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

[ZCT]

Longines is by far a more accurate watch and was for many years regarded as well above Tag Heuer and Rolex in status. You should read a little about their history. For many ages the Longines Admiral was more desired throughout Europe than the largely branding driven Rolex.

If you want to admire something about Rolex, I would mention the fact that it's wholly owned by a nonprofit and can never be sold to a for profit conglomerate. The proceeds after operating expenditures go entirely to the Hans Wilsdorf Trust charity.

I am going to have to beg to differ here. It's been a while since I've even heard of Longines as a brand. But I just swung by their website and took a look and first off you can buy their products in an online shop, and secondly they have watches costing as little as $800.

People talk about wanting a Brietling, Omega, Tag Heuer or Rolex. I've never heard anyone aspiring to own a Longines.

I travel a lot and as a result get lots of free upgrades into first class. People wear a variety of watches, and I have a good eye spotting them. I can't even recall the last time I saw a Longines in first class, a club lounge, or anywhere else.

I also just searched their entire website and couldn't find a single COSC certified chronometer among them.

Since they are owned by Swatch who also own Omega, it's pretty clear that Longines is being priced as a low end brand by comparison. Omega is going far more expensive with in house COSC movements. Longines conversely are still making quartz watches and plenty of them; something higher end brands generally snub.

Bottom line, I don't really buy what you are trying to sell here.

 

[imwoblin]

Then you understood 99 percent of my point.

The other 1%... the "paperweight" comment... was me being tongue in cheek.

One can admire the engineering in a mechanical timepiece and still be completely realistic about the fact that what is being argued here is not the engineering of a smartwatch versus a mechanical watch, but the fact that some people think that paying $10,000 for one type of engineering marvel is more "sensible" than paying $4000 for another... just because one has a little crown logo and makes us all go "ooh ahh!"

If it's the engineering alone, a purist would look at every conceivable, efficiently built movement that wasn't retailed for thousands of dollars... mechanical watches are not terribly complicated (see what I did there?)

I am amused by the tendency of most debates now in American culture in particular to degenerate into a sort of competition of people who wear their equally questionable tastes on their sleeve and will stop at nothing to defend their opinions to the hilt....

That's not a discussion. That's a pissing match. Yeah yeah, I wear my Rolex all the time too, everybody. I wear it to the bathroom, when I'm spanking it to porn. I wear it when I drive up to a Michelin-starred restaurant in jeans, a crappy t-shirt and my ASICS... I'd wear it to the moon but you know what, screw Richard Branson and his exploding spacecraft....

We're just dabbling in varying degrees of self-masturbatory absurdity now.

You've spent the last 10 posts telling everyone that Rolex is a status symbol, purchased only by weak minded people who want to look cool, but you do wear you're "paperweight" all the time, even when you jerk off to porn?
You purchased you're Rolex during a moment of weakness, before you realized that owning 6000 shares of AAPL was a much better investment?
I made a comment why I appreciate a fine mechanical timepiece and all you can do is come back with condescending remarks?

 

[diipii]

About as naff as it gets.

 

[Neepman]

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?"

I hope you just forgot to add your emotion. The only first gen apple items with any value are one-off prototypes , new-in-box collectors bait or hand built devices the have Job's spooge on them.

 

[Avatar74]

I am going to have to beg to differ here. It's been a while since I've even heard of Longines as a brand. But I just swung by their website and took a look and first off you can buy their products in an online shop, and secondly they have watches costing as little as $800.

People talk about wanting a Brietling, Omega, Tag Heuer or Rolex. I've never heard anyone aspiring to own a Longines.

I travel a lot and as a result get lots of free upgrades into first class. People wear a variety of watches, and I have a good eye spotting them. I can't even recall the last time I saw a Longines in first class, a club lounge, or anywhere else.

I also just searched their entire website and couldn't find a single COSC certified chronometer among them.

Since they are owned by Swatch who also own Omega, it's pretty clear that Longines is being priced as a low end brand by comparison. Omega is going far more expensive with in house COSC movements. Longines conversely are still making quartz watches and plenty of them; something higher end brands generally snub.

