Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
At several thousand dollars, I'd love to see the profit margin. Don't need to sell many of them.
Still ridiculous.
Still ridiculous.
Not now, but in the not too distant future, when Steve Jobs' grave has cooled down, we surely will have an Apple refrigeroaster, albeit one with sapphire shelving and running an industrial version of Mac OS.
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.
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.
Hmmmm.... let's me get this straight.
Apple Television -OR- Mac Pro -OR- iPad 6/iPhone 6 combo (maxed out memory + a couple extra as gifts) -OR- MacBook Pro - OR- a smart watch.... I could have added many more "several thousand dollar" purchases, including a down payment on a new car.
I was thinking today, before this article, that my budget for a wearable right now would only be sub $300, as in $299.99 the most. That's much lower than several thousand. I'm getting iPhone 6, I know that. If Apple wants to toss in a wearable for another $300, I'll look at it.
I can find much better ways to spend my several thousand dollars.
Apple Television -OR- Mac Pro -OR- iPad 6/iPhone 6 combo (maxed out memory + a couple extra as gifts) -OR- MacBook Pro - OR- a smart watch.... I could have added many more "several thousand dollar" purchases, including a down payment on a new car.
I was thinking today, before this article, that my budget for a wearable right now would only be sub $300, as in $299.99 the most. That's much lower than several thousand. I'm getting iPhone 6, I know that. If Apple wants to toss in a wearable for another $300, I'll look at it.
I can find much better ways to spend my several thousand dollars.
Several thousand dollars?
Reminds me of all those reports that were sure the iPad wouldn't go for under $999.
Exactly! And if you remember the keynote where the ipad was announced they actually referenced the $999 rumor making me suspect that Apple put that rumor out there themselves to make their starting price look so much cheaper. Maybe we are seeing more of the same here? (Or i am just too paranoid)
PS any smart watch would have to be in the extremely cheap category (<$20) or have some function like mind reading that revolutionizes my life for me to get one.
I purchased a Rolex and a Mac Plus plus a "big" SCSI HD the same year, for about the same dollars. The Rolex has gone up in value. If the Mac Plus was still working, I might be able to recover 10% of its price.
Electronic stuff loses value way to fast to be a good luxury investment. That will put a ceiling on eWatch prices to no more than a blinged-out flashy gaming PC.
Electronic stuff loses value way to fast to be a good luxury investment. That will put a ceiling on eWatch prices to no more than a blinged-out flashy gaming PC.
I could be that somebody is trying to raise expectations, so Apple can bring the device in at a much lower price point and surprise everybody!!
I love Apple, however no way in hell I would pay more than 500 bucks on an iWatch, it would never replace a good quality watch, never. IMO of course.
Although I eagerly await iWatch, I'm sure not going to pay the same as I did ten years ago for my Omega Speedmaster (ca. 2000$, now 4000$) ... And although I could well afford such an expensive device, the value proposition comes into play, so if the functional top line version of the iWatch costs more than 400$, I think I will pass on it (even if it can levitate me, or transport me.)
Lmaooo a product you've NEVER seen and that hasn't even been announced "doesn't appeal" to you ? Lmao .
So a $4k watch that tells time is better than a $400 iwatch that transports you and levitates you?
Your moronic comment is offensive. "Ridiculous fan": do you call ridiculous the people who have some money and want to spend it? What problem do you have with people who can afford either an expensive piece of jewlery or an expensive gadget? Why do you think Apple hired the ex CEO of Burberry's and one of the top YSL executives a couple years back? To get their expertise on how to sell at the local WalMart or Costco?
Just to amuse you:
2013 Mac Pro 2xd700, 1 Tb SSD, 32 Gb Ram + Promise R6 TB2 + plenty of other "ridiculously expensive Apple gadgets"t that I will not list because it would be class warfare against you...
Cannot believe it!
Last edited:
I'll have to watch the keynote. I just can't see how a watch could be as transformational a tool as the iPhone has been. But then, I didn't think the iPad was such a good idea either.
1.3 and 1.7"??
Those are terrible sizes.
1.3" is a largish womens watch. It is far to small for a man to wear as a watch. It is more like a bangle bracelet.
1.7" is an oversized hip hop watch.
Most quality mens watches (as in high end manufacturers) are in the 38-41mm range. 44mm is considered XL and generally reserved for multifunction chronographs.
40mm is a modern, slightly oversized watch size. AFAIK 38mm is still considered standard (though that is a bit small nowadays). 30 years ago, 36mm was the norm.
1.7" (over 43mm) will look obnoxiously big on most wrists. As in I'm a hip hop mogul with a watch obnoxious. For example, Panerai watches, which very few people can wear without looking funny, are 44mm.
I happen to have a 41mm watch and its about as large as I can wear without looking like I have a wall clock strapped to my wrist.
Those are terrible sizes.
1.3" is a largish womens watch. It is far to small for a man to wear as a watch. It is more like a bangle bracelet.
1.7" is an oversized hip hop watch.
Most quality mens watches (as in high end manufacturers) are in the 38-41mm range. 44mm is considered XL and generally reserved for multifunction chronographs.
40mm is a modern, slightly oversized watch size. AFAIK 38mm is still considered standard (though that is a bit small nowadays). 30 years ago, 36mm was the norm.
1.7" (over 43mm) will look obnoxiously big on most wrists. As in I'm a hip hop mogul with a watch obnoxious. For example, Panerai watches, which very few people can wear without looking funny, are 44mm.
I happen to have a 41mm watch and its about as large as I can wear without looking like I have a wall clock strapped to my wrist.
If the sapphire is VERY thin it is flexible. I can tie a glass fiber in a knot. Same with Sapphire. It can be rolled into a tube if it is thin enough.
Anther example is aluminum. A bar of aluminum is ridged is is an aluminum frying pan. But look at an aluminum coated food wrapper, like say a bag of chips. The think aluminum coating on the plastic is very flexible. I imagine the sapphire could be that thin. Then there is aluminum foil, it is flexible too. The foil might be 1,000 times thicker then the coating on the chip bag but it still bends. Next is the soda can. Still flexible.
- Status