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.
High-End 18-Karat Gold Apple Watch Could Cost Up to $1,200
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What? How far into the keynote (hhmm)? At the 1hr 40m mark, Tim said it starts at $349, but that was all he said about pricing that I saw.Tim Cook's next keynote onWatch:
"Those who know the luxury watch industry say this watch should cost around $1,200. We can do better. The 18-karat yellow gold case for the
*roaring applause from the crowd*
Last edited:
This rumor starts with:
reports TechCrunch. The site consulted with "jewelers familiar with the material" Apple uses for the Apple Watch Edition.
Which jewelers are familiar with this material?
Remember this is a unique gold alloy that Apple's own metal experts have just invented. Gold is a relatively soft metal that scratches very easily but this new 18k gold alloy is twice as hard as regular 18k gold. How Apple does this is a mystery. Since this material has to be custom made it could well be significantly more expensive than regular gold.
reports TechCrunch. The site consulted with "jewelers familiar with the material" Apple uses for the Apple Watch Edition.
Which jewelers are familiar with this material?
Remember this is a unique gold alloy that Apple's own metal experts have just invented. Gold is a relatively soft metal that scratches very easily but this new 18k gold alloy is twice as hard as regular 18k gold. How Apple does this is a mystery. Since this material has to be custom made it could well be significantly more expensive than regular gold.
Rolex? or Apple Watch?
Nobody gets all excited when they see a Rolex on your wrist. Your Rolex won't be the subject of a conversation at the table. Your Rolex won't be banned at the tables in Las Vegas. Your Rolex isn't going to receive semi-inappropriate messages from your mistress.
Winner: aWatch.
Nobody gets all excited when they see a Rolex on your wrist. Your Rolex won't be the subject of a conversation at the table. Your Rolex won't be banned at the tables in Las Vegas. Your Rolex isn't going to receive semi-inappropriate messages from your mistress.
Winner: aWatch.
Perhaps, but a rolex will tell time more than a day. That is the matchpoint for many. The smartwatch is a fun product but still way to young to come up in a comparision with any quality timepiece.
The cheaper versions will sell but not the more expensive ones due to what a smartwatch is at the moment, a suppliment. But good show Apple, looking forward to trying it.
Last edited:
So the Apple Watch Sports is $349 and the standard Apple Watch is more expensive. Is this confirmed? Just curious?
That's not the point.
The point is that today people buy
- jewelry-like things (which they assume they'll use forever)
- technology type things (where most of the cost of the more expensive version translates into higher capabilities).
The proper analogy here is to buying something like a $2000 haute couture dress that will be out of fashion next year. There ARE, of course, people who buy such items, but they know what they are getting into.
Apple is treading in dangerous waters here, psychologically. On the one hand they are promising the "eternal value you can pass on to your grandkids" crap that jewelers use to sell these expensive watches; on the other hand "eternal value"is NOT what they are delivering.
Very inaccurately (compared to a watch that syncs to NTP that's synced to an atomic clock standard).
And it needs to be serviced every 5 to 7 years.
And parts are expensive as hell.
The products are completely oranges and, well, Apples.
Thats because you're seeing an image with the bands in an angle that matches a big round tube, not your wrist. The large one is 4.2mm, which would make the band almost go straight down on my wrist.
New member here.
Honestly I don't know what expert would give a $1200 estimate on the 18k version. 18k solid gold current goes for approximately $920/oz. The watch case and buckle are at least 80 grams (2.8oz) worth of gold. This would make the cost of the gold alone to be approximatley $2600. Factor in component, manufacturing, R&D, and marketing costs (and of course a healthy margin), one can expect this version to be price at a minimum of $3000. $3500+ is probably more realistic.
CW
Honestly I don't know what expert would give a $1200 estimate on the 18k version. 18k solid gold current goes for approximately $920/oz. The watch case and buckle are at least 80 grams (2.8oz) worth of gold. This would make the cost of the gold alone to be approximatley $2600. Factor in component, manufacturing, R&D, and marketing costs (and of course a healthy margin), one can expect this version to be price at a minimum of $3000. $3500+ is probably more realistic.
CW
This would be interesting, especially if future versions are "upgraded" to be significantly thinner. From a typical technology sense, thinner is better. From a gold jewelry sense, thinner is cheaper.
"Oh, you'd like to trade in your gold
watch version 1 for this new model that is 35% thinner?. We'll give you half the retail price." $. Hand over fist.
Not a chance. Mechanical watch makers--even the really high end ones--release new designs with new technology on a regular basis. There's not a chance that Apple won't do the same thing.
This is an interesting product line because it makes the upgrade cycle less relevant. Watch wearers generally have more than one watch. Jewelry wearers have more than one piece of jewelry. It's entirely likely that many people will purchase multiple
Watches. As for keeping them useful over time? There are a few options.
