Is it wise to spend on SS or Gold?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by darthbane2k, Apr 3, 2015.

  1. darthbane2k, Apr 3, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2015

    darthbane2k macrumors 6502a

    Oct 22, 2009
    This isn't a case of affordability, just wisdom.
    I am not really a watch person - so it has taken a lot to convince me to wear something on my wrist again after so many years.
    I absolutely love the stainless steel models, but they are pricey. Not unaffordable pricey, but pricey none the less.
    I feel though I will have to settle on the sports model simply because is it wise at all to invest in a first generation Apple product. We know how it goes, it will be replaced and replaced fast. What disappoints me is Apple have said nothing about whether pricey bands will remain compatable with future models. If they were then I would be happy to spend on a link bracket for example.

    What say you?
  2. Newtons Apple Suspended

    Newtons Apple

    Mar 12, 2014
    Jacksonville, Florida
    You do not buy any electronics as an investment. It will drop in value for sure.

    Buy the watch because you want or wait for the next years model.
  3. Tsuchiya macrumors 68020


    Jun 7, 2008
    I doubt Apple will want to commit to anything this early in the product lifecycle. The band design will likely last as long as they are happy with it. If they redesign the Watch, or find mechanism that works better, then I wouldn't be surprised if they dump the current lineup without skipping a beat.
  4. bbeagle macrumors 68040


    Oct 19, 2010
    Buffalo, NY
    It's not something Apple does. Samsung did this with their Gear, Gear 2 and Gear S. Released each new product 6 months later AND stopped supporting the previous product. It's not something Apple does, but it's Samsung's go-to move.
  5. Gav2k macrumors G3


    Jul 24, 2009
    Gold has the best market value but given the steep initial markup it wouldn't be worth the investment.
  6. darthbane2k thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Oct 22, 2009
    Yeah, this is why I really wish Apple would at least say something about the bands, not necessarily the watches themselves (as tech evolves and evolves fast).
    This isn't a case of replacing a (in my case) £600 iPhone or iPad annualy, those involves potentially replacing jewellery (luxury bands) that can cost well over £1000. And that's for the band alone in some cases.
  7. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Jul 16, 2002
    It's not an investment. It's pure consumption spending. The purchase is relative to your own cash flow and net worth. For some people $15000 is pocket change -- a night on the town or a new outfit. For others $350 is the sum of their expendable cash for the year. Is it wise for someone to spend $1500 on a watch when that is half their monthly salary? Of course not.

    Apple never discusses future compatibility. Few companies do. It just invites law suits. Assume whatever accessories you buy for gen 1 will only be compatible with gen 1. We all know Apple is going to work hard slimming the watch down.
  8. darthbane2k thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Oct 22, 2009
    Not about the electronics (of which you are absolutely right), it's about the investment in expensive luxury bands and casing.


    And this is where things get interesting because luxury watches (due to the materials used) have until this point always been considered investments. Again, this isn't about affordability , it's about being wise with your spending. After all a sports Apple watch does exactly the same thing as a gold one. I'll happily pay more for gold if it is guaranteed to last, but unlikely to be prepared to throw a £10,000 gold watch I to a drawer when the tech is rendered redundant in 12 months time. A commitment to band compatibility would be welcome from Apple, and would even encourage people to spend more.
  9. Newtons Apple Suspended

    Newtons Apple

    Mar 12, 2014
    Jacksonville, Florida

    If we were all wise about our spending, we would all be using flip phones.
  10. ninethirty macrumors 6502a

    Mar 1, 2006
    First and foremost, it isn't an investment. It will not appreciate in value.

    Second, and I can't believe I'm going to say this, but if you're looking to retain at least a certain amount of money, you can always be sure the gold will be worth at least it's value in raw materials. But, that's still about 1/10th of what Apple is charging for the Edition, so do the math as to whether or not it'll be worth it.
  11. extricated macrumors 6502


    Jul 14, 2011
    I had been on the fence between the stainless and sport for awhile, but I've decided on the sport.
    Multiple reasons for that, but partly because of the first gen factor. If I had a little more cash on hand I would possibly get the stainless, so money certainly comes into my decision; but even before price announcements, I had a set amount in my mind that I wasn't going over.

    If someone really likes the Edition and has the money, go for it!
  12. sammich macrumors 601


    Sep 26, 2006
    The object itself (the Watch) won't appreciate.

    Just like a nice pair of shoes or a nice suit won't appreciate, but it'll add intrinsic value to the wearer because that's just how the world works.

    If all goes alright, I'll get my first taste of the Watch on Day 1 try-ons. Short listed for the Black Sport, or Leather Loop Stainless.
  13. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Jul 17, 2008
    Leaving aside the Edition, I dont think the SS watch and bands are "expensive luxury." A bit pricey, but not expensive, and definitely not luxury.

