Apple Watch Revenue Will Likely Be Dominated by Expensive Gold Edition

[Zxxv]

I'll bet you Apple will offer a "return/update" service for the gold watches. You send your watch in, and they replace it with a new one for the offset cost. Most of the value comes from the gold so returning the gold and then the upgrade and handling fee would make sense - ahhh somewhat.

Also, I think the idea of a Gold Apple watch is against the company philosophy. It's not something I could have seen Jobs ever agreeing with, even if people want it - The whole idea behind the company has always been affordable lux and high quality for the average person. Oh well, let's see where things go.

and then you find out the new one has less gold and you got stung

 

[Freyqq]

Why buy a gold version when there will be a new version in a year, rendering it obsolete? The advantage of buying a fancy analog watch is that no new features come out a year later.

 

[jouster]

Not to mention how if Apple produces millions of Edition Watches the resale market will be flooded with first-gens at a fraction of the price.

Wouldn't the gold determine the resale price of the Edition? After all, if they are priced at (say) $5,000 and the watch is no more than $349 of that price, then who would let theirs go for less than about $4,500?

 

[Zxxv]

Won't the battery hold less than a day's charge after a year or so anyway?

if its trying to power everything else yep I reckon so but to just show date and time it'll last ages.

 

[KazKam]

Here's what I want to know.

If I shell out hundreds to thousands of dollars for an Apple Watch Edition, will Apple provide a service to update the internals (like, by bringing it into an Apple store or mailing it in)?

I don't have a problem paying a high price for a watch made of premium materials. The problem in this case is the inevitable year-or-two obsolescence of the tech inside.

Rolex and Omega get away with it because the tech is eternal/mechanical, as it can be for a one trick pony. But wrapping soon-to-be outdated tech in a "gold" wrapper seems insane... unless there's an upgrade path!

 

[TommyA6]

no way they are pricing the stainless steel at more than $599. A $100-$200 premium over the sport is more like it.

A 38 mm SS watch with a sports band could go for $599.
Now, factor in the larger one (which could cost more), a fancier band (milanese or link band) and maybe even a more pricey space black color and you get to a grand pretty fast.

 

[applepuree]

I predict free product upgrade/exchange for at least four years on the $4000 model and at least one year on the $1000 model. What I mean is that with apple watch 2 or 3 or 4 comes out owners of the $4000 watch can walk in to any Apple store and exchange their watch for the new watch, for free.

ummm have you been smoking something When did EVER do something like that ? Even the reuse recycle on the iPhone and iPad give very low trade in values compared to the open market.

 

[extricated]

While it hasn't been publicly confirmed, I have friends that work at Apple who have already gone through the training for it. They have all stated that the Apple Watch is the entry model at $349, (The one with stainless steel/ sapphire display cover). The sports model is the middle of the road model. I know it should be taken with a grain of salt, but there is no reason as to why I wouldn't believe them.

I've wondered about this.
In the keynote, "Apple Watch" will start at $349, not "Apple Watch Sport".
On Apple's website, they are listed in order: watch, sport, edition.
Lowest price to highest?

I don't really think that the sport is the mid-tier watch because the vast majority of pundits say it is the low-end, but since it has never been specifically stated by Apple, I remain hopeful (yet doubtful) that the stainless steel will be the $349 option.

 

[newdeal]

only way I would even consider this is if they would buy it back from you for at least the price of the gold every time you want to upgrade it so upgrades cost what the internals cost and not the whole price all over again

 

[MICHAELSD]

Wouldn't the gold determine the resale price of the Edition? After all, if they are priced at (say) $5,000 and the watch is no more than $349 of that price, then who would let theirs go for less than about $4,500?

If the market is flooded with them, people will want to upgrade at the market price. It likely won't have more than a couple hundred dollars worth of gold anyway.

 

[HenryDJP]

Not....4000 for a companion watch. That is steep.

You didn't get the joke. Coffee will help.

 

[b0nd18t]

It doesn't make any sense to buy the more expensive ones. This will be outdated too quickly. I guess if you're super rich and don't give a

 

[Aluminum213]

$1000+ for a smart watch that's going to be outdated in year is mind boggling.

Unlike a Swiss made timepiece, which will timeless and always as good as when you first got it

 

[HenryDJP]

I agree. The Apple Watch will never go up in value. As technologically advanced as it is, the value will be based on its features and will be absolute after 2 or 3 generations. Look at the first gen iPhone. No one would want to use it. Now imagine if you paid $4000 for it.