Bottom line, I don't really buy what you are trying to sell here.

So you've never heard of Rolex's Tudor line (now discontinued but at the time it started at $800)

or the Longines Saint Imier, $10k range, or Longines Master Collection in the $22,000 range?

By the way, COSC certification isn't required... it just costs more money and not all manufacturers who have watches that can meet or exceed the standards choose to submit them for certification. It just ends up increasing the cost of the model which they then pass on to the consumer.

 

[MacOSXI]

iWatch 2 will start at $249

 

[Oracle1729]

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.

A Commodore 64 launched in 1982 for $595. I got mine in 1983 iirc for $400.

The Apple III started at $4500 and had major design flaws. The revision that fixed them dropped the price to $3500 pretty quickly, but the product flopped horribly. It was basically an Apple II with a different keyboard. It was a huge embarrassment for Apple and very few sold. After it flopped, Apple went back to the Apple II line.

The IBM PC AT launched in 1984, not 1987, $4000 didn't even include a hard drive model, and at that price it was so cheap it shocked the industry. It may not have been high level compared to mainframes and minicomputers. But for a desktop computer, the AT at launch most certainly was "the highest level computer. And it had the competition quaking in their boots until the clone wars started. Very few "normal people" bought them. $4000 was several months pay back then. Normal people bought much cheaper clones, usually still XT in 1984, and yes even Apple IIe's in 1984.

I also don't believe you bought multiple Apple III's. Doing so compared to the Apple II or IBM PC would have been such a stupid thing to do, you'd still be embarrassed to admit it to this day.

 

[Avatar74]

You've spent the last 10 posts telling everyone that Rolex is a status symbol, purchased only by weak minded people who want to look cool, but you do wear you're "paperweight" all the time, even when you jerk off to porn?
You purchased you're Rolex during a moment of weakness, before you realized that owning 6000 shares of AAPL was a much better investment?
I made a comment why I appreciate a fine mechanical timepiece and all you can do is come back with condescending remarks?

If someone wants to convincingly say that they really do appreciate the engineering, rather than using that as a backward rationalization for the real reason for buying an overpriced automatic, they'd probably mention a brand like Rotary or Longines, both beloved among watch owners and tinkerers, better engineered and far less expensive than many of the vanity brands out there ... In fact, the last time I saw a Rotary was in a watchmaker's workshop (he services all the rest too because, well, it's obscenely good money for the same amount of work).

If you buy a Rolex, it's not because you educated yourself on the depth and breadth and complexity of mechanical movements.... Rolex is the most accessible, most marketed/advertised of entry level luxury brands and its engineering among Swiss watches is passable but nothing marvelous as mechanicals go. People buy it to be able to say not that they are engineering enthusiasts but that, simply, they can afford a Rolex.

 

[Oracle1729]

And prior to Steve Jobs revealing the iPad for the first time, how many people did you see using a tablet?

Funny how people rewrite history so quickly.

I remember in the lead-up to Apple's announcement, we were reading the rumours here thinking it was just unbelievably amazing what was being described and would just be impossible to become reality. And we were assuming starting price of $1000.

During Steve's launch presentation, it was obviously going to change the world, and pretty much everyone here knew it. And his by the way it's $500 really did make it seem like magic.

----------

Because the reason for the cost of the one model is the gold. The steel model is $350. Find me a $350 Rolex, new...

So the $4000 rolex is a $4000 watch in a steel case. The $4000 iToy is a $350 watch in a gold case. Gotcha.

That's like asking an appraiser to compare your house to every house on the market, rather than the ones that are comparable in size, neighborhood dynamics/amenities, etc.

Or it's like asking a realtor what kind of options I have for a house in a given price range. The gold iToy is a cheap junker of a house that's about to fall down but in a nice location. The Rolex in a steel case is a gorgeous new home out where land is cheap. Same price, two totally different directions for where the money goes.

