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

[lordofthereef]

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?

Apologies. You chose to respond to me. And have continued to address me.

Maybe I am wrong. Old fashioned watches I always thought were an investment. I spend 5k on it. I know it's not going to be a paperweight in five years. It may lose some value but they generally don't. They generally go up. Is my understanding of such timepieces off? It's certainly possible. Maybe someone (you?) can chime in here because I'm really not sure. I'm also not the one really trying to compare the two outside the realm of saying people didn't seem to want Apple's super luxury watches being that they were dropped.

But again. I've mentioned, I think the third time now, I'm not the guy spending hundreds or thousands on traditional watches. So I'm not even justifying that. I'm not even saying it's ok. People do it. I do not. I didn't take into account the value of another Watch because that frankly didn't matter to me.

Apple also gave their first Watch guaranteed depreciation. This isn't something they've done with their iOS devices before. Usually the previous model (sometimes two) are sold at a discount. They aren't liquidated when a newer model comes out. You're lucky to get $200 for your $600+ device now. Expected for tech? Maybe. But certainly not what we are used to from Apple products. At least iOS.

Anyway, I think the fundamental issue you have with my statement is that this Watch does do more than tell time. While it does, I feel like I'm spending a huge premium on all that. I feel like it could and should be cheaper. $200? No. I think that's unreasonable (again, something I already said). But I think $400 for what it does is steep.

I'll also add that i did read into the feature set prior to buying. I actually held off on a gen one since I didn't feel it was up to snuff for running, which was important to me; my wife had a gen one which I tried out a bit and I also didn't like the battery though it was a 38mm. It's one thing to read up on a device and actually use it. I had fourteen days to return and ultimately decided not to. But I still think it's within the realm of reason to say I feel I overpaid. That doesn't mean I don't like it. That didn't mean I had no idea what I was getting into. Point blank, we wouldn't be having this discussion if my Watch came in at ~$300.

If the next Watch is a fully capable ink computer without the need of s phone tether nearby I will very likely change my tune completely and even end up upgrading despite being a little disappointed in the value I feel I got here.

 

[44267547]

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!

I wish I would have paid $200.00 for the Stainless Watch, but in reality, Apple would not be making a lot of profit on a $200.00 Watch after all the costs and shipping incorporated. Your basically requesting the Stainless model be priced even lower than the aluminum model. Not feasible.

 

[ApplePhy]

Apologies. You chose to respond to me. And have continued to address me.

Maybe I am wrong. Old fashioned watches I always thought were an investment. I spend 5k on it. I know it's not going to be a paperweight in five years. It may lose some value but they generally don't. They generally go up. Is my understanding of such timepieces off? It's certainly possible. Maybe someone (you?) can chime in here because I'm really not sure. I'm also not the one really trying to compare the two outside the realm of saying people didn't seem to want Apple's super luxury watches being that they were dropped.

But again. I've mentioned, I think the third time now, I'm not the guy spending hundreds or thousands on traditional watches. So I'm not even justifying that. I'm not even saying it's ok. People do it. I do not. I didn't take into account the value of another Watch because that frankly didn't matter to me.

Apple also gave their first Watch guaranteed depreciation. This isn't something they've done with their iOS devices before. Usually the previous model (sometimes two) are sold at a discount. They aren't liquidated when a newer model comes out. You're lucky to get $200 for your $600+ device now. Expected for tech? Maybe. But certainly not what we are used to from Apple products. At least iOS.

Anyway, I think the fundamental issue you have with my statement is that this Watch does do more than tell time. While it does, I feel like I'm spending a huge premium on all that. I feel like it could and should be cheaper. $200? No. I think that's unreasonable (again, something I already said). But I think $400 for what it does is steep.

I'll also add that i did read into the feature set prior to buying. I actually held off on a gen one since I didn't feel it was up to snuff for running, which was important to me; my wife had a gen one which I tried out a bit and I also didn't like the battery though it was a 38mm. It's one thing to read up on a device and actually use it. I had fourteen days to return and ultimately decided not to. But I still think it's within the realm of reason to say I feel I overpaid. That doesn't mean I don't like it. That didn't mean I had no idea what I was getting into. Point blank, we wouldn't be having this discussion if my Watch came in at ~$300.

