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.
Final Price Predictions
- Thread starter TheDeviceUser
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sadly that's what I have been thinking all along but these lower price predictions have me hoping I'm wrong.
Just for kicks and to add to my predictions. I predict the Edition and possibly the SS will be upgradable at the following prices:
- S Chip & Battery $300
- Sensor Pack $200
- Crystal/OLED $150
- Apple Care Sport $79
- Apple Care SS $99
- Apple Care Edition $150 (with first year included)
I think the prices will be lower than expected, or at least I hope so. In these forums I have seen so many prices stated, and many people seem to be more interested in what this watch looks like rather than function, I have read that we need to get out of the mentality of this being an Idevice, even though it is a companion to the Ipnone. this watch has been compared to many things ie; Imac, Rolex and even cars. Though I'm new to this forum the speculation has been great, thank you all. I guess we will see Monday.
With the last informations on the 18K gold Apple is gonna use, I adjust the starting price of my prediction for the Edition model and then the steel Watch price too.
Apparently, the 18K gold (75-79% of the mass worth of pure gold) will be denser on the other materials, with pure gold then accounting for less than the typical 60% of the volume in the usual 18K gold, and I then guess the pure gold content value [for the 38mm model] will be closer to $1000 than $1500:
Watch 38mm - $799
Watch 42mm - $899
Watch Sport 38mm - $349
Watch Sport 42mm - $449
Watch Edition 38mm - $1999
Watch Edition 42mm - $2499
I'm not getting this. 18K gold is 75% gold so if they mix other material to the case they can no longer legally stamp it "18-KARAT GOLD."
That's not what I meant. But i think i badly worded what i wanted to mean 
If my understanding is correct, the other materials mixed with the pure gold are here lighter than usual metal used in more usual 18K gold (where the 75% of pure gold in mass accounts for ~60% of the volume, the rest being dense and heavy metals as copper, silver, etc). Here, molecules are packed closer and in a way adding in strongness but then with less atoms of gold per unity of volume; the gold still accounts for 75% of the total mass (and it still qualifies as 18K gold) but there is more volume occupied by lighter elements.
To be corrected/precised
If my understanding is correct, the other materials mixed with the pure gold are here lighter than usual metal used in more usual 18K gold (where the 75% of pure gold in mass accounts for ~60% of the volume, the rest being dense and heavy metals as copper, silver, etc). Here, molecules are packed closer and in a way adding in strongness but then with less atoms of gold per unity of volume; the gold still accounts for 75% of the total mass (and it still qualifies as 18K gold) but there is more volume occupied by lighter elements.
To be corrected/precised
I can't imagine there being a difference in price based on size. We're talking in millimeters. If this is a fashion accessory then look at how clothes are priced. A person wearing 32" jeans doesn't pay less than a person who wears 34" jeans.
That's not what I meant. But i think i badly worded what i wanted to mean
If my understanding is correct, the other materials mixed with the pure gold are here lighter than usual metal used in more usual 18K gold (where the 75% of pure gold in mass accounts for ~60% of the volume, the rest being dense and heavy metals as copper, silver, etc). Here, molecules are packed closer and in a way adding in strongness but then with less atoms of gold per unity of volume; the gold still accounts for 75% of the total mass (and it still qualifies as 18K gold) but there is more volume occupied by lighter elements.
To be corrected/precised
I am not a metallurgist, but I think the patent application mentioned boron nitride as the ceramic. That's one boron atom and one nitrogen atom, with an atomic weight of about 25. By contrast, one copper atom has an atomic weight of 63.546, and gold 196.967. So depending on how the molecules arrange themselves in the lattice, the boron nitride molecule might take up as much "space" as the copper atom, yet weigh much less, so Apple could use less gold while still creating a case that is 75% gold by mass.
That's an interesting idea, and one that has KDarling thinking the Edition could well be cheaper than we are expecting. That said, the Edition was supposedly noticeably heavier than the other watches at the demo last September.
I think this is utterly fascinating.
It's a hugely complex question, but Apple are smart people.
I've narrowed my choice down to: Sport with black rubber, or Watch with leather loop. Assuming the second one is more profitable, Apple needs to make the price higher but not so high that it's an easy decision to settle for the Sport.
I think they're going to want to sell many millions of these, so they can't charge the kinds of premiums you see with Rolex, Omega, Breitling etc. Except the Edition -- that's what that watch is for.
The other two are for the rest of us. They're higher-end that the Pebble etc so they're going to be more.
I'm pricing in UK pounds.
Sport (inc strap)
£279 seems cheap, so I'm plumping for £329.
Watch (excl strap)
Anything over £499 is far too expensive. But it's got to differentiate itself from the Sport price so I'm going for £399.
Straps
Someone said $29 for the rubber one. No way. Nothing Apple sells is that cheap. I reckon at least $49, so about £39.
Leather loop I'd say a minimum of £99
Milanese Probably more: £149 at least
Link Probably even more: £199 at least
If I'm right, my preferred Sport option is £329 and my preferred Watch option is £498. I think that's enough differential to make me think, but not so much that I run away from the high end.
It makes the top-end Watch £598. That doesn't seem crazy to me.
Edition
I don't care. It'll be way out of my league.
It's a hugely complex question, but Apple are smart people.
I've narrowed my choice down to: Sport with black rubber, or Watch with leather loop. Assuming the second one is more profitable, Apple needs to make the price higher but not so high that it's an easy decision to settle for the Sport.
I think they're going to want to sell many millions of these, so they can't charge the kinds of premiums you see with Rolex, Omega, Breitling etc. Except the Edition -- that's what that watch is for.