But what's the point of a watch going up in value anyway? I hear people constantly bragging about their Rolex and how valuable it is but they will never part with it, so if you're not going to sell it who cares if it goes up in value?

Just for the record, I certainly won't be giving Apple $4000 for a watch, but then again, I won't spend more than $100 on a watch and I much prefer the more durable, tried and true, waterproof G-shock.

 

[redsoftware]

I'll be buying two!

I'll be buying between 850,000 and 1 million.

 

[samcraig]

I think if I was going to spend 4K on a watch, it wouldn't be an Apple Watch. But that's just me.

 

[Bane-Thunder]

Although I couldn't pay anything above £400 for a watch as its just a vanity item to me. It shocks me that people think that buyers will want to upgrade yearly.

Like the iPad I imagine this device being held onto for years before ever upgrading to a newer model.

 

[Hodar1]

Recycle the body?

Just wondering. As all watch bodies will have the identical functionality, as they will all have the same Z1 processor setup - if Apple intends on selling a Z2 processor as a drop-in change for future Apple Watches.

I know, doubtful; but easier to take than dropping cash on a new watch every year or two.

 

[HenryDJP]

Too bad no one is going to upgrade the gold edition every year, at most replace the central watch but keep the rest. This is another product that - like the current iPad - lacks sustenance.

Seriously with this post? You do realize that if Apple is selling $4000 watches they will be perfectly fine with those customers that don't need to upgrade every year.

 

[usarioclave]

Most expensive ever sold? Apple has sold a bunch of machines that are over $4000. The iiCI MSRP was $6269, and only had a 25mhz 030.

 

[MNJohn]

I hate to break it to many posters who think that the $4,000 watch competes with a Rolex. You aren't getting into a new Rolex for under $7k and that is for a 36mm stainless which looks like a woman's watch on most men.

To get into a new Rolex you are likely going to spend $10,000ish (on the extreme low end) or 2.5x the cost of an Apple watch.

The difference is that the actual cost of owing a Rolex over time will most likely be less than that of the gold Apple Watch.

If one would pay $4K for a pre-owned Rolex today, I would venture to say that it's retail value will be worth at least $4K five years from now, as Rolex continues to develop its brand in emerging Asian economies and increases its prices as it has historically done to maintain the exclusivity of the brand. In 1970, I paid $300 (yes, $300) for a stainless and gold Roxex Datejust with a stainless and gold Jubliee bracelet. The watch still runs fine and is nearly indistinguishable in design and function from one manufactured yesterday. My cost for 45 years of ownership for this Rolex is less than zero; it's current retail value is substantially more than $1000, so my cost of ownership is negative. The same is true of the Patek Phillipes and other quality watches.

To have the same cost of ownership as the $4k Rolex example referenced above, the retail value of the gold Apple Watch would have to be $4000 five years from now. I can only see this happening if the price of gold rises substantially from today's prices and the "melt" value of the case approaches the asking price of the watch.

 

[powertoold]

I estimate no more than 2 million Apple Watch sales a quarter, and maybe 100,000 of them will be the $4000 gold edition.

 

[TonyC28]

I guess if there are enough people out there willing and able to spend $4,000 to have a gold version of something that they could have for substantially cheaper made out of other materials but at the same functionality then that is fantastic for Apple. I just hope they aren't banking on it.

 

[TommyA6]

I've wondered about this.
In the keynote, "Apple Watch" will start at $349, not "Apple Watch Sport".
On Apple's website, they are listed in order: watch, sport, edition.
Lowest price to highest?

I don't really think that the sport is the mid-tier watch because the vast majority of pundits say it is the low-end, but since it has never been specifically stated by Apple, I remain hopeful (yet doubtful) that the stainless steel will be the $349 option.

Watch sport being mid tier makes no sense. The stainless steel version has a sapphire crystal cover + ceramic back, while the sport has "Ion strengthened glass" aka Gorilla glass and composite back.

 

[Mildredop]

I am so excited to see how this pans out. I have zero interest in the Apple Watch - I think it's hideous to look at as well as solving a problem I don't have.

5-6million?! If they sell this many, I'll be truly amazed. I really hope this is going to be a massive Apple flop.

And $4k for the top end one?! Anyone who buys that needs their head examined. A couple of years later (when it no longer runs the latest OS) it'll be worth a couple of hundred if you're lucky.

Only time will tell...