Is the steel version actually the cheap one?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Knowimagination, Jan 15, 2015.

  1. Knowimagination macrumors 68000

    Knowimagination

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    #1
    Ok so this has been bothering me for a while now. If you go to the apple website or the store and look at any product category they are all listed from left to right, least expensive to most expensive.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    So with that being the case both during the keynote and now listed on the website they list the order as :apple:Watch, then sport, then edition.

    [​IMG]

    If we are to believe that the sport edition is the cheap one, which is the overwhelming majority from everything I have read, then why on earth did apple all of the sudden break away from what they do in every other category and list the alleged cheap model in the center? Am I the only one that has thought this or is bothered by it?
     
  2. Natzoo macrumors 65816

    Natzoo

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2014
    Location:
    Not sure where i am
    #2
    But it doesn't look cheap, intact it looks better than the sports watch. But the sports should cost more because it has different components. so i agree with you but the "cheap" one doesn't look bad at all. I'm going for the sports one of the gold one if its 500 or below
     
  3. Tanegashima macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Location:
    Portugal
    #3
    The Sport is clearly the cheaper. If you doubt it, look at the glass (IonX instead of Sapphire), and the back ("Composite" instead of Zirconia).
     
  4. Knowimagination thread starter macrumors 68000

    Knowimagination

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    #4
    It's not necessarily that I doubt it, but more a question of why would Apple decide to do that for this one product category?
     
  5. Cashmonee macrumors 6502a

    Cashmonee

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #5
    The cheapest Mac is farthest to the right. Also, the Apple TV is cheaper than all but the Shuffle. I don't think your premise is valid, the products are not listed by price. The order is based on the name for the watches, and probably the band color had something to do with it. The neon green would throw off the balance if it were to one side.
     
  6. Knowimagination thread starter macrumors 68000

    Knowimagination

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    #6
    I would argue that the mac mini and apple tv are just thrown at the end because they really don't fit either of the categories that they are listed in and are much less popular.
     
  7. Cashmonee, Jan 15, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2015

    Cashmonee macrumors 6502a

    Cashmonee

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #7
    Ok, but it still breaks the theory that Apple is listing the products by price. I think you are reading way too much into this. As I said, it likely has to do with how the names look lined up and how the neon green is the most attention grabbing because of it's color. The Sport will be the entry level, unless there are features of it that Apple hasn't announced such as increased water resistance or better/more sensors, but I highly doubt it.

    EDIT: Looking at it again, I think size probably played at least as big a role if not bigger than price when displaying the products. Also, don't forget that the Watch isn't on sale yet. The product page will likely be different once it is.
     
  8. saschke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    #8
    Without reading your post: NO, NO, NO. Who in his right mind would think that?! The Sport is clearly made of cheaper materials. There is _no_ _way_ it's gonna be more expensive than the stainless steel watch.
     
  9. drnycallstar19 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    #9
    Even though I mostly do agree that the Sport is the cheapest model out of the three, I can't help but think this too because of this AND the naming scheme. Doesn't anyone else thing it's odd that the cheapest watch has a special name to it "Apple Watch Sport" while the a more expensive one is just a basic "Apple Watch". In my opinion the naming scheme also seems like the Apple Watch is the cheapest. I wanna believe that the Apple Watch is the cheapest, since its the one I want, but like everyone else is saying the sport is probably the cheapest.
     
  10. TheralSadurns macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    #10
    The Apple Watch Sport WILL be the cheapest one. There is simply NO way around it.

    I give you something else to think about though, although this is also HIGHLY unlikely.

    During the Keynote they announced that
    Apple Watch would start at $349.

    Apple Watch! Not Apple Watch Sport!

    So maybe the Apple Watch does indeed start at $349 and Apple surprises us by pricing the Sport one at $199.

    I still think this is highly unlikely... but still
     
  11. TheDeviceUser macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Location:
    U.K
    #11
    I agree, it seems to be weird, I fully expect the sport to be the cheapest, but if you look at the website, and the video, it gives the presumption that the Apple Watch is the cheapest. Even in the video, they say "The first, Apple Watch". which makes it seem like the standard will be the cheapest.

    I hope that there may be some special, unannounced features for the Sport (advanced health tracking?), which means that it's not going to be the cheapest. However, if things are as they are at the moment, I fully expect that it'll be the sport that starts at $349.
     