The other two are for the rest of us. They're higher-end that the Pebble etc so they're going to be more.
I'm pricing in UK pounds.
Sport (inc strap)
£279 seems cheap, so I'm plumping for £329.
Watch (excl strap)
Anything over £499 is far too expensive. But it's got to differentiate itself from the Sport price so I'm going for £399.
Straps
Someone said $29 for the rubber one. No way. Nothing Apple sells is that cheap. I reckon at least $49, so about £39.
Leather loop I'd say a minimum of £99
Milanese Probably more: £149 at least
Link Probably even more: £199 at least
If I'm right, my preferred Sport option is £329 and my preferred Watch option is £498. I think that's enough differential to make me think, but not so much that I run away from the high end.
It makes the top-end Watch £598. That doesn't seem crazy to me.
Edition
I don't care. It'll be way out of my league.
With all the talk about Apple's gold/ceramic patent and that the Edition might have half the gold as other 18kt gold watches of similar size, perhaps my initial estimate of $7,500 is off. Plus the FT estimated $4,500 in an interview of Jony Ive. We'll find out on Monday.
Gruber has put up an article with his final pricing prediction and he appears to have realised the steel version with link bracelet will be north of $1,500. I've been saying this all along - if Apple intend to compete with mid-level Swiss watchmakers then the steel edition is going to be much more expensive than the predictions we've been seeing on this thread.
Personally I'm sticking with $1,999
No way lol
----------
Last Call Sunday
Still thinking $499 starting price for SS Apple Watch.
There will be a huge range in pricing, $499-$799 depending on size and band.
Thinking Apple ordered least to most expensive on their site for the SS.
Probably like this:
Sport Band $499-$549
Leather Buckle $579-$629
Milanese Loop $599-$649
Modern Buckle $629 **38mm Only
Leather Loop $679 **42mm Only
SS Link $699-$749
Black SS Link $749-$799* Might be same as regular SS Link but some on the forum thinking more.
Bands sold separately:
Sport Band $39
Leather Buckle $79
Milanese Loop $99
Modern Buckle $119
Leather Loop $129
SS Link $199
Black SS Link $249
Apple Watch Sport will be simple
$349 - 38mm
$399 - 42mm
Apple Watch Edition starts at $1999 - $2999 depending on size and band. Thinking 38mm with Gold Modern Buckle will be most expensive, followed closely by the 42mm with Leather Buckle.
My biggest concern is the price difference between the Sport 38 and the Sport 42. Personally, $50 isn't that bad of a difference, but $100 seems to be pushing it.
Gruber's Latest Post and Thoughts on Prices (Sat Night)
http://daringfireball.net/2015/03/apple_watch_prelude
http://daringfireball.net/2015/03/apple_watch_prelude
Last edited:
FrankySavvy - I really don't think you understand the market Apple is aiming for. There is _no_way_ Apple will price the SS with bracelet in "fashion watch" territory.
I'm feeling 100% confident that there will be a difference in price based on size. Simply, the bigger watch is an option... so if you want a bigger watch, then pay for it. Same thing with the iPhone, iPad, iMac, etc. They have the smaller one and the bigger one, both size serves the same general function, but there's a price difference. Apple know that people will easily pay the few extra bucks to have their preference. Hell, Apple even charges more $4 more the the 6 Plus version of their leather and silicone cases.
But remember its a piece of technology that will not stand the test of time, so comparing it to rolex is ridiculous!
Rolex? Who's comparing the SS to a Rolex? A Rolex SS sub will set up back $8000.
At $1,999 the Apple watch is in the bottom of the range Tag territory (Quartz)
But I do agree with you - it doesn't make sense but it appears to be what Apple are aiming for.
But comparing the apple watch to high end analog watches is silly considering the intricate details in the mechanisms and gears of analog watches vs the smart watch. Apple is making a statement that Technology can be fashion, not fashion can be technology. Not even mentionioning how quickly technology gets dated compared to an analog watch that will last a lifetime
At $1,999 the SS cannot be compared to a high end analog watch. As I said the Rolex SS sub is $8000. At $1,999 Apple wouldn't even be in the same ballpark as Rolex.
At $1,999 you can, however, compare it against a bottom of the range Quartz Tag Heuer, which, being Quartz has probably got a sub $50 movement. Looking at it that way the SS Apple watch is a bargain for the same price.
There WILL be plenty of people with throwaway cash who will spend the money on the Edition watch. Gold is still Gold and will retain a certain value long after the watch no longer works.
However, it is silly to consider that anyone would pay $2k on a Stainless Steel watch that will certainly not work for more than 5 years. YES, people pay those prices for classic watches in SS but those are engineered to last for 50 years or more. You buy those for name and quality. Stainless Steel has no real melt down value like gold.
The ONLY way they could justify more than $599 for Stainless is if the big announcement is that the internal guts will be upgradable. If we could send it in next year for an upgrade to processor and battery then YES we may pay a little more.
Steel can be priced a little more than the Sport but if the price is right in the middle then people with a ton of cash will skip it and get the Edition.
However, it is silly to consider that anyone would pay $2k on a Stainless Steel watch that will certainly not work for more than 5 years. YES, people pay those prices for classic watches in SS but those are engineered to last for 50 years or more. You buy those for name and quality. Stainless Steel has no real melt down value like gold.
The ONLY way they could justify more than $599 for Stainless is if the big announcement is that the internal guts will be upgradable. If we could send it in next year for an upgrade to processor and battery then YES we may pay a little more.
Steel can be priced a little more than the Sport but if the price is right in the middle then people with a ton of cash will skip it and get the Edition.