John Gruber's thoughts on Apple Watch
- Thread starter Rogifan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Piggie
macrumors G3
few 1000?
http://xhjinxiaoxiao.en.alibaba.com/product/259459047-213476382/18k_gold_watch_case_watch_parts.html
Price $200 - $1500 quantity dependent I'd say that looks like
I'd suggest there is a probably a LOT more gold in that than the Apple watch case will have.
macenied
macrumors 6502a
The other way to sell Edition watches is to price them realistic and Apple will not have a problem at all.
LOL. This is the first product I see where people WANT to pay a lot. Apple should listen and come up with a Diamond version.
I doubt that link to the 18k gold watch case is actually 18k gold. Do the math; there's no way that much gold can be had that cheap. Estimations of gold in a watch, sans band, is around $1000, scrap value.
The problem is even if you price a gold watch reasonably, it's still going to be expensive. While gold isn't my style I would rather pay $3500 once and for $350 get upgrades every other year to have a watch that would last decades than get one for $2000 that will be outdated in two years. In the long run it will be the less expensive option without limiting either quality or prohibiting current technology.
I could however see paying $600-$800 on a very high quality SS watch as long as it could be upgraded for $300 or so every couple years. That is likely the model they will make the most money on, and probably why they called that the standard model. The kids will rock the sports, and those that want something even more refined will have the edition. There's a lot of people that spend that kind of money on watches. While I wouldn't spend that on a traditional watch, I certainly would for a quality smart watch. I wouldn't wear a geeky smart watch, but a well-designed cool aWatch, I certainly would consider dropping money on that.
People still say it has no use, and is so limited by tethering it to the phone, but Ill bet Apple and third party developers will create so many killers aps that make it too useful to pass up, just as they did with the smart phone. Using taptic response to locate your car in a parking lot or navigating when walking or driving. As a skier I would love it for that. When I'm skiing, I don't like to take out my phone as with either bulky gloves or cold hands I could drop it off the lift and it is hard to operate. With a watch I can put the phone in a ballistic case and not worry about breaking it, and look at my watch for messages or to make simple replies. I can check the number of runs and the altitude I've logged. I would never have to stop mid run to check a trail map anymore. Taptic response could navigate my way down that I have pre-determined on my way up the lift. I still may have to take a glove off, but I won't worry about dropping the watch off my wrist.
It's not that most people want it expensive, but they don't want to wear something cheap either. You can buy a watch at the dollar store, but does anyone actually wear those? They would rather pay for a long-term quality timepiece that can still be updated through the years. Apple is betting a lot of their customers feel the same way.
The problem is even if you price a gold watch reasonably, it's still going to be expensive. While gold isn't my style I would rather pay $3500 once and for $350 get upgrades every other year to have a watch that would last decades than get one for $2000 that will be outdated in two years. In the long run it will be the less expensive option without limiting either quality or prohibiting current technology.
I could however see paying $600-$800 on a very high quality SS watch as long as it could be upgraded for $300 or so every couple years. That is likely the model they will make the most money on, and probably why they called that the standard model. The kids will rock the sports, and those that want something even more refined will have the edition. There's a lot of people that spend that kind of money on watches. While I wouldn't spend that on a traditional watch, I certainly would for a quality smart watch. I wouldn't wear a geeky smart watch, but a well-designed cool aWatch, I certainly would consider dropping money on that.
People still say it has no use, and is so limited by tethering it to the phone, but Ill bet Apple and third party developers will create so many killers aps that make it too useful to pass up, just as they did with the smart phone. Using taptic response to locate your car in a parking lot or navigating when walking or driving. As a skier I would love it for that. When I'm skiing, I don't like to take out my phone as with either bulky gloves or cold hands I could drop it off the lift and it is hard to operate. With a watch I can put the phone in a ballistic case and not worry about breaking it, and look at my watch for messages or to make simple replies. I can check the number of runs and the altitude I've logged. I would never have to stop mid run to check a trail map anymore. Taptic response could navigate my way down that I have pre-determined on my way up the lift. I still may have to take a glove off, but I won't worry about dropping the watch off my wrist.
It's not that most people want it expensive, but they don't want to wear something cheap either. You can buy a watch at the dollar store, but does anyone actually wear those? They would rather pay for a long-term quality timepiece that can still be updated through the years. Apple is betting a lot of their customers feel the same way.
derbladerunner
macrumors 6502
Thats's a very good point, there's no functional difference. It's just a status symbol if a buyer goes for the golden one. This is the same league as Vertu phones.