  12. JarScott macrumors 68040

    JarScott

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #12
    I also realised this earlier and made a comment about it. It seems really odd the way Apple have chosen to set out the versions on their website. But I guess at the end of the day, the Sport version needed to have a separate name. I think it just looks more aesthetic starting with the one which is just called 'Apple Watch' and then working your way up from there, adding the different names. So it becomes:

    Apple Watch
    Apple Watch Sport
    Apple Watch Edition

    If they were being really careful about ordering they'd have to have done this:

    Apple Watch Sport
    Apple Watch
    Apple Watch Edition

    Which doesn't make a lot of sense aesthetically, when laid out in a list. Of course, they could have done one last thing and not given the Sport version a name but instead named the steel version so that the list made sense in order of price. Like this:

    Apple Watch
    Apple Watch Steel
    Apple Watch Edition

    But those names don't sit right with me.

    Everything seems to point to the Sport version being the cheapest model. But it's really impossible to tell until Apple actually release the products and reveal each of the prices.

    ----------

    It seems to make sense to me that the steel version would be the cheapest model. It's very likely going to be the most popular and 'mainstream' version. The Sport one will appeal to fitness fanatics and should include specialised fitness tracking features and so maybe cost more.
     
  13. Julien, Jan 16, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2015

    Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #13
    Apple's reasoning: Moving into the fashion/style industry so placing the SS first makes sense.

    FACT: The Sport is the $350 lowest priced.

    SS :apple:Watch: Standard luxury watch with traditional luxury watch materials (Stainless, Sapphire and ceramic coating) offered with *expensive bands aimed at traditional watch buyers/fashion ($500-$1500 range)

    Sport :apple:Watch: Consumer grade (lower end) materials (aluminum, glass, NO ceramic coated back) only available with the 'cheap' Sports band as a 'disposable' option targeted for NON watch people ($350-$400 range)

    Edition :apple:Watch: Gold luxury watch with high end materials (18K, Sapphire and ceramic coating) aiming very high ($3000-^^^^)


    *Most of the SS bands will probably cost almost as much or more than the Sport :apple:Watch does.
     
  14. TheDeviceUser macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Location:
    U.K
    #14

    How can you possibly say that the sport will be the lowest price FACT?

    We don't know anything until Apple announces it, you never know, they could announce that the Edition is just $350, highly unlikely, but we don't know anything until Apple announces it.
     
  15. DeltaMac macrumors 604

    DeltaMac

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Location:
    Delaware
    #15
    I would also be bothered if I found out that the mini is more expensive than the MacPro.

    Your theory about how Apple arranges everything by price doesn't fit with reality.
     
  16. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #16
    I still have to laugh at some of the fantasy prices some folks keep coming up with.

    Ohhh, a crystal screen !!! WOW.

    Remind me again how much is an iPhone Gorilla Glass screen (vastly larger) and we were told the Sapphire was going to be about 2x the cost of that.

    Likewise, seen the price of a average Stainless Steel cutlery set and all the metal you get in that.

    These material costs are so very very minimal when set against the cost of the device.

    Other than the actual raw gold gold cost in the edition model (guessing $1200 ish) and that is a guess, everything else is quite minimal.

    Certainly not enough for people to think 350 for sports and 1000 for stainless steel.

    Of course, that does not mean Apple won't price hike, or course they will.

    But selling the Stainless Steel one for $1000 I think would kill it stone dead.
     
  17. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #17
    Your description of the Sport watch isn't well thought out. First, all of the Apple Watches are "consumer grade,"; none would stand up to military specs.

    The Sport version is aluminum because it's lighter than steel. Apple could have used plastic, like every other sport watch, but chose metal. Steel would have been a poor choice. I don't know anyone who would willingly run with a steel watch. The thought makes me shiver as much as wearing a "hair shirt."

    The glass in the Sport watch is Ion-X, not sapphire, because the latter is heavier. A functional sport watch should be as light as possible.

    The band is plastic because that is the best material for a sports watch. Leather would get nasty absorbing all the sweat, and a metal band would add weight and pinch the skin with all the extra motion. It's why you never see sport watches (not including diving or nautical watches which are a different breed) with leather or metal bands.

