Apple Watch Revenue Will Likely Be Dominated by Expensive Gold Edition

[jrswizzle]

I would agree those are realistic and reasonable price points.

I may actually lower your prediction on the normal model just a fraction, but based upon some common sense thinking and values, your numbers are were I would think they should be from a reasonable point of view.

Let's see if "we two" are right

Aye - I still think we're missing some of the information with respect to how these devices will be upgraded and handled moving forward.

To apply the same conventional "smartphone" cycle to them is premature. Heck, the iPad doesn't have the same type of upgrade cycle either.

It's a completely different category of device - my guess is, Apple has done something revolutionary that will allow for "premium" Apple prices, and ultra-supportability (I know that isn't a word - you get what I'm saying).

Let's wait and see. It will be exciting to watch! D)

 

[kdarling]

What is the value going to be of a $4000 gold Apple watch seven years from now when it now longer works and the parts aren't available to repair it? The "melt" value of the case, in my opinion....

Perhaps instead of the usual Stock Price widget, each gold Edition will come with a built-in Gold Meter, showing if the current meltdown value is more or less than you paid



I can also see these showing up on the Pawn Stars TV show in the next few years:

Customer: I'd like to get $4000 for it.

Rick: Sorry man, we see a dozen of these every day here in Vegas. You do realize that Apple sold millions of this Edition model, right? To me, it's only worth the price of gold in it, or about $1000 today.

 

[Zxxv]

Do you think the two sizes of the entry watch will cost the same? Or maybe a $100 increase for the larger one?
I've tried printing out the .pdf models that were posted on here a few days ago, tough choice.

I want the stainless steel watch, but my wallet says maybe not for the first gen.

they will be the same. Making someone pay more because they are fatter and require a bigger watch is just silly.

 

[oliversl]

FCOL, Apple is selling gold now! I mean, the metal called gold! Think about that.

I hope is not conflict gold.

 

[Mazeman]

The Apple watch is going to sweep the world. It will change the tech world in orders of magnitude more than the iPhone did.

Therefore, a "first edition" Gold version will soar in value as a collector's item, similar to owning a first edition Huck Finn, or a Mickey Mantle rookie card. I see the value going up 50-100X over the course of a decade. Easy money.

 

[inhalexhale1]

I wonder (realistically) how much you would get from a gold Apple Watch once the batter is shot in 2/3 years. I wonder if Apple will buy them back.

I doubt Apple buys them back. The resale will almost certainly be abysmal. Who's going to pay anywhere close to 4k for an outdated piece of tech? Despite how you feel about the style, this isn't a timeless watch people will be wearing years from now. It'll be more iPad/iPhone upgrade cycle and forget the old, versus a 10 year old Rolex you can keep/wear forever.

 

[darkslide29]

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...

I am also excited to see what happens. Views will differ, but many people thought the same of the iPad when it was revealed at the keynote. My gf was one of the most vocal saying how dumb it was to have a giant iPhone, that she already has a phone to do the exact same thing. Huge waste of money.

Flash forward a couple of years and she bought and loves her iPad Mini. She then upgraded to the mini with retina. And you could never get her to give it up. She uses it way more than her macbook, maybe a 90/10 split.

I am hopeful Apple's vision causes something like this to happen. While the watch is not a standalone product like the iPad is, they surely have big plans for us to become "addicted" and "need it" like their other products.
(quotation marks used because those are strong words to use, lol)

 

[AppleWarMachine]

well...at least when the iOS gets outdated in a few years, the gold will be worth something

 

[TommyA6]

Looking at the options I would say the stainless model will be your base model. The sport is lighter with a stronger crystal so that would rate as an upgrade. Also, the sport is listed second on the apple site. The edition is a no brainer for the top level.

Looking at the options, I think I like the space gray sport with the black band. Good mix of style and function. I also like the stainless with the link bracelet. Heavier but still nice looking. Which ever I get it will be the larger size and most likely the version that costs less. Not to be cheap but I have not worn a watch in about 5 years on a regular basis.