If the next Watch is a fully capable ink computer without the need of s phone tether nearby I will very likely change my tune completely and even end up upgrading despite being a little disappointed in the value I feel I got here.

One cannot equate value with Apple. Cannot do it. Never can, and never will.

Even their most capable product, the iPhone, is arguably overpriced. Almost all other phones out there are certainly cheaper (minus the newly announced 'madebyGoogle' Pixel phones, which are identical in price to the iPhone). Significantly cheaper. Yet, the iPhone is the most popular singular phone model in existence.

You pay big $$$ for all that is Apple: the relentless pursuit of excellence, tremendous amount of R&D, first rate materials, segment leading design, ease of use, Ecosystem, etc....You mention Ferraris vs. Toyotas earlier, well realize that a company can have a Ferrari like product and still have them sell like Toyotas. In Apple's world, they are not mutually exclusive. This, by the way, is an exception and not the rule.

I guess i just have a hard time understanding someone who fails to find the 'value' in an apple product. You're looking at the wrong company if you want value. You had a choice to buy the watch, and much to your dismay (it seems) you bought it anyway. I don't understand this. Nobody forced you to buy the product. If you find that it's expensive for what it is, then why buy it?

There are a plethora of cheaper options out there.

BTW...I actually appreciate your well thought out responses, and please don't mistake my replies for anything but the same.

 

[marcociccone]

I've had the same feelings for a while. I only use my apple watch for notifications, quick replies sometimes through Siri, control my iPhone music when I'm busy... I recently joined a gym so I'm using it also for fitness (compared to my fitbit charge is much more accurate!!). But I don't use app.

That's why I ended up with aluminium space grey, but I have to say, the stainless steel is really beautiful, exactly like a classic watch.

 

[lordofthereef]

One cannot equate value with Apple. Cannot do it. Never can, and never will.

Even their most capable product, the iPhone, is arguably overpriced. Almost all other phones out there are certainly cheaper (minus the newly announced 'madebyGoogle' Pixel phones, which are identical in price to the iPhone). Significantly cheaper. Yet, the iPhone is the most popular singular phone model in existence.

You pay big $$$ for all that is Apple: the relentless pursuit of excellence, tremendous amount of R&D, first rate materials, segment leading design, ease of use, Ecosystem, etc....You mention Ferraris vs. Toyotas earlier, well realize that a company can have a Ferrari like product and still have them sell like Toyotas. In Apple's world, they are not mutually exclusive. This, by the way, is an exception and not the rule.

I guess i just have a hard time understanding someone who fails to find the 'value' in an apple product. You're looking at the wrong company if you want value. You had a choice to buy the watch, and much to your dismay (it seems) you bought it anyway. I don't understand this. Nobody forced you to buy the product. If you find that it's expensive for what it is, then why buy it?

There are a plethora of cheaper options out there.

BTW...I actually appreciate your well thought out responses, and please don't mistake my replies for anything but the same.

I guess the best way to sum it up isni didn't really know what I was getting, truly, until I bought it. I love my phones and never once felt I overpaid (that's not entirely true, I've had iPhone since the original at its original price and that was overpriced. And Apple apparently agreed lol. But I ran unlocks for people overseas as a way to pay the college bills so it wasn't strictly a "for myself" purchase as I ended up selling them rather quickly). I love my MacBook and never once felt I overpaid. It was just a bit different with the Watch. That's all.

If I had to do it over again I'm unsure what I'd do. I enjoy tracking runs and my only real option (without going used) is $250 anyway. That's where my $300 estimate went.

At the end of the day I made a purchase that wasn't financially taxing. I felt that it was a bit expensive but I still enjoy the product for what it is. I just think it can be more for the money. The reason I don't feel this way, particularly about thenohone, is because of the information it puts at my fingertips. The Watch almost does that, but falls short in a few ways I've mentioned. Fwiw I didn't buy an iPhone 7 this year either; you guessed it, wasn't worth it.

