MacBook Pro = Apple Watch?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Deanster, Mar 9, 2015.

  1. Deanster macrumors regular

    Jun 6, 2005
    Reading Gruber's pricing sheet, I end up baffled by the notion that if he's right, one can either buy a black watch on steel bracelet, or a 15" MacBook pro, retina display and all.

    Given that it has the exact same function as a $350 sport version, which would leave a buyer with enough cash for a MacBook air, I just can't see the SS version pricing running this high.

    I own a dozen Swiss and German mechanical watches, I know that market well, but... It's really small, relative to where apple plays. Rolex sells fewer than a million watches a year, globally.

    I may well be eating crow in the morning, but I predict the stainless apple watch line remains priced as an upgrade to the Sport version, less than laptops, and similar to iPads... $600 to $900.

    I just don't see Apple pricing these higher than a MacBook Air.
  2. jabingla2810 macrumors 68020

    Oct 15, 2008
    It's a different product.

    Just because a watch is smaller than a Macbook, doesn't mean it will cost less.
  3. Deanster, Mar 9, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2015

    Deanster thread starter macrumors regular

    Jun 6, 2005
    I understand that, of course.

    My point is that while there may be a group of people who are willing to pay $1650 in upgrade for the steel bracelet versions, it can't be a large group.

    Even highly paid professionals who could buy anything they wish look at value, and pricing SS Apple Watch at MBPr levels is looney. Even the most-dedicated Apple buyer has to stop and think... "Should I buy the SS Apple watch, or the Sport, an 11" MBA and a Mini for my wife and kids?"

    There certainly are people who would just buy the watch, but not enough.

    Another way to look at it is that Gruber has it priced so you can buy FIVE Sport editions, or TWO SS on rubber, or one black SS on the bracelet.

    I'm willing to be wrong, but I just don't see it.
  4. fitshaced macrumors 68000


    Jul 2, 2011
    Do you not buy an iPhone because the MacBook Air is around the same price?
  5. Piggie macrumors G3


    Feb 23, 2010
    To be fair:

    The iPhone is an amazing, highly advanced mini computer, with large screen, communications, camera etc etc, and a stand alone complete product in it's own right.

    The watch is pretty much just an iPhone accessory
  6. fitshaced macrumors 68000


    Jul 2, 2011
    Well no actually, it's a watch. Not just a computer on your wrist, a fashion item. Can you get a Rolex for less than a MacBook Pro?
  7. Lennyvalentin macrumors 65816


    Apr 25, 2011
    The Apple Watch is not a Rolex though. It's a mass-produced piece of electronics made in China.
  8. fitshaced macrumors 68000


    Jul 2, 2011
    Doesn't matter. It's got a different purpose to a MacBook. You would value it next to similar devices, not laptops.
  9. Deanster thread starter macrumors regular

    Jun 6, 2005
    You're missing my point.

    It's that you can buy the $349 version, and have 100% of the function.

    Everything after that is fashion. There are certainly people who will drop the cash on that, but it's a relatively small group. Apple makes money by selling many 10's of millions of each of their products annually.

    I'm attempting to suggest that when the Cosmetic upgrade costs get big, it seems likely that many/most people will elect to spend their money on other things.

    I think the SS upgrade will be less than 2x the Sport edition, and even the DLC-coated black SS on SS bracelet will be less than 3x the Sport. Even those are huge materials-only upgrade costs.


    Except it's not a stand-alone product... It's an iPhone accessory.
  10. Rogifan macrumors Core


    Nov 14, 2011
    Who cares though if we're talking about functionality or "value". And is every luxury watch hand crafted one by one these days?
  11. papa8706 macrumors 6502a

    Apr 24, 2010
    Completely agree. It's not a high end mechanical watch that stands the test of time, its a smart watch that has an expiration date just like any smart watch, phone, or computer.