What stronger crystal?
The stainless steel and the gold one have sapphire crystal covers, while the sport has Gorilla Glass.
Also, the SS one has a ceramics back, while the sport has "composite" material back.

 

[darkslide29]

Even if the gold watch were cheap or gifted to me, I don't dress nicely enough to pull it off.

Perhaps this is a wake up call, because I am a grown ass man, lol.

 

[hlfway2anywhere]

How is Apple Watch less functional than iPod Touch? It does everything an iPod Touch does and more. And when you pair it with iPhone (which all users will be doing), it does even more. The only thing lacking is the sheer amount of native and watch optimized apps at launch but that will come quickly.

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.

 

[The Doctor11]

I hope they have more then enough Space Grey Sport watches that I can get one launch day no problem!

 

[darkslide29]

According to the report in the WSJ the sport model is the entry level model, not middle model. Nothing personal, but I'm going to go with WSJ's reporting since it has more "skin in the game" than hearsay from "a friend." But even common sense would lead one to thing the sport model is the least expensive w/ it's plastic band.

Honestly, given how Tim Cook has really clamped down on Apple Watch info I doubt too munch into has been given out in training sessions as to pricing. It's really not anything that "needs to be known" yet outside Apple's top marketing circles. These training sessions are likely just that -- how the watch works and how to present it to customers.

Completely agree with what you said. I personally would prefer the stainless steel model, and I'm still assuming it'll be the mid-tier model.

Also, the Apple site describes the sport model having a glass that sounds an awful lot like gorilla glass. The stainless steel and the gold will both use sapphire. This is plainly said on their site. We know all about how good sapphire is (it is obviously used in their iPhone camera lens and TouchID sensor after all). There's no reason to "cheap out" on the sports model since the sapphire will do perfectly well in sports-related activities (I'd rather not get into if it is more shatter prone though, since it is not a large phone face and is much smaller area. But may be worth thinking about). To me, the only explanation is that the sports model is the low end model.

And it would just be poor web design to present the watches like they do on their website. Although they don't have to be presented in any order, it feels as if it is designed to show us the models in order of low to high end.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

The Apple Watch is the most aesthetically unpleasing design they have ever produced in the Jonny Ives era and I would wager the least fucntionally desirable. I am not convinced of sustained sales after the initial 6 months new Apple product buzz.

Not a problem if Apple's initial projections are correct. If it sells 5-6M units in the first months to early adopters and those early adopters are seen with them, i.e., it doesn't end up in the dresser drawer or on eBay, then the concept will have a domino effect and become the thing to have. There are over 100M compatible iPhones in the wild. That first 5M just scratches the surface.

Personally I don't have an issue buying a new $400 watch every 2-3 years. If it was anything more than that though it would have to be more than the minor updates that iPhones have. That's Apple's biggest challenge to keep revenue from cratering like it has with the iPad once all potential buyers have bought and fewer willing to upgrade quickly.

 

[forthelove]

Stupid to buy 1st gen anything

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Maybe I am stupid and not seeing the light. But I cannot imagine how someone spends so much on the edition when you can get basically the same watch for $350.

Maybe someone is wrong. Someone will for sure. But plenty of people?

 

[macduke]

For a device a little more powerful than the AppleTV and less functional than iPod touch, it should be priced accordingly. $249 entry level and i'd be in line on launch day. $349...it's just above my instant-buy threshold. I have to think about it.

Yeah, that price makes more sense if it's going to be subsidized by the more expensive models. The thing is we're not sure yet how much those gold watches will cost. Considering that many other companies sell gold watches for tens of thousands of dollars, this isn't too crazy. But like you, this base price is just above my threshold for something of limited utility—at least in it's present form. And especially considering that I would want the stainless steel model.

