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

iWatch to Come in Two Sizes With 'Fashionable Appearance', Top End to Cost 'Several Thousand' Dollars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elbon said:
I stopped reading after "Ming Chi Kuo".
Click to expand...

Really? You stopped reading when you figured out that an analyst with one of the best track records is behind this?

Apple isn't stupid. If there is a high end model in the thousands, it will no doubt be upgradable in some way. If I could buy a really nice $2-$3k version that I could upgrade to new electronics every other year for ~$300, I'd be sold.... And so would a significant amount of other people.
 
Applefan 2013 said:
Several THOUSAND dollars for the top-of-the-line iWatch? Even though this is Apple, would people ACTUALLY pay that?
Click to expand...

The average person in the top 1% is worth ~$8m, and makes over $500,000/year.

The top tenth of a percent is considerably more ridiculous. What the hell else are they going to do?

----------
chrisbru said:
Apple isn't stupid. If there is a high end model in the thousands, it will no doubt be upgradable in some way.
Click to expand...

As upgradeable as the MacBook Air and new MacBook Pro? Erm, wait...

It won't be upgradeable. Software? Sure. Hardware? Come on. Are you kidding?


If I could buy a really nice $2-$3k version that I could upgrade to new electronics every other year for ~$300, I'd be sold.... And so would a significant amount of other people.
Click to expand...

What exactly would the point of that be I wonder? And what exactly WOULD you upgrade? Memory? Processor? Bus sp-- oh, wait that's on the motherboard... memory contr-- wait, nevermind. You might as well get a new watch if all you're keeping is the shell.
 
According to analyst estimates, even with Apple's scale, it will be impossible to make the iWatch for less than $2500.

Particularly if it includes some of the latest rumoured features, such as:

  • Diamond glass display
  • DNA sequencing
  • Global, always-on 4G satellite uplink
  • 3-year battery life with Radioisotope piezoelectric generator
 
High end breeds the low end

While I can see where people see this as ridiculous, I would not be surprised if there is an element of truth here. Granted, there would have to be some connection with a high end maker. Remember all those stories of discussions with Swiss makers? Even though it was reported some turned them down, can't imagine some maker did not take Apple's money to partner with them.

As for the high end market (not my market, but, I get it), all I need is a drive to the airport in Chicago to see all the billboards advertising every high end brand out there. The people seeing those ads CAN afford to buy those watches and they do. That billboard space ain't cheap and it does not take many sales to justify the marketing costs.

The high end market essentially keeps the low end market in business. I wear an Invicta. Not anything close to a high end, but, not a Timex either. It is fashionable because it takes its design instincts from higher end models. Many watch brands do this and have been doing this for a long time.

So, I can see Apple marketing to the very high end. Makes total sense. The hardware electronics piece (beyond possibly a mechanical component) could be replaced like a battery if designed right. We are not talking about a ton of real-estate and if you look at how thin mechanical watches can get, the possibilities are there to do someone bigger with a replaceable computer component.




SILen(e said:
Does nobody here understand that the "top end" model for several thousand Dollars might be more like a Rolex than an iWatch/GalaxyGear-type device?

With real gold instead of aluminium or expensive leather or even diamonds...

Watches have become a fashion statement in the last few years (have been before too, but now, you only wear one if you consider it part of your jewelry/fashion), so if the iWatch will look like a watch and be worn like a watch, some people will only buy it if it looks like "Yeah, I paid 10k bucks for my watch".

This top end model won't be comparable to the 64gb iPhone, but to a 64gb iPhone that's plated with gold and diamonds.
Click to expand...
 
$299 and $499 are the price points I am looking at for iWatch. "Several thousand dollars" seems grossly overpriced and something that would not sell to the mass population, which Apple will obviously be targeting with this product. I see prices being in line with what iPod was originally priced for when it came out. This is essentially a sophisticated iPod that you can wear on your wrist!
 
several thousand dollars!?!?!? ohhh man... now i have to choose between a new Mac Pro or an iWatch....


GIVE ME A F$^$&%*^ BREAK!
 
kds786 said:
I'll stick with Bulova, Movado, Rolex, and Tag Heuer. The iWatch just doesn't appeal to me.
Click to expand...

But you don't even know what the iWatch will look like and its functionalities yet. :confused:

Frankied22 said:
I would not pay more than $100 for the iwatch. Nothing it could potentially do warrants more money than that. It's just an accessory.
Click to expand...

How much would you pay for an ugly pebble?

corygreenwell said:
This is the way I read it too. The others here seem too limited in their view...like there will only be two price points, one for the smaller screen, and several thousand for the larger. I would imagine 2 price points...one for small, one for large, and a spread of bands from $30 to $thousands
Click to expand...

I agree. In addition, I believe the "watch face" will be inexpensive and replaceable. So, you can always keep the expensive bands and replace it with updated watch face whenever you want. This will create a whole new level of customizability. One person can have many bands from inexpensive to very expensive and have a couple of watch faces. This is just like the cases on the iPhone. :cool:
 
roland.g said:
Have you seen Tag Heuer, Raymond Weil, Movado, and other watches that run $1,000 to $3,000. If the styling and finish is done right, then yes, the top end iWatch could easily fall in the $1,200 to $2,500 price range, especially if it durable, and can be updated via software updates. Don't think in terms of tech, think in terms of fashion watches.
Click to expand...

Yes, but those are crafted timepieces that last forever. Apple's iWatch is a computer, one that, as has already been mentioned by many others, will become obsolete within a few years in terms of tech. If you're speculating that the band/chassis will be high-quality, then that's more likely. But not at several thousands of dollars unless it's pure gold. And when has Apple ever been in the jewellery business?
 
figgnuttan said:
Was just thinken about the first iPads. They, at the time were called too expensive.
Click to expand...