    The fact that some people can defend a company taking advantage of their loyalty sickens me. Just cause they coat the $350 version in gold they think it's worth $5,000-20,000. Might as well wipe your a$$ with hundred dollar bills then send your heartbeat to your loved ones then send an animated smiley face to solidify your point
  12. fitshaced macrumors 68000


    Jul 2, 2011
    Wrong. Most watch buyers don't buy the cheapest they can find because it offers the same function. Fashion is a massive and probably primary selling point. If they only wanted something to show them the time when they raised their wrist, Rolex would not exist. Don't underestimate the fashion purpose for the reason the Apple watch will sell as many as it will sell. Why buy a MacBook when an Acer Windows laptop can offer more hardware? Apple make a lot of money out of their aesthetic focused designs.
  13. MH01 Suspended


    Feb 11, 2008
    Very valid point. you are just paying for the vanity factor after the base price.

    Though that is not much different to say a Rolex speedmaster, SS being the cheapest, and after that your pay for the metal, though I guess you can argue the cost goes up due to the gold used.
  14. jabingla2810 macrumors 68020

    Oct 15, 2008
    So why do you choose to own all those nice Swiss and German mechanical watches?

    When a £10 watch would have the same functionality.

    Fashion? Status?

    Perhaps the same reasons Apple may be charging these rumoured prices.
  15. Rogifan macrumors Core


    Nov 14, 2011
    Who are they taking advantage of? Nobody is forced to buy the gold watch. And "high end mechanical watch that stands the test of time" reminds me of marketing jargon that people would criticize Apple for. It's a freaking watch that tells the time.
  16. papa8706 macrumors 6502a

    Apr 24, 2010
    You're missing the point. Most people who appreciate watches and don't mind spending thousands on them have taste. They like them for jewelry/aesthetic purposes. They want someone original, not something you see almost identically on everyone. Doesn't that ruin the appeal? This is a smart watch running on a S1 chip and only works with iPhone 5s or higher? You're dropping rolex like it's even in the same market place? It'll be obsolete in the coming years after new phones/watches roll out.

    To top it off, it's far from perfect. IMO, it's way too thick and bulky but for less than 1g it looks promising and better than a pebble or alternative. The fashion standpoint is insane to me? How can you say Apple is in the same bracket as high end fashion watches when it hasn't done anything but announce a watch with 3 versions that are all the exact same besides size and material..


    Do you really think a watch that's prime function is aesthetic/jewelry is the same as a smart watch/computer on your wrist?

    A watch: Fashionable/jewelry- No one buy ones just to tell the time? It's jewelry.

    A smart watch: Computer on your wrist. Functional. No doubt, I think they need to be more fashionable and apple did a okay job but this isn't a 2-20k product. No way..


    Here's the difference. They're are better looking to many, don't need an iPhone to work, and don't risk being incompatible when new tech is released in less than 5 years?
  17. Rogifan macrumors Core


    Nov 14, 2011
    The only one quoting a $20K price point is John Gruber. And that's based on bands that as far as we know don't exist.
  18. fitshaced macrumors 68000


    Jul 2, 2011
    I think you give people with lots of money too much credit. Why do people buy Beats headphones when you can buy much better ones for far less? It's not always about quality or uniqueness. If Cristiano Ronaldo is wearing an Apple Watch, they will sell loads more.
  19. Blakjack macrumors 68000


    Jun 23, 2009
    Apple has priced all of their iOS devices to sale. I just don't see them charging 750 for the SS.
  20. BMcCoy macrumors 68000


    Jun 24, 2010
    Sometimes the higher the price, the more desirable it becomes..

    As we're agreed the watch is going to be a premium fashion accessory, and not primarily an electronics device, then pricing is likely to reflect this, and its intended customer base.

    In fashion, prices are set to the market demographic wealth, not to the actual cost of the product. Whether that is handbags, shoes or perfume! ;)
  21. ianrip macrumors 6502


    May 30, 2010
    work:Oyu Tolgio, Home:LOS, From Scotland G15
    An iPhone accessory is costing more than