    All the Apple Watches are disposable as none of them are "stand alone," so eventually Apple will stop supporting particular model years as they progress, or if the Watch is a flop sooner than that. In 2040 you won't be seeing anyone wearing a "classic" 2015 Apple Watch of any variety.
     
  18. cmChimera macrumors 68040

    cmChimera

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    #18
    I'll be running with the steel watch. I want the sapphire screen and steel body, but want to use the fitness features. Here's hoping it's not too heavy.
     
  19. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #19
    To each his own, but you'll certainly be the anomaly. I can't imagine running with a heavy steel watch and link band pulling at my arm hairs, esp. in the summer.
     
  20. Rogifan macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #20
    Isn't sapphire and stainless steel more expensive than glass and aluminum? And one would assume the precision manufacturing with the steel bands alone would make them more expensive than the rubber bands.
     
  21. cmChimera, Jan 16, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2015

    cmChimera macrumors 68040

    cmChimera

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    #21
    Well the bands are interchangeable. I would use the sport strap for running and workouts, and then I could switch to a link band if wanted to wear it to work/event/whatever. It should be significantly lighter than my iPhone 6, so I don't imagine the weight would bother me too much.
     
  22. Julien, Jan 16, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2015

    Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #22
    Yes it is and the evidence is crystal clear.


    Aluminum (element): Cheap/inexpensive, low durability, easily dented, scratched, cracked and chipped.

    In the watch industry an aluminum case is 1 step above plastic.


    Stainless Steel 316L (alloy): Expensive, high durability (lasts decades), hard to dent scratch, crack and not easy chipped.

    In the watch industry a SS 316L case has been used for luxury watch cases for decades (and it lasts)


    Glass: Cheap/inexpensive, chips, scratches, and cracks easily

    In the watch industry a glass crystal is one step above plastic.


    Sapphire (also used in the Edition): Expensive, 2ed hardest material, hard to scratch, crack and can last decades.

    In the watch industry sapphire is used on all luxury watches.


    Ceramic Coated Back (also used on the Edition): Adds high durability, with low wear and tear plus extra protection to the sensor back and will last for decades.

    Sport: No Ceramic coating applied.

    Besides the expensive bands available on the SS, even little details give it away.

    Sport: Plain aluminum Digital Crown

    SS: Lacquer panted end cap on Digital Crown


    EDIT: Also just to add. In the watch industry a light weight watch is considered 'cheap'. A heavy and substantial watch is considered a quality build. It is just the opposite of the electronics industry.
     
  23. virginblue4 macrumors 68000

    virginblue4

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #23
    Is the steel version actually the cheap one?


    I think you're exaggerating just a little. I really can't imagine the steel one being heavier by an amount that would make a noticeable difference to your run!
     
  24. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #24
    Again, we have a certain person here "J" who seems to be existing on some fantasy world when it comes to factor prices and material costs.

    We're not talking about a cubic metre of metal here, or 10 square feet of sapphire.

    Indeed yes, one item may be, "Percentage Terms" much more expensive than another but it's still mostly insignificant with the Watch Prices that are being talked about.

    Being in precision engineering (medical actually) myself It's funny to see how people go all googlie eyes when high grade stainless and titanium are mentioned, when the raw cost is still minimal in "consumer price retail terms"

    Sure, (and I'll make some numbers up here)
    The Stainless body may cost 400% more than Aluminium for the blank of material.

    But we could be talking 50 cents vs 2 dollars.

    Likewise, with the glass/sapphire, we could be talking 400% difference.

    Again, 50 cents vs 2 dollars.

    The Insides of the watch are the same. Same screen etc etc.

    The differences in materials is almost insignificant when set against, perhaps $100, $200, $300 of clear profit.

    The Strap would probably be a larger cost difference than the watch body materials.

    Saying Aluminium = 349 but OMG Stainless 1000 as the materials are sooooo much better is just silly ignorant talk.

    Materials just don't cost that much in the amounts used in such a small device.

    Only precious metals are going to change material costs in any significant way, but of course we all understand that.
     
  25. Technodynamic macrumors 6502

    Technodynamic

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    #25
    I want to agree with you... $349 for the standard apple watch cold very likely be the stainless one with a band that is boring, say the plastic sport type bands. stainless + steel bracelet may be $399, stainless plus milanese loop may be $429. Who knows.
     

Share This Page