Apple Watch Revenue Will Likely Be Dominated by Expensive Gold Edition

[mdelvecchio]

I can see spending $4k+ on an heirloom timepiece but not on something that will be outdated in a span of months or even a couple years.

I haven't heard of a substantive difference in the technology between the different models. As a result, it seems like you'd be better off buying a Sport Model and investing the rest in a couple of gold coins.

guess you aren't familiar with people who like flashy status symbols. these people exist and they spend thousands on gold-plated iPhones, etc. Vertu, anyone?

http://www.vertu.com/us/en/home

----------

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.

gee, if only it were made out of a precious metal which could be sold for its weight value...

 

[firewood]

Better off buying a Rolex that goes up in value.

But you would likely have been even better off putting the same amount in a well chosen investment portfolio plus a Timex, than investing in (and maintaining and insuring) a Rolex.

Imagine 10, 20 or 30 years ago, if you had the choice between purchasing a Rolex... and a number of AAPL shares amounting to the same price as that Rolex.

 

[newdeal]

I remember when they showed pics of the internals at the keynote, the "S1" cpu all in one module.. It looks so removable, like it is just asking to be upgraded in the future. How great would it be to be able to upgrade to the S2 without replacing the entire watch? Even if not upgradable forever, maybe 'upgrade compatible' for 2-3 years.

Pic of S1 at keynote

Hopeful this is announced at the next keynote before launch. But not really expected.

more likely its not removable and is a water resistant package/heat sink around it. Apple doesn't do removable anything. Although they may do recycling and give you money towards a new one on trade

 

[IJ Reilly]

But that's so rare. lol

A lack of information should never stop anyone from coming to firm conclusions. That would be new and deeply scary world.

 

[goobot]

gee, if only it were made out of a precious metal which could be sold for its weight value...

You honestly think this thing would be sold anywhere near its weight value?

 

[Zelmung]

I can see spending $4k+ on an heirloom timepiece but not on something that will be outdated in a span of months or even a couple years.

I haven't heard of a substantive difference in the technology between the different models. As a result, it seems like you'd be better off buying a Sport Model and investing the rest in a couple of gold coins.

Apple can solve this problem with two words: Trade-In.

 

[cppguy]

This would only work if Apple promised to replace the internals every year.

 

[Nuvi]

$4000 for a watch which will be out of date in a year or so?!? What do you do with it after a year? Melt it? Seriously, it will be worthless piece of gold (!?!?) under record time. I can easily see my self spending far more than $4000 on a high quality Swiss watch but not on any wearable computer.

 

[TXCherokee]

I can see spending $4k+ on an heirloom timepiece but not on something that will be outdated in a span of months or even a couple years.

I haven't heard of a substantive difference in the technology between the different models. As a result, it seems like you'd be better off buying a Sport Model and investing the rest in a couple of gold coins.

What if, just suppose what if, at that $4000 price Apple offers to replace the internals over the next few upgrades as part of the price. Now your gold watch is good for a decade or so. Do you buy one then?

I know it's still expensive, and this sounds far fetched, but Apple is known to shake up the market and a complimentary upgrade would definitely do that (and kill a few of the nay-sayers agruments.)

 

[mdelvecchio]

Of course, it's always possible that Apple will pull a switcheroo and change to plated at the last second. (It almost seems like they'll have to, if they really think they're going to be selling millions of the Edition.)

they won't, and they will. there are people into flashy displays of wealth.

http://www.vertu.com/us/en/home

 

[TXCherokee]

Stop. A Rolex is a rolex and a times is a timex. Two different manufactures, completely different inside. Completely different re-sale value. By your argument it wouldn't matter which car you drive because each one can get you from point a to b.

But the apple watch is different. Same manufacturer, same manufacturing, same inside, same functions.

But if you are the someone who buys this edition - hey why not. That is entirely your choice.

I just cannot see that the apple watch edition has a broad appeal if it is really priced according to what Gruber suspects.

Just a quick counterpoint (both arguments have some validity to them)....

Both come off the same line in Ontario Canada.

 

[StyxMaker]

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.

It that case you should buy one and leave it in the box, never wear or use it, to maximize its resale value.