I think also that value is different to different people. In considering a smart watch, right now, I had no other option, really. By default, the Apple Watch brings value to the table here because it actually works fully with an iPhone. I don't really have another option (my work phone is an android device but I didn't want a smart watch for my android device). I still think it's a bit of a splurge device in terms of how it enriches my daily life, whereas the smartphone has become a part of my daily life.

I really don't know what to say beyond this. I guess if you still don't understand my meaning, well, you'd have to be in my head lol. I don't personally find it all that crazy to enjoy something but still feel you overpaid. I really don't. With the Apple Watch, for what it is, yeah, I feel it's overpriced. Am I complaining? Not really. Just came here to share my thoughts with some likeminded (and apparently not so likeminded ) individuals.

 

[BarracksSi]

If I'm going to compare my AW to my other watches, it's right in line with them, or even a good value -- even though mine was the $600 SS version.

My other "fitness watch" is a Garmin Forerunner 410, which cost near $500 back in 2011. I added a bicycle speed/cadence sensor for another hundred bucks or so (I forget) and spent some more for a bike mount. It's a good workout tracker, but it's too bulky and ugly to be an everyday watch, and it does no other smartwatch tricks, either.

Around the same time, I got a Citizen watch for about $500. Solar powered, so the battery won't need to be checked for at least a decade or two. It syncs nightly with the atomic clock signal from Colorado, so it's dead-nuts accurate. It's a really good daily-wear watch. But, it doesn't do anything more than display the time and date.

I have a few mechanical watches, too. I won't have to worry about batteries for them (I might get one of them serviced in a few years), but they're inherently less durable and less accurate. They're entertaining, though.

The AW gives me decent workout logging, good looks, daily-wear comfort, and even multiple personalities (via different straps) for only a portion of what my other watches cost. Compared this way, it was a bargain.

 

[Newtons Apple]

Apple watches are not an investment for sure.

 

[BarracksSi]

Apple watches are not an investment for sure.

Most watches aren't good investments, but yeah, the Watch is pretty poor.

 

[oneMadRssn]

In terms of consumer electronics, the below is my "feelings" on pricing:

>$500: It should be quite useful, something I wouldn't want to live without. E.g., a smartphone, a good a TV, a laptop. I would not buy a single-purpose device at this price point unless I specifically needed it for my profession or hobby.

$200-$500: It should be useful, but the standard is lesser than above. I rarely buy electronics in this price range. I would buy a single-purpose device in this price range if I wanted something fun but quality. Whatever it is, I would have to use it with some regularity to justify the price. E.g., mirrorless camera with a lens kit.

<$200: This is fun gadget territory. It should be something that I derive enjoyment from if it's not useful. E.g., a gaming console; gopro.

This is why I agree with OP. If I get it for <$200, it's a whole different standard for me.

 

[ApplePhy]

If I'm going to compare my AW to my other watches, it's right in line with them, or even a good value -- even though mine was the $600 SS version.

My other "fitness watch" is a Garmin Forerunner 410, which cost near $500 back in 2011. I added a bicycle speed/cadence sensor for another hundred bucks or so (I forget) and spent some more for a bike mount. It's a good workout tracker, but it's too bulky and ugly to be an everyday watch, and it does no other smartwatch tricks, either.

Around the same time, I got a Citizen watch for about $500. Solar powered, so the battery won't need to be checked for at least a decade or two. It syncs nightly with the atomic clock signal from Colorado, so it's dead-nuts accurate. It's a really good daily-wear watch. But, it doesn't do anything more than display the time and date.

I have a few mechanical watches, too. I won't have to worry about batteries for them (I might get one of them serviced in a few years), but they're inherently less durable and less accurate. They're entertaining, though.

The AW gives me decent workout logging, good looks, daily-wear comfort, and even multiple personalities (via different straps) for only a portion of what my other watches cost. Compared this way, it was a bargain.

