As expected watch replaters are cashing in

[linkgx1]

It's impossible to say because they have not stated the exact composition of the gold in the Edition. They referenced a hardening process but did not get into the weeds on it. A lot of people think the pricing on the watch is off. I mean pricing experts say it is off. I don't know what the thinking was in pricing it the way they did.

As far as advertising the special gold in the patent, some people would be put off by a process that creates the gold watchcase with a reduced gold volume. As such, it is far from clear that Apple would champion the use of metal matrix in a process that uses "as little gold as possible" if that is the gold in the Edition, which we don't factually know but it certainly looks like it is. At the end of the day, I think the video handled it really well. It says, basically that they have created (invented) a really hard gold and the process is really amazing creating an 18K gold case with super-protective properties. You wouldn't want a typical 18K gold case b/c it would be too soft. I do think the pricing should have been reduced in accordance with the use of less gold by volume and the fact that the technology is the same across all of the watches. But that's just my opinion.

----------



Do you really think that's true? I think there are some people who will buy the Edition in order to appear not to be concerned by money but who in fact sit around the dining room table every night wondering how they are going to afford their mortgage, and their two luxury car payments. And I think that the opposite is also true. There are people who will buy the Sport who could buy 50 Editions and give them out as gifts if they wanted to. I guess I am always skeptical of the use of personal property as a reliable indicator of wealth. Some of the wealthiest people I know like to fly beneath the radar.

That is true. For many, the more they make the more they spend.

 

[nrubenstein]

It's impossible to say because they have not stated the exact composition of the gold in the Edition. They referenced a hardening process but did not get into the weeds on it. A lot of people think the pricing on the watch is off. I mean pricing experts say it is off. I don't know what the thinking was in pricing it the way they did.

As far as advertising the special gold in the patent, some people would be put off by a process that creates the gold watchcase with a reduced gold volume. As such, it is far from clear that Apple would champion the use of metal matrix in a process that uses "as little gold as possible" if that is the gold in the Edition, which we don't factually know but it certainly looks like it is. At the end of the day, I think the video handled it really well. It says, basically that they have created (invented) a really hard gold and the process is really amazing creating an 18K gold case with super-protective properties. You wouldn't want a typical 18K gold case b/c it would be too soft. I do think the pricing should have been reduced in accordance with the use of less gold by volume and the fact that the technology is the same across all of the watches. But that's just my opinion.

Are you familiar with Hublot "Magic Gold." Apple could market it in exactly the same fashion. No one is really going to care about whether it contains $100 more or less of actual gold content (aside from Apple, of course).

And the pricing has essentially no relationship to the actual amount of gold used. Why would they discount based on that?

 

[ElizabethKing]

Are you familiar with Hublot "Magic Gold." Apple could market it in exactly the same fashion. No one is really going to care about whether it contains $100 more or less of actual gold content (aside from Apple, of course).

And the pricing has essentially no relationship to the actual amount of gold used. Why would they discount based on that?

The criticism on the content of the gold is coming from me only inasmuch as I don't think a reasonable argument can be made to weigh the Edition case and then calculate how much that would cost in solid gold in order ascertain value b/c it isn't really solid gold in the way that term is customarily understood since they have already said it's an alloy mix and the patent (if it applies to the manufacturing process for the Edition) calls for substantially less gold by volume.

But the price criticism that is coming from experts is far more comprehensive reflecting on the transient nature of the technology (will be obsolete in no time) and the enormous price range for the same technical performance no matter which model is purchased. Truly the value of the watch lies in the technology. It's all about the intellectual property like most things in our IP economy. But the IP in devices changes so rapidly; what's cutting edge today is joked about tomorrow.

And yes there is technology associated with the alloy gold they created for the case, but there is no way the gold in the Edition case is better for the truncated lifespan of this watch than any other high end gold alloy would be, in my opinion. If Apple created a gold that maintains 18K by mass but requires less gold by volume then that probably means it's cheaper to make b/c it requires less gold. That increases profit by a lot. It seems the advantage of Apple gold is on Apple's side, not really the consumer who could have received similar protectiveness and functionality for the housing, in another gold alloy, and not spent north of $10K for a watch they will upgrade in a couple of years.

Apple is entitled to make as much profit on the Watch as it can make but I think there should have been some reflection on alienating some of its most important purchasing class; those who consider $500 a BIG SPEND but who when analyzing their purchase against a $17K price tag for another watch might feel somewhat inferior and less important to the company. Here is an article from the Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2015/04/the-apple-w...flow&utm_medium=Tweet&utm_campaign=Socialflow I think too that it adds to concern when you read articles like those that came out today stating that Apple's cost to manufacture its watch compared to its MSRP is the lowest of any (ANY) product in the company's history. --And that is for the SPORT model. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ne...-retail-price-ihs-teardown-reveals-2015-04-30 If you love Apple as I do, you have to ask yourself if this price structure would exist under Steve Jobs? I just don't think it would. Again, just my opinion.