Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ApplePhy

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 7, 2013
321
157
I was pleasantly surprised at the $799 price point of the Ultra. But scratching my head over the price point.

-Expensive and larger casing (titanium): in previous years the titanium models were all more expensive than the regular and even stainless steel apple watches. I believe the 45mm titanium was $849, and the Ultra is larger at 49mm too, should be more expensive than $849

-Bigger battery (36hrs to 60hrs on low power mode), should be more expensive

-More features than the regular series 7/8: dive computer, 2000 nits peak brightness, dual speakers, 3 mics, dual frequency GPS, water temperature sensor, programmable action button, etc...

so how is it priced cheaper than last year's titanium 45mm ($799 vs. $845) and same price as last year's 41mm titanium ($799)

Apple could have easily priced this at the $900 price point with all the features, but they didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustAnExpat
The price won't be set based upon the cost. Apple would have done research and determined that this price point will get them the best return. A higher price would mean more profit per unit but few units sold. A lower price would mean more units sold but less profit per unit. This price would be Apple's perceived sweet spot.
 
The price won't be set based upon the cost. Apple would have done research and determined that this price point will get them the best return. A higher price would mean more profit per unit but few units sold. A lower price would mean more units sold but less profit per unit. This price would be Apple's perceived sweet spot.
Partly true.....but also by having an attractive price and thus selling more units, the production per unit costs go down. Things like moulds, machine tooling, R&D, etc. get less per item when you sell more items!
 
Partly true.....but also by having an attractive price and thus selling more units, the production per unit costs go down. Things like moulds, machine tooling, R&D, etc. get less per item when you sell more items!


For sure, but that won't affect the price, only the cost. Pricing is based on what the market will bear, it's not a cost+ calculation.

(For some products price IS cost+, this would not be one).
 
  • Like
Reactions: james2538
For sure, but that won't affect the price, only the cost. Pricing is based on what the market will bear, it's not a cost+ calculation.

(For some products price IS cost+, this would not be one).
But lowering the costs does allow you a decent profit with a lower price. And a lower price can create more customer satisfaction. Also going at or under the price of competing smart watches can get you a higher customer base......and once you have them roped in you can sell to them again and again.
The apple eco system can get quite addictive as yes, it just seems to work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howard2k
I was pleasantly surprised at the $799 price point of the Ultra. But scratching my head over the price point.

-Expensive and larger casing (titanium): in previous years the titanium models were all more expensive than the regular and even stainless steel apple watches. I believe the 45mm titanium was $849, and the Ultra is larger at 49mm too, should be more expensive than $849

-Bigger battery (36hrs to 60hrs on low power mode), should be more expensive

-More features than the regular series 7/8: dive computer, 2000 nits peak brightness, dual speakers, 3 mics, dual frequency GPS, water temperature sensor, programmable action button, etc...

so how is it priced cheaper than last year's titanium 45mm ($799 vs. $845) and same price as last year's 41mm titanium ($799)

Apple could have easily priced this at the $900 price point with all the features, but they didn't.
Lol and you’re complaining? Lol 99% of the time people complain apple prices too high ie MacBook Air m2 is 200 more than the m1. Count this as a win for us haha. But I do get why it’s an interesting step. Maybe they need to undercut the market from garmin but to make Apple Watch good value to garmin watch buyers. Most Apple Watch buyers will not buy the $500 and up model. I rarely see stainless steel and never see a titanium Watch (my choice of Apple Watch). So apple now the market is limited to a hardcore select who buy Apple Watch with higher price tags. I was going to buy a titanium series 8 but obviously that’s not there but the ultra battery life on cellular is a huge draw for me.
 
So apple bows the market is limited to a hardcore select eho buy Apple Watch with higher price tags.
And that group might grow a lot larger as a lot of current Apple Watch owners want a more rugged watch with greatly improved battery life! They might have bought their first Apple watch as a fashion item but now that they are hooked on it, they want more! I know, I am one of this group.
And hey, the Apple ecosytem can be addictive as hell!
 
I was pleasantly surprised at the $799 price point of the Ultra. But scratching my head over the price point.

-Expensive and larger casing (titanium): in previous years the titanium models were all more expensive than the regular and even stainless steel apple watches. I believe the 45mm titanium was $849, and the Ultra is larger at 49mm too, should be more expensive than $849

-Bigger battery (36hrs to 60hrs on low power mode), should be more expensive

-More features than the regular series 7/8: dive computer, 2000 nits peak brightness, dual speakers, 3 mics, dual frequency GPS, water temperature sensor, programmable action button, etc...

so how is it priced cheaper than last year's titanium 45mm ($799 vs. $845) and same price as last year's 41mm titanium ($799)

Apple could have easily priced this at the $900 price point with all the features, but they didn't.