Using this line of thinking, Apple could also release a golden (real one) iPhone in the future. But how long do you keep an iPhone?
Which brings me to this:
I would like to add a second important difference between a Rolex and a high-end Apple Watch: Longevity.
A Rolex or any other high-end mechanical watch keeps its value (sometimes it even increases its value if it's a limited edition) over decades, an Apple Watch version 1 from 2015 is likely worthless in a few years when Apple Watch version 4 or 5 is out.
I really don't know if Apple allows customers to upgrade (this would be a first) or if upgrading is even feasible. I guess they would have mentioned that at the keynote. Also, the hardware changes could make upgrading impossible. For example, new versions are rumored to sport up to 10 sensors, new cases and designs might be needed to accomodate these sensors.
It's a big difference even for a rich person to spend $10k and knowing the item will...
- keep its value (some mechanical watches are even passed on the next generation, they literally last for decades)
- lose its value in a few years in case of a smartwatch like Apple Watch.
It will be interesting to see how well a golden Apple Watch at $5-10k will sell.
Last edited:
John Gruber's thoughts on Apple Watch
Yup.
And before someone says that they buy cars which also depreciate, cars are in a different class when it comes to serving as status symbols.
Also cars are almost completely necessary for the people who buy them.
Apple watch just can't be compared to a luxury car.
Yup.
And before someone says that they buy cars which also depreciate, cars are in a different class when it comes to serving as status symbols.
Also cars are almost completely necessary for the people who buy them.
Apple watch just can't be compared to a luxury car.
Julien
macrumors G4
JayLenochiniMac
macrumors G5
Goes well with
Julien
macrumors G4
La ferrari buyer likely has grande complications above $500k if he really loves watches.
A typical apple watch buyer is a young person driving some low level luxury or bargain car.
ditzy
macrumors 68000
derbladerunner
macrumors 6502
Also, a Ferrari or similar high-end car will last for a very long time (if someone is willing to invest in it over time) as any oldtimer show with cars that are decades old demonstrates.
Luxury brands like Ferrari or Lamborghini but also high-end watchmakers like Omega and Rolex keep spare parts for many years and pride themselves on repair services long after a model is out of stock.
An Apple Watch on the other hand will most probably be obsolete in around 4-5 years. There will be a slide at some future keynote that iOS 12 (just an example) will unfortunately no longer support the first Apple Watch.
That is no issue at the lower-end in my opinion. I will buy the $349-500 watch version in full knowledge that it will be useless in a few years, can no longer sync to the latest iOS and has a weak battery life anyway.
But gold Watch buyers will think hard about spending $5k or 10k on an Apple Watch in my opinion because of this planned obsolescence.
Finally, people buying high-end and luxury want unique designs. If someone spends that amount on a watch he doesn't want to see everyone else wearing the same watch (same for women buying expensive handbags and clothing).
Rolex, Ferrari and others produce their goods in very small batches with ever-changing designs on purpose.
Apple would probably have to offer limited editions at the high-end to keep these buyers interested.
Last edited:
Thewatch isn't even out yet. How can you know what the typical user will be?
La ferrari and similar hypercars are sold to less than 1000 people in the world.
Do you think the typical (I.e. Most common) customer for the Apple watch will be those 1000 billionaires who buy la Ferraris?
Julien
macrumors G4
And someone with 6 or 7 figure income will buy the $5000 Edition for the same reasons as you because it actually cost them less in relative dollars than the $350 Sport cost you or I.
So the Sport will cost you $350 of you hard earned income and the Edition will only cost them a $100 or less compared to your income.
ditzy
macrumors 68000
While I do predict that most who buy the edition model will have a good amount good disposable income. But there will be a lot of people who could afford the watch but not a Ferrari.
And as a advertisement of wealth it is with you almost all of the time.
Apple Watch is not an advertisement of wealth (except for the gold one, only because it's a rather expensive watch that will become outdated/potentially useless in two years).
Come on.
Piggie
macrumors G3
Always makes me smile the photo's above of the iWatch.
A lovely 'Render' of the product, at just the right angle to make it look nice on the front, without turning it a little more to show the thickness.
Kinda like a fat person standing at 30 degrees so you can't see the giant ass out the back
----------
There is also a fair chance it will also be an advertisement that you are a bit of a cock for wearing one
Not convinced at all, showing your Apple Watch off is going to get ooh's and ahh's and admiration from passers by some seem to think.
Not sure we are really there in reality.
Could just as easily be, a trying to hide it scenario as you don't look a bit of a dick having it strapped on your wrist.
