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.
SlCKB0Y said:
You also need to take into account the fact that Rolex jacks their prices up in pretty big increments every few years which artificially inflates the prices that second-hand watches get when sold.
Click to expand...

a) I did take that into account.

b) I paid 20% below MSRP for mine, before Rolex started cracking down on dealers who discount.

c) This scenario still loses compared to sitting on an index fund....


And having a nice watch is much more fun than looking at a statement :p
Click to expand...


c) I'm ok with being the most boring guy with loads more money (and infinitely more financial security) than the blingest $30,000 millionaire buried under debt.
 
Last edited:
Why is the idea of a watch costing a few thousand so hard to believe?

How many bought the original iPhone 8 GB for 600 dollars on launch day back in June 2007?

Had any of you who did that ever paid that much for a phone before?

Soo... by that rationale, if the most expensive phone you ever bought was even half the price of an iPhone (let's assume some of you owned Motorola Razrs or some such.... and others owned flip phones that were no more than 50 bucks on a 2-year contract).... you paid 2x to 12x more to own an iPhone.

Now... let's assume those 50- and 300-dollar price points are the same for the most expensive watch you ever owned.

Why would it be shocking for an iWatch to be 2x or even 12x the price of the most expensive watch you ever owned?

This first gen release might not be for the folks who waited on the iPhone until they could get it subsidized by a contract of some sort.

It does sound like the rumors imply that they could be attempting to please a variety of people, but this doesn't mean they're going to sell the iWatch for less than you could buy a Nike Fuelband for. That's just ridiculous.

This thing will most definitely be more than 200 bucks, people.

Unless the rumors are not at all accurate and the iWatch is really just a pretty UP band or something. In which case, Apple will still charge double what Jawbone charges because they're Apple. ;)
 
In a recent product outline from KGI securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo suggested the iWatch may also be available at several different price points, pointing towards an array of different band and face options in various materials. At the high end, the iWatch could cost as much as several thousand dollars, according to Kuo. I would still buy one!!!

Check out these concepts :)

http://blog.tikr.me/2014/04/22/mind-blowing-iwatch-concepts-revealed/
 
afd said:
At some point, I'd like to think I'd be able to spend several thousand dollars on a watch. If I ever do it, won't have a battery in it.

It won't be fashionable either.
Click to expand...

This one doesn't have a battery (seriously). Will it do ?

SlCKB0Y said:
You simply don't get watches then. Besides, a ten dollar Casio makes you look like you are 7.
Click to expand...

How about this one ? It doesn't cost 10 dollars but less than 1000.
 

Attachments

  • LCW-M160TD-1AJF_l.jpg
    LCW-M160TD-1AJF_l.jpg
    155.8 KB · Views: 86
Perhaps apple is doing something different.

It could release 4 versions.

2 for women and 2 for man.(or 4 sizes, 1 rectangular and one round version)
1 generic and one more exclusive version for each gender.


The generic ones are alu and with prefixed wristbands.

The more expensive ones are made of luquidmetal/gold/titanium/sterling silver (?) and are just the display/cpu in a small body(like previous ipod nano) and can be clicked in a housing/bezel with wristbands from the likes of rolex, breitling, etc. Each watch manufucturer can add his style and characteristics to the outer housing, etc, adding diamonds , gold , leather, etc.
Each watch manufacturer could also develop an app with exclusive watch faces, etc which represent the look of the manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
afd said:
Yes it does, won't quite do either. Like the case and band though.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't have a battery. It has a way to store power inside (capacitor? akku ?), but no battery. You will never have to change a battery.

These watches will run maybe not forever but .. if there are casio watches with 10 year battery (it is written right on the back : 10 years battery) just imagine how long a watch without a battery can run.
 
afd said:
Casio says it has a battery.
Click to expand...

That's a different model. Looks similar but the one I posted looks better (subjectively) along the sapphire glass it also has a titanium body and it's thinner.
But yes, both have something to store the energy from the light, but as I said before, if there are casio watches capable running 10 years on a single battery, just imagine how long a watch like this would last.
http://www.casio-europe.com/euro/watch/waveceptor/lcw-m160td-1aer/

I couldn't find info on this model so from the casio edifice website :
No battery change required
Continues operating for approximately 2 years even in unlighted locations.