 

[imwoblin]

If someone wants to convincingly say that they really do appreciate the engineering, rather than using that as a backward rationalization for the real reason for buying an overpriced automatic, they'd probably mention a brand like Rotary or Longines, both beloved among watch owners and tinkerers... In fact, the last time I saw a Rotary was in a watchmaker's workshop.

If you buy a Rolex, it's not because you educated yourself on the depth and breadth and complexity of mechanical movements.... Rolex is the most accessible of entry level luxury brands. People buy it to be able to say not that they are engineering enthusiasts but that, simply, they can afford a Rolex.

There you go again. Did you really just say that I'm not educated enough to understand mechanical movements and that by you're superior measure, I purchased my overpriced automatic because that's all I could afford? You are completely absurd..

 

[TallManNY]

I have done this. Yes, it is very very common.



It takes some research and you need to keep documentation (which any Rolex, Breitling or IWC etc.. owner would be wise to do) to be able to sell well. For really high-end I would go through a broker. A colleague of mine just bought a $30.000 Panerai in bronze, limited edition through a broker. Second hand. It was 20% over the original new price, because it was so rare. Considering the amount of people looking for watches indeed a normal dude would be ripped off. Go for a broker if you are not sure.




Walk into the Tourneau store on 52nd with a Rolex Submariner from 2000 that is in slightly used condition but well taken care off including papers and you will get more money for it now than you paid for it when you bought it.

Well okay. That is pretty cool. A good purchase for folks then. I wouldn't call it an investment (since even in what you suggest that doesn't keep up with other investment classes like stocks and real estate over the last 14 years), but it certainly defrays a HUGE amount of the cost of ownership of these timepieces if you can get your principle back plus a little after enjoying it for a decade.

 

[AFPoster]

You mean like this?

No, more like this.

 

[Lictor]

If there is a market for a $22,000 Vertu smartphone

Because something is sold doesn't mean there is a market for it...
For instance, Canon and Nikon manufacture high end lenses (500mm, 600mm, f1 or f0.95 lenses...). Yet, there is no market for them. They cost more in R&D than they earn in sales - when you see them at sport events, most of them are actually either rented or even loaned for free by Canon...
Yet, they're on the market. Because they're not meant to earn money directly, but to earn reputation for the brand, by showing that it can do it, by gaining press coverage... And the 4k Apple Watch could be exactly that...

 

[ZCT]

Funny how people rewrite history so quickly.

I remember in the lead-up to Apple's announcement, we were reading the rumours here thinking it was just unbelievably amazing what was being described and would just be impossible to become reality. And we were assuming starting price of $1000.

During Steve's launch presentation, it was obviously going to change the world, and pretty much everyone here knew it. And his by the way it's $500 really did make it seem like magic.

I'm not re-writing history. I read Steve Job's authorized biography. He personally recounted to the author how terrible he felt after the announcement. He went back to his home and began to second guess himself. Prominent tech journalists were mocking him, even going as far as making fun of the name and saying it sounded like a ladies sanitary product.

You can go read the book yourself. It's about as close to the horses mouth as you are ever going to get.

You may recall reading some evangelizing from some Apple fans, but the public at large and the tech people were not that supportive. At least that's what I read.

Maybe Steve Jobs lied to the author of his book, maybe the author lied. But from what I read he tried to tell the story as accurately as possible, the good, the bad and the ugly.

 

[ZCT]

So you've never heard of Rolex's Tudor line (now discontinued but at the time it started at $800)

or the Longines Saint Imier, $10k range, or Longines Master Collection in the $22,000 range?

By the way, COSC certification isn't required... it just costs more money and not all manufacturers who have watches that can meet or exceed the standards choose to submit them for certification. It just ends up increasing the cost of the model which they then pass on to the consumer.

I'm on the Longines web site right now. In their Master Collection the prices of 43 of them fall between $2000-$4000. Only three are above $5000. The most expensive is $10,250 made of 18K rose gold.

I think you've answered your own question about COSC. Omega, the high end in the Swatch arm are all COSC certified chronometers.

The clearly much lower end Longines products, they don't bother to certify them because they are a much lower end an less prestigious timepiece.