Well said.

Spend $$$ on an  Watch, and complain that it's overpriced, and that it 'only' does:
-really accurate time keeping
-notifications
-phone calls
-voice activated SIRI
-mid-level workout tracking
-swim tracking
-GPS to track open runs/swims without need for iPhone
-text messaging
- Pay
-heart rate sensor
-easily change personalities with difft straps (as you say) in an industry leading easy way


Spend same $$$ on a watch that can only tell time and all of a sudden it's fine.

OP thinks $200 is where the stainless steel should be. Have you SEEN the kinds of watches you can buy for $200? And again---these are one dimensional. Heart rate sensor? Sure---only if you place your finger on your pulse and count for a minute looking at your one dimensional watch.

I think Apple is unfortunately plagued by its success. People aren't impressed anymore unless it's products can make you fly or cure cancer.

Clearly different standards for other companies/industries, however.

 

[oneMadRssn]

OP thinks $200 is where the stainless steel should be. Have you SEEN the kinds of watches you can buy for $200? And again---these are one dimensional. Heart rate sensor? Sure---only if you place your finger on your pulse and count for a minute looking at your one dimensional watch.

First, most of those watches will last decades if not longer. The useful lifetime of an Apple Watch is obviously going to be a bit more short lived. One a per-use or per-day level, those one dimensional watches are quite a bit less expensive.

Second, you are assuming the comparison is being made by someone who wears watches, and is deciding between watch A and watch B. What is the value assessment to someone that does not normally wear watches? Apple is trying to sell a lifestyle accessory, a fitness tracker, another consumer electronics gadget. I think most aren't comparing it to the stuff behind the glass counters at Macy's. I think most are comparing it to other gadgets at Best Buy.

Don't get me wrong, Watch OS3 is making me come around on the product. I do think they still have a bit of a pricing issue though.

 

[lordofthereef]

First, most of those watches will last decades if not longer. The useful lifetime of an Apple Watch is obviously going to be a bit more short lived. One a per-use or per-day level, those one dimensional watches are quite a bit less expensive.

Second, you are assuming the comparison is being made by someone who wears watches, and is deciding between watch A and watch B. What is the value assessment to someone that does not normally wear watches? Apple is trying to sell a lifestyle accessory, a fitness tracker, another consumer electronics gadget. I think most aren't comparing it to the stuff behind the glass counters at Macy's. I think most are comparing it to other gadgets at Best Buy.

Don't get me wrong, Watch OS3 is making me come around on the product. I do think they still have a bit of a pricing issue though.

I think you summed that up nicely

 

[bmac4]

Wait, it told time and the name of the product is Apple Watch, you returned it? It showed you notifications and and you used Siri, which would be the "smart" part. I guess your issue was the $700+ price tag. You could have gotten a cheaper band, and it would have looked nicer and been a bit cheaper. I am not really sure what you expected. It's not a cheap $100 watch you buy at a department store. The quality of the materials in the SS make it much nicer then any of those. On top of that, you get the technology. The reason you got it so cheap was because it was second hand. I have no issues paying $500+ for an stainless steel watch. A very nice one at that.

 

[ApplePhy]

First, most of those watches will last decades if not longer. The useful lifetime of an Apple Watch is obviously going to be a bit more short lived. One a per-use or per-day level, those one dimensional watches are quite a bit less expensive.

Second, you are assuming the comparison is being made by someone who wears watches, and is deciding between watch A and watch B. What is the value assessment to someone that does not normally wear watches? Apple is trying to sell a lifestyle accessory, a fitness tracker, another consumer electronics gadget. I think most aren't comparing it to the stuff behind the glass counters at Macy's. I think most are comparing it to other gadgets at Best Buy.

Don't get me wrong, Watch OS3 is making me come around on the product. I do think they still have a bit of a pricing issue though.

I agree with you that the lifespan of an  Watch is much, much less than that of a traditional watch.