----------
$5000 :d
A lovely 'Render' of the product, at just the right angle to make it look nice on the front, without turning it a little more to show the thickness.
Kinda like a fat person standing at 30 degrees so you can't see the giant ass out the back
----------
There is also a fair chance it will also be an advertisement that you are a bit of a cock for wearing one
Not convinced at all, showing your Apple Watch off is going to get ooh's and ahh's and admiration from passers by some seem to think.
Not sure we are really there in reality.
Could just as easily be, a trying to hide it scenario as you don't look a bit of a dick having it strapped on your wrist.
----------
$5000 :d
Melrose
Suspended
*This is the biggest single detraction for the high-end Watch I think.
You might also classify the difference as New Money vs Old Money. Old Money may put more emphasis on heritage and history, and heirloom-ability, than the other. New Money wants flash and gaud. Rolex has a very strong heritage and a rich history. Apple doesn't. Apple may make a technologically superior product with the Watch, but it still doesn't compare to my 1995 SubDate.
I don't see how the Watch possibly could not not be upgraded every year or two, with the way technology advances. Meanwhile, I have a Swiss movement Hamilton from 1969 that still runs like a top... and I wouldn't trade it for an Watch even though it cost me a only couple hundred dollars. With Rolex I value the movement, not the sex appeal or status, because if that was the only thing that mattered I could go buy a cheaper and more pretentious brand or model for as much or less.
And in the Venn diagram of what we purchase, trying to make a statement with your technology is what begins to push it out of the Technology circle and into the slightly overlapping Fashion circle, something that can be dictated by luxury.
† I would counterpoint that this is pre-2007 thinking, that one needs a button for each new iteration or new feature. The Watch, like iPhone, is software-driven. The same single button on the iPhone in 2007 is the same single button it has now. Could this explain why Apple has built in that secondary button? You know, "the button below the digital crown"? Are they planning for expandability? Time will tell.
There is a large circular opening in the back of the watch for a reason. Sensors will be added to that area. Miniaturization will only allow more technology to be fit into the same size case. Tooling is also becoming more and more flexible. There is no reason they can not support several different platforms of watches into the future.
Having a gold watch priced at $5000 is more about fashion than being pretentious. In a world where there is $30k - $100+k watches, a $5k watch isn't really that pretentious. Maybe it's Lexus level pretentiousness, but it's not a status symbol like a Rolls Royce. Women especially want to coordinate. They aren't going to want to wear a aluminum or ss watch with their existing gold rings, necklaces, bracelets and earrings. Even middle class women often have more invested or inherited in those other items. A matching smart watch that will be upgradeable for a long time at that price will be something they consider. The edition will likely be sold at jewelry outlets and be discounted just like all other high end watches.
For them to sell, and for apple not to look elitist, they will inform us about their upgrade policy upon their release event. I expect these will be upgradeable for decades. They only released as much as they needed to generate interest which it has. They wanted to show us the design rather than leaked from their Asian manufacturers. We rarely get the whole story this far ahead for a new product.
Just because apple hasn't offered upgrade paths before, doesn't mean they will always continue in that direction. They have called this a very different personal device, and have given far more attention to the case than the guts. There is one gut, at 2 different sizes, each in 3 different materials, each with 2 different colors with dozens of different bands. So one computer, two different screens, and hundreds of design combinations. In order for success, they knew this had to be a high quality, well-designed, long lasting watch first, with the functionality of evolving upgradeable componentry.
Gold and stainless steel watches tell time no better than a plastic one. What do you see more people wearing? Form over function describes the watch industry. Apple is promising both.
It is really quite obvious when you consider what they have done. Everyone agrees that a $5k gold watch that would have a lifespan of 2 years would only be acceptable to the 1%ers. Apple has always been interested in moving a lot of product to the masses. Isn't it more likely for them to make a shift to an upgradeable device, rather than shift so much of their attention to an elitist device? Apple is not as stupid as so many of you may think.
Having a gold watch priced at $5000 is more about fashion than being pretentious. In a world where there is $30k - $100+k watches, a $5k watch isn't really that pretentious. Maybe it's Lexus level pretentiousness, but it's not a status symbol like a Rolls Royce. Women especially want to coordinate. They aren't going to want to wear a aluminum or ss watch with their existing gold rings, necklaces, bracelets and earrings. Even middle class women often have more invested or inherited in those other items. A matching smart watch that will be upgradeable for a long time at that price will be something they consider. The edition will likely be sold at jewelry outlets and be discounted just like all other high end watches.
