Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is the watch overpriced?

I do agree about "sticker shock", especially as a UK buyer. I really did expect it to be cheaper.

However - since it arrived, I haven't had a single moment of feeling doubt about the spend, so I think Apple very cleverly worked out the absolute maximum people would pay and set that as a price. I'm happy, but it's the same way I feel happy about a new phone - I have to quickly consign to history how much I paid for it.
 
McDaddio said:
Of course the product is underpriced, or do you believe that if they charged $459, that they would have so much excess inventory that you could walk into any store and pick up one or two?
Click to expand...
That's not necessarily true because it isn't something that is variably priced according to supply and demand at a given time. The first xxx amount of watches they produce are going to bring in very little profit. The profit becomes much larger as they continue to produce and sell en masse.

Those buying the watch now are early adopters. If they aren't able to convert this to a mass market product at $350, then it will be overpriced for their business needs. The initial supply constraint and demand is not reflective of the long term estimates for sales of this product. They still have a long way to go to meet the analyst estimates, so way too soon to claim that the price should be higher because of this initial supply shortage as they ramp up production.

Remember what happened to the pricing of the first iPhone once they realized the product was over priced for the mass market?
 
bluecow said:
That's not necessarily true because it isn't something that is variably priced according to supply and demand at a given time.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter at all.
The question is if the watch is overpriced at the time they set the price, not at any given time.
I proposed a thought experiment, not that they should change the pricing at a whim.
 
McDaddio said:
That doesn't matter at all.
The question is if the watch is overpriced at the time they set the price, not at any given time.
I proposed a thought experiment, not that they should change the pricing at a whim.
Click to expand...
But simply because their production has been so slow, does not mean that the watch is over priced. Companies can, in fact, have a supply problem, not a demand excess...and Apple has fully admitted to this.

If Analysts expected and priced the stock based on selling 20 million units in 2015, and Apple's internal projections were calculated off selling x amount of units this year....then it is absolutely impossible for us to say this watch is underpriced.

At the time they set the price (6 months ago) they did not know about these supply constraints.

Again, for Apple to make a profit, they need to sell enough units for components to come down in price. If these were in fact underpriced, and Apple raised it higher simply to match the early adopter/supply constraint supply/demand curve, they could sell fewer units over the long term leading to lower operating profits.

----------
McDaddio said:
That doesn't matter at all.
The question is if the watch is overpriced at the time they set the price, not at any given time.
I proposed a thought experiment, not that they should change the pricing at a whim.
Click to expand...
Food for thought. When else recently has Apple not touted early sales numbers when they think they are beating internal/external estimates. I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple is not sitting in a room right now discussing the fact that they underpriced the watch. But, I happily admit I don't know anything more than you here.
 
Considering that it's an accessory, I'd say it's overpriced. If you want the basic functionality of a smartwatch and don't care much about looks, the Pebble Time is a good way to go. $200 vs $400+. It's an easy decision for me.
 
Crazy Matt said:
I'm a diehard Apple fan and I'm looking for honest answers.

I own a iPad Mini 2, iPhone 5s, MacBook Air 11" 2014 and now an Apple Watch SS BCB 38mm.

My iPad and iPhone I feel were well worth the money, the MacBook a little questionable but I do love it.

Now the watch. First off I love the watch. Is it necessary?, no. Is it handy and do what I anticipated and want?, absolutely. Am I glad I bought one?, yes.

The build quilty and functionality of the watch is great in my opinion. And I think it's very stylish.

My watch was $705 total including tax. This is what I feel is not a fair price, but for what I wanted in appearance this is what I had to spend.

I guess what gets me the most is the $149 for the BCB band, is that not crazy?!

I do feel however the $349 for the 38mm Sport is fair, the $399 for the 42 is ok too but pushing it. And the stainless steel starts really pushing the envelope.

Another thing. The packaging for the stainless is off the hook nice, beautiful! It was really something when I got the box and felt the weight of it, I thought for sure there must have been 3 or 4 watches in that box!! Lol so the "unboxing" experience was very pleasant to say the least, and usually is with any Apple product, agreed?

Having said that though, my box now sits in a closet with all the other lonely Apple boxes, lol. Maybe I should start a display of Apple packaging! The packaging for the watch must have been expensive, does anyone one wish they had lowered the price of the watch and put it less attractive packaging?