While an automatic will continue to work at best 2 days (if not on hand).

I also have some critiques for the above model.
It looks better in promotional pictures. On hand it looks glossy and not so matte.
It's hard to find a non waterproof casio watch, but this one seems to be only splashproof.
It has a small digital screen. better if they could manage to make it have some additional functions without a digital screen

- there are some ladies casio series which seems to manage to have some functions without any screens and clutter on the screen. take a look at the small indicators like "CN" or "OFF" below the screen. I actually searched a long time for women's watches with a non sport look but still with some "smartness" in them like at least auto-calendar, solar power, radio sync.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009S14EYK...UTF8&colid=SA7JM1M0PH5I&coliid=I2G1A5H1YX4UXI

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009ELZMRW...UTF8&colid=SA7JM1M0PH5I&coliid=I2UOUK1HLKD3CQ
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
How do idiotic predictions like this see the light of day and then get picked up by sites?
 
mojolicious said:
Apple shouldn't even *try* to enter the posh watch market, ...
Click to expand...

Apple store typical revenues and profits per square meter already beats most Tiffany's and Cartier stores (likely Tourneau as well). They are perfectly positioned to allocate a portion of their stores for "posh" wearables. Just as the stores currently show a mix of products from iPod shuffle's all the way to Mac Pros, wearables that span that same price range would be perfectly reasonable.

And the big profits are in the "bling", the type of profits that Apple currently likes to keep for itself, not give to some 3rd party fashion house. Licensing out the technology module would likely work out just as badly as when they tried to license out MacOS for PowerMacs.
 
I can easily see this. If the iWatch/iBand follows the iPod nano approach and has many bands that the device attaches itself to. It will ship with Apple's default band and (at the top end) Apple could partner with Bvlgari, Tag Heuer, Hermes, Versace, Chanel, D&G etc. This partnership would include collaboration between design teams to ensure total iBeauty.

Here the acquisition of Jimmy & Dre could pay of again with the Beats approach to marketing.

From a design perspective this particular product being made by this particular company (Apple) is extremely interesting, especially when you consider Apple has been making iPhones with tolerances/production processes only seen in high end jewellery.
 
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...

Well, divorcing the tech from this is impossible. The iWatch is all about tech, because if it's not, then it's just another watch, isn't it?

I can't see a $1000+ iWatch. I can see what someone else has already suggested: putting the "guts" of the iWatch into an already existing high-end watch like a Rolex, TAG, etc.

Seriously, why would Apple try to compete in that arena, when it can work with existing luxury watchmakers? No one is going to buy a $1000+ battery-operated, tech-heavy (which means quickly outdated) watch, unless they have more money then brains.
 
xEODGuy said:
Seriously, why would Apple try to compete in that arena, when it can work with existing luxury watchmakers? No one is going to buy a $1000+ battery-operated, tech-heavy (which means quickly outdated) watch, unless they have more money then brains.
Click to expand...

You just described a huge portion of the consumer market. Unfortunately most people have little money, so it just means they have less brains. And people will Credit Card just about anything they "want" like tech. They don't always make smart purchases.

I don't see an expensive watch if it looks anything like those bands that have been rendered. However if it looks like a more traditional watch, then I can see them doing 2 versions, with the higher end one easily breaking $500 to $700 if not more.
 
It is quite fun to look at a thread like this in retrospect and see how a lot of people rag on other smart watches for not being round and thereby not stylish enough to be worn in public.

...and then the Apple Watch appears with a square shape, and roundness is suddenly of little importance.
 
I cant wait for a imitation that costs $50 and only tells time. Seriouslly, I just need the fashion, and the time

btw, the base watch is already insanelly expensive as it requires the iphone. its not a standalone product
 
Two grand for a dorky toy watch or for the same amount you can have a REAL timepiece with elegance and lifelong quality built in. Like a Tag Hueuer, Rolex, etc. tough decision. Not.

:rolleyes:

I like apple stuff for the most part but this iWatch thing is dumb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back