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

John Gruber's thoughts on Apple Watch

Apple's go to market strategy will be very interesting. If people treat this as a piece of technology and not a piece of fashion will they be willing to pay more for stainless steel or solid gold since the core technology will be the same as the aluminum watch? That's why I think Apple will be pitching it as a piece of fashion that also does all these cool things. Hence showing it off to people like Anna Wintour and getting it on the cover of Vogue China.
 
Julien said:
We know the Sport will be $350 and we know that the SS Watch will have premium materials over the Sport so we know Apple will price it higher. Apple almost always uses $100 price differentiator as a base for minor differences (iPhone 64GB to 128GB for example). So looking this way $500 seems a plausible lowest price.

Now look at what Joswiak said just yesterday. He implied that the Edition would be many thousands of dollars and even said "...so if you’re rich.... about it. He also said "...offering a wider price range is just another way that people can choose the device that works best for them..."

It's not likely that Apple will offer the Sport for $350 and the SS Watch for only $450 and then have the Edition $5000 or more. This would leave a HUGE gape in the price range between the SS and the Edition. There is no way Apple will leave this big of a void in pricing from the SS to the Edition. If anything it may indicate the SS is going to be more expensive that thought.


The difference in materials costs doesn't correlate directly to selling price. As an example: Apple sells a 16GB iPhone for $650. A 128GB chip costs Apple about $5 more but they sell it for $200 more.
Click to expand...

Between the sport and the SS difference, I think we are more looking at comparing an iPhone 6 to a iPhone 6 plus. There's some material difference and some more cost but the core of it is the same and that has a $100 price difference. Like my point before, $500-600 seems reasonable. You keep referencing this difference but the thing is, there's a lot greater difference with the edition compared to SS. My sentiments is that it will cost $500-600 with a sports band. From there, Each band will have a different price point. They will probably have a Mac like configurator (but probably with some real time renderings of what you are getting) when you buy the watch so you can choose which band, face size, etc you want when you purchase it. This will create a larger range.

SS and gold are two completely different markets. SS is. I precious metal so there's no rationale why it would be priced like it is. Quite honestly, after still hearing the interview, I find it hard to believe that the edition will cost $5k, given that you can get it with a rubber band. Seriously, where's the logic with that? I'd say $5k is reasonable if it had a solid gold metal band to go with it but that's not the case. $2.5k would be my bet but who knows.
 
capitanbuzo said:
...Quite honestly, after still hearing the interview, I find it hard to believe that the edition will cost $5k, given that you can get it with a rubber band. Seriously, where's the logic with that? I'd say $5k is reasonable if it had a solid gold metal band to go with it but that's not the case. $2.5k would be my bet but who knows.
Click to expand...

Apple considers a $800 iPhone to be an average middle class customer's purchase. So for Apple say "..if you’re rich..." [you can afford an Edition] makes it sound expensive to me. Also we know that the least expensive quality 18K solid gold watches are north of $10,000.

Apple doesn't sell any of it's products at the lowest price point in their category. After all it's called paying the 'Apple Tax" to own Apple devices. The Sport is one of the most expensive Smart Watches you can buy. So why would the Edition be the cheapest 18K solid gold watch available?

Don't get me wrong. I would love for the Edition to be priced under $2500 and would be tempted to buy it. It's just all evidence from Apple is they are going full on fashion/jewelry with the Watch and Edition. It looks like if you don't want to spend 'big bucks' on higher fashion then the Sport is the choice.
 
Julien said:
Apple considers a $800 iPhone to be an average middle class customer's purchase. So for Apple say "..if you’re rich..." [you can afford an Edition] makes it sound expensive to me. Also we know that the least expensive quality 18K solid gold watches are north of $10,000.



Apple doesn't sell any of it's products at the lowest price point in their category. After all it's called paying the 'Apple Tax" to own Apple devices. The Sport is one of the most expensive Smart Watches you can buy. So why would the Edition be the cheapest 18K solid gold watch available?



Don't get me wrong. I would love for the Edition to be priced under $2500 and would be tempted to buy it. It's just all evidence from Apple is they are going full on fashion/jewelry with the Watch and Edition. It looks like if you don't want to spend 'big bucks' on higher fashion then the Sport is the choice.
Click to expand...


Apple is among the highest priced in categories where their competition is typically commodity type products (cheap disposable android phones) or consumer products at best.

Solid gold watches are luxury products.
Apple is not a luxury retailer so it would make sense for apple to price their gold watch below luxury product price points.
 
SHNXX said:
...Solid gold watches are luxury products.
Apple is not a luxury retailer so it would make sense for apple to price their gold watch below luxury product price points.
Click to expand...

