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

[proline]

Thanks! Just downloaded the case study..

Considering strategy I think Longines needs to focus on a more tight customer segment and reduce the amount of different models. At their low end they compete with Seiko and Tissot and a bit higher up with Tag Heuer, while probably providing better quality. I think though that that tail in the low end might hurt their high-end lines, because the brand is viewed as less exclusive. And I doubt that they generate much revenue at the low end, because it just is not a brand that is marketed very well for that segment.

I think they also need to look at their design language. It is now very diverse and difficult to find a signature Longines look. Some models now look like a cross between Festina and Breitling, while others resemble the IWC Portugese line. The elegance line resembles Jaeger LeCoultre.

Reduce product line complexity, focus on a specific an clear segment, direct marketing towards that segment and for gods sake put the display on the other side of the store next to Breitling and IWC and keep it away from the other brands such as TW Steel, Fossil and Guess.

Don't be fooled by the long-winded walls of text into thinking this guy knows something about watches. He doesn't. This guy has posted half a dozen times that Apple will NEVER go above "$200-$600" and that no evidence or reason is required to back that up because it is so obvious. Yeah, he actually made that claim.

This guy also thinks that Rolex is 100% immune to disruption because Apple is 'different'. When confronted with the list of companies that made the same argument before their deaths- BB, Nokia, Palm, Nintendo, Rovio, Creative, etc. he just lists a bunch of trivial differences between Apple's product and Rolex.

He's in for a surprise next year when Apple's Watch succeeds at taking money away from BOTH low-end Casios and high-end Rolexes, but don't expect him to stick around these forums at that point.

 

[scoobydoo99]

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

um.

you'd need several times that amount for a gold Rolex.

 

[OllyW]

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

Tudor have never been "discontinued". They had restricted sales to the European market over the last few years but are now back trading again in the USA and UK.

http://www.tudorwatch.com

 

[StyxMaker]

Jawbone is saying water resistant to 10 meters. How does that differ from being waterproof? Apple says the watch is water resistant, but I don't think they have specified a depth. The Microsoft Band says splash resistant, so it sounds like it provides the least protection against water damage.

Previous Up bands said ok to shower with it but don't swim with it (although the one I'm wearing did survive an hour in the pool once). Their new band they are specifically stating you can swim and dive with it. I assume they mean dive like from a diving board and not dive as with air tanks.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Previous Up bands said ok to shower with it but don't swim with it (although the one I'm wearing did survive an hour in the pool once). Their new band they are specifically stating you can swim and dive with it. I assume they mean dive like from a diving board and not dive as with air tanks.

Too bad it doesn't have GPS.

 

[laurim]

I just want to know what's the cheapest version that won't trigger my nickel allergy.

 

[Avatar74]

Thanks! Just downloaded the case study..

Considering strategy I think Longines needs to focus on a more tight customer segment and reduce the amount of different models. At their low end they compete with Seiko and Tissot and a bit higher up with Tag Heuer, while probably providing better quality. I think though that that tail in the low end might hurt their high-end lines, because the brand is viewed as less exclusive. And I doubt that they generate much revenue at the low end, because it just is not a brand that is marketed very well for that segment.

Again here one option is to rebrand that lower end under Wittenauer.

I think they also need to look at their design language. It is now very diverse and difficult to find a signature Longines look. Some models now look like a cross between Festina and Breitling, while others resemble the IWC Portugese line. The elegance line resembles Jaeger LeCoultre.

Fair point, this is what plagued Omega ... with too many styles and price points, nobody really understood what they represented any more. I think it started with Mercedes as well, but after they shuttered Maybach and refocused their 2015 models under one design language for the C, E and S class, it showed strong improvement in new customer interest.

Reduce product line complexity, focus on a specific an clear segment, direct marketing towards that segment and for gods sake put the display on the other side of the store next to Breitling and IWC and keep it away from the other brands such as TW Steel, Fossil and Guess.

Very well stated!

----------

Tudor have never been "discontinued". They had restricted sales to the European market over the last few years but are now back trading again in the USA and UK.

http://www.tudorwatch.com

Thanks for the clarification. I live in the US so, from my perspective they were discontinued in this market.

 

[OneMike]

I don't like yellow or rose gold. White gold or platinum yes.

