Sidebar Sidebar
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

jkruehne said:
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 :apple: watch will offer or not :D 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.
Click to expand...

I strongly believe in Apple utilising 'planned obsolescence'. Like all their other products, they'll make sure after a couple of years you'll feel the desire to replace it. The watch will be significantly slower or will no longer pair with new iPhones due to a "all new Bluetooth standard". Or they'll just prevent 'vital' new features from working on the older watch.

Plus, of course, they'll only support it for a few years. So a time will come when it'll break or need a new battery and Apple will tell you they no longer make spares for that model.
 
manu chao said:
No, Apple pundit John Gruber does not believe that the expensive gold model could account for the majority of Apple Watch revenue. He just illustrated that if the assumptions of others (in regard to sales numbers) would come true, then this would be the case. Believing something and saying it is a possibility is something else.
Click to expand...

Wait, you're saying that John Gruber doesn't believe?

(The article clearly states that he does.)
 
firewood said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, the same argument could be made regarding the car you drive. Walk everywhere and invest the surplus funds and you will be ahead financially. No thank you. I don't have to nor want to.

The discussion here is about which category of watches in the $4000 price range (gold Apple wearable vs. traditional Swiss fine watches) would be expected to have the lower cost of ownership in the long term, not if a $4000 watch represents the best investment available on the planet.

This doesn't, and never will, mean financially successful people won't buy a luxury watch if they have the disposable income to support the indulgence. Obviously, they do. But financially successful people also generally don't throw money away and even their indulgences tend to be thought out relative to other options. For example, should I buy the futures of Chateau Lafite Rothschild or Chateau Mouton Rothschild in a warm year? It's all about value, even in indulgences...
 
MNJohn said:
Agreed. However, the same argument could be made regarding the car you drive. Walk everywhere and invest the surplus funds and you will be ahead financially.
Click to expand...

The same argument as buying a Timex instead of a Rolex would be more like buying some less expensive but safe reliable car instead of that Bentley or Ferrari, and investing the difference in price.

However, many of those wealthy enough to be into conspicuous consumption don't really care about the depreciation of their luxury show-off vehicle. Same might become true of Edition Watches.
 
firewood said:
The same argument as buying a Timex instead of a Rolex would be more like buying some less expensive but safe reliable car instead of that Bentley or Ferrari, and investing the difference in price.

However, many of those wealthy enough to be into conspicuous consumption don't really care about the depreciation of their luxury show-off vehicle. Same might become true of Edition Watches.
Click to expand...

People who buy Ferrari's sell them for substantially more than they pay for them. This is one of the reasons there is a waiting list for new Ferrari's for this very reason. Sure, there is a greater cost of lost opportunity with buying a Ferrari than a Hyundai but the decision is not about buying a Ferrari versus a Huyandi, it about buying a Ferrari versus a gold-plated Corvette.
 
Last edited:
MNJohn said:
People who buy Ferrari's sell them for substantially more than they pay for them. This is one of the reasons there is a waiting list for new Ferrari's for this very reason. Sure, there is a greater cost of lost opportunity with buying a Ferrari than a Hyundai but the decision is not about buying a Ferrari versus a Huyandi, it about buying a Ferrari versus a gold-plated Corvette.
Click to expand...

Ferrari only makes 7000 cars a year too. A bit more exclusive.
 
Americans expect too much. This is and has been continually marketed as a luxury watch. At least the edition version. With 850$ in just Gold cost, plus the interior components, it will absolutely be more than $1000. If they're really trying to go up against Piquet, tag heuer, breitling and other Swiss watch luxury makers, they will charge over 2500 for the gold model. Stainless steel will probably be in the 850 range. Sport will be 349 for 38nm, 449 for 45nm. This has nothing to do with size of device. This is pricing based on the JEWELRY market. Not electronics. Get that straight. And don't be surprised when it happens. Americans will shun it. Chinese and Europeans will gobble it up
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kettle said:
are you saying {battery replacement service} as a good thing or a bad thing?

I see it as the same as rolex offering a service to fix your watch because the hands will fall off after 2/3 years
Click to expand...

Yeah, because replacing a watch battery is just exactly the same as replacing its hands after they fall off.

Seriously? Did you even think about what you were writing?
 
MNJohn said:
Maybe the Sport version will be fabricated from titanium. This would place it a step above an entry stainless steel model and be consistent with a light weight and durable design.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you could spend two minutes at Apple's website and read where they explicitly state that the sport version will have an anodized aluminium case...

Naaah, that's just crazy talk. :confused:

----------
TommyA6 said:
What stronger crystal?
The stainless steel and the gold one have sapphire crystal covers, while the sport has Gorilla Glass.
Click to expand...

IIRC, Gorilla Glass is tougher than, although not as hard as, sapphire. (Depending too on which generation of Gorilla Glass is being used.)

Better impact resistance would fit "stronger". The sapphire has better scratch resistance.
 
sehix said:
Or maybe you could spend two minutes at Apple's website and read where they explicitly state that the sport version will have an anodized aluminium case...

Naaah, that's just crazy talk. :confused:

----------



IIRC, Gorilla Glass is tougher than, although not as hard as, sapphire. (Depending too on which generation of Gorilla Glass is being used.)

Better impact resistance would fit "stronger". The sapphire has better scratch resistance.
Click to expand...

I think for long term durability in normal usage, Sapphire is better. The sport watch, at $350, would probably be replaced eventually and impact resistance in this case is more important. So, that's why they didn't use Sapphire. Though, a Gorilla/Saphire hybrid (like they seemingly wanted to do with GTAT, could handled both use case).
 
sehix said:
Or maybe you could spend two minutes at Apple's website and read where they explicitly state that the sport version will have an anodized aluminium case...

Naaah, that's just crazy talk. :confused:

----------

Yeah, you're right. I just don't have much interest in cheap, fashion watches...

----------
AppleScruff1 said:
Ferrari only makes 7000 cars a year too. A bit more exclusive.
Click to expand...


The comparison was for glitzy, gold-plated Corvette (analogous to a bling-bling gold Apple watch). Do you think less than 7000 of those exist?
Click to expand...
 
sehix said:
Yeah, because replacing a watch battery is just exactly the same as replacing its hands after they fall off.

Seriously? Did you even think about what you were writing?
Click to expand...

woo - you can do patronising too (well done you)

yes - watches with batteries were taken to a jewellers for a battery swap every few years of continual use - other quality watches would be hand wound or perpetual.

so yes - as inconvenience goes - sending a watch away for the hands falling off is pretty much the same milage as no power on a watch that needs to be charged more than once per 24hours peak performance.

If you're discussing a high quality time piece that will need to be refurbished after 2/3 years because its charge time has dropped from 15 hours to 3.5hours then it starts getting silly…

...when the hardware capability to run OS upgrades come into play - you're talking about upgrading watch hardware like it's a free with contract phone - very silly

...the Apple Watch is an incredibly expensive iPhone consumable that is trying to justify a price tag comparable to a luxury watch - when actually it's a baby monitor for your iPhone.
 
Col4bin said:
Wait, you're saying that John Gruber doesn't believe?

(The article clearly states that he does.)
Click to expand...

Gruber clearly states that he is not predicting at that point that it will happen, just that if the three assumptions (price of gold model + planed number of gold models + Apple correctly predicting demand) are correct, this would be the case. The only thing he truly believes in is the price prediction (and he is far from alone in this).
 
c1phers said:
Better off buying a Rolex that goes up in value.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely correct.

Especially since Apple watch is a tech device that'll be obsolete as soon as Apple Watch 2.0 is released with bug fixes, better features and supplants Apple Watch 1.0 as "The One To Have".

After all... one major driver of Apple sales is the "Cool Factor." Ego and Vanity play a huge part in persuading people to pay the premium prices Apple happily collects. :)
 
manu chao said:
Let's bookmark that and come back in two months when we should know the answer.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm not saying I know the answer. My point is those who are already completely certain might be getting ahead of themselves.

I will go further out on a limb on the watch bands. I believe the watches and bands will be sold separately. I've mentioned this a few times in Apple Watch threads but nobody has picked up on it, and I have not read of this possibility anywhere else. But I bet this is going to happen, and it will turn into a major gripe storm when pricing is announced. I'd expect that to happen within a few weeks, for preordering.
 
technosix said:
Especially since Apple watch is a tech device that'll be obsolete as soon as Apple Watch 2.0 is released with bug fixes, better features and supplants Apple Watch 1.0 as "The One To Have".

After all... one major driver of Apple sales is the "Cool Factor." Ego and Vanity play a huge part in persuading people to pay the premium prices Apple happily collects. :)
Click to expand...
It seems that consumers should be leasing Apple Watches, not buying them. A luxury watch may be cheaper than a luxury car, but the same economics are true: If you want to upgrade to each new model, you spend less money by leasing.
 
To me, seeing that there is a luxury option elevates the entire Apple Watch brand. It gets people to associate gold and money and excess with something that otherwise could be viewed as a boring electronic device. I love the fashion aspect of the Apple watch I feel the watch bands are absolutely exquisite.

Just the fact that we are actively comparing this product to Ferraris and Rolexes says something.
 
Doctor Q said:
It seems that consumers should be leasing Apple Watches, not buying them. A luxury watch may be cheaper than a luxury car, but the same economics are true: If you want to upgrade to each new model, you spend less money by leasing.
Click to expand...

There has been some rumors some companies want to do just that. The market for this in the large cities : LA, NYC, Chicago, Washington, Seattle, Miami could be quite large.
 
mantan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, based on it's assumed functions. However, it's part of the "Platform."
Apple, IMO, has just successfully completed the transition from a Device Co. to a Platform Co. There is too much focus on what each device can or cannot do.

"The Assimilation is Accelerating." All the product needs to do is be part of the "Ecosystem."

Unstoppable now. For better or worse. :apple:
 
so its purely a vanity item.

well if there is one thing many Apple users have in abundance, its vanity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back