I hope everyone is enjoying their watches. I know I am. Just that price?! Please don't tell my wife how much I spent!!! Lol

Good day all #
Click to expand...

Not over priced at all.

I've based this on my experience with watches up to now. The most expensive one I've bought for myself is a £400 Citizen Eco Drive. Gold plated, genuine leather, solar charging, even has a radio aerial inside to receive accurate time from military towers around the globe. But basically, it does 2 things, tells me the time in my part of the world, and one other part of the world.

Apple watch, by comparison cost me £600, is stainless steel, genuine leather, sapphire crystal and cubic zirconia and does the same as my citizen, as well as show and act on notifications, tells me the weather, tracks my fitness when I'm training, tracks my activity levels throughout the day and encourages me to hit goals so I stay healthy, among an endless list of other things that I can't think of right now. Plus it's a beautifully built watch.

So Apple watch may seem like a huge spend to the uninitiated, but is well worth the investment for me since I've spent almost as much on a watch that does nothing but tell me the time. Plus, it feels high end. Despite being thousands cheaper than your typical Rolex.

If £600 seems like too much to spend on a watch, then theres the Sport. If £600 doesn't seem like enough to spend, then there's the Edition. There's literally an Apple watch for every demographic.
 
No, honestly I think the watch is at a competitive price for the materials used even compared to a brand like Tissot. Beyond that it offers a lot more and IMHO the quality is something that you would expect from Apple (albeit some have had snags so I'm keeping my fingers crossed).

I wouldn't expect them to get cheaper and stay at the same quality levels and personally I'd prefer the quality that Apple up until now assures..

Brand allegiance being one thing and buying into the ecosystem that has served us well, if they decided to scrimp here and there without offering a quality version, I think a lot would shift.

That last statement of course in mind with the iPhone 5c compared with the Sports model and by all accounts the 5c is still a good quality product today :)
 
I don't think that is overpriced for an Apple gadget. It's Apple and is one of its strong point "If you don´t buy a watch is cause you can´t " , it´s like the Facebook of tech , they want that you feel a part of a closed group, VIP.

If they start to sell a watch for $150 they wouldn´t sell as well as with this price tag . ´

Anyway , i like rounded watches so i am waiting for next gen or another maker.
 
sport no, others yes

IMHO, the sport is not really overpriced. at 349$ I would say definitely not, but I can't really imagine that the 38MM can be used by most so we have to look to the 399$ amount for the 42MM sport.

If you compare it to other watches that do similar, nothing is the same, some are better at other things, most are worse at anything comprehensive (like pebble).

fitbit HR with screen is 249$, so paying 100$ than that would be a great deal for all the AW does. 150$ more, is a BIT overpriced, but it is apple of course.

Any quality polar fitness watch which would most like include onboard GPS, would be 349$ easy, many polars are higher.

Once you bump up to a SS with bands or higher, you really ARE paying quite a bit more than I think it is worth. It's very nice quality with the SS body and the bands ARE nice, but I don't really find the bands worth 150$ or more.
 
daijholt said:
I've based this on my experience with watches up to now. The most expensive one I've bought for myself is a £400 Citizen Eco Drive. Gold plated, genuine leather, solar charging, even has a radio aerial inside to receive accurate time from military towers around the globe. But basically, it does 2 things, tells me the time in my part of the world, and one other part of the world.

Apple watch, by comparison cost me £600, is stainless steel, genuine leather, sapphire crystal and cubic zirconia and does the same as my citizen, as well as show and act on notifications, tells me the weather, tracks my fitness when I'm training, tracks my activity levels throughout the day and encourages me to hit goals so I stay healthy, among an endless list of other things that I can't think of right now. Plus it's a beautifully built watch.
.
Click to expand...
Totally understand your thoughts and see why you see the full value in it...but for discussion purposes:

Think of it as a cost per year investment. Your citizen watch could theoretically last decades....your Apple Watch, likely two years. To me, that is where the value concern comes in. Paying $400 for a watch is one thing. Paying $400 for a watch with a limited lifespan of a year or two that will die on you after a day if you forget the charger is another.

I will say this is why the edition version seems like complete insanity to me. $10,000 for a Rolex that lasts generations is one thing...$10,000 for a tech toy obsolete in 2 years is something I can't fully comprehend. But, to each their own.
 
bluecow said:
But simply because their production has been so slow, does not mean that the watch is over priced. Companies can, in fact, have a supply problem, not a demand excess...and Apple has fully admitted to this.