    That said, personally, I'm going for the Sport watch, because I expect to be upgrading to Watch2 next year, and I don't want to spend that much on a gadget I'm only using for a year. But then I don't care about how it looks, either. I just need it to be comfortable to wear.
  14. spooky2k macrumors 6502a


    Apr 14, 2008
    Actually, it's fair to say that the gold model will hold a lot of its value because it's limited and it's made of actual gold. There's a huge material cost there. But no one buying it is buying it for that reason. If money is a factor in affording one, you shouldn't buy a $8000+ watch. The SS is all fine and dandy. It's not hugely expensive, it's just a preference in looks that you pay a little more for.
  15. Brian Y macrumors 68040

    Oct 21, 2012
    Actually I doubt it will. The material cost is a small fraction of the price.

    E.g. the 18k Yellow watch (without the fancy band) costs $12,000, and weighs 69g. Current price of gold is $38.50 a gram - so if the entire watch is made of solid gold, it'd have a material cost of $2,600. Given that the glass, and electronics likely cost a lot less, there's probably about $1,300 worth of actual gold in there.

    For me, I'm going for the black sport, because a) I think it looks the nicest (I like the matt black) and b) If I smash up a £300 watch I don't really care, but a £700-£10000 one? I wouldn't wanna accidentally destroy that.
  16. bunnicula macrumors 68040


    Jul 23, 2008
    I agree. All this investment talk is silly. Unless one plans to buy one of these because they collect tech items and hope it'll be worth something in 10-20 years, of course.

    This is a tech item you buy because you enjoy tech gadgets and, possibly, because you like the look of it and think you'd enjoy wearing it as a fashion statement.

    The only money I figure I'll get out of this first gen Apple Watch is the money I'll get at resale if I go that route. I figure I can recoup at least half of what I paid, maybe more.

    So, is the Watch at least worth half what I'm spending for a least a year's worth of use? Yup. Easy. :)
  17. Cashmonee macrumors 65816


    May 27, 2006
    Rare or limited does not equal valuable. The Edition (and the other two for that matter) will be worth what people will pay. That may be 120% it's original value, it may be 5%. It is all based on the demand. While it makes sense that it would stay at least at it's value in gold, there is no guarantee. First, if someone is looking to flip it, they will have to pay less than the gold value. Second, they have to be able to get to the gold if that's all they want. That can come at a significant time cost that would have to figure into the value. No one has any idea what they will be worth second hand. The hope is, like other Apple products, they will do rather well. However, if it is a dud in the market, don't expect to sell it for much.

    For the OP, is it wise? No. It's an electronic device, and as such, unless that device is making you money (i.e. Mac Pro) it makes a poor investment. If you just want one, and can comfortably afford one, then buy it. You will enjoy the one you want far more than compromising for the one you didn't.
  18. kdarling macrumors P6


    Jun 9, 2007
    First university coding class = 47 years ago
    Personally, I can't see spending hundreds of dollars on proprietary bands that 1) won't fit anything else, and 2) might be useless in a few years. (Like my previous investment in Apple 30-pin power cords.)

    To me, if I was going to spend some major cash, it makes more sense to invest in standard watch bands, and an adapter... assuming a good-looking enough one is made.
  19. Cory Bauer macrumors 6502a

    Jun 26, 2003
    I look at it this way; all watch models are $350 devices, and every dollar you spend more than that is money you have to be comfortable with not recouping on sale. Its like spending $1,200 on custom rims for a car; the KBB value of your car does not increase $1,200, and you'll likely never get that money back.

    I don't mean to say that $17,000 gold watches will be going for $350 on eBay next year; I just mean a buyer needs to be comfortable with the depreciating value of aesthetic markups when they make their purchase.
  20. bjdraw macrumors 6502a

    Jan 24, 2008
    Tampa FL
    An Apple Watch is not an investment, but it is certainly an odd (new) category. Other than the Sport, the Apple Watch isn't really a typical electronic (gadget) purchase, as the SS and Gold are more analogous to jewelry. The problem is that with jewelry, you pay a premium and the object almost always serves its purpose for as long as you have it -- a working 10 year old Tag watch works just as good as when it was new.

    Personally I'm planning to order the SS with sport band and pick up the link bracelet later (buying the SS with Link and adding the Sport band later is the same price and I'd like both). But then again, I've spent more than 1k on a SS watch that only sells time in the past. I'll be honest, I'm fully expecting Apple to make the watches upgradable with new internals. Perhaps I'm setting myself up for disappointment, but I just feel like the value of the Apple watch is so much more if it is upgradable -- as others have mentioned, it doesn't benefit Apple to make any guarantees of upgradability.
  21. scwinsett macrumors 6502a


    Apr 21, 2010
    Nashville, TN
    Whether you can afford it or not, its never "wise" to shell out 10,000 for a watch. its incredibly indulgent.
  22. J4B3 macrumors regular


    Mar 18, 2012
    Gamma Quadrant
    To consider buying the SS, at a minimum you have to be comfortable with the idea of spending $200 on a piece of jewelry that you will only wear for 1-2 years. If that makes you uneasy, then it's worth reconsidering.
  23. Zaft macrumors 68040


    Jun 16, 2009
    Brooklyn, NY
    Like others have said, its not an investment. The Cartier Santos that my dad passed down to me is an investment.

    Its not a real watch imo.

Share This Page