 

[kdarling]

they won't, and they will. there are people into flashy displays of wealth.

http://www.vertu.com/us/en/home

Sure, and that interview in the New Yorker (?) said that Jon Ive was very interested in how Vertu sold their phones.

But selling millions? I gotta say, if Apple can pull off selling that many watches at $4,000 apiece, more power to them. That would be astonishing.

Just a quick counterpoint (both arguments have some validity to them)....

Both come off the same line in Ontario Canada.

Not the same of course. Those two vehicles are miles apart in materials and features.

OTOH, the watch models are simply different in what their cases are made of. It's like having a different paint job on the same car.

 

[paulsdenton]

I bought my Rolex GMT-Master in 1986 for about $1,800; which is probably about $4,000 today. I don't think I'd spend that kind of money on a mechanical watch again, not at my age.

There is a hidden cost to a good mechanical watch, though; I have to have it serviced every few years because the crystal gets scratched, the mechanism needs to be lubricated and they always replace the hands and winding crown. I have the Rolex factory do it and it costs about $750 every four or five years. I don't know if other good mechanical watches need this, but I bet they do.

I like the Rolex and it has given me many years of service, but all it does is tell time (and date). I'm ready for something more capable. I don't think I'll shell out $4K for it, though. Not for the first go-round, that's for sure. I'll buy a stainless version, and see where it goes. If it looks like a winner, those rose gold models are sure good looking....

 

[LordVic]

Sure, and that interview in the New Yorker (?) said that Jon Ive was very interested in how Vertu sold their phones.

But selling millions? I gotta say, if Apple can pull off selling that many watches at $4,000 apiece, more power to them. That would be astonishing.



Not the same of course. Those two vehicles are miles apart in materials and features.

OTOH, the watch models are simply different in what their cases are made of. It's like having a different paint job on the same car.

or to stick to the car analogies.

it's like the K-cars of the 80's. one car platform. one body, one drivetrain, but sold at different price levels with different paint and materials on the inside...

 

[burtba]

Based on not heaps of peeps will spend the Watch Edition kind of $$ on a watch that will be superseded yearly, and in years to come will be a laughing stock of old tech, make me wonder if for the Watch Edition they will offer, internals update change over program. Makes sense, for Watch Edition only.

 

[mackinmike]

oh my... really? this is not a timeless watch like Omega, Panerai, Rolex, AP, Patek... this is a watch that will be obsolete in 1 yr. Only diehard itards would be getting this.

----------

if u really want gold, get a regular 349 one and gold plate it. it's probably cheaper. heck, diamond encrust it while you're at it. bling yo!

 

[elgrecomac]

I'm still confused. Why would anyone want a device that is
1. A first iteration /generation
2. Requires to be teathered to an iPhone
3. The biometrics will be dumbed down ...see#1 above


Maybe gen 3 or 4 but not first gen.

 

[BJMRamage]

of course more revenue will be had with the Expensive watch...there are folks out there who love to show off Gold and new gadgets like a status symbol.

those in the lesser spending audience may have more numbers but some of them hold onto their money before dropping $$$$ on a new flashy watch they stopped using because of the iPhone

 

[groovyd]

I'll be buying two!

2 arms 2 legs, 4 for me

 

[bawbac]

I'm still confused. Why would anyone want a device that is
1. A first iteration /generation
2. Requires to be teathered to an iPhone
3. The biometrics will be dumbed down ...see#1 above


Maybe gen 3 or 4 but not first gen.

An Apple zealot will do anything that provides them accessories for their Apple products no matter the cost or how inferior the accessory may be.

 

[shiseiryu1]

"I am Rich"

The gold watch is the physical version of that "I am Rich" app that came out all those years ago.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

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.

For a Rolex to keep its value Rolex needs to service it/its springs/seals 4 years which costs upwards of $600. Your 45 year cost of ownership should be $6,600 for your Rolex to be kept in good condition.

 

[campingsk8er]

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.

Yeah I understand that, but they were informed that the Apple Watch is the entry model.

----------

How is aluminium more durable than stainless steel?

I have no idea, all I know is that Apple Watch is gonna be more scratch resistant, but Apple Watch Sport is going to be more drop resistant, sweat resistant, etc...

 

[splogue]

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.

I know. I laugh every time I read that. I think they haven't been paying attention.

Sean