If Analysts expected and priced the stock based on selling 20 million units in 2015, and Apple's internal projections were calculated off selling x amount of units this year....then it is absolutely impossible for us to say this watch is underpriced.

At the time they set the price (6 months ago) they did not know about these supply constraints.

Again, for Apple to make a profit, they need to sell enough units for components to come down in price. If these were in fact underpriced, and Apple raised it higher simply to match the early adopter/supply constraint supply/demand curve, they could sell fewer units over the long term leading to lower operating profits.

----------


Food for thought. When else recently has Apple not touted early sales numbers when they think they are beating internal/external estimates. I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple is not sitting in a room right now discussing the fact that they underpriced the watch. But, I happily admit I don't know anything more than you here.
Click to expand...

Interesting discussion.
1. I have no knowledge, but my guess is the analysts were surprised at how low the costs of the device is (based on that $85 or so estimate).
2. Even with the supply problem, I don't remember of a recent time where Apple priced themselves out of a new market and I don't see any indication that they priced this too high at all.
3. But since their is a supply problem, the point remains that the watch is underpriced since they are selling far more than they can produce. It seems that what they do is price things in a way that they don't have to drop prices later to stimulate demand - but that is primarily because at that point they come out with a new version that has more features and bends more easily.

----------
bluecow said:
$10,000 for a tech toy obsolete in 2 years is something I can't fully comprehend. But, to each their own.
Click to expand...

In what sense is an Edition watch obsolete in 2 years, when a Rolex is not already obsolete?

Both will still function and do what they do today in 2 years. In fact, the Edition may do even more than it does today.
 
bluecow said:
Totally understand your thoughts and see why you see the full value in it...but for discussion purposes:

Think of it as a cost per year investment. Your citizen watch could theoretically last decades....your Apple Watch, likely two years. To me, that is where the value concern comes in. Paying $400 for a watch is one thing. Paying $400 for a watch with a limited lifespan of a year or two that will die on you after a day if you forget the charger is another.

I will say this is why the edition version seems like complete insanity to me. $10,000 for a Rolex that lasts generations is one thing...$10,000 for a tech toy obsolete in 2 years is something I can't fully comprehend. But, to each their own.
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head. Even comparing the SS model to a Rolex, the build of the SS feels more of a toy.
 
bluecow said:
Totally understand your thoughts and see why you see the full value in it...but for discussion purposes:

Think of it as a cost per year investment. Your citizen watch could theoretically last decades....your Apple Watch, likely two years. To me, that is where the value concern comes in. Paying $400 for a watch is one thing. Paying $400 for a watch with a limited lifespan of a year or two that will die on you after a day if you forget the charger is another.

I will say this is why the edition version seems like complete insanity to me. $10,000 for a Rolex that lasts generations is one thing...$10,000 for a tech toy obsolete in 2 years is something I can't fully comprehend. But, to each their own.
Click to expand...

I hadn't Thought of it like that. Very fair point to make.

You've got me there haha.

I guess I haven't been viewing watches as investments, just individual purchases.

I suppose one could argue that the massive leap in functionality could outweigh the cost/lifespan ratio? Or at least lower its significance somewhat.
 
McDaddio said:
In what sense is an Edition watch obsolete in 2 years, when a Rolex is not already obsolete?

Both will still function and do what they do today in 2 years. In fact, the Edition may do even more than it does today.
Click to expand...
Two years maybe an underestimate, but just in terms of normal technology cycles. In two years there will be a watch with 10x more memory, 10x faster chip and 10x longer batter life, etc. etc....where as the insides of a rolex that track the time won't change that much between now and 50 years from now.

For the record, I haven't spent more than $150 on a watch before I bought the Apple Watch...so I'm not exactly a big rolex supporter either
 
bluecow said:
Two years maybe an underestimate, but just in terms of normal technology cycles. In two years there will be a watch with 10x more memory, 10x faster chip and 10x longer batter life, etc. etc....where as the insides of a rolex that track the time won't change that much between now and 50 years from now.

For the record, I haven't spent more than $150 on a watch before I bought the Apple Watch...so I'm not exactly a big rolex supporter either
Click to expand...

Another difference is I can send off my Rolex for servicing, it will be completely dismantled, cleaned and checked, with components being replaced. It is then tested before being returned - you will never see Apple offering that kind of customer service.
 