It's up to you if you like the brand, but to try and maintain that it is superior to some of the high end manufacturers is a little bit of wishful thinking.

In any case this discussion is about the price of Apple products, not whether you personally believe Longines is better than Rolex; which it isn't.

 

[kmj2318]

I think it's funny how people rationalize a watch purchase by passing it down to someone or holding value. We all know that those aren't the real reasons people buy expensive watches. And having an expensive watches that everyone know will be outdated soon is even more reason for people to buy it to flaunt.

 

[gyang333]

Yes at one point Longines had quite a good reputation. But so did Hamilton, they were regarded as the standard with their marine chronometers. But that time has passed, both now owned by Swatch, and are priced into tiers much like how GM prices their subbrands.

 

[Oracle1729]

I'm not re-writing history. I read Steve Job's authorized biography. He personally recounted to the author how terrible he felt after the announcement. He went back to his home and began to second guess himself. Prominent tech journalists were mocking him, even going as far as making fun of the name and saying it sounded like a ladies sanitary product.

I haven't ready the biography and don't plan to. I do remember the jokes about the iPad name though.

That presentation and maybe the iPhone 4s (which he sadly couldn't attend), were probably the last times Apple has impressed me. If you get a chance, read some of the forum threads around here in the days before and after that day. Aside from cheap shots at the name, everything was very positive. Unlike this bipolar reaction to the iToy watch or the pure hate of the new mac mini.

Apple was a different company then, and this site was a different place to reflect that.

 

[phpmaven]

$5,000 Dollars? I Rather buy a Rolex. I can feel confident my Rolex will hold value in say the next 5-10 years,

Good luck buying an 18k Rolex for $5k. LOL. That wouldn't even pay for half of the band.

 

[Oracle1729]

I think it's funny how people rationalize a watch purchase by passing it down to someone or holding value. We all know that those aren't the real reasons people buy expensive watches. And having an expensive watches that everyone know will be outdated soon is even more reason for people to buy it to flaunt.

I don't buy watches, but I do have some rather expensive fountain pens (many with solid gold tips). I don't rationalize it as an investment or heirloom. But I do rationalize it with the understanding that I can own and use the luxury item for as long as I want and I can always get at least most of my money back if I really want to. So the cost to get to use and enjoy these very expensive items is really quite low.

Quality talks. If I buy a $300 camera lens, it has no resale value. I bought a $2400 lens last spring, and thanks to our dollar dropping, I can actually sell it today for more than I paid for it. And I bought it expecting to lose about $200/year in resale value which makes the cost of ownership not a whole lot more than the cheap stuff.

 

[Truthfulie]

Holding value or not, the bigger issue is watch becoming completely obsolete within five years. Which makes me wonder how much they'll go for after five years. The price of the gold based on weight maybe?

 

[Oracle1729]

Good luck buying an 18k Rolex for $5k. LOL. That wouldn't even pay for half of the band.

Like that stupid misinformed false analogy hasn't been raised and refuted 20 times already on this thread.

 

[CFreymarc]

Ouch.

Reminds me of the high pricing on early Macintosh computers!

Some of the first Mac's out there signed by members of the development team (mostly Woz and Atkinson) command a good collector price these days.

----------

If you think the watch is expensive. Wait 'til you see the price of some of these higher end, third party watch straps.

 

[bobob]

So you've never heard of Rolex's Tudor line (now discontinued but at the time it started at $800)

Tudor's back!

(Though they now start around $2800.)

 

[Patriot24]

I hope no one is dumb enough to buy a first generation apple watch for 4k...but I know someone will

Everyone keeps saying this, but the reality is that if you have the financial capacity to drop several thousand dollars on a watch without it being even a blip on your financial radar, you would.

Just because someone spends a lot of money on something does not make them "dumb" or ignorant of the limitations of the product.

Likewise, just because someone chooses not to spend their money on something, whether they can afford it or not, does not make them poor, cheap, or ignorant of the benefits of the product.

We need to stop vilifying people for their personal choices.