I've got to correct you there - at the time the iPad was released, it was considered amazingly cheap!

I remember the analysts were predicting it would easily cost $1,000 plus, and their jaws dropped when it came out at the price point it did. And much like some of the posts here, there were people saying it would be impossible for Apple to make it for less than 4 figures (remember, this is long before touchscreens and even solid state drives were commonly available in quantity) and they somehow did.

I think that's one of the reasons it took so long for competitors to catch up; the word on the street back then is they were all sitting back waiting for Apple to announce their thousand dollar tablet, and they were all going to jump in right behind with their "cheap" $700 or $800 tablets, but instead were simply left in the dust.

It's actually the one time I remember Apple releasing something that just totally shattered the pre-release price expectations on the lower end of the scale.
 
People are going ape**** over the prospect of a $2,000 iWatch.....

http://www.tagheuer.com/
http://www.rolex.com/

This isn't a device that's going to need to get faster and faster and faster every year. The specs of a smart watch would likely keep up with numerous software updates.

Perhaps Apple is going for a more long-term wearable. Not something cheap and OBVIOUSLY a smart watch. But some that merges the traditional watch with modern technology. It would make sense to meet various price points based on fashion and style.

I don't see this as all that crazy. Would I buy the $2,000+ one? No - I don't buy $2,000 watches now. But my dad, who owns various expensive watches, might be up for something like that. You can't think of a watch like you think of a phone or computer. Very different device.
 
Only an idiot would spend several thousands of dollars on a wearable tech in which will only get better over time. Even if gold was used on the casing, the OS and processor are always bound to become better, therefore a major waste on spending the money as a fashion accessory. Mechanical watches will not become obsolete as most of them are just for telling time but all have different movements. If you had a rolex sub mariner from 1980, why would you buy another of the same design? Sure the iWatch is bound to change in form factor just like the phones etc, but we aren't spending thousands on the purchase.
 
SJism23 said:
A top-end iWatch at several thousands of dollars? No chance in hell.
Click to expand...

So true. I don't mind paying several thousand dollars for a Rolex, Omega, Piaget, Cartier, etc. But for an iWatch that will be obsolete in two years. hahahahahaha
Analysts are so clueless.
 
INteresting comment. I would say that Apple products are not the early adopter junk we have seen in the past. The mere fact that they tend to wait until other products are out there is that they let the early adopter disappointment rest with their competitors.

The Samsung Gear looks like a solid product and may indeed do well. EVERYTHING else will not once the iWatch is out. All those other products are early adopter bait...i know, I have considered buying each one of them.

Apple gets it right out of the box. I think this next product will be no different.


figgnuttan said:
Was just thinken about the first iPads. They, at the time were called too expensive.

If Apples wareable device does materialize, we will buy it.
No matter what the cost, this time.
We all will not want to be late adaptors this time.

This time, "early adaptors" in the face of the pundits. And there should be a bunch of those turkeys....always the first few months or so...lol

Y'all know we will need it.
As Apple makes things we didn't know we needed, it has been said.

From all the theories I have been reading of late, the thing should be virtually
indestructible....haha...last near forever one would think?
Every physical part the battery? Maybe pulse once in a while. Just to let ya know it's there...it will be ....well, magical... :)
Click to expand...
 
I tuned out the second I read "KGI Securities analyst Ming Chi Kuo"

All this is blatant advertising for this douches investment company. Always has been. The only things he's ever been right on have been the bleeding obvious ones like There will be a iPhone 5s and repeating other peoples rumours.
 
jrswizzle said:
People are going ape**** over the prospect of a $2,000 iWatch.....

http://www.tagheuer.com/
http://www.rolex.com/

This isn't a device that's going to need to get faster and faster and faster every year. The specs of a smart watch would likely keep up with numerous software updates.

Perhaps Apple is going for a more long-term wearable. Not something cheap and OBVIOUSLY a smart watch. But some that merges the traditional watch with modern technology. It would make sense to meet various price points based on fashion and style.

I don't see this as all that crazy. Would I buy the $2,000+ one? No - I don't buy $2,000 watches now. But my dad, who owns various expensive watches, might be up for something like that. You can't think of a watch like you think of a phone. Very different device.
Click to expand...

I could in all probability wear my Omega 20-30 years from now and it will still look the part, and function properly.

Can you say the same for the iWatch?

I think they really need to remove "Watch" from the name. Certain expectations are held with that.
 
jrswizzle said:
HA! Amen.....cracks me up.
Click to expand...

Really loving the blind worship of Rolex here. Someone said that Tag and Movado can't be uttered in the same sentence. I giggled. Looks like the marketing has worked!

Snarkiness aside– look at Suunto's offerings for their Ambit watches. Apple's offerings may carry a similar style, albeit a little more polished as these will be tech accessories and not targeted at athletes. Heck, if had a similar style to their Aluminum Core watch, I'd be on it.

Image%202014.04.10%2011%3A17%3A39%20AM.png
 
whiteonline said:
I could in all probability wear my Omega 20-30 years from now and it will still look the part, and function properly.

Can you say the same for the iWatch?

I think they really need to remove "Watch" from the name. Certain expectations are held with that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps - you say people need to remove the "watch" part from the name - but I think people need to stop thinking about a smartwatch the way they think about tablets and smartphones.

How often do biometric sensors need to be updated? I'm talking the hardware. How much power will this watch need to push that a 20nm A7 can't handle for many years to come? Heck the no iOS app takes advantage of the A7 yet.

Will they last forever? No....but will they last much longer than a smartphone or tablet? Most definitely. So you sacrifice half that life expectancy (your 20-30 years) for "smart" capabilities for the same price.

It's not that far fetched.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back