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 Working With Swatch for iWatch With Multiple Designs, Price Points?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Alongside an iwatch of Apple's own branding..."
Kind of. The "iwatch" is the wristband. It will have a universal connector to interface with watches made by anybody. They will be "iwatch compatible" so to speak.
Apple never makes anything they cannot have incredible margins on. Making a wristband that holds a watch module keeps the sensors on your wrist and allows them to mass produce a small number of variations and use economies of scale to capture higher margins. Oh and there will be a screen on the wristband below where the watch connects.
Kind of. The "iwatch" is the wristband. It will have a universal connector to interface with watches made by anybody. They will be "iwatch compatible" so to speak.
Apple never makes anything they cannot have incredible margins on. Making a wristband that holds a watch module keeps the sensors on your wrist and allows them to mass produce a small number of variations and use economies of scale to capture higher margins. Oh and there will be a screen on the wristband below where the watch connects.
No, more like when it was predicted mobileme, ping, etc. would fail. The watch will join THAT legacy.
Today there is a vibrant market for iPhone and iPad cases even though Apple offers a few choices itself. I think the same concept will benefit iWatch personalization...various bands and settings/holders...probably not really a "partnership"...other than some type of "Made for iWatch" licensing agreement.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Didn't we already have that with the iPod nano? That was interesting but didn't sell like crazy as a watch.
I'm from Europe, and I can't imagine any government subsidizing an apple wearable. Private health insurance exists but as far as I know is very minority. Most of the people use the public health service, and I don't think the apple device will replace any serious medical equipment. I would say it would be an scandal to subsidize such a thing by the government. Apple sounds expensive just because its design, iWatch sounds superfluous and unnecessary.
I don't think it even would be legal to record personal data to increase or decrease your payment, talking about private insurance, something like that was attempted in several countries with car insurance and some governments forbade it for the most part or allowed it only for reducing price from the standard, but no one uses it since its conditions make it absurd or useless, for both insurance companies and clients.
Public education institutions which use Apple computers or iPads (very few) use to be accused of wasting. I personally agree, you can't waste public money and Apple products are expensive, no need to choose them.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
So if someone needs a diabetes tester there, they pay for the full cost of it themselves? Similarly, when someone there needs other things like that, they pay for it fully out of pocket too?
Here in the U.S., we pay for insurance. Then a number of things like a diabetes tester might be covered by that insurance (not out of pocket). Some citizens are covered by Medicare (a kind of government funded insurance). For those people, things like those kinds of testers can be paid for by the program instead of by the individual. Do you not have something like that?
Here in the U.S., we pay for insurance. Then a number of things like a diabetes tester might be covered by that insurance (not out of pocket). Some citizens are covered by Medicare (a kind of government funded insurance). For those people, things like those kinds of testers can be paid for by the program instead of by the individual. Do you not have something like that?
If you need a diabetes tester it may be fully subsidized or 80-90-95% or so subsidized, for example, but you can't choose any tester you want, just the ones selected by the ministry of health (and your M.D. selects it for you between them normally), and I refuse to believe that Apple's wearable will be cheaper, more efficient or austere than testers developed by medical companies for that purpose.
Nowadays in my country you have to pay some percentage of some medicaments (10%? or less, it depends), and other services, but after all it can't be more, by law, than 20€ per month or something like that
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OK, so there is a substantial subsidy in play. Whether the idea can apply or not comes down to Apple's ability to negotiate it's way on to the approved device list and getting enough subsidy so the 5%-20% an individual pays out of pocket plus the 80%-95% paid by the government or insurance = the full price including the margin Apple would want if it was selling this iWatch outright.
Negotiating with subsidy payers in many countries is exactly what Apple did/does with iphone. So can that be replicated with some kind of super health device? That's the idea.
There you imply that a dedicated diabetes tester is valued at a low price. It would be here too. But the rumors are multiple sensors. I've seen numbers like 8 or 10 or more. I've also seen price rumors of $200. $200/10 sensors = $20 each. If you government or mine values each sensor at $10, then the $200 iWatch might be sold at $100 out of pocket + $100 from those who pay the subsidy. IPhones apparently cost $600-$900 outright. But "we" think of them at $199 or $99 or free* because of the subsidy. Same idea.
If we can't imagine paying-say- $500 for this iWatch but that's what Apple wants for it, can they get a subsidy model to make it cost $199 or $99 or free*? I'm speculating maybe in the U.S. You're saying no way in Europe but then offering up subsidy examples where some things can get covered up to 95%. can Apple bundle up a number of those some things so that the cost conscious ministry will approve this iWatch for such subsidies? If so, that's how my wild idea also works in Europe.
