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 Revenue Will Likely Be Dominated by Expensive Gold Edition
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We don't really know what glass they are using on the Sport model (Ion-X isn't anyone's current trade name), only that it was engineered for lightness. We can't say what's superior, ceramic or composite, if only because composite can mean virtually anything.
Apple Watch Revenue Will Likely Be Dominated by Expensive Gold Edition
Is the only difference between the apple watch and the apple watch sport just the materials it's made from? IE the lightweight anodized aluminum and the display is strengthened Ion-X glass on the sport vs. the stainless steel and sapphire on the apple watch? Same hardware and software?
If the apple watch is 549.99 or under I'll get one. Well,I'll get two. One for me and the fiancé.
Is the only difference between the apple watch and the apple watch sport just the materials it's made from? IE the lightweight anodized aluminum and the display is strengthened Ion-X glass on the sport vs. the stainless steel and sapphire on the apple watch? Same hardware and software?
If the apple watch is 549.99 or under I'll get one. Well,I'll get two. One for me and the fiancé.
I've heard this put forward as an advantage before.
It would be a factor if you were to drop your watch on the floor but while you are wearing it the 100 gram or so saving wouldn't have so much influence when you take into account the inertia of the 3.5-4 kg arm it is attached to.
Why do people spend $10000+ on a watch, surely not to tell the time. Surely not just for the durability... and I'm sure there are better investments out there.
Why do people buy $700-$1000 for Dolce & Gabbana jeans (or even more expensive for other apparel), when similar ones are a fraction of the price?
when dealing with luxury items, people don't purchase by functionality alone... it has more to do with feeling, emotions and ego.
Why do people buy $700-$1000 for Dolce & Gabbana jeans (or even more expensive for other apparel), when similar ones are a fraction of the price?
when dealing with luxury items, people don't purchase by functionality alone... it has more to do with feeling, emotions and ego.
Last edited:
Please tell me you don't seriously think this clip proves in some way that Omega is better / as good as Rolex?? (Not that I have any particular view or interest in either brand).
James Bond is a fictitious character, and this very clumsy clip (the worst sort of product placement) would have been paid for handsomely by Omega, no doubt, to try to make people see Omega as a superior brand.
Imagine this scene:
"That is a very capable phone, Mr Bond, no doubt enhanced with a few tricks by Q?"
"This is far more than a mere phone..." [as a close up shows it tracking a nuclear missile launch in deepest Peru]
"Apple?"
"Lenovo" [as the missile detonates safely, saving mankind]
If Lenovo paid for such a clip, would that convince people that a Lenovo smartphone is a superior product? I hope not, but I do begin to wonder.
Now I think about it, I think there was a Bond film where he used a Nokia to control remotely a BMW. I wonder how much BMW paid for Bond to ditch the Aston Martin? Anyway, BMW's must be better, because Bond chose one, right?
The *only* way I would be interested in the edition model is if it was under a $1,000. Even then, not sure I would fork that out for version 1.
I want to see pricing on the mid-tier versions.
I wonder also if there will be a price difference between the sizes. I honestly want the smaller one.
I want to see pricing on the mid-tier versions.
I wonder also if there will be a price difference between the sizes. I honestly want the smaller one.
I wonder if any will be leaked and show up in gift bags at this year's Academy Awards?
You can look at the entire watch market, the use of sapphire definitely correlates with price. More expensive watches are likelier to have sapphire.
Unfortunately I like the way the gold one looks. I wish they were making a gold tone one that would cost $349 or so. I like the gold with navy leather band. Definitely would use $4K "Edition watch money" for iMac 5K fully maxed out or a new MacBook Pro fully loaded instead.
----------
Well yes but often luxury items are made very well too. I was able to snag some $995 boots for $340 on sale (still expensive) and they really are extraordinarily well made with leather soles, very fine leather lining, comfortable, beautiful, etc. I wish I were wealthy so that I could have everything so well made.
----------
Well yes but often luxury items are made very well too. I was able to snag some $995 boots for $340 on sale (still expensive) and they really are extraordinarily well made with leather soles, very fine leather lining, comfortable, beautiful, etc. I wish I were wealthy so that I could have everything so well made.
The 38mm Apple Watch Sport will be the $349 model. The 42 mm will likely be $399. The Stainless Apple Watch adds sapphire glass (maybe $10 more in materials for such a small surface but Apple knows they can charge a premium); guessing this will be $449 for 38mm and $499 for 42mm. Everyone is overestimating gold. People who don't mind paying $4k for a watch expect it to still function three years down the road. If it offers literally zero other features beyond a material swap, I'm guess $999. I get it, people who want to show off their wealth will spend $4k (and easily more) on a watch but not one that's being produced by the millions.
I'm going to give Jony Ive the benefit of the doubt. In all of his praise for design, I'd be offended if he started describing an overpriced gold edition as "simple", "inevitable", and any of his other favorite adjectives.
I'm excited by the functionality and potential of Apple watch as apps come out but the more I hear rumors about the price tag I wonder who Apple is even targeting. In a $150k+ household, I'm on the fence when its $349 (smaller size than I want without the wristband/straps). Bottom line, this will flop if Apple doesn't have features or benefits up their sleeve.
I'm going to give Jony Ive the benefit of the doubt. In all of his praise for design, I'd be offended if he started describing an overpriced gold edition as "simple", "inevitable", and any of his other favorite adjectives.
I'm excited by the functionality and potential of Apple watch as apps come out but the more I hear rumors about the price tag I wonder who Apple is even targeting. In a $150k+ household, I'm on the fence when its $349 (smaller size than I want without the wristband/straps). Bottom line, this will flop if Apple doesn't have features or benefits up their sleeve.
Last I read,WATCH did not have FaceTime, a full software keyboard, two cameras, or a full browser. It doesn't even have it's own wifi!
So i need a $650 phone to use my $350 device? I get it, the technology isn't there yet... I'm actually okay with that. But I'm just not ready to drop that kind of money on something that literally does everything worse than my iPhone except Apple Pay and monitor my heart rate.
Do i want one, yes. Absolutely yes. And it would've been a no-brainer for me if it was a little bit cheaper. The current price is high for a device that doesn't do anything significant by itself.
I hear you but imagine the iPhone without iCloud, iTunes, iWork, iMessage, handoff, iPhoto, etc. It would be a cool looking but overpriced phone. I look at Apple Watch as a wearable entry into Apple's ecosystem that they developed over years and years. $349 is nothing when you consider how much more this wearable will do for you more than any other wearable platform. Of course the less invested you are in Apple's ecosystem, the less value it will have for you.
----------
Technically, no. So without an iPhone its about as good as your wristwatch.
I don't necessarily think the Rolex market and Apple Watch Edition market are the same. There is probably some overlap, as they are both expensive watch products but they are distinct from each other. People arguing that they would rather buy a Rolex aren't necessarily right or wrong. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a significant market for a luxury version of the Apple Watch.
I think a $4000+ price tag for the Edition will most likely be accurate. The first reason is that Apple wants it to be considered a luxury product--and will market it as such. Second reason is that the cost of each unit will be significantly higher due to the gold content. Third is because Apple will want a much higher margin for the product.
I don't plan on buying the first generation Apple watch, but I think it is a very exciting product and would eventually like to own one.
I think a $4000+ price tag for the Edition will most likely be accurate. The first reason is that Apple wants it to be considered a luxury product--and will market it as such. Second reason is that the cost of each unit will be significantly higher due to the gold content. Third is because Apple will want a much higher margin for the product.
I don't plan on buying the first generation Apple watch, but I think it is a very exciting product and would eventually like to own one.
Not only Silicon Valley. Let's remember how much wealth the top 3% of the US consumer holds, eh. This watch is in no way directed at the Middle Class Consumer. It will attain a Cult like status. Apple will sell every single one they manufacture. Myself not included.
Not only Silicon Valley. Let's remember how much wealth the top 3% of the US consumer holds, eh. This watch is in no way directed at the Middle Class Consumer. It will attain a Cult like status. Apple will sell every single one they manufacture. Myself not included.
Is any of the iWatch line aimed at the regular middle class consumer? The success of the iPhone and iPad were built on them becoming 'must have' for every level of consumer. Many families have multiple Apple devices. The iWatch seems like a niche product that'll like be successful to an extent, but not ubiquitous game changing products.
If you diversified a bit, and purchased shares of all those above listed companies plus AAPL, you would still be ahead of a typical gold watch's value.
You can also look at the listing at Apple, which is in this order: Apple Watch, Sport, Edition. This is at least interesting.
well, I am not an expert in tech-gadgets ;-) but why shouldn't it be possible to use it say in five+ years?
- even when latest apps than won't run on it (?) but checkin the time should still work. so will do "some" features, i guess.
(e.g. last week i have bought a song with my 1st gen iPod touch via iTunes - it works. just as an example
I won't need all these fitness things the
watch will offer or not but if it is a great handcrafted (manufactured) piece - why not using it just for that reason?And as a fashion gadget it seems logical to "update" it more often (depending on someones budget as for all other things we "must have" in our first world lifes
Lorem ipsum.
This is what I've always felt - Apple concentrate on the computer side and licence that to watchmakers so they can make Apple Watch versions of their own watch, choosing to utilize as many or as few as the features as they wish.
I'd consider a high-end watch that connects to my phone and vibrates when I get a message/call and shows who it is or something.
But, whatever the Apple Watch does, there's no way I'll wear one. It's ugly, visible and immediately screams 'geek'.
