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

How Much Would You Be Willing to Pay for an Apple Watch 'Pro'?

tivoboy said:
I bet if you run your fingernail around the top edge of the outsider perimeter of the face you’ll find some tiny places where there is a tiny bit of material chipped or missing.. it’s VERY tiny and one doesn’t really feel it with just fingertip skin. Agree, the FACE of the Rolex’s I have have essentially no scratches and have been mountain climbing, working out, scuba diving in coral reefs, and everything in between.
Click to expand...

Nope, I just did it the other day because I was curious, not even the tiniest hint of any scratch or blemish. It's actually not even flat faced I realized, the sapphire slightly curves outward beyond the bezel so it's actually sticking out.
 
wonderings said:
+1

Apple has learned by throwing "pro" into the name it increases sales. People generally want the best and will pay more just for the feeling. What is even a "pro" phone? These are just phones with better cameras, and pro photographers are certainly not making their living off an iPhone camera. This is just Apple doing what it does best, it knows how to sell and what gets people drooling.
Click to expand...
Oh i know. It’s just funny. Cause the upgrades this new Pro watch are getting are pretty much what the regular apple watch would have gotten if they hadn’t changed the name to Pro.
 
Apple would have to BLOW me away to upgrade from my S7 Ti. The rumors that have been shared do not do that.
 
adamjackson said:
I've bought every Apple Watch except for just one and I've always gone for Space Black Stainless Steel until Series 7 when I bought the Titanium Space Black model. Looks like I've paid about $700-$850 for my watches so if the Pro comes in around that, good. If it touches the $1000 threshold, I'll pause before upgrading.

At some point, I could have just gotten a Rolex for what I've given Apple every year for watches and it's kind of funny because I live in the woods. No one here even has apple watches or even knows that my watch is fancy or special. I like the nicer materials but I've never had someone say "wow that's a steel model" so I'm not getting social credits for it so why keep buying the nicest one other than I just like nicer things?
Click to expand...
Why buy one every year when the changes are typically marginal? I have a series 5 and haven’t seen a reason to “upgrade“
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howard2k
jmgregory1 said:
Ask me again after Apple releases a proper round Watch version with a battery that lasts a week (minimum). Otherwise I’ll stick with my now favorite Garmin Epix 2 - and it costs more than any of the current Apple Watches.
Click to expand...
I just got an Epix 2 and I like it so far. At least I can transfer files directly to it - when I had a Series 7 I could not make the ritual to get it to switch to wi-fi transfers work and it is a nice looking watch with tons of fitness capabilities, fantastic battery life (streaming to BT headphones notwithstanding), and a high build quality. My only issue with it is the price tag.
 
bookofxero said:
I just got an Epix 2 and I like it so far. At least I can transfer files directly to it - when I had a Series 7 I could not make the ritual to get it to switch to wi-fi transfers work and it is a nice looking watch with tons of fitness capabilities, fantastic battery life (streaming to BT headphones notwithstanding), and a high build quality. My only issue with it is the price tag.
Click to expand...
16 days in smartwatch mode and 42 hours in GPS, for the price you’re paying, it better be damned good, and I don’t think the Apple Watch is there yet for that price point the rumours are at, especially if it can’t match those stated battery life
 
I probably wouldn't even consider one if it was a sold for the same price as the others. It's simply the wrong size and I don't think I'd have any use of the extra features.

I'd actually love a feature-limited Apple Watch of literally half the thickness. With whatever few health sensors that still fit, internet synced time accuracy, notification support and that's it. Apple Watch Air basically.
 
Wokis said:
I probably wouldn't even consider one if it was a sold for the same price as the others. It's simply the wrong size and I don't think I'd have any use of the extra features.

I'd actually love a feature-limited Apple Watch of literally half the thickness. With whatever few health sensors that still fit, internet synced time accuracy, notification support and that's it. Apple Watch Air basically.
Click to expand...

I'm not jumping in until the 60mm drops. Apple Watch Pro Max
 
ct2k7 said:
16 days in smartwatch mode and 42 hours in GPS, for the price you’re paying, it better be damned good, and I don’t think the Apple Watch is there yet for that price point the rumours are at, especially if it can’t match those stated battery life
Click to expand...
The 16 day battery life is possible just by having the AOD turned off. And the lower GPS number is if you’re actively tracking yourself. I consistently get 16 days with daily workouts and every other day running for 45-60 minutes using GPS.

Yes, it’s expensive, but it offers serious performance including 300’ water resistance and sapphire lens and looks like a normal watch and not just a mini iPhone on your wrist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ct2k7
Would depend if anything about the watch actually makes it pro. Just a larger display and more rugged doesn’t make it pro.
 
jz0309 said:
Apple would have to BLOW me away to upgrade from my S7 Ti. The rumors that have been shared do not do that.
Click to expand...
Why do people with no intention of upgrading from a 1-year old device like to make it sound like it's somehow a failing on Apple's part that they aren't?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bogey99
Apple Watch is not a forever watch. As with other Apple devices you get 2-3 years use and trade or sell for an updated model. So the cost is the depreciation over that time. At $800 you would want to get $500 back in two years. Compared to a standard Apple Watch with Cellular at $529 you should get $250 back in two years. Any more than $300 for two years use is not worth it.
 
Abazigal said:
Why do people with no intention of upgrading from a 1-year old device like to make it sound like it's somehow a failing on Apple's part that they aren't?
Click to expand...
None of the rumored features are enticing me to upgrade, what’s so hard to understand about that? Just like I have a M1 MBA, no reason to upgrade to the M2.
There seems to be a specific market segment (athletes) that Apple seems to be targeting, I just don’t fall into that.
 
jz0309 said:
None of the rumored features are enticing me to upgrade, what’s so hard to understand about that? Just like I have a M1 MBA, no reason to upgrade to the M2.
There seems to be a specific market segment (athletes) that Apple seems to be targeting, I just don’t fall into that.
Click to expand...

As a general rule of thumb, Apple does not design their products to appeal to consumers who bought into the last generation of said product. Any such “pro” Apple Watch would be aimed at people who still haven’t purchased an Apple Watch (perhaps existing Garmin users), or on a series 5 or earlier.

So it goes without saying that anyone using a series 7 currently would have very little incentive to upgrade anyways.
 
if it was truly able to handle areas where it can get scratched and damaged then probably I work outside a lot and my s6 already extremely scratched up which sucks
 
Hmmm, I wouldn’t like to pay more than 700 US$ for a Pro Apple-Watch entry-level. Pricing has reached a limit yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back