BarmyGnome said:
Another difference is I can send off my Rolex for servicing, it will be completely dismantled, cleaned and checked, with components being replaced. It is then tested before being returned - you will never see Apple offering that kind of customer service.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind, what does a service like that cost for a Rolex, roughly?
 
Crazy Matt said:
Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind, what does a service like that cost for a Rolex, roughly?
Click to expand...

The last one was £380, got a new crown, new crystal and they removed some dings on the casing - looks like a brand new watch!

This also includes resealing the watch and a new guarantee added on.
 
Crazy Matt said:
Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind, what does a service like that cost for a Rolex, roughly?
Click to expand...

Depends on the watch and what is required. Last time I had my EXII done in the USA at an authorized Rolex Ss it was $750. That would NOT have included replacing the saphire face if needed. It was all internals cleaned. Springs replaced. Casing polished and oyster bracelet polished. Re-calibrated and sealed and warrantied for two years. Some watches are less some more.
 
tivoboy said:
Depends on the watch and what is required. Last time I had my EXII done in the USA at an authorized Rolex Ss it was $750. That would NOT have included replacing the saphire face if needed. It was all internals cleaned. Springs replaced. Casing polished and oyster bracelet polished. Re-calibrated and sealed and warrantied for two years. Some watches are less some more.
Click to expand...

Ok. Thank you!

----------
BarmyGnome said:
The last one was £380, got a new crown, new crystal and they removed some dings on the casing - looks like a brand new watch!

This also includes resealing the watch and a new guarantee added on.
Click to expand...

Ok. Thank you!
 
tivoboy said:
it cost more to service my mercedes than my toyota,

why would rolex be any different. ;-)
Click to expand...


Are you saying your Toyota is over priced?


It has cost me FAR more to maintain my moms 70K mile Toyota Camry than my 117K mile Porsche. Your Mercedes must be a nightmare:p
 
Crazy Matt said:
I'm a diehard Apple fan and I'm looking for honest answers.

I own a iPad Mini 2, iPhone 5s, MacBook Air 11" 2014 and now an Apple Watch SS BCB 38mm.

My iPad and iPhone I feel were well worth the money, the MacBook a little questionable but I do love it.

Now the watch. First off I love the watch. Is it necessary?, no. Is it handy and do what I anticipated and want?, absolutely. Am I glad I bought one?, yes.

The build quilty and functionality of the watch is great in my opinion. And I think it's very stylish.

My watch was $705 total including tax. This is what I feel is not a fair price, but for what I wanted in appearance this is what I had to spend.

I guess what gets me the most is the $149 for the BCB band, is that not crazy?!

I do feel however the $349 for the 38mm Sport is fair, the $399 for the 42 is ok too but pushing it. And the stainless steel starts really pushing the envelope.

Another thing. The packaging for the stainless is off the hook nice, beautiful! It was really something when I got the box and felt the weight of it, I thought for sure there must have been 3 or 4 watches in that box!! Lol so the "unboxing" experience was very pleasant to say the least, and usually is with any Apple product, agreed?

Having said that though, my box now sits in a closet with all the other lonely ]l
pK

If you like it and you'll use it, its the right price. I would not personally spend that kind of money but I have no use for a smartwatch.

I think where the real issue may lie is in making an exorbitant purchase every year or every two whichever cycle Apple goes with. I don't think something so personal in how its ordered and of limited appeal to the mass' will have much resale when a better faster replacement comes out - unless they change nothing on the outside which will reduce the price of admission for those not willing or able to drop 1K+ on a stainless steel watch and band. I saw an article in Ars Technica today that seems to indicate the next watch may have the sensors they couldn't get to work for this one along with a smaller chip design. Apparently the chip architecture is similar to what was used in the iPhone 5S Here is an excerpt from the article if interested.

Update: Chipworks has done some additional work on the S1 and has given us some scraps about the APL 0778 CPU and GPU at the heart of it all. It's a 5.2mm by 6.2mm chip and it's manufactured on Samsung's 28nm LP process. 28nm is a node away from being cutting-edge at this point (Samsung has a new 14nm process and we're just seeing the first chips built on it in phones like the Galaxy S6), so it's interesting to find it here—if Apple goes with a newer process in next-generation Apple Watch hardware, it should actually have a fair bit of headroom to reduce power consumption, improve performance, reduce the amount of physical space the chip needs, or some combination of all three.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back