I felt the same way too. The Ti Edition models have the same internals and functional capabilities of the SS and Alu variants. But this time there’s a clear distinction of the Ultra from the rest of the Apple Watch lineups, and it’s cheaper than the 45mm Edition models from last year. It’s an interesting move from Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KPOM
Lol and you’re complaining? Lol 99% of the time people complain apple prices too high ie MacBook Air m2 is 200 more than the m1. Count this as a win for us haha. But I do get why it’s an interesting step. Maybe they need to undercut the market from garmin but to make Apple Watch good value to garmin watch buyers. Most Apple Watch buyers will not buy the $500 and up model. I rarely see stainless steel and never see a titanium Watch (my choice of Apple Watch). So apple now the market is limited to a hardcore select who buy Apple Watch with higher price tags. I was going to buy a titanium series 8 but obviously that’s not there but the ultra battery life on cellular is a huge draw for me.
No not complaining I love it!

Apples pricing is even more impressive given inflation rates as of late, to keep it at this price point is quite impressive.

So is the fact that iPhones were kept at the same price point as last year. $1000 last year is quite different than $1000 in Sep 2022. Most analysts expected the price of the iPhones (Pros at least) to jump $100
 
I felt the same way too. The Ti Edition models have the same internals and functional capabilities of the SS and Alu variants. But this time there’s a clear distinction of the Ultra from the rest of the Apple Watch lineups, and it’s cheaper than the 45mm Edition models from last year. It’s an interesting move from Apple.
Meanwhile they also released easily the prettiest Hermes bands of all time. At $849, the Hermes Gourmette steel band is more expensive than the Apple Watch Ultra. But it is such a nice band that it should sell well. Plus the features they did add to Series 8 appeal to women, who are also the target market for the Gourmette band.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al Rukh
No not complaining I love it!

Apples pricing is even more impressive given inflation rates as of late, to keep it at this price point is quite impressive.

So is the fact that iPhones were kept at the same price point as last year. $1000 last year is quite different than $1000 in Sep 2022. Most analysts expected the price of the iPhones (Pros at least) to jump $100
right made sense to raise prices. Will wonder what their net profits will be come at the next earning report.
 
I believe the previous (Titanium) Edition watches came with a 2 year warranty (as opposed to the 1 year of the Ultra) so they do offset a bit off the cost there.

The bigger factor is likely that Apple is content to make less money per unit because they want to aggressively move into a new market (high performance fitness). The fact that it’s effectively the same prices as a stainless steel Series 8 but has ”Ultra” status attached means that not only will existing Apple consumers potentially chose it, but they’ll likely convert some potential/existing Garmin customers as well.

Also, it’s probably best not to assume that Apple’s prices are based purely on the cost of materials. People previously paid more purely for Edition watch faces and exclusive bands — the fact that those watches were titanium may have had little to do with the cost (at least when compared to stainless steel).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Supermallet
Lol and you’re complaining? Lol 99% of the time people complain apple prices too high ie MacBook Air m2 is 200 more than the m1. Count this as a win for us haha. But I do get why it’s an interesting step. Maybe they need to undercut the market from garmin but to make Apple Watch good value to garmin watch buyers. Most Apple Watch buyers will not buy the $500 and up model. I rarely see stainless steel and never see a titanium Watch (my choice of Apple Watch). So apple now the market is limited to a hardcore select who buy Apple Watch with higher price tags. I was going to buy a titanium series 8 but obviously that’s not there but the ultra battery life on cellular is a huge draw for me.
This. I wonder if it's Apple signalling they want to muscle in on Garmin's turf, hence the aggressive pricing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1rottenapple
After seeing the Ultra, I was hoping it wasn't going to be too expensive. But, these prices remind me of when I purchased a AWSS. Yep, those were the days.

I'd like an Ultra (love large watches; Invicta, Fossil, etcetera). But, that price is little too much for me. Even with a trade in, of $150, still a little steep. Plus the addition of Apple Care...
 
The other pleasant surprise is that all Ultra models come with cellular and there’s no distinction between GPS and GPS+Cellular which is another price differentiator for the normal watches.
Pretty sure all the higher end Apple Watches (SS, Ti, Hermes, Ceramic) always came with LTE as standard as opposed to Al models. I’d consider the Ultra on the high end side so I’m not surprised.
 
Likely got better pricing on titanium due to higher material purchases.

The Edition came with the extra band.

Apple is going after Garmin and Suunto market share and needed to price this aggressively.
 
This. I wonder if it's Apple signalling they want to muscle in on Garmin's turf, hence the aggressive pricing.
Yah totally. It’s interesting they made the ultra basically bear the same price as stainless steel and less than the old series 7 titanium Watch (I swear I paid more for my series 5 titanium than the 799 ultra). Very attentive option for us watch buyers who buy stainless steel or titanium, and a tempting device for those buyers who want to be active or the hyper athletes who buy those garmin watches.
 
The other pleasant surprise is that all Ultra models come with cellular and there’s no distinction between GPS and GPS+Cellular which is another price differentiator for the normal watches.
Interesting. I did not notice this. So, this might make an argument for ordering one, considering I would have choices (GPS or Cellular)...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.