I think the Apple Watch will see a decent amount of success in the first year, much like the iPhone, but subsequent years are going to be where it's at. If the battery life is improved and it has more health sensors then I might get one. I have a couple Apple gift cards burning a hole in my pocket, but I'm thinking I'll probably pass on the first gen. Although part of me wants to buy one just to have the first model, much like I still have the first iPhone and iPad. It's just a geek thing—hopefully I can resist.

 

[doelcm82]

Given Apple's track record, there's no way I'd drop thousands on a low-functionality device, only to have it abandoned by a new model within two years.

I wouldn't either. Is Apple crazy? Are they totally out of their minds?!!! Do they read these comments? Can they even think about how ridiculous the idea is? Would a company that has been so savvy as to become the largest market cap ever do something so completely certain to fail and fail big? Is Apple doomed?

Or do they have a plan?

Please could someone explain the logic of buying a gold/precious metal watch that will be out of date in 2 years??

I'm waiting to see if they have a plan to keep the watch from being out of date in 2 years (such as a trade-in program or replacing the battery, sensors, and processors for a fee). Which would make your question moot. Plus, I'm not planning to buy the gold edition anyway. I don't wear gold jewelry.

Seriously, Apple has some expectations about how many they think they can sell. And they know their own history. And they've hired people who will tell them how the watch market is different from the phone market (just as the phone market was different from the PC market) (just as the automobile market is different from the watch market).

I'm expecting the "one more thing" to be not a new feature, but a bit of news that will let the people who are eyeing the gold Edition know that they will not have to worry about their purchase becoming less "smart watch" and more "dumb bracelet" in just a couple a years.

If I'm wrong about Apple giving Edition buyers a way to consider their purchase as "logical", then I'll sit back and see how the sales numbers go.

 

[Paddle1]

This doesn't make sense to me, it's like selling the iPhone 5 for $2499 and then selling the 5C for $299. There isn't enough of a difference to justify such a large gap.

 

[leenak]

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.

Actually, people seem to forget inflation when you say such things. $300 in 1970 is equal to about $1800 today. I'm all for people spending money on things they enjoy though. But from people showing prices of various Rolexes, the values over 20-30 years don't seem to change much when you account for inflation.

 

[MNJohn]

The gold Apple watch is too thick and ugly to be considered fine jewelry and too functionality-challenged to be an indispensable device. To make matters worse, it requires a companion iPhone bulging in your pocket to do anything.

In my opinion, the gold Apple watch will be little more than a novelty. Sure, there will plenty of clueless pro athletes and members of the Hollywood set who may buy it, but I suspect most of the people with brains and money who opt for an iPhone will not think twice about an expensive "fashion" watch with built in obsolescence.

 

[Urban Joe]

Why not! Why shouldn't Apple offer the most expensive disposable personal item in history. There are enough trust fund schmucks out there to make Apple a pretty penny. Only if the innards were upgradable would I be willing to spend money that frivolously...you'd be better off buy gold bullion. If this thing ends up costing that much I would be embarrassed that I was foolish enough to blow money like that. It's a symbol of class for people who don't have any.

 

[firewood]

Look at the first gen iPhone. No one would want to use it. Now imagine if you paid $4000 for it.

I've already had a couple Apple products for which I paid over $4k new (680x0 Macs). One of them already went into an ewaste dumpster. The other might fetch me over $50 on eBay.

So I can imagine another.

 

[mchoffa]

Maybe I am stupid and not seeing the light. But I cannot imagine how someone spends so much on the edition when you can get basically the same watch for $350.

Same could be said about a Rolex vs a Timex watch. I mean, they both tell the time, so why buy the more expensive one?

The difference is the material used. If you want real gold, you can expect to pay a lot. If you are ok with aluminum, then you can pay $350.

 

[firewood]

The gold Apple watch is too thick and ugly to be considered fine jewelry ...

Look at the auction prices on some early 1900's square Cartier watches. About the same thickness. Not fine jewelry at those prices?