For them to sell, and for apple not to look elitist, they will inform us about their upgrade policy upon their release event. I expect these will be upgradeable for decades. They only released as much as they needed to generate interest which it has. They wanted to show us the design rather than leaked from their Asian manufacturers. We rarely get the whole story this far ahead for a new product.
Just because apple hasn't offered upgrade paths before, doesn't mean they will always continue in that direction. They have called this a very different personal device, and have given far more attention to the case than the guts. There is one gut, at 2 different sizes, each in 3 different materials, each with 2 different colors with dozens of different bands. So one computer, two different screens, and hundreds of design combinations. In order for success, they knew this had to be a high quality, well-designed, long lasting watch first, with the functionality of evolving upgradeable componentry.
Gold and stainless steel watches tell time no better than a plastic one. What do you see more people wearing? Form over function describes the watch industry. Apple is promising both.
It is really quite obvious when you consider what they have done. Everyone agrees that a $5k gold watch that would have a lifespan of 2 years would only be acceptable to the 1%ers. Apple has always been interested in moving a lot of product to the masses. Isn't it more likely for them to make a shift to an upgradeable device, rather than shift so much of their attention to an elitist device? Apple is not as stupid as so many of you may think.
bbeagle
macrumors 68040
The original iPhone had 4 'buttons' not one.
Home Button, Sleep/On-off button, volume rocker (could be counted as 2), and the mute switch.
How do you take a picture of the screen on an iphone? (press TWO buttons at the same time). Not possible if the iPhone only had 1 'button'.
Melrose
Suspended
My iPhone 5s has only one button, and I say "Siri, there's a semi-pedantic gentleman in an MacRumors thread pointing out my flaws. Take a screenshot and email it to him."
...ps we both shop at that Rochester-area Mecca of technology, Apple Eastview. That Jerusalem of streamlined devices and suitably nerdy Geniuses. I always grab a Vanilla Bean latte at the Starbucks on my way in and try to hit Biaggi's on the way out. You?
derbladerunner
macrumors 6502
I agree that there are enough buttons and other interaction methods for years to come (as others noted on this long thread, it may already be too confusing with Siri, Touch, forced Touch, the digital crown and that extra button given the small physical space...).
As for expandability and upgrades:
How would upgrades work practically? Assuming Apple sells around 10-20 Million watches a year (that's what most analysts predict), the Genius bar would overflow when it comes to upgrade time.
Sending in the watch by mail and waiting 2-3 weeks to get the upgraded one back also sounds very un-Apple. (Not to mention lost Edition watches and personal data privacy would be an insurance nightmare...)
Also, as I noted above, people want unique designs when they buy high-end and luxury items. Rolex, Louis Vuitton and similar brands keep their unit volumes low on purpose because of buyer psychology.
If Apple sells millions of watches, the design would become stale and boring quick for these fashion and luxury-oriented buyers (since only the bracelet design is really different, the watch 3D form is always the same).
I still can't wrap my head around a $5-10k Apple Watch Edition. If Apple enters these price segments, they could also release a tacky golden or titanium iPhone 6s at $5-10k in 2015, where's the difference?
Melrose
Suspended
Valid points. I agree it may be a worrying trend, but as with Apple's product behavior in the past it may be a bit of an upset, at least in the psychology of selling them. To me, Apple is already "luxury" enough without having tacky gold plating on things. The gold-colored iPhone is bad enough. Introducing a Vertu-esque (gag) iPhone would lower the company in my eyes even if the quality and style stayed the same... but that's me. Vertu always struck me as a real life version of that $10,000 Diamond Wallpaper Android app - that only gives you a picture of a diamond for your phone's wallpaper. Redundant in every area except luxury, for people who want something simply because it's expensive.
What I would REALLY hate to see, iPhone 5c aside, is if Apple begins doing things like this with every product and then putting higher end, higher capacity internals in those products - making it a fully distinct luxury item. That's NOT Apple. I get but I don't get the gold Watch, because it's not very Apple in itself; Apple has always made products that are actually not more expensive when you look at the quality of components: PCMag reviewed laptops a few years ago and noted the MacBook Pro was actually mid-priced when they spec'd out Sonys, Dells, and HPs with similar internals. Making Luxury items just doesn't sound very Apple, in that sense.
And as mentioned, the logistics for maintaining it as a useful "watch" could be a nightmare.
just as a silly afterthought that has no bearing at all on the topic to hand, has anyone else noticed Google is running a lot of ads on YouTube about Android Wear? The really funny thing about it is they have all these people in all these situations... just getting notifications on their phone. Notifications... and then they still have to put the tiny print at the bottom of the screen that says "screen images simulated." lol...
Last edited: