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

Let's put the apple watch price in perspective...

I do use it haha
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 220
Appl3FTW said:
For:
399 for sport
Click to expand...

The Fitbit Surge is $250.00, doesn't look as good, doesn't do as much. the Apple watch is priced right but then again you're notorious for starting debate threads and then vanishing off the forums for weeks at a time and then popping up again.
 
In 'the old days' it was expensive to miniaturize things. Maybe the people just don't know that anymore.
The smaller it is the more expensive it gets (that's the point why analogue watches can get pricey).
 
  • Like
Reactions: redman042
Before the Apple Watch, I remember a lot of people on various forums mentioning the brand, Hamilton, as their go-to everyday watch for a "reasonable" price. That price was ~$700-$1000.

The link below shows some of their models, and they are all well over the price of the aluminum and base SS models.

So put into perspective, the Apple Watch seems like a bargain imo.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ham...&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8#q=hamilton+watch&tbm=shop

But yes, compared to what else you can get in the Apple lineup, the price can get up there.
 
This is like comparing cars to speedboats. The only thing the watch has in common with the iPad is that they are both made by Apple. Comparing them in anyway is pointless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enygmatic
Folks on this forum tend to react with a lot of passion when someone questions the price or supremacy of the AW. It is fun to read.
 
Comparing an apple watch to a traditional watch is not a far comparison.
Apple watch will eventually die, but a traditional watch will go on and on and on.
 
Zaft said:
Comparing an apple watch to a traditional watch is not a far comparison.
Apple watch will eventually die, but a traditional watch will go on and on and on.
Click to expand...

Not as long as you may think. My Rolex watches require a $700-$1000'ish service every 5-10 years in order to keep running smoothly. It's basically like buying a classic car and saying it will last forever, without considering maintenance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enygmatic, Arran and bandrews
douglasf13 said:
Not as long as you may think. My Rolex watches require a $700-$1000'ish service every 5-10 years in order to keep running smoothly. It's basically like buying a classic car and saying it will last forever, without considering maintenance.
Click to expand...
all of my traditional watches from Seiko died around 8-10 years. These were the $350-$500 models with kinetic. If all you want is a watch, I wouldn't get the Apple Watch or any smartwatch. Fortunately for me, I've always worn a watch and the Apple Watch looks good and I would upgrade but probably every other version unless they blow me away with changes and it wouldn't be longer battery life. 🙂

I think the price is fair but also agree that a minor drop in price would be ok. Maybe $499 for SS with sport band and $299 for Sport but I doubt that will happen until version 2 is announced.

If I had a really good looking Rolex, I wouldn't own an Apple Watch.
 
AW Sport was cheaper than my last year's Garmin GPS watch, and that one required me to wear a chest strap HRM. I'd rather carry the iPhone just the very first time I need to measure a completely new route, rather than the chest strap every run.
 
douglasf13 said:
Not as long as you may think. My Rolex watches require a $700-$1000'ish service every 5-10 years in order to keep running smoothly. It's basically like buying a classic car and saying it will last forever, without considering maintenance.
Click to expand...

I also have a Tag diving watch which needs to be pressure sealed after every servicing; and I've paid more to have it serviced every few years in total than the price of my Apple Sport Watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran
exxxviii said:
Folks on this forum tend to react with a lot of passion when someone questions the price or supremacy of the AW. It is fun to read.
Click to expand...

You know the OP does this on purpose right? I don't think he even owns an Apple watch. He just comes on here and drops a debate bomb and watches people get all bent out of shape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redman042 and username:
Armen said:
You know the OP does this on purpose right? I don't think he even owns an Apple watch. He just comes on here and drops a debate bomb and watches people get all bent out of shape.
Click to expand...
I saw your earlier post, but I wondered if you had mistaken the OP for someone else. He has been pretty engaged in this and other threads. And, it looks like he has owned a watch from pretty early on.
 
BlueMoon63 said:
all of my traditional watches from Seiko died around 8-10 years. These were the $350-$500 models with kinetic. If all you want is a watch, I wouldn't get the Apple Watch or any smartwatch. Fortunately for me, I've always worn a watch and the Apple Watch looks good and I would upgrade but probably every other version unless they blow me away with changes and it wouldn't be longer battery life. 🙂

I think the price is fair but also agree that a minor drop in price would be ok. Maybe $499 for SS with sport band and $299 for Sport but I doubt that will happen until version 2 is announced.

If I had a really good looking Rolex, I wouldn't own an Apple Watch.
Click to expand...

I have a G-Shock that's solar powered and hooks to the atomic clock, and it doesn't really get more durable and accurate than that for only $100, but, like you say, the Apple Watch is way more functional and looks good enough.

I have some nice Omega, Rolex, etc., watches, but, the thing is, now that the Apple Watch's functionality has become so useful to me, I can't go back. It's kind of like being interested in really nice, expensive typewriters, and then suddenly buying a Macbook. For a guy into mechanical things like I am, you loose a little bit of intrigue and "coolness," but the functionality of the Macbook pushes it over the edge. I may start collecting desk clocks or something, since mechanical watches just don't have room on my arm, anymore, despite my interest in horology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zetaplus93, Arran and BlueMoon63
exxxviii said:
I saw your earlier post, but I wondered if you had mistaken the OP for someone else. He has been pretty engaged in this and other threads. And, it looks like he has owned a watch from pretty early on.
Click to expand...

Let's just say he went from loving Apple to having a nerd rage fit over the Apple watch delivery ( forgot what thread it was) and the went into an Apple hate mode in which he kept questioning everything about it and comparing it to other watches and here we are again at the pricing months later. every time I call him out he doesn't reply to me or he does without quoting so I don't get alerted to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: username:
UFG said:

$26,700

Stainless steel. Time and date only.


Apple watch seems like a bargain here ;p
Click to expand...

That's one ugly a$$ watch yo!... Looks like a 1975 Seiko.

______________________________________________________________________________

Apple Watch is very good for what it does, but I don't expect it to last as long as my Subby.
 
Four oF NINE said:
That's one ugly a$$ watch yo!... Looks like a 1975 Seiko.

______________________________________________________________________________

Apple Watch is very good for what it does, but I don't expect it to last as long as my Subby.
Click to expand...
Haha no comment
 
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