It does appear that Apple has placed all of the computer components inside a single sealed chip. It's entirely possible that they anticipate people wanting to upgrade the internal components of their watches. As such, they likely have a plan in place for those chips to be upgradable at Apple stores--for a fee of course.
This isn't without precedent. High end (and low-mid grade) watch owners often take them to watchmakers/repair facilities to have parts replaced, upgraded or maintained. It's a perfectly normal and expected part of owning a quality watch.
My guess though, is that Apple isn't particularly concerned with the
Watch being a family heirloom. I haven't worn a watch in 15 years. People younger than me probably never have. The watch as an heirloom isn't something that is going to happen anymore. Apple is paying homage to mechanical watch design in its new product, but make no mistake, the watch is dead and gone. Outside of watch enthusiasts, no one buys them. To Apple, this is a new product entirely.
Well, obviously, because you are looking at one of the >20 models that is designed to be worn by women.
What will it be worth when
About $1,200. About $1,000 of the value is not for any electronics.
I can see someone paying $1200 for the watch and getting that watch band.
Exactly. Unless for example the Samsung watch, where you would have to pay me to be seen wearing it, Apple has created some really nice designs that people will buy to wear it on their wrist.
Obviously when you buy a gold watch, the gold won't cost you at scrap value but a bit more.
Why? Apple can easily buy enough gold for an estimated one year's supply of watches. And Apple has plenty of experience with varying prices - they are trading in many countries with exchange rates that change all the time, and that works just fine.
It's all marketing. It means "twice as hard as gold that is only half as hard as ours".
The price tag of $1,200 was calculated based on an estimate of the cost of the gold, and doubling for markup.
Last edited:
I'm typically fine going with 1st generation Apple products, but I'm really on the fence about the Watch. I will probably end up getting one of the cheaper models because I'm impulsive about this stuff, but I can't help but think even more than the iPad to iPad 2, this is going to be a product that gets dramatically better when the next generation hits. That really makes some of these price points hard to stomach.
I could also see this going the way of the iPhone where they start the price high and then bring it down quickly, at least on the non-Edition models. As nice as it looks and as great as the design is, I still believe that $349 as a starting point is going to be a very tough sale to majority of iPhone users. Unless they debut some more killer functionality in the coming months or show off exciting 3rd party apps, I think initial sales will be descent with all the hardcore Apple nerds sweeping this up, but I wouldn't be shocked to see it drop fast after that until a price drop.
And for the record, I'm generally pretty optimistic about the debut of Apple products, and I'm generally a day-one early adopter. Be it new Macs, the iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, and the iPad, I've had positive reactions to all the launches and always saw the potential and the benefits. I'm not saying I don't see the benefits of the Watch, and I am somewhat excited, but it's a significantly more tempered excitement when compared to past new products, and again, I'm skeptical for the first time about anything close to mass adoption at these price points.
I'd love to see Watch succeed, and I think there's a ton of potential for that to happen over time, but I think it's going to take another generation or two, better battery life, and a $199 price point before this thing really takes off.
----------
This would be interesting, but I find it extremely unlikely considering we're talking about Apple here. And given that future upgrades will likely have as much to do with sensors as battery tech and processing, I have to imagine that we'll see the body style change rather quickly, and again, knowing Apple, no doubt it will get thinner as soon as they can. They'll likely make it thinner before they improve the battery life for that matter, though in this case, I'd be okay with it. I'd rather have a smaller watch that I have to charge everyday than a thick watch I only have to charge every two days. I'm fine with that.
I'd love a slightly thicker iPhone though with better battery life...
----------
Exactly. This is very much where my concerns lie, and why I expected/hoped for a $99-199 sensor-heavy band more than something that's more like jewelry. Don't get me wrong, I think the Watch is gorgeous, and I'm sure it'll be cool, and I'm pretty sure I'll be buying one the day they're available. But I know for certain I'll be swapping it out for a next-gen model because there's no way this product won't improve dramatically with time, and I get all that I accept it. As you said, I know what I'm getting into.
Most people don't, and that's why I don't think this is going to go over well at first. Time will tell, but again, this is the first time I've been really skeptical about an Apple launch, and as someone who tends to be optimistic, that worries me.
I could also see this going the way of the iPhone where they start the price high and then bring it down quickly, at least on the non-Edition models. As nice as it looks and as great as the design is, I still believe that $349 as a starting point is going to be a very tough sale to majority of iPhone users. Unless they debut some more killer functionality in the coming months or show off exciting 3rd party apps, I think initial sales will be descent with all the hardcore Apple nerds sweeping this up, but I wouldn't be shocked to see it drop fast after that until a price drop.
