Are we sure the Sport will be cheapest?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by JerTheGeek, Dec 7, 2014.

  1. JerTheGeek macrumors 68000

    JerTheGeek

    Joined:
    May 15, 2014
    #1
    I know it probably will, but is there any really solid reasons for why the aluminum would be cheaper?
    Perhaps (totally a guess on my part) the Apple Watch Sport and Apple Watch will be the same price, simply serving different tastes/needs. The sport for people who want to use it more as a fitness tracker and /or prefer the aluminum look, and the standard one for people who prefer the stainless steel look.
     
  2. MacMiguel macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    #2
    I wish you were right, it'd be stunning but i doubt it. It's Apple we're talking about. I'm almost sure that 38mm Stainless with white plastic band will cost around 450€
     
  3. JerTheGeek thread starter macrumors 68000

    JerTheGeek

    Joined:
    May 15, 2014
    #3
    I actually like the Sport version, I think the space grey aluminum is really cool. I just really like the bands of the standard :apple:Watch, hopefully all bands will be available for all models.
     
  4. XboxEvolved macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    #4
    the Sport uses glass and aluminum which by market price is cheaper than steel and sapphire. They will both go down in price eventually though I'm sure.
     
  5. Tycho24 Suspended

    Tycho24

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    #5
    It is a fun pipe dream, but there is no chance.
    You see on Apple's website the Apple Watch paired with super classy bands & the materials listed as Sapphire Crystal and Ceramic, whereas the Sport is shown ONLY with the cheap rubber band and materials listed as Aluminum & Composite.
    If these came out for the same price, they'd be hard pressed to sell a single Sport... it's clearly inferior.
     
  6. Julien macrumors G4

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #6
    Almost No chance of that happening. Apple doesn't discount or traditionally lower prices based on driving sales. If it sales well (which it probably will) Apple will add features each gen but keep the price the same (iPhone and iPad style). If it doesn't sell well Apple will simply abandon the market altogether. It will be one or the other but nothing in-between.

    Even if the aWatch is a failure Apple will sell it for the same price up until the day it's discontinued. Apple would rather 'eat' stock that be in the 'bargain bin' bracket.

    Apple is not about to get into the 'discount the price to gain market share' game. That's not Apple and it would be seen as brand cheapening.

    ----------

    As stated in the other aWatch band thread you started. All bands (38mm or 42mm) fit all aWatches and you can buy any band you want and put on any aWatch. Apple will sell all bands as separately. Also there will likely be 100's of 3ed party bands available on launch day with 1000's more to follow.
     
  7. XboxEvolved macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    #7


    I have been having a similar discussion in another thread but I think another thing I could point out that I wasn't before is that iPad and iPhone are both clearly devices that can expand technologically whereas the watch I can't really think of much they could do. In fact, most of what the watch does right now is actually less than what a lot of people expected it to be in the first place. The iPhone and iPad areas still have room to expand. The watch is more like the original iPod lines; it could have incremental improvements overtime but it will remain largely the same at the end of the day. Like the original iPod, this has several different models as well meant for different price ranges, and if the iPod is any indicator, those prices will go down overtime. It didn't cheapen the brand, it didn't cheapen the value, it in fact made it a bigger value to the customer. And Apple won't "eat stock" either. They haven't done that for over ten years. What Apple will likely do is artificially restrict demand to around 5 million for the first 3-4 months. I have no doubt that Apple is selling this to a different class of customer than they normally do. The blind Apple faithful and the upper middle class on up that have nothing better to buy, and theres at least good 5 million of them to eat the high prices and/or lack of functionality. And Apple isn't going to abandon this. The company and it's CEO seems pretty damn sure of themselves that this is the next chapter. Going so far as artificially inflating any hype it has around it through various means.
     
  8. Julien macrumors G4

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #8
    You are suffering failure of the imagination.:D While we can't be certain what the future holds Apple sees the aWatch as an integral health and fitness monitoring tool. We will likely see a lot of sensors and features added as the tech becomes available. Just a few that I believe we are likely to see in the next few years.

    1. GPS
    2. BP
    3. Glucose
    4. (body) Temperature
    5. Stress level detection
    6. BT connected/monitoring specialized medical devices like insulin pumps and pacemakers.