You know the situation there better than me and I freely admit it's a wild idea, so I'll take your feedback as more likely than my guessing. For me though, no subsidy model makes the iWatch concept much harder to imagine being adopted by the masses. IPhone 1 didn't really do that well until the price that Apple wanted for it could mostly be paid via subsidy.
----------
In the U.S., the Swatch brand is mentally attached to colorful, cheap, mostly kiddie watches. It's not generally known that Swatch is much more than that (for instance, behind a VERY premium brand like Omega too). So I think the perceived dislike is in the idea of "our" favorite premium brand-Apple- being associated with a (perceived) cheap brand like Swatch.
If this article had referenced partners like Omega and Movado instead of Swatch and Timex, the sentiment would probably be entirely different.
Negotiating with subsidy payers in many countries is exactly what Apple did/does with iphone. So can that be replicated with some kind of super health device? That's the idea.
There you imply that a dedicated diabetes tester is valued at a low price. It would be here too. But the rumors are multiple sensors. I've seen numbers like 8 or 10 or more. I've also seen price rumors of $200. $200/10 sensors = $20 each. If you government or mine values each sensor at $10, then the $200 iWatch might be sold at $100 out of pocket + $100 from those who pay the subsidy. IPhones apparently cost $600-$900 outright. But "we" think of them at $199 or $99 or free* because of the subsidy. Same idea.
If we can't imagine paying-say- $500 for this iWatch but that's what Apple wants for it, can they get a subsidy model to make it cost $199 or $99 or free*? I'm speculating maybe in the U.S. You're saying no way in Europe but then offering up subsidy examples where some things can get covered up to 95%. can Apple bundle up a number of those some things so that the cost conscious ministry will approve this iWatch for such subsidies? If so, that's how my wild idea also works in Europe.
You know the situation there better than me and I freely admit it's a wild idea, so I'll take your feedback as more likely than my guessing. For me though, no subsidy model makes the iWatch concept much harder to imagine being adopted by the masses. IPhone 1 didn't really do that well until the price that Apple wanted for it could mostly be paid via subsidy.
----------
In the U.S., the Swatch brand is mentally attached to colorful, cheap, mostly kiddie watches. It's not generally known that Swatch is much more than that (for instance, behind a VERY premium brand like Omega too). So I think the perceived dislike is in the idea of "our" favorite premium brand-Apple- being associated with a (perceived) cheap brand like Swatch.
If this article had referenced partners like Omega and Movado instead of Swatch and Timex, the sentiment would probably be entirely different.
This is exactly what Apple needs, it's worked in the past right?
http://media.engadget.com/img/product/8/6es/motorola-rokr-e1-axj-800.jpg
http://media.engadget.com/img/product/8/6es/motorola-rokr-e1-axj-800.jpg
Before this rumor, I never had any desire to buy an iWatch, but I would definitely consider a piece made by Swatch.
Swatch may not be Patek Phillippe and they may not even make their own movements but their Omega Speedmaster Pro, Seamaster, and Planet Oceans are fantastic "masstige" semi-luxury watches that are affordable to many.
They are like the BMW of watch companies.
I would definitely retire my Speedmaster Pro for a Swatch/Omega/Apple watch.
Swatch may not be Patek Phillippe and they may not even make their own movements but their Omega Speedmaster Pro, Seamaster, and Planet Oceans are fantastic "masstige" semi-luxury watches that are affordable to many.
They are like the BMW of watch companies.
I would definitely retire my Speedmaster Pro for a Swatch/Omega/Apple watch.
I think this is right.. It's very likely the watch is just the band.. However, what did you mean by a screen below where the watch connects? Wondering if you could expand on that.
No, but if someone needs a blood sugar level meter, that's what they'll be getting. Not a geeky wearable that sorta pretends to do blood sugar monitoring.
Many don't buy mechanical Swiss watches for accuracy. My children's $10 digital watches keep far better time than my mechanical wind-up watch.
Yes, because we want an iWatch to cost $6,000. Swatch owns Tissot which makes some decent watches. Obviously not up to par with a Rolex,but a nice watch none the less. They also own Omega which is quite a reputable watch, but can also be quite expensive.
It would be intriguing if Apple made their version of digital "movements" for watch companies similar to the way ETA makes movements for many different Swiss watch companies.
In this way, a $50K Patek Phillippe, 30K Rolex, $4K Omega, $1K Tag Heuer, or $100 Bulova could all be options to those wanting watches with Apple iWatch technology.