And for the record, I'm generally pretty optimistic about the debut of Apple products, and I'm generally a day-one early adopter. Be it new Macs, the iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, and the iPad, I've had positive reactions to all the launches and always saw the potential and the benefits. I'm not saying I don't see the benefits of the Watch, and I am somewhat excited, but it's a significantly more tempered excitement when compared to past new products, and again, I'm skeptical for the first time about anything close to mass adoption at these price points.
I'd love to see Watch succeed, and I think there's a ton of potential for that to happen over time, but I think it's going to take another generation or two, better battery life, and a $199 price point before this thing really takes off.
----------
Not a chance. Mechanical watch makers--even the really high end ones--release new designs with new technology on a regular basis. There's not a chance that Apple won't do the same thing.
This is an interesting product line because it makes the upgrade cycle less relevant. Watch wearers generally have more than one watch. Jewelry wearers have more than one piece of jewelry. It's entirely likely that many people will purchase multiple
As for keeping them useful over time? There are a few options.
It does appear that Apple has placed all of the computer components inside a single sealed chip. It's entirely possible that they anticipate people wanting to upgrade the internal components of their watches. As such, they likely have a plan in place for those chips to be upgradable at Apple stores--for a fee of course.
This isn't without precedent. High end (and low-mid grade) watch owners often take them to watchmakers/repair facilities to have parts replaced, upgraded or maintained. It's a perfectly normal and expected part of owning a quality watch.
My guess though, is that Apple isn't particularly concerned with the
Apple is paying homage to mechanical watch design in its new product, but make no mistake, the watch is dead and gone. Outside of watch enthusiasts, no one buys them. To Apple, this is a new product entirely.
This would be interesting, but I find it extremely unlikely considering we're talking about Apple here. And given that future upgrades will likely have as much to do with sensors as battery tech and processing, I have to imagine that we'll see the body style change rather quickly, and again, knowing Apple, no doubt it will get thinner as soon as they can. They'll likely make it thinner before they improve the battery life for that matter, though in this case, I'd be okay with it. I'd rather have a smaller watch that I have to charge everyday than a thick watch I only have to charge every two days. I'm fine with that.
I'd love a slightly thicker iPhone though with better battery life...
----------
Exactly. This is very much where my concerns lie, and why I expected/hoped for a $99-199 sensor-heavy band more than something that's more like jewelry. Don't get me wrong, I think the Watch is gorgeous, and I'm sure it'll be cool, and I'm pretty sure I'll be buying one the day they're available. But I know for certain I'll be swapping it out for a next-gen model because there's no way this product won't improve dramatically with time, and I get all that I accept it. As you said, I know what I'm getting into.
Most people don't, and that's why I don't think this is going to go over well at first. Time will tell, but again, this is the first time I've been really skeptical about an Apple launch, and as someone who tends to be optimistic, that worries me.
My $20 Casio Waveceptor will synch automatically to the WWV time standard so it's never off by more than a fraction of a second. It's hardly an upscale feature. The fact that a Rolex might be less accurate is because people *like* the concept of a true mechanical device, and it's amazingly accurate for a purely mechanical device.
Serviced every 5-7 years. And your Smart Watch has to be replaced how often?
Apples and oranges is right. Cheap immature tech vs high end mature jewellery. No comparison at all.
I'm gonna file this under "No Thanks".
$1200 for a watch that's no more technologically advanced than the same one costing $350 AND that's going to be designed to be outdated when a new version comes out? For what, gold? Shoot, I'll just buy a NORMAL gold watch at that point.
$1200 for a watch that's no more technologically advanced than the same one costing $350 AND that's going to be designed to be outdated when a new version comes out? For what, gold? Shoot, I'll just buy a NORMAL gold watch at that point.
You don't expect Apple to invent a warp drive and then travel to one of those exoplanets made almost completely of diamond, mine it and then make Apple Watch displays from it? YOU ARE SO SHORT-SIGHTED!
$1200 every year for the egotistic rich douche to have the latest and greatest, genius
Or simply someone who has the money and wants to spend it on something nice (and to me at least, this is quite nice). Why assume the worst about people just because they have disposable incomes?
Good point. At least with a nice Swiss watch, there's some resale value in it where you can recover some of your money. But with a recently retired version, which will probably happen every 12-18 months, there's very little resale value. And if each version of the Apple Watch is leaps and bounds better than the one before it then the resale value is almost non-existent. Just like if you have a recently retired iPad or iPod, you have to sell it off quickly in order to get anything. The Apple Watch is a technology product, not a nice Swiss watch with a considerable resale market. You have vintage Swiss watches and an industry built around just that, but you will never have viable vintage Apple Watches as the interested parties will always want the latest and greatest in that product.