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

[Avatar74]

Hey, I really like my Rolex Sub paperweight! And if Hell freezes over, I can rtake my 10 year old paperweight down to the local jewelry store and sell it for much more than I paid for it. It would be interesting to have this conversation 10 years from now and see what a 10 year old Apple Watch is selling for....

Don't forget to include all the work you had to pay for to keep it in top condition to get top dollar at auction....

There's no such thing as a free lunch, my friend. I have a 20 year old Rolex GMT Master II and is it worth more? Yes. But I'm not fool enough to declare that it was some shrewd investment. It was me being a bit foolish with my money when I was younger.

I'm very honest with myself about that. These days I'm a shrewd investor and finance analyst.

 

[OllyW]

That's news to me. From Apple's Apple Watch page:



That marketing blurb implies the stainless steel watch comes standard with a choice of plastic, leather, SS. Now it may be that the one w/ sport band is $500 and the others are more. So perhaps I am inferring too much at this point.

I can't see the leather and stainless straps being offered at the same entry level price as the basic plastic bands. This is Apple we're talking about and they do love to tempt us with upgrades.

 

[doelcm82]

Actually, thats a serious issue. Rado/Rolex hold cost for ever. Cant imagine the cost of Apple Watch 3 yrs down the line. I don't think they should release new model every year, that would further push the cost down of the older watch.

The gold Watch will never be worth less than the gold in it. I personally wouldn't buy the gold version because I'm more interested in the utility than the fashion or "investment".

 

[MH01]

I got a Rolex that doubles as a fancy paperweight.

What the brandsters are missing out of this is that Rolex, Tag, etc. are all perfect examples of how you can convince people to pay loads of money for something that isn't actually worth it in parts and labor...

i.e. BRAND. And as brands go, Apple is the #1 admired brand in the world by measure of several surveys. So, they have a better chance of finding a market for that $4k watch.

Also, not sure where these fellas got their Rolexes but .... Rolex doesn't make a gold watch at $4k, haven't for years. Even the steel entry level Air King is now over $5k new.

Two tone GMT Master II? $10k

18k GMT Master II? $30k

Feel free to build your own mechanical watch!

Just a quick question, have you ever looked inside a watch and seen how complex the movement is?

You are trying to compare a complex in house mechanical movement of a Rolex to a cheap circuitboard in an Apple watch, and justify it with the metal the watch is made of

If you knew anything about Rolex's you would realize that the stainless steel ones are most desired. Try to find a Rolex SS daytona is a shop..... its a cheap one, should be easy right???

Your Rolex paperweight will appreciate in value, while your Apple paperweight will depreciate at a rapid rate each time the model is replaced by a new one.

Not to mention, you cannot allow water on an apple watch.....what a joke, while rolex has a diving watch good for 3900m, I think Rolex knows a hell of a lot about watches mate

No offence, but you really have no idea what you are talking about. Your opening remark about your rolex being a paperweight, clearly demonstrates that. I guess its just a brand for you, and your do not appreciate what a good swiss mechanical watch really is.....

 

[Chupa Chupa]

For this to be successful, Apple has to sell A LOT of them. Far more than your average sport watch probably sells. I don't think that kind of market exists. Do you have to charge your FR 620 every night too? I'll admit, I'm not a big watch guy, but I took a quick look at Polar's site and I can get a sport watch WITH GPS for $250. So yeah, the Apple Watch without GPS that requires nightly charging and is dependent upon an iPhone in order to be remotely useful DOES seem overpriced compared to the competition in my mind. And I'd bet most of those sport watches are waterproof too...

I do put my FR620 back on the charger after each run. GPS is only rated at 8 hours so if I don't I risk the watch being dead next run.

But I think the key here is your admission that you are not a "big watch guy," so not really familiar with the wide array of GPS watches. (Which is funny because you keep hammering GPS when you aren't even aware of what all the other functions watches can do).

Yes, there are lots of GPS watches around and many are not expensive. But just like any other products, specs don't tell the whole story. Take the FR220 immediately below the FR 620. It has GPS and is $150 less. For that it removes sweat resistant screen, ability to read data from advanced HRM, USB and Wifi.

So comparing the Apple Watch which, via apps, has the ability to do everything an advanced watch like the FR620 does and more to a low end watch isn't really an Apples to Apples comparison. The functionality just isn't on the same level.
It's like saying BMWs are overpriced because a Ford Fiesta is $8000 and has an engine, four wheels, and transmission.

 

[MH01]

Don't forget to include all the work you had to pay for to keep it in top condition to get top dollar at auction....

There's no such thing as a free lunch, my friend. I have a 20 year old Rolex GMT Master II and is it worth more? Yes. But I'm not fool enough to declare that it was some shrewd investment. It was me being a bit foolish with my money when I was younger.

I'm very honest with myself about that. These days I'm a shrewd investor and finance analyst.

Using that logic, an Apple watch is a stupid investment. Unlike your Rolex, it will be worth nothing in 20 years, well to be honest, it will not even work after around 3-5 years cause the battery will go, or be a the point where you will have to charge it multiple times a day.

 

[mdelvecchio]

how is it none of the "most popular" comments can't conceive of the AW being modular when it comes to upgrades -- swapping out the system on a chip (and battery) every couple years.

and the primary cost of the gold model is the....gold. you can resell gold. duh.

 

[Dekema2]

Not even close to what Apple stuff used to cost. In 1983 I purchased two Apple III computers (512K memory) for my business at $8,400 each (that's over $20,000 each in today's dollars). The cost of Apple iPads, iPhones, and Watches is chump change for what you get.

That's incredible! Why did they cost so much?

 

[0ng0n]

Gain Value

Anyone realize how first generation Apple items have started gaining value? I think this could be the same case. Instead of dropping in value, 5 years from now people will say, "whoa! you have the first edition Apple Watch?"

 

[leenak]

Can we all just agree that gold isn't the most flattering color?

 

[Wheeler.Jeff]

There is only one reason why people buy expensive traditional watches- they are status symbols. Wearing one says "I can afford this".

Now what makes a bigger status statement- I can afford a 5k traditional watch- or I can afford a 5k Apple Watch that will be obsolete in a year or two?

It might make a lot of people sick, but there are plenty of people out there that can and will throw away 5k for something that makes such a statement about their financial security.

However- I believe they will be upgradable, and every year the new models will not be just internal upgrades but also external redesigns. Apple apparently understands the watch market and bringing out the same designs with upgraded internals will not spur yearly repeat buyers- different styles and upgradability will.

I know that last part sounds very un-apple like- but fashion is a different arena. You don't need 2 iPhones for yourself. People will want multiple watches, but only if they are different styles.

I'd be happy to pay $2500+ for the stainless model so pretty shocked at $500. Wouldn't be surprised if this RUMOR is wrong and the middle tier pricing is higher.

 

[mr.steevo]

Using that logic, an Apple watch is a stupid investment. Unlike your Rolex, it will be worth nothing in 20 years, well to be honest, it will not even work after around 3-5 years cause the battery will go, or be a the point where you will have to charge it multiple times a day.

My assumption is the Apple Watch will be serviceable just like a typical watch. You get the battery changed on a Timex so why not have that option on this watch? What is compelling is the idea that the S1 processor can be removed and replaced with whatever the latest version is available. If Apple can keep the processor shape the same and just shrink and add functions then the watch will be useful for far longer than 3-5 years.

...but I'm still not buying one.

 

[doelcm82]

A fool and his $$$ are soon parted.

Fools rush in and get the best seats.

 

[Keirasplace]

$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.

Only "screwed" if you wiped in out the day before through use. It could probably last the next day even if it starts off at 25% with light use.

From Apple's own description, there will be a healthy secondary market for the bands and you have a choice of bands when you buy the watch. They are easily swappable and I'd expect people to own several.

----------

That's incredible! Why did they cost so much?

Computers cost a lot back then, an IBM PC AT and peripherals cost $4000 ($8000 now) in 1987 and that was certainly not a highest level computer. And yes, normal people bought them. A commodore 64 plugged to their monitor and disquette drive cost $1200 in 1983 ($3000 nowadays) and people bought a boatload of them. That's why I laugh when people tell me a $350 dollars computer on your wrist or a $700 super computer in your bag is "expensive"... So funny!

For the price of my C64 setup I could buy now, an Ipad, an Iphone, and Apple TV, an Apple Watch all maxed out in memory.

 

[detayls]

Why do people assume obsolescence?

I have no inside information but I cannot believe that Apple would sell a really expensive watch with no plan for upgrades of both innards and battery.

To people who say $4,000 is too expensive, I say you have not thought this through. Clearly this is a new market for Apple and if I were Rolex right now I would be trembling deep in my soul.

 

[Avatar74]

No offence, but you really have no idea what you are talking about. Your opening remark about your rolex being a paperweight, clearly demonstrates that. I guess its just a brand for you, and your do not appreciate what a good swiss mechanical watch really is.....

Just off the top of my head....

My GMT Master II, made of 904L steel and 18K gold, with a synthetic sapphire crystal, has the 16713 self-winding mechanical movement registered to Montres Rolex S.A. It has roughly 200 moving parts and 31 jewels in its movement.

It is certified by the Controle Officiel Suisse des Chronometres (COSC) as a Superlative Chronometer. This means that the movement is accurate to within -4/+6 seconds per day accuracy.

This particular model has been timed by Certified Rolex Technicians using a Witschi Watch Expert watch timer to within +/- 1-2 seconds per day, rather accurate for a mechanical timepiece yet completely inferior to every "cheap circuitboard" out there that contains millions of electronic parts in a space smaller than a thumbnail.

It was last serviced in 2007, requiring replacement of the mainspring and the escape wheel. Less expensive movements use metals other than brass but brass is used in mechanical watches because it can't be magnetized. The downside to this is that the parts are delicate.

As mechanical wristwatches go, it is nowhere near the level of complexity of the Patek Philippe Grande Complication which has over 24 complications and generally retails around three quarters of a million dollars. It is also bulky when compared to the Concord Delirium IV, the thinnest wristwatch ever made at 1.98mm.

It's also not as sturdy as the 11671 movement, which now features a ceramic bezel and solid center links in the Oyster Bracelet.

As far as Rolex's exploits undersea, I am well aware that in 1960 Jacques Piccard had a specially designed Rolex attached to his bathyscaphe Trieste when he descended the Challenger Deep to a record depth of 10,911 meters.

I'm well versed in the history of Rolex since one of my market research presentations 20+ years ago in college was on Rolex S.A. The founder of Rolex (an entirely made up name that is said to have come from a rearrangement of letters in the phrase "horlogerie d'exquise"), Hans Wilsdorf, started his career as a train engineer who bought and sold watches for train conductors.... eventually he founded the company that would make the first reasonably sized timepiece to wear on a wrist, and the first waterproof watch, the oyster.

Did you know, by the way, that Rolex is owned by a non-profit, the Hans Wilsdorf Trust, that their net proceeds after expenses help fund scholarships and that as part of the company charter, Rolex can never be bought or sold away from the ownership of the Wilsdorf Trust?

Cheers.

 

[Apple fanboy]

For £150 I might have been tempted. For these prices, I don't see the function just yet.

 

[doelcm82]

Can we all just agree that gold isn't the most flattering color?

Some of us can agree with that statement. However all of us can't agree on anything.

 

[Avatar74]

Using that logic, an Apple watch is a stupid investment. Unlike your Rolex, it will be worth nothing in 20 years, well to be honest, it will not even work after around 3-5 years cause the battery will go, or be a the point where you will have to charge it multiple times a day.

A watch isn't an investment. Even a one-of-a-kind isn't really an investment, not by Benjamin Graham's definition of what an investment is.

"A watch is an investment" is the sort of thing a salesperson tells to a fool with more money than brains.... to coax his ego into convincing him to buy the watch for the wrong reasons. It's all the same to the salesperson.

 

[DynaFXD]

Apple alwasy screw over early adopters.
2) the first iPad barely survived one iOS software revision becoming obsolete in just over a year.

Our iPad still gets regular use as a Network device, music stand tool (Jammit), and other basic functions for which is was bought. Works great. Just sayin....

 

[doelcm82]

I have no inside information but I cannot believe that Apple would sell a really expensive watch with no plan for upgrades of both innards and battery.

To people who say $4,000 is too expensive, I say you have not thought this through. Clearly this is a new market for Apple and if I were Rolex right now I would be trembling deep in my soul.

Rolex doesn't need to be worried. Most who would be willing to spend $4000+ on a watch probably own multiple watches.

 

[iSee]

Have you been to Dubai? Try Russia too. Try China. Don't underestimate the demand for tasteless.

Gold is tasteless? Don't underestimate the capacity for clueless.

 

[Keirasplace]

That and the fact that if you want to get really picky, Rolex is the bottom of the barrel on Swiss watches.... it's the populist brand. Solid gold Rolex? Starts around $20k now that the new designs all use solid machined center links adding a ton of mass to the volume of gold in even their "entry" level Oyster series bracelets.

You're never going to get the "real" watch snobs to drop their timepieces, who are are all about Cartier, Longines, Patek Philippe, Vacheron + Constantin, Concorde, etc. HOWEVER, they might add it to their collection, however, because $4k is a fart in the wind to someone who can drop $350-750k on a Patek....

You do realize, so real watch guys actually handled the watches, all of them, and said they look very nice and have terrific build, fit and finish. Some people may not like the design, but I think some of the high end watches you talk about spell "need for attention" (I find some of them, not all of them, very very ugly in the rococco way of uglyness) much more than an Apple watch at any price.

----------

A watch isn't an investment. Even a one-of-a-kind isn't really an investment, not by Benjamin Graham's definition of what an investment is.

"A watch is an investment" is the sort of thing a salesperson tells to a fool with more money than brains.... to coax his ego into convincing him to buy the watch for the wrong reasons. It's all the same to the salesperson.

Most collectable aren't investment, at most they don't lose value long term with inflation. Just a few select models, years become iconic and have their value increase more.

Of course, high end watches don't lose much with time because new ones are essentially like old ones in most ways, even functionality. That's not the case with electronics obviously.

So no it will not keep its value like other high end watches if your not able to upgrade its electronics, but the I don't expect the more expensive one it to lose more than 40% of its value in 10 years if its kept in good condition.

 

[darkslide29]

Thanks, I checked online and it's solid gold, the problem is it houses technology that is outdated as soon as it's released in the market because it's a computer.

Also with Apple, almost every 1 generation product is never that good and updated with more features that could not get to market in time. For example, iPod 1, iPad 1 (no camera for face time), Itouch 1 (no speakers or front facing camera) and even ipad 3 (1st generation retina, needed a better processor).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Apple supporter, I have iPods, itouches, iPads and 2 MacBooks but I think Apple is really wrong with an expense watch.

I collect mechanical a Swiss watches and wear a digital watch as only a trash around watch and a Fitbit. I may even consider the Microsoft band due to all the added features.

I am really liking the comments on the thread that suggest the watch internals may be Apple upgradable/replaceable. Meaning the computer on a chip, as well as the battery can be replaced. This makes sense since you're investing in a piece of jewelry. It sounds un-Apple like to do this, but this is new territory for them that may require a different upgrade strategy.

Sure, they may continue to refine the watch (the jewelery part of it) with different shapes or design, making it thinner, etc. But if the old watches can continue to be upgraded, it makes buying a first gen watch easier. It ensures that it isn't obsolete after just a couple of years.

Personally I am intrigued by the stainless steel one. If the aluminum watch is $350, $500 sounds like a price I will be tempted by. I hoped for $499 or $599 tops. My girlfriend loves the rose gold watch (go figure ). I told myself that I would buy it for her if it were around $1500 or under. However, seeing that it is solid gold , it looks like that price I hoped for won't happen. It was just a random number I threw out anyway. I haven't begun doing research on the prices of "nice" watches.

 

[riggles]

Investment piece...which is outdated in 1 year.

This is a luxury piece, not an investment piece. Like the luxury cars people renew on lease and the luxury clothing people replace on season. Apple didn't hire luxury brand executives to figure out how to sell in Walmart. They brought them in to enter the luxury market.