[NY Guitarist]

It's an overpriced accessory for your iPhone. If you want to pay $350 to get notifications on your wrist, go for it.

Or you could buy Beats headphones for about the same money.

 

[Traverse]

I'm not going to pay $4,000 for a watch that will be obsolete in a year!!

 

[Andrei90]

Yes, I see your point. But Apple has created a lot of non-traditional early adopters who because they are not "text book" will buy gen 1 and then wait for gen 3 or later. They spend $$ upfront and then are happy with what they have or they are the type that keeps a product until it dies or is no longer supported.

Traditional early adopters understand what they are signing up for and eagerly dump last years product for this years.




But that's you. GPS running/walking/cycling apps are already very popular. The competition on the App Store is fierce because its such a robust market. A lot of people do exercise w/ phone in-hand, or pocket, or arm. My Garmin FR620 has a "live tracking" feature that only works if I have my phone with me.

I'm not sure how you can say the watch is "grossly overpriced," at $350. Except for not having GPS it has the potential to do a lot more than almost any other sport watch or activity tracker on the market. It may not be a perfect product, but what product exists that works for everyone? But that's a different topic.

Microsoft Band has GPS and it's a lot cheaper. Apple Watch is DOA and not because of microsoft but because every competitor out there has better products.

 

[Tech198]

I wouldn't mind paying this much for gold if i had to for a primary machine like the Mac Pro, but definitely not as a addition just for

That's a hefty price tag just for convenience.

 

[Sirious]

No way will Apple price the Apple Watch at these prices.
I am 100% sure that this source is just making things up and it will be very affordable! Possibly £279- £399.

 

[cmichaelb]

Steve would never have let 3 versions that have no functional difference other than a "trim" level make it to market. Steve's version of an Apple product was a single form that offered the best quality, function and experience to as many people as possible. Apple used to pride itself on making one thing that was the best that it could be and overall gave the best user experience.

If this was a Steve product, there would be one trim of watch in the two sizes with the different band options. The design and interface would have been much more refined and the true innovative parts would be much more up played. My goodness, Apple created a new type of aluminum for the sport watch and it is hardly mentioned. There is a brand new UI and UX that has the potential to set the bar for every wearable product that comes after it. Instead, the only piece of prevalent marketing Apple seems to have out the is "Hey everybody, we're making a watch! Look how cool it is."

Then why did the iPod mini and nano's come in multiple colors? Not to mention the original iMacs.

Also, I think they will play up the innovation more the closer to launch. No need to show all your cards just yet.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

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.... 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.

But that's not the headline. The headline is [bold for emphasis]:

"Apple Watch Pricing to Reportedly Start at $500 for Stainless Steel, $4,000 for Gold"

For anyone who can read they understand that only the stainless steel model is rumored to be $500. Of course there are a lot of knee-jerk posters around here that really just are happy to be mad. I wouldn't confuse them with actual Apple customers. Most people are not paying much attention to the watch right now. Too soon. There's all the fall and winter holidays to get through (and pay for).

 

[cube]

I'm sure it will be unique and functional, but not sure it will last.

What is unique? It is a mass produced gadget.

 

[robbyx]

But that's you. GPS running/walking/cycling apps are already very popular. The competition on the App Store is fierce because its such a robust market. A lot of people do exercise w/ phone in-hand, or pocket, or arm. My Garmin FR620 has a "live tracking" feature that only works if I have my phone with me.

I'm not sure how you can say the watch is "grossly overpriced," at $350. Except for not having GPS it has the potential to do a lot more than almost any other sport watch or activity tracker on the market. It may not be a perfect product, but what product exists that works for everyone? But that's a different topic.

It's grossly overpriced compared to the competition. It may not be grossly overpriced in your mind and I respect that. To me it is. I'm curious, though, how does this watch have "the potential to do more than almost any other sport watch or activity tracker on the market"? Upon what do you base that assertion? Don't get me wrong, I love Apple. I've been a customer for 32 years. I have bought a lot of Apple products. I make my living using Apple products. But I see nothing particularly compelling about the watch. It's a very limited form factor that requires an iPhone to be at all useful. Sorry, but I don't see the point.

 

[Taipan]

The price for the gold one doesn't bother me as much as the price for the steel one. I don't want aluminum, and 500+ is too much.This means I'm out.

 

[Mascots]

For the first generation, I'll go the cheapest (or close to cheapest) version.

However, that'll change in successive generations. As the quality of the overall device improves, I'll be willing to spend more.

 

[Patriot24]

But that's not the headline. The headline is [bold for emphasis]:

"Apple Watch Pricing to Reportedly Start at $500 for Stainless Steel, $4,000 for Gold"

For anyone who can read they understand that only the stainless steel model is rumored to be $500. Of course there are a lot of knee-jerk posters around here that really just are happy to be mad. I wouldn't confuse them with actual Apple customers. Most people are not paying much attention to the watch right now. Too soon. There's all the fall and winter holidays to get through (and pay for).

Reading through his thread, it is clear that most people have not read the headline in its entirety.

I agree with you about people "being happy to be mad".