I Feel The Apple Watch Should Really Be $200 For Stainless Steel...

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by POLBOSS, Oct 7, 2016.

  1. POLBOSS macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    #1
    Been an Apple Fan since the early 90's, have been in line for various releases...

    When Apple first announced the Apple Watch I was beyond happy!

    I pre ordered a 42mm stainless steel and paid around $700 and some change... when I got it, I noticed that really the only thing useful was to keep an eye on my notifications, give a quick reply to a text message using Siri, and tell time... all the otrher functions are there, but I found it cumbersome to use..
    I couldn't get myself around the fact that i had paid $700 only to do that.. I returned it.. and bought a 42mm sports edition for $400 and change... same thoughts as before and now it looked like a toy to me... I returned it as well...

    I waited to see what the new edition of the Apple watch could do... it did nothing beyond what I knew it could do... so I just said to myself... I'll pass...

    Then, a few days ago I was looking something unrelated on ebay, and I saw an ebay ad for Apple Watch... I looked at prices... first generation Apple Watches stainless Steel for $200...
    after a couple hours of research, I ordered a 38mm stainless steel, for $200 including shipping, I got it in 2 days... the seller graciously included 7 different sets of bands for free! I got various Apple branded ones, I believe the price of the bands to be more than $200...
    I'm very happy with my Apple Watch I don't have to be over protecting it, does what is supposed to do, watchos 3 is great! I couldn't be happier!
     
  2. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #4
    Congrats. My friend also bought my used iPhone 5s for cheap too.
     
  3. doboy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
  4. Hedberg macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2016
    Location:
    Denmark
    #6
    It's a watch, what did you seriously expect? You should've done your research before buying in the first place, since it's kind of easy figuring out what the watch can do, and if you would find it useful.
     
  5. the future macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #8
    Paying less is better than paying more. News at six.
     
  6. oneshotpro Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2014
    #9
    I received mine as a gift and still feel robbed when trying to use it for anything other than a watch.
     
  7. Recognition macrumors 6502

    Recognition

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    #10
    I got a £3.99 sandwich in Tesco for £1 today because it was about to go out of date.
     
  8. warburg macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2008
    #11
    I find the Apple Watch extremely useful and entertaining beyond its function as a watch. I don't understand what the people on this thread are doing on the Apple Watch forum if all they want is a timepiece.
     
  9. lordofthereef macrumors G5

    lordofthereef

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #12
    I'd like to say that I appreciate a well thought out response even if I don't necesssrily agree with it. You certainly explained your stance which is above and beyond the normal "I think this product is overpriced /thread" statements.

    I do agree $600+ is extremely expensive for something like this. If you sit back and think about it, that's only $50 less then the entry level iPhone. And when you are comparing feature sets it's a no brainer. The Watch is still just a peripheral and the phone is a computer in your pocket.

    I also can't seem to get my head behind the idea that the aluminum feels like a toy. I just upgraded my wife's aluminum to SS for about $60 out of pocket; I bought it new at Best Buy and figured that was a great deal if nothing else extending the warranty another year since it's brand new. I have the aluminum series two. I'd be dishonest if I said the steel didn't feel nicer but the other doesn't feel like junk to me. And out in the real world I feel it's even less noticeable. This could just be me; I don't put much credence into watches as jewelry.

    I think if I were deciding pricing I'd say the almuminjm should be $300 and the stainless maybe $400-450. the real value in the SS for me is the sapphire screen. It's just not worth a $200 premium to me. If we can an Apple Watch with full mobile data/calling capability and therefore usage without a tether to s phone I may splurge for a stainless, mostly because I could see myself keeping that unit for much longer than in likely to keep these models.
     
  10. noteple macrumors 65816

    noteple

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    #13
    If they sold ten million watches each quarter it would be priced less than an unsubsidised iPhone
     
  11. lordofthereef macrumors G5

    lordofthereef

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #14
    It's possible. I'm just speaking from a worth standpoint for me (not what it takes to see returns and profit from a company). It's still very much a splurge product for most people especially because of the price point. Aside from T-Mobile I don't even think there's a payment option (I think Apple offers six months?). $400 or $600 is sticker shock for this item for a lot of people. I personally couldn't justify it until it had the sports tracking specs I wanted (and I still think it could be much better). Some days I wonder if I was dumb for splurging but it has replaced a Fitbit for what I use it for and I do really love not constantly pulling my phone out.
     
  12. bunnicula macrumors 68040

    bunnicula

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #15
    In an ideal world, all the stuff I like would be free, but here we are.

    I'm not sure why a computer you wear on your wrist should be cheaper than a pair of leather boots, but I guess I just don't think that the AW is dramatically overpriced. Would I like it to cost less? Of course! I'd probably buy more than one and wear whichever suited my mood. I'd probably buy an Edition if they were about 1/3 the cost, just to wear on a whim. As it is, I didn't buy one because I think I wouldn't like to wear a white watch all day and I bought another SS this time around because it has more band options.

    Point being, it's clearly a good enough price that people are buying it. And, the last-generation used price is more to your liking. I'm sure the guy who bought my 6s plus for 500 bucks felt the same way, but I bought that thing for full price last year. I also got to use the most current phone for a whole year and got to own it brand new... this is more to my liking.
     
  13. KrisLord macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Location:
    Northumberland, UK
    #16
    #Winning
     
  14. ApplePhy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2013
    #17

    As opposed to a Victorinox Swiss Watch that retails for $700? Or luxury watches that retail for $5,000-15,000? And all these traditional watches do is only tell time.

    Would you argue that because the aforementioned Swiss Watch is $700, and therefore $50 more than an iPhone 7, that this is not worth it? Because for some, it is.

    You can't say that the worth of a Watch is solely correlated with its function. Because then NO Watch would be worth what you pay for it. No, people buy watches because it's a fashion item, and an expression of your personal style. The  Watch is unique in that it takes it a step further, and marries technology with style.


    lets not forget just how complex these watches really are, and what they can do. Can your Swiss Watch make phone calls, or measure your heart rate? What about asking a digital assistant to remind you to buy eggs tomorrow morning? Can it track and actually map your outdoor run? Or count the number of laps you just swam, and calories burned?

    And I know more expensive watches can be worn for many years, and arguably the lifespan of an  Watch is a few years (at most). But that's technology, folks. Remember the iPhone 6 you just bought just 2 years ago is now being replaced by an iPhone 7.
     
  15. Benz63amg macrumors 68000

    Benz63amg

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    #18
    the SS apple watch should be 200? lol that is just an absurd thing to say, the SS apple watch series 2 looks incredible and has far more appeal and looks a whole lot more expensive and feels much more high quality than the Sport Model.
     
  16. lordofthereef, Oct 9, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2016

    lordofthereef macrumors G5

    lordofthereef

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #19
    Please understand that I was first and foremost speaking for myself and not at any point implying worth to the average consumer or the consumer base as a whole. Likewise I think the OP was doing the same... But anyway...

    I don't see swiss watches as one and the same. This watch will be completely obsolete in ten years time. Hell, maybe five years. I am buying an item today that I know will depreciate to less than half its value in 1.5 to two years (see the original watch). Does this happen with the average swiss watch? And I am also personally buying a watch for what it does. I don;t spend money on a swiss watch. Because I don't see a value in that either. Those that do are probably not looking at this purchase the same way I am.

    I think Apple tried to go toe to toe with the swiss watch market and ultimately failed. See what the edition was and what it has become a few short years later. It is what it is. People spend hundreds and thousands on swiss watches because of their value today and tomorrow and for fashion. I find it hard to justify $600+ on a fashion statement. You may not. The world may not. I do.

    When speaking of value I also like to talk about my out of pocket cost. That iPhone 6 from two years ago can be handed in to any major carrier for an iphone 7 and you don't pay a dime so long as you stick with them. THis is a large reason why I think the iPhone has taken off. Remember the first iPhone and how expensive it was? Reember how many MORE units the 3G sold? That was no accident. We have gone from subsidy to monthly installments to waived monthly installments for your continued commitment to stick with a carrier.

    I still think that, dollar for dollar, a smartphone is currently far more worth it than a watch, especially when payng out of pocket for both. This is purely based on the function and needs it fills in my life. For me. Not for you. Or your neighbor. You can be happy or unhappy with whatever you choose. I am not even saying I am unhappy with my purchase. I just feel I paid a lot for ultimately what I got; wrist notifications and run tracking. And I am sharing it here on a forum. Because, I think, that is what forums are all abvout.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 9, 2016 ---
    We shop at very didfferent palces lol. The most I've spent on leather boots was $85 lol. I guess I am a clearance guy. :p
     
  17. ApplePhy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2013
    #20
     
  18. BarracksSi Suspended

    BarracksSi

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    #21
    The price of the steel watch is based on the price of the basic aluminum models.

    If you're Apple and you're going to price the steel at $200, you'd better be ready to sell the aluminum watch -- including strap and charging cable -- for fifty bucks. If, instead, you priced the aluminum at the same $200, with plain Ion-X glass and plastic back, there'd be no incentive for a buyer to choose aluminum.

    $250-ish is a good starting point for a smartwatch which is still built better than its competition.

    Above that, the price tiers are spaced just far enough apart to make a buyer think either, "Well, the steel is about the same as the basic plus a couple bands, so it's not too high..." or, "I could get all the functions of the expensive models at a much cheaper price."

    It's always a pricing game. Put the better stuff at a level that's perceived to be achievable with just a little bit of extra effort. They do it with cars, purses, bicycles, computers, leather boots ;) , refrigerators, trumpets... Just look around and you'll see something that has a slightly nicer, slightly pricier upgrade available.

    "Don't hate the player, hate the game." Understand why something is the way it is before you start complaining.
     
  19. kissfan macrumors regular

    kissfan

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Location:
    Florida
    #22
    Also, most sources have shown the build cost to be approx. $85. Factor in R&D costs, support and infrastructure and they're not making quite as much as you think.
     
  20. lordofthereef, Oct 9, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2016

    lordofthereef macrumors G5

    lordofthereef

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #23
    Toyota sells more (and makes more) than Ferrari. I'm talking about luxury watches. Apple's edition (their luxury Watch, their Ferrari) was a failure and ultimately discontinued (or seriously downgraded). I apologise if that wasn't clear. I think there are more metrics To success than net sales here (but in a business all we care about is the profit, so I guess I understand your stance). And it stands to reason that you're going to move a bunch of $400 watches easier than a bunch of $5,000 watches. The only reason I brought this up was because people (including you) made comparisons. "As opposed to what?", you asked, and then proceeded listing luxury watches and prices..

    Anyway, I don't really know how further to respond. I guess I'm an illogical consumer in your eyes. I bought a Apple Watch and like it. I do feel I overpaid a bit for what I got. It would floor me if I was the first person to ever buy a product that had a bit of buyers remorse based on dollars spent to value received, but maybe I am that guy. The very first you ever did see, although I'm not the OP, who seems to think the Watch is worth much less than I do. In fact, a great deal of my response was actually a disagreement to his statement. But you decided to cherry pick the one small paragraph that you had issue with.

    But what are we even still discussing here? That I am weird for thinking that $400 is too much for an Apple Watch? That I should have better if timed myself before my purchase? Ok. Great. I'm the weirdest. If you like. Nothing I said was strictly a complaint. I think one can easily say they feel something costs more than it is worth to them without that being a complaint. Maybe you disagree. That's ok too.

    I'll end by saying that this seems to be a rather fragile forum. One can't come in here and say anything but praise without being viewed as bashing, uneducated, uninformed consumer. Most of the time I keep my mouth shut if I have s cristicism. Because I know people are about to come out of the woodwork to tell me why my opinion is wrong.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 9, 2016 ---
    I see what you did there. :p
     
  21. ApplePhy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2013
    #24
    Not cherry picking the 'one small paragraph', but addressing the very basis of this thread. Paying $$$ for a traditional watch is ok, but paying the same $$$ for a non traditional (but infinitely more capable) watch is not ok?

    Anyway, what would this forum be if there weren't some good ole fashion banter?

    And would you expect anything less from MacRumors?
     
  22. ZipZap macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    #25
    The 38mm is a waste of time. Too small. 42mm is not much better. Apple continues to miss the boat on size. Minimum size should be 50mm.
     

Share This Page