But by your logic ('most aren't comparing it to the stuff behind the glass counters at Macy's'), this wouldn't matter anyhow because most aren't comparing this to a traditional watch anyway, right? By your logic, they are comparing these wrist computers to 'other gadgets at Best Buy.' And these 'other gadgets' DO have a limited lifespan. Why? Because (as you are inferring) they are technology devices. So who cares if they last only a few years? so does every piece of tech device you own.

But let's stray away from your logic for arguments sake. I personally DO think people are comparing these  Watches to traditional watches. How can they not? After all, they ARE watches. And you only have 2 wrists (so if you have an  Watch, you certainly aren't going to wear your old watch at the same time, are you?).

It will still take time, but people will eventually get used to the idea of having this device around, as it invades their lives and enriches it. I personally think we are at the cusp of hitting critical mass (took a couple of years for the iPod, iPhone, and iPad in a similar manner). And for the vast majority that do end up wearing it, they will replace their traditional watches entirely. There will be a paradigm shift. Of course, you will still have people that buy and wear traditional watches. There is something to be said about owning a nice, timeless and well built timepiece. But certainly not to the same extent as pre-2015. As always, it just takes time for people to get used to adjusting to technology. Same thing happened when the iPhone hit the scene in 2007.

 

[BarracksSi]

Just this line --

It will still take time, but people will eventually get used to the idea of having this device around, as it invades their lives and enriches it.

I'm starting a new job where I won't be allowed to bring any personal electronics. No smartphones, and no smartwatches, either. I'll need to use one of my regular watches (I'm leaning towards the Rado my godfather gave me just because it's fun to wear).

But, I'll have the option of working remotely a few days a week. When I'm not at the office, then, I'm going to have a heck of a time resisting my AW. My iPhone sits on the table most of the time at home. I'm totally accustomed to using the watch to check the weather, skim news headlines, get driving directions, and set timers. Although I use it for many little things, I didn't realize how tightly-woven it's gotten into my routine until I tried going without it.

Two weeks ago, I decided to put off buying a second strap for my AW because I wasn't sure how much I'd wear it after my new job gets into gear. Now I feel like I might want to wear it all the time outside of the office.

 

[x-evil-x]

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!

I really don't understand why people expect so much out of it and just use it for notifications. It is capable of so much more just most people don't know or don't care? I can control my tv from my watch. Control my home lighting/nest from my watch. send texts. check email. See quick weather/clock/calendar appointments.Music. Take calls. Get notifications. Pay for groceries. Track my sleep. Use as an alarm. Keep my phone in my backpack and get turn by turn directions on my motorcycle or bike. Check in at the gym on my watch. Track my workouts. store music and leave my phone in my locker and have completely wireless feeling which is huge for the gym for me. Compared to my nixon 51-30 that was 500$ that shows me the time it does a lot more. My normal watches range from 200-500 and they haven't seen my wrist in a year and a half now.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I agree with you that the lifespan of an  Watch is much, much less than that of a traditional watch.

But by your logic ('most aren't comparing it to the stuff behind the glass counters at Macy's'), this wouldn't matter anyhow because most aren't comparing this to a traditional watch anyway, right? By your logic, they are comparing these wrist computers to 'other gadgets at Best Buy.' And these 'other gadgets' DO have a limited lifespan. Why? Because (as you are inferring) they are technology devices. So who cares if they last only a few years? so does every piece of tech device you own.

I'm not saying their short lifespan (relative to that of a regular watch) was a huge negative. I was merely responding to someone else that implied the only proper price comparison to make is to a regular watch, where dollar for dollar, a regular watch does a lot less.

But let's stray away from your logic for arguments sake. I personally DO think people are comparing these  Watches to traditional watches. How can they not? After all, they ARE watches. And you only have 2 wrists (so if you have an  Watch, you certainly aren't going to wear your old watch at the same time, are you?).

Almost all consumer use data over the past decade has shown a pretty sharp decline in the use of wrist watches. People got used to using their smartphones to keep time. The only watch brands that really grew were luxury brands, which are worn more as jewelry than as utilitarian devices. How many purely utilitarian watch brands are seen commonly? Even those that used to be mostly utilitarian a decade ago have skewed more towards luxury and fashion statement. Overall though, on a day to day, especially with the coveted millennials markets, watch use is down a lot.

So I don't think people are cross-shopping a Citizen or a Seiko (or even a Swatch) against an Apple Watch. Instead, they are cross-shopping pretty all other devices consumer electronics devices in the same price range which, as you said below, would enrich or day-to-day lives a bit. This holiday shopping season, the questions will be: "Should I get an Apple Watch, or a few Sonos speakers to put around my house?" "Should I upgrade to a new big 4K TV, or should I an a pair of Apple Watches for me and the wife?" "I can allow myself to get either a PS4Pro and a few games, or an Apple Watch... which to pick?"

Even those that are decided on getting something fitness related will be cross-shopping Fitbits and all the plethora of other health-related gadgets out there.

It will still take time, but people will eventually get used to the idea of having this device around, as it invades their lives and enriches it. I personally think we are at the cusp of hitting critical mass (took a couple of years for the iPod, iPhone, and iPad in a similar manner). And for the vast majority that do end up wearing it, they will replace their traditional watches entirely. There will be a paradigm shift. Of course, you will still have people that buy and wear traditional watches. There is something to be said about owning a nice, timeless and well built timepiece. But certainly not to the same extent as pre-2015. As always, it just takes time for people to get used to adjusting to technology. Same thing happened when the iPhone hit the scene in 2007.

I agree with this. I think as users get on board with the convenience, as battery life, hardware, and OS improvements are made, and as developers follow-along, this product will eventually secure itself.

However, all of your examples, and indeed every other successful prior product, came down in price concurrent with their adoption. The iPod launched for $400, but was down to $300 by the third generation when sales really took off (a 25% cut), down to $250 at the fifth generation. Likewise, the iPhone launched for $600 on contract, which was soon reduced to $400 on contract. By the time it really took off with the 3G and 3GS models, they were $200 on contract and the prior-gen on sale for $99 on contract (50% and 75% cut from the post-launch price).

Compare that to the Apple Watch. It launched for $350, was eventually cut to $300 (looking at the lowest starting price, so 38mm). Now we have a top-end for $370, and a mid-range for $270. So in a way, it actually went up in price compared to the last generation! Things ought to get less expensive as they mature; but the Apple Watch is going the wrong way! (the 42mm stayed the same price). It's still priced too high to really reach critical mass.

 

[BlueMoon63]

I wonder if Apple ever cared about lowering the price to meet critical mass? The iPhone sells great and costs the most but it will never sell as many as other smartphones. Yet, Apple makes the most profit and earnings while the others continue to struggle to make any profit it all.

I agree that the Apple Watch could and should sell for less and maybe some day it will.

 

[Phil A.]

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.

Speak for yourself - I personally think the 38mm is the perfect size and a 50mm would look like a dinner plate on my wrist

You can argue that they should produce a larger size as well, but to dismiss the smaller sizes out of hand ignores the fact that many people like their watches to be discreet

 

[bmac4]

I wonder if Apple ever cared about lowering the price to meet critical mass? The iPhone sells great and costs the most but it will never sell as many as other smartphones. Yet, Apple makes the most profit and earnings while the others continue to struggle to make any profit it all.

I agree that the Apple Watch could and should sell for less and maybe some day it will.

The iPhone would not see a great increase in sales if they lowered the price. The iPhone can get whatever price Apple decides to put on it. Yes in some of the smaller countries they could sale a few more, but it would not put a dent into their overall numbers.

The same thing can be said about the AW. If you want the nicer material you have to pay for it. It still out sales any other smart watch, and they have the prices they do. Don't kid yourself, Apple knows how to price things to what people are willing to pay. Those that want them cheaper, really don't want the product that bad.

 

[ApplePhy]

I wonder if Apple ever cared about lowering the price to meet critical mass? The iPhone sells great and costs the most but it will never sell as many as other smartphones. Yet, Apple makes the most profit and earnings while the others continue to struggle to make any profit it all.

I agree that the Apple Watch could and should sell for less and maybe some day it will.

Apple doesn't care to hit critical mass by lowering quality and prices.

Their motto is to make the best product they can, without compromise.

This way of thinking did them pretty well, don't you think?
[doublepost=1476245048][/doublepost]

So I don't think people are cross-shopping a Citizen or a Seiko (or even a Swatch) against an Apple Watch. Instead, they are cross-shopping pretty all other devices consumer electronics devices in the same price range which, as you said below, would enrich or day-to-day lives a bit.

You said Millenials don't care about watches anymore, as they rely on their tech devices more and more. If you think Millenials have this way if thinking, can you imagine the newer generation below them and how much more they will embrace technology?

Newer generations will continue to ignore traditional watches.

So I t doesn't matter if you think people aren't cross shopping or if you think people aren't comparing  Watches to traditional watches.

As people continue to buy and wear more and more  watches, they will forego their traditional ones. This is particularly true in newer generations.

Which means the net effect is ultimately the same. Again, if one wears an  Watch, one will not be wearing a traditional watch at the same time.

 

[oneMadRssn]

You said Millenials don't care about watches anymore, as they rely on their tech devices more and more. If you think Millenials have this way if thinking, can you imagine the newer generation below them and how much more they will embrace technology?

Newer generations will continue to ignore traditional watches.

So I t doesn't matter if you think people aren't cross shopping or if you think people aren't comparing  Watches to traditional watches.

As people continue to buy and wear more and more  watches, they will forego their traditional ones. This is particularly true in newer generations.

Which means the net effect is ultimately the same. Again, if one wears an  Watch, one will not be wearing a traditional watch at the same time.

I agree about the traditional watches. My point is the Apple Watch is still asking too much of people.

First, it's high price means people will be cross-shopping it with a lot of other awesome technology, which I listed above. Very few people say "I want a smartwatch, so I'm going to shop for a smartwatch." Rather people say, "I have $300-$400 to spend on a new gadget, so I'm going to shop for a gadget. Do I feel like a gaming console, a TV, a smartwatch, an audio system, a kitchenaid, some other fitness thing, etc... I can see a lot of people deciding they would rather have an PS4Pro than an Apple Watch, or a couple of Sonos speakers.

And if price alone is not a high burden, to be useful it has to be charged daily. Apple and the other tech companies are asking folks to now have 3 charging cables by their nightstands - smartphone, bluetooth headphones, and smartwatch. This is an issue that needs to be solved - all these charging things need to be unified somehow. I think that will be Apple's next innovation - finding an elegant and easy way to keep all these things charged without becoming a cable monster.

 

[BarracksSi]

I've never imagined anyone shopping for a gadget just because they had some extra cash.

Isn't it usually the other way around? "I want a so-and-so -- how much do I need to spend?"

 

[bmac4]

I've never imagined anyone shopping for a gadget just because they had some extra cash.

Isn't it usually the other way around? "I want a so-and-so -- how much do I need to spend?"

Yep I feel like gadgets are just a "I have extra money laying around". When I want the new iPhone, I don't just have extra money. I have to come up with it through my normal income or save for it.

 

[Riley0818]

Here's the question:

If you're selling something to someone, and you know you can sell it for $200 and still make profit, but people are lining up to pay $600 (and literally waiting weeks to do so), what is your product "worth"?

Should you sell it for $200 just because you "can" or because someone says you "should"?

That's the beauty of free market economies. If the watch really is overpriced, it will 1) not sell OR 2) have it's price lowered so it does. If neither apply, the product fails.

Apple could have stopped after S0. Instead they tweaked a bit, eliminated the gold "Editions", and S1/2 are selling well enough to STILL cause a line to buy them. Even at $600.

Just because it isn't worth it to YOU, doesn't mean it "isn't worth it". You are free to enjoy your FitBit or used S0 though, nothing wrong with that either!