    Just a couple of things right off the top and could add many more but gotta run (literally).
     
  9. iBreatheApple macrumors 68030

    iBreatheApple

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Location:
    Florida
    #9
    This would require a measure of the steroids in the blood secreted by the adrenal glands. Glucose can be measured by sweat, so I could see this happening. But I don't expect any device in this market will be measuring serum levels of anything for quite some time. I expect your number six will be more prevalent (and likely) in the foreseeable future.
     
  10. Julien macrumors G4

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #10
    True, keep in mind I was quickly responding (was heading out the door to run) to XboxEvolved's post that basically was implying that the aWatch as a dead end tech. Also I did say "..next few years..." too.;)
     
  11. The Doctor11 macrumors 603

    The Doctor11

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    I think becuase Apple has sport listed second and not first on their web site It will be second in price. Making :apple: watch edition cheapest.
     
  12. Julien macrumors G4

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #12
    You must be new to the game. It is universally known that the Sport is the least expensive. Just go and read the descriptions on the Apple site and you will see this.
     
  13. Rogifan macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #13
    Perhaps Watch is listed first because Apple wants to position it as the mainstream, standard watch. And then sport and edition are low and high end variations on the standard Watch.
     
  14. Defender2010 macrumors 68030

    Defender2010

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Location:
    England
    #14
    The descriptions don't refer to pricing at all. People are basing this price assumption on aluminium vs steel and glass vs sapphire....and they are that "assumptions", not fact or "universally known".
     
  15. Tycho24 Suspended

    Tycho24

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    #15
    Well, to be fair... the OP went on to state that they think the Apple Watch Edition will be cheapest. Lol, I think we can decidedly put in the "fact" category that the gold version with the special charging case will NOT be the least expensive!!! =P
     
  16. Tycho24 Suspended

    Tycho24

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    #16
    Ugh... This post is so convoluted & all over the place; its a bit difficult to know how to approach this, but here goes-
    As to your main point: it absolutely makes no sense. Look you could say either of these two things as an opinion, & make sense... "I think that the Apple Watch does so little currently, and people were expecting so much more... that, and the fact that it is currently tied to your phone tells me that it will be going through some major changing and overhauls in the next few iterations" OR you could say "wow, I think the Apple Watch does so much more than anybody expected, they certainly won't be needing to change the functionality much for quite some time". However, what you CANNOT do & still make sense is blend them, as you have and essentially say "the Apple watch hardly does anything, much less than most expected... so they'll probably leave it like that for the foreseeable future". Ummm... lol, huh???! That's like saying "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably... a squirrel ". Your conclusion is in DIRECT argument with the statements leading up to it.
    Oh, and then I'm pretty sure you are confusing the terms supply & demand... which are antonyms, so your point gets REALLY dodgy. I'm talking about the phrase "Apple will likely artificially restrict demand..." Ummm... again, huh?? They are producing the supply, NOT the demand. We, the consumers, provide the demand. The only way they could artificially restrict demand is to publicy come out & denounce their own product, begging people not to buy it. So... I'm going to assume that you meant "Apple will likely artificially restrict supply..." While this is TECHNICALLY possible, and is a pet conspiracy theory of some every time an Apple product is suffering a shortage due to incredible popularity... it is HIGHLY unlikely, & certainly has never been shown to be true. Quite to the contrary, Tim stands in front of shareholders each quarter and gives hard fact & figures of how many millions of devices they've churned out and how many tens of thousands of new hires in China and many new factories have supported this and states "we are absolutely building these as fast as we can and want to sell them to you". Only the very, very most distrustful conspiracy theorists believe he's lying to them all, for the nefarious purpose of selling LESS product. Again, this doesn't make sense. These people are literally in the business of building & selling devices. If anything, not being able to purchase a 6+ without waiting a week or so likely wards a few away, not toward.
    Lastly, the phrase "artificially inflating any hype" is an incredible misnomer. Let's see... so far Apple has made a webpage to show details of their product, announced it at a preplanned event amongst other announcements, briefly showed some at a boutique, & let one woman wear one for a photo shoot. NONE of these things are artificial. They are quite real & normal ways to promote a product. Artificially inflating hype would be forcing celebrities to use your product on film through endorsement agreements whether they like using those products or not... like Samsung did at the Oscars & Bose is doing in the NFL. Or lying about preorders... or having planned leaks at set intervals. At any rate, Apple has had a clean and low key campaign so far... we have yet to see a single tv spot. Obviously an overhyped product would be media blitzing. That statement was simply factually inaccurate.
    I wish there was a part of your post I could agree with, I do appreciate reading your opinion, whether it makes sense to me or not.
     
