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.
How Much Would You Be Willing to Pay for an Apple Watch 'Pro'?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I like these mockups, they seem slimmer. A lower profile AW would be amazing, although I know its hard with all the tech and battery inside of it.
I have an AW6 and I have no real interest in upgrading yet, unless they blow me away with something.
I have an AW6 and I have no real interest in upgrading yet, unless they blow me away with something.
I'm just curious where this leaves the SS models, because those are already a premium. I'd be willing to be the same as those, but not more, unless there are substantial exclusive features on board. A slightly better battery isn't worth $200 more in my opinion.
I love Apple… but them slapping the “pro” moniker onto a watch with features that would normally be the new “regular” Apple watch is just a shady way to get people to pay more lol
About the price of the regular series 7 which is imho not worth the premium over the SE. Maybe up to €500.
But depends on the functions. If it's
nearly indestructible, can measure at least some things like blood glucose, body temperature, UV, maybe some gasses and radiation, body fat, muscle mass, has an infared thermometer you can point somewhere,.... etc. - and, most of all, gets support like new watch faces, battery swap, etc. over at least the next 6+ years, maybe more.
But depends on the functions. If it's
nearly indestructible, can measure at least some things like blood glucose, body temperature, UV, maybe some gasses and radiation, body fat, muscle mass, has an infared thermometer you can point somewhere,.... etc. - and, most of all, gets support like new watch faces, battery swap, etc. over at least the next 6+ years, maybe more.
Last edited:
+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.
If it can record a GPS Activity, with HR, and provide turn-by-turn navigation for over 24 hours, then up to $1,000. That’s the minimum standard for real sport watches.
If it is less than 24 hours maybe $500.
If it is less than 6 hours maybe $200.
If it is less than 24 hours maybe $500.
If it is less than 6 hours maybe $200.
There’s no way I’d pay $1000 for an Apple Watch unless it finally has all of the extra sensors that Apple seem to be struggling to get to work (e.g. blood sugar, temperature, blood pressure, etc, etc). An Apple Watch with a slightly larger screen and a different design just isn’t going to justify that price.
Agreed, this is where Apple desperately needs to improve this product.
Selling a "rugged" watch that has the glass exposed as the first point of contact is stretching the term. I prefer a watch have at least some form of raised ridge around the face so that just brushing it against something is less likely to result in a scratch and a the force of a flat impact gets spread around the outside of the glass instead of directly on the face of the watch. Sure Gorilla Glass, Saphire, etc... has made leaps and bounds in durability for screens but it is not absolute protection and even a small ridge reduces contact and stress considerably.
I have yet to have a flat faced watch that doesn't get a scratch across the face within the first month of wearing it while those with a ridge can go years without a scratch, in the glass, obviously the ridge gets nicked up. Sure I may be considerably rougher on watches than the average person, but that is why I would be in the market for a rugged watch and not a standard model.
I have yet to have a flat faced watch that doesn't get a scratch across the face within the first month of wearing it while those with a ridge can go years without a scratch, in the glass, obviously the ridge gets nicked up. Sure I may be considerably rougher on watches than the average person, but that is why I would be in the market for a rugged watch and not a standard model.
I have a flat faced Rolex that I wore for 15+ years on a daily basis, I completely thrashed it including doing a lot of construction with it, I can't count the amount of times I hard ground it against a terrible surface like a rock, bricks, nails, etc. It doesn't have a single blemish, not even the faintest hint of a scratch.
From what I understand sapphire has different levels of quality, I'd be curious to hear someone's take who understands this. I would also be curious to see how Apple sapphire stacks up against luxury watchmakers, and even just watches in the $1k range. I do know that my AW3 has also had a ton of abuse for years as my throwaway watch when I don't want to sully my "nice" AW and doesn't have a single blemish on it either so I've become quite confident in Apple's sapphire.
If I break my normal watch, I’ll just buy another one and save a few hundred quid!
Sadly if the rumours are true particularly about screen size hence presumably an even bigger case than the 45mm S7 my answer is £0 because the 45mm S7 is already too big for my small wrists. I wonder when it comes to the Pro model what percentage of the total Apple Watch market Apple is excluding itself from by only offering the Pro version in what smaller people might call an “oversized” device.
I have to see the features and design first, can't say what it is worth to me with just a rumored list.
The irony is that the overweight/obese are less likely to go for a larger watch, this is more likely to appeal to those with a healthier and smaller frame.
For the average Apple consumer, the realization that you’re essentially paying for a second iPhone Pro with this “Pro” Apple Watch will be just too much to swallow, not matter how rugged it is. All indications are that software-wise, there will be little to no difference over the regular Apple Watch. Now, if they do like they do with iPhone pricing, charging only $200-300 more for an iPhone Pro model over the regular iPhone model ($1,099/$999 vs $799). That would be much easier to justify the purchase for the average Apple consumer. Then again, a price of $999 would be $200-300 over the current premium Apple Watch models (titanium) so I don’t really know what Apple’s path could be other than charging that much. Maybe what I’m really trying to say is Apple ultimately needs to bring the price down for a Apple Watch that can deal better with the rigors of life and still offer a reasonable price to the typical Apple consumer.
Last edited:
Since I have never wanted an Apple Watch I would say that amount is $0.00
The software on Apple Watch has been stagnant for the last 5+ years. It had high promises when first introduced but now they are all the same and just a glorified notification watch. It gets boring after awhile. Apple needs to come up with more than just adding a new face every year.