True, but in 2001 Apple Computer was not a consumer electronics compony, yet they came out with an outrageously overpriced consumer electrons device that 'dented the universe'. This helped to merged the computer and consumer electronics industries as we know today.

I still think the Edition will be under $10,000 but probably not much chance of being under $3,000.
 
I think the main reason for having the edition is to help justify the cost of the ss version. I think they'll sell more of these than either the sport or edition models. Having a much more expensive version than the ss, will make it look reasonable, even though it's twice the cost of the sport.
 
mtmac said:
I think the main reason for having the edition is to help justify the cost of the ss version. I think they'll sell more of these than either the sport or edition models. Having a much more expensive version than the ss, will make it look reasonable, even though it's twice the cost of the sport.
Click to expand...

Except I'll see the rose gold one with matching leather band and want that one so bad, for no rational reason. Oh well guess I better start saving up.
 
For reference HP just announced a Smart Watch in 2 versions. The basic is the same price as the Sport. It then offers the same watch with a black finish, sapphire crystal and leather band for $650.

This in part points to why the SS Watch will be significantly more (not just $100) that the Sport.

Sure missing a LOT of features, boring monochrome LCD display (thought should be longer batt life) and I don't like the built in round clock face or cheap looking 3 big buttons.

hpwatchlead_zps684152af.png
 
Rogifan said:
All those screws on the front. :eek:
Click to expand...


I don't know if they were trying to copy the Genta porthole design featured in the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, Patek Philippe Nautilus, Hublot Big Bang and the Bulgari Octa but they sure didn't do a very good job of it.
 
SHNXX said:
I don't know if they were trying to copy the Genta porthole design featured in the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, Patek Philippe Nautilus, Hublot Big Bang and the Bulgari Octa but they sure didn't do a very good job of it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The first thing I thought is "Hublot". :p
 
samiznaetekto said:
LOL - Jony Ive pwned by Gruber.

http://www.daringfireball.net/linked/2014/11/01/ive-watch-sfmoma
Click to expand...

Apple could implement quick charging (at the cost of cycle life) and get the usable charging time under ½ hour. Even using traditional conservative charging it would probably take less than 2 hours to a 90% charge. Remember an iPad has a 'swimming pool' batt, an iPhone has a 'bathtub' batt and the aWatch will have a 'bathroom sink' batt. It just doesn't take long to fill up a 'sink' since it is small.
 
Rogifan said:
Except I'll see the rose gold one with matching leather band and want that one so bad, for no rational reason. Oh well guess I better start saving up.
Click to expand...

I like that one too, but would prefer a darker band since the rose gray leather looks more feminine. I wonder how odd it would look with the blue modern buckle with stainless steel trim, or with one of the stainless steel bands. Rose gold and stainless steel are commonly paired.

Rumor is that the stores will let you try on the watches. So perhaps we will be able to "mix and match" or at least get additional bands.
 
KPOM said:
I like that one too, but would prefer a darker band since the rose gray leather looks more feminine. I wonder how odd it would look with the blue modern buckle with stainless steel trim, or with one of the stainless steel bands. Rose gold and stainless steel are commonly paired.

Rumor is that the stores will let you try on the watches. So perhaps we will be able to "mix and match" or at least get additional bands.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm glad we'll be able to try on in stores. I won't know what I like until I see it on my wrist.
 
Rogifan said:
Yeah I'm glad we'll be able to try on in stores. I won't know what I like until I see it on my wrist.
Click to expand...

As I said in another post I hope Apple has 'demo' Watches in the Apple Stores a couple of weeks before launch since this is FAR different than preordering an iPad.
 
Julien said:
As I said in another post I hope Apple has 'demo' Watches in the Apple Stores a couple of weeks before launch since this is FAR different than preordering an iPad.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I would never order one without being able to try it on first. Of course not everyone has that opportunity so I hope they think about setting up mini stores or kiosks in places where there aren't Apple stores.
 
Rogifan said:
Except I don't think anyone at Apple said when you charge it; just that you'll need to charge it once per day. So it all depends on how long it takes to charge.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It will have a MUCH smaller battery than the iPhone, so if it fully charges in 1-2 hours then it's not completely unreasonable to imagine charging it before bed. It would definitely be an adjustment/annoying, but it could be worth it for a) sleep monitoring b) optimal sleep cycle waking c) waking with taptic. d) other potential benefits (convenient light if you have to go to the bathroom, discreetly checking notifications without disturbing your parter, etc)

However, I'm hoping for some sort of actual wireless (like WiTricity) solution in the near future. Charging on my wrist, while I sleep. The ideal.
 
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