Not paying 4K for an apple watch that'll be outdated in a year.

Few hundred at most if I decide to get one.

 

[jouster]

If I'm going to spend $4-5k on a watch (I haven't worn a watch regularly in at least a decade)... my decision is going to be between something along the lines of Bell & Ross or IWC.

Your $4-5k wont get you much -- if anything --from IWC these days.

 

[Keirasplace]

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.

Were did I say I bought ANYTHING Apple back then (none of my previous posts reflect this). I bought my first Apple product post 2002.

I used mostly Unix machines for work and even outside work from 1986 to 2002. At home used TI, Sinclairs and Vic20, from late 1970s to 1983 (only the Vic20 was mine, the others were my fathers), then C64 from 1983-1987, PS2's with OS2 1987-1991, Sun machines 1990-1995 for school and work, but had a workstation at home too in 1994-1995, Various X86 and AMD machines after 1995 that ran SCO System V, Minix, Linux, BSD and yes every brand of Windows from 3.0 to 8.1 and various flavours of NT from 3.1 on.

----------

I just want to know what's the cheapest version that won't trigger my nickel allergy.

The sport watch is aluminium with a rubber band, so I'm guessing that's the one ($350).

 

[SHNXX]

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.

your Tag looks dated because it's a tag.

Nobody expects Tag Heuers to be timeless for the most part unless it's the Monaco.

Rolexes and Pateks from 50 years ago can be as or much more valuable than new ones sold today.

 

[ARH1956]

Nobody expects Tag Heuers to be timeless for the most part unless it's the Monaco.

Yes, the freakishly ugly Monaco, it'll be timeless.

 

[princered]

I understand people comparing the Apple Watch to luxury brands. But let's not forget that Apple is a technology company, and this gadget is pretty much the first of its kind. Not in the sense as the first smart watch. But in the sense as a fashionable gadget that people will put on their wrist not just because it's the newest gadget, but because it is fashionable and its productive. But Apple Watch to me isn't a luxury watch. It almost deserves to be in a category of it's own.

----------

I'm excited about purchasing an apple watch. I hope the stainless steel watches aren't that expensive. The $500 price range is good with me. I just look forward to hearing more about the Apple Watch as it makes it through its progressions.

 

[kdarling]

I'm telling ya....

Whoever starts a business gold-plating the stainless steel models, is going to make a killing !



(Or, just take it down to your friendly car emblem gold plating expert. Anybody know what it would cost to plate the watch? From the internet, it looks like much less than $100 ??)

 

[flat five]

.


$4000 for a gold one?? that's nothing.. wait til you see the price on this..

(red mac pro)

 

[RnSK]

How is this different than...

$500?! For essentially a watch that is going to last a couple of years.. Apple will refresh the watch on an annual basis.

...phones?

 

[ksuyen]

I am more interested in system-in-package called S1 that Apple Watch use, which is basically an entire system inside a single chip.

That looks like this:

What if the chip is replaceable? Just 1 single click and tada... the whole system is renewed... the watch does not even need to change design. You can keep your precious 4000 dollars golden plated watch for eternity, just replace the chip and you will have the fastest processor, bigger memory and latest sensors every year

 

[SHNXX]

Yes, the freakishly ugly Monaco, it'll be timeless.

call it what you want, but it's an original design that was worn by Steve McQueen and is widely considered by watch aficionados to be the only worthy Tag that is collectible.

everything else from Tag is just just some pretty derivative design metals wrapped around $300 ETA movements.

----------

I am more interested in system-in-package called S1 that Apple Watch use, which is basically an entire system inside a single chip.

That looks like this:
Image

Image

What if the chip is replaceable? Just 1 single click and tada... the whole system is renewed... the watch does not even need to change design. You can keep your precious 4000 dollars golden plated watch for eternity, just replace the chip and you will have the fastest processor, bigger memory and latest sensors every year

extremely unlikely

chips and form factors change over time.
chips become smaller and faster. form factors get slimmer or evolve in different ways.

 

[kingofwale]

I am more interested in system-in-package called S1 that Apple Watch use, which is basically an entire system inside a single chip.

That looks like this:
Image

Image

What if the chip is replaceable? Just 1 single click and tada... the whole system is renewed... the watch does not even need to change design. You can keep your precious 4000 dollars golden plated watch for eternity, just replace the chip and you will have the fastest processor, bigger memory and latest sensors every year

true, just like how Apple let you replace internal of its Macbook line, or iPad line, or iPod line or iPhone line...

...oh wait....

 

[ksuyen]

extremely unlikely

chips and form factors change over time.
chips become smaller and faster. form factors get slimmer or evolve in different ways.

true, just like how Apple let you replace internal of its Macbook line, or iPad line, or iPod line or iPhone line...

...oh wait....

Which is why Apple design S1. It's technologically new and extremely versatile. I can see big future for S1.

 

[1000]

Ridiculous pricing all round. If I wanted to splash around $4K on a watch, I'd buy another more up to date Omega Seamaster. I have an older model from the mid-2000's and even that is far more appealing than a $4K Apple watch.

1000

 

[Keirasplace]

I am more interested in system-in-package called S1 that Apple Watch use, which is basically an entire system inside a single chip.

That looks like this:
Image

Image

What if the chip is replaceable? Just 1 single click and tada... the whole system is renewed... the watch does not even need to change design. You can keep your precious 4000 dollars golden plated watch for eternity, just replace the chip and you will have the fastest processor, bigger memory and latest sensors every year

They could update some parts this way, but the sensor part couldn't be updated so easily since its more tightly integrated with hardware. So, yes processing could be updated for say 3-5 years, but if you want to upgrade sensors, communications/GPS, input methods you'd have to upgrade the body itself. I feel that's probably the way they'd go.

Communications/GPS will only probably see an update if battery life or SOC efficiency improves enough to make it worth while. So, that doesn't happen often anyway. Once every 5-6 years possibly.

Sensors is what you'll be falling behind on the quickest I'd gather and that will be the reason to upgrade.

They don't want to have to support hardware internals for 10 years on the cheapest watch that's for sure.

----------

.


$4000 for a gold one?? that's nothing.. wait til you see the price on this..

Image

(red mac pro)

That's the radium alloy one ;-), for those who live dangerously.

 

[ZCT]

Ridiculous pricing all round. If I wanted to splash around $4K on a watch, I'd buy another more up to date Omega Seamaster. I have an older model from the mid-2000's and even that is far more appealing than a $4K Apple watch.

1000

It's a beautiful watch, it even has a ceramic bezel in that model I believe. Certainly a million times more classy than a gaudy gold Apple Watch.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm a big Apple fan, but to me yellow or rose gold just isn't classy in Western culture any more.

----------

your Tag looks dated because it's a tag.

Nobody expects Tag Heuers to be timeless for the most part unless it's the Monaco.

Rolexes and Pateks from 50 years ago can be as or much more valuable than new ones sold today.

At what point did I say that I expected my Tag to be a timeless classic?

I thought the s/el was a nice watch at the time, but the trend back then was to a much smaller watch face.

The question of size severely dates watches of most brands. Your 50 year old Rolex is going to look very small on most wrists these days.

As for Patek Phillipe, you can't really mention that and Tag Heuer in the same breath. Those are not the same.

I bought my Tag to celebrate the first month I had ever made more than $10K. I was in my early 20s, and it was a treat for a job well done. Even back then a Patek Phillipe would have cost ten times what I paid for my Tag and more than my pay check.

Even a Rolex would have been I'm guessing four or five times more expensive. And to me in my early 20s, Rolex looked like an old mans watch to me.

If I had 'invested' in a Rolex, I would not still be wearing it because it would likely be a tiny 38mm case. I would not have sold it, because the purchase was to commemorate something. So the only difference is I'd have a watch sitting in my closet that I'd have to insure for more than my Tag.

 

[spinedoc77]

Says the one bragging about how much his Rolex is worth.

Actually I'm bragging about how much value my Rolex has retained over the years. Stop being so insecure.

 

[TallManNY]

Well, there is the caveat that there is a regular investment (about every 5 years) into maintenance of the watch. That keeps up the value of the watch, but increases the overall cost of the watch. I should have mentioned that..

Speaking of which, an earlier thread convinced me that eventually I need to bring my Hamilton Jazzmaster Viewmatic in to get serviced. Maybe it is a cheap enough watch that I shouldn't bother. But I've had it since 2007 or 2008 and I do like it.