  17. Julien macrumors G4

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #17
    It is not assumptions but facts, and here are some facts.

    316L Stainless Steel is much more expensive that Aluminum.

    Sapphire (used on the SS & Edition) is about 10x more expensive than (Gorilla) glass.

    The SS & Edition have a *ceramic coated sensor back and the Sport doesn't.

    The Sport is only available with the 'cheap rubber' (fluoroelastomer) band.

    The SS & Edition are available with several "handcrafted" European leather bands and expensive metal bands.



    *This was previously noted on the Apple site but is no longer referenced on the updated site.
     
  18. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #18
    This point is irrelevant.

    If we were talking about 1 cubic meter of the material then yes, but for the dimensions we are speaking of.

    If the material cost of Aluminium is $1 and the Stainless FIVE TIMES as much (OMG WOW) it makes zero difference to the end product cost.

    The machining time difference would be more important than a few dollars
     
  19. Tycho24 Suspended

    Tycho24

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    #19
    Can you speak to as why, as he said, the stainless steel model is available with fancy high-end bands & the aluminum one is not, if (inexplicably) they were going to be the same price?
    More examples of, in your opinion, Apple graciously taking a smaller margin on a product, whilst NOT trying to differentiate it to help justify a price difference??
    I've read many of your posts. You think. You have valid opinions. You write clearly & thoughtfully... I have to believe that you can recognize that there will be three price points for the three products. I have to believe that you recognize the "good, better, best" dynamic here.
    Lol, I'm hoping you just briefly felt argumentative because, truthfully, the positions of either "Apple will sell two very different model watches at one low price, then jump drastically for the 3rd" or "Apple will have their very nice model with choice of clearly expensive bands & heavier/more expensive materials (including the sought after, sapphire) clock in at $350, & will charge more to switch to an edition with less expensive back, front, and band" are nearly indefensible!!!!
    I don't want to see you argue something that is unwinnable. Yes... in the purest sense: we don't know ANYTHING until we hear from Apple, but that is not an excuse to throw reason from the window... we, for example, cannot be certain that Apple will not offer five pounds of Limburger with each purchase; however one should probably NOT go around assuming or arguing such, because at this point, that's about as likely as the Sport not being the cheapest offering.
     
  20. chrf097 macrumors 68040

    chrf097

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    #20
    It's more durable and more lightweight, so I'm sure the fitness crowd would prefer it.
     
  21. Defender2010 macrumors 68030

    Defender2010

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Location:
    England
    #21
    I'll take the "facts" from Apple not some guy from Atlanta, Georgia thanks very much.
     
  22. Patriot24 macrumors 68030

    Patriot24

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #22
    While I agree that it is strange to position the lineup in a way not consistent with the flow of price, I think what Apple is attempting to do is to say that the "Apple Watch" is the standard model, while the Sport and Edition models are specialized for specific use cases.

    Apple likely views the differentiation as a matter of utility and fashion rather than price.
     
  23. Julien macrumors G4

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #23
    The facts aren't from some guy (or could be gal) from Atlanta, Georgia. It is a FACT that Stainless Steel costs a LOT more than Aluminum. Right now the spot on Aluminum is 85¢ per pound. Stainless Steel runs about $40 per pound. That is a significant difference.

    Sapphire cost vs Gorilla Glass costs links.

    http://bgr.com/2014/03/05/iphone-6-sapphire-vs-gorilla-glass-display/
    http://www.buzzle.com/articles/sapphire-glass-vs-gorilla-glass-glass-wars.html
    http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/i...ass-which-will-apple-use-in-iphone-6-3505553/

    All band information came direcly from Apple.
     
  24. goobot macrumors 603

    goobot

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    long island NY
    #24
    Someone wasn't around for the original iPhone price cut.
     
  25. OllyW Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #25
    Aluminium is a lot easier to machine than Stainless Steel.
     

Share This Page