About as much as you would get for a 2 to 3 year-old gold Apple Watch with fully working battery ... minus what it costs to change the battery. The battery won't be a major problem, it is not rocket science to make the battery changeable if they don't weld the whole thing shut. It's the slow and power-hungry CPU & graphic chip, as well as the missing sensors and radios. Or just the thickness of the device.
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
How is aluminium more durable than stainless steel?
It isn't, but in a sports context the overall durability of the Sport version could possibly be better. I'm not saying it is more durable, I'm just saying it could be.
Sapphire is amazing when it comes to scratch resistance, but it's probably less durable than the Ion-X when it comes to shatter resistance from impact. With an aluminum body, there would be less weight behind the inertia of a potentially damaging screen impact.
Apple might make the interior (the S1 chip package) upgradable by keeping it the same size for two or three years. And then only offer the upgrade for the gold watches (eg, make it a $300 upgrade and gold watch owners could see this as a very reasonable price). Not offering it for the sport edition would not cause much negative publicity as spending another $50 to get a completely new watch isn't too unreasonable. The stainless users however might feel left out.
----------
And for a lot of sports activities having a lighter watch would also be an advantage.
The premise of this post seems entirely dependent on John Gruber's estimates of the price of the different models. I like John Gruber and enjoy his podcast, but wouldn't be surprised if he was very wrong with his pricing estimates. I can see the stainless steel version selling for $500 rather than the $1000 he suggests. And I have no clue how you would begin to estimate the gold version. We have no idea exactly how much pure gold is being used, so how do we guess? Maybe not so much, so it may only be $1000, not the $5-10K he estimates. The rather high percentage of gold models they are having built leads me to think that the prices may not be so high after all. If they are $10,000 each, they are taking a hell of risk producing so many.
You are right, but a watch is something always visible (ok, not always, a jacket sleeve will often hide it) and thus part of your appearance. And appearance is something a lot of people want to be able to customise significantly. And showing something valuable is part of the appearance.
----------
Hey, we made the new version of the watch thinner.and then you find out the new one has less gold and you got stung
If I were apple I would price the Gold watch as follows:
Standard Price of watch...........$349
Price of Gold in case...........~$1500
Premium Markup (10%)........~$185
Total Price---------------------$2035
This is of course assuming that the case uses $1500 in gold (otherwise adjust the numbers accordingly)
So Apple makes Say... approximately $139.6 on the basic watch (40% margin), some of the cost is the case, say $15.00
on this "theoretical" gold watch apple would make $340
then apple could offer an "upgrade" program where you can trade in your old Gold watch for $1500(the value of the gold) off of the next one. The consumer pays $535 for the new one in two years.
I can't see the gold one working without some sort of trade in. Assuming that it has a lot of gold in it's case/band then you could take it in and recycle it for it's precious metal once it's internals become obsolete. But Apple could just as easily do that for the customers, and it would be seen as a better service.
Standard Price of watch...........$349
Price of Gold in case...........~$1500
Premium Markup (10%)........~$185
Total Price---------------------$2035
This is of course assuming that the case uses $1500 in gold (otherwise adjust the numbers accordingly)
So Apple makes Say... approximately $139.6 on the basic watch (40% margin), some of the cost is the case, say $15.00
on this "theoretical" gold watch apple would make $340
then apple could offer an "upgrade" program where you can trade in your old Gold watch for $1500(the value of the gold) off of the next one. The consumer pays $535 for the new one in two years.
I can't see the gold one working without some sort of trade in. Assuming that it has a lot of gold in it's case/band then you could take it in and recycle it for it's precious metal once it's internals become obsolete. But Apple could just as easily do that for the customers, and it would be seen as a better service.
A first class airplane ticket costs more than a golden
watch and you can only enjoy it for a day. So I think think it offers plenty of value for the rich. The rest who worry about value, shouldn't even think about spending 4k on a watch.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.
We are on macrumors speculating about an upcoming product, posting comments for so many months. Kudos to you for having the self control, but after so many rumors, so many posts, and so many comments, to make myself wait 2-3 generations sounds difficult!
The Apple watch is much more limited in what in can display because of the display size. Anything that involves more than bite-sized visual information (text longer than a few words, images, etc.) is much less easy to consume on the watch.
----------
One don't need a bigger watch because one is fatter, one just needs a longer strap.
A first class airplane ticket costs more than a golden
Will the rich want to have the same watch as millions of other people?
You obviously don't own a Rolex. I do. I've had had the 1970 Datejust factory serviced maybe four times in 45 years. It runs perfectly after each service and all that has ever been replaced is the crystal (which are now sapphire on the current versions and therefore no longer requires replacement) and the gaskets required to maintain its status as waterproof to an ungodly depth (300 feet, as I recall). It's "bullet proof". That's one of the reasons it is worth the money along with the facts that it's reliable, of timeless design and has high resale value.
If I add the inflation-adjusted purchase price of $1800 to a total servicing which is certainly less than the $3000 I will include here, I'm at a total investment of ca. $4800. The watch could be easily sold for $1000 in less than a day. Therefore my cost of ownership is ($4800-1000)/45 = ca. $85/year. I would not be surprised if a $4000 gold Apple watch would lose $1000 before your posterior clears the exit door at the Apple store.
So what is your point?
Last edited:
If I understand things correctly, there is no difference in features or functions between the $349 watch and the more expensive models. The only differences are in the case materials and bands, aesthetics only? So the heart of the gold watch is the same S the cheaper one? You'll be paying $5k for a watch with the internals of the base model?
I'm not sure about this. We don't know how modular the thing is-it might have replacable innards, or Apple might have some trade in program as well; why is quite simple. If Gold is that expensive and goes up over time in value, it would cost Apple next to nothing to get back your watch for free, replace the module, and melt down the old gold. They could, in my view, sell replacements at $400 a pop. This means that the gold shell could indeed go up in value over time. And if no new sensors are introduced in the first few models, so much the better, as Apple wouldn't need to do anything but replace the chip and battery.
Is the iPhone 5C or iPhone 5 made of 18K gold?....No
Watch edition will have at least 30g of gold (that's without a band), which is more than $1000 just in gold. So lets add things up:
-a $1000 in 18K gold (without a band)
-around $250 for the actual watch parts (probably more)
-several hundred bucks for a band ($300 minimum, probably more)
-$100 more for the sapphire cover
-A few hundred bucks for the fancy box
= That's around $2000
Add to that a certain luxury tax/percentage and I can see the complete package costing $2500 or more
$2000 is probably the bare minimum
OH man, Id be so angry if I bought one of these and the next generation releases a year later with improved features
Then again, the people who actually buy this model probably dont even care about that...
Then again, the people who actually buy this model probably dont even care about that...
Apple doesn't sell things at a loss. I'd say, based on your numbers, $2800 is a minimum.Is the iPhone 5C or iPhone 5 made of 18K gold?....No
So lets add things up:
-a $1000 in 18K gold (without a band)
-around $250 for the actual watch parts (probably more)
-several hundred bucks for a band ($300 minimum, probably more)
-$100 more for the sapphire cover
-A few hundred bucks for the fancy box
= That's around $2000
Add to that a certain luxury tax/percentage and I can see the complete package costing $2500 or more
$2000 is probably the bare minimum
Fine jewelry usually has a 2-3x markup, just because the volume is so low.
OH man, Id be so angry if I bought one of these and the next generation releases a year later with improved features
Then again, the people who actually buy this model probably dont even care about that...
Expect it, that is the norm.
Maybe they will have a hardware upgrade option. Send in your old watch to get new guts installed. That could leave you with a one time bling purchase and just circuitry to upgrade when the next gens come out.
With the TAM ... Apple did an incredible introductory and personal delivery of the first run products ... shipped in person by an employee in a limosine to your front door (USA only). Phenomenal.
I expect a similar kind of introduction for Rose Gold and a few limited exclusive "platinum" or 'Titanium' versions for charity
I know, that's why I said $2000 would be the bare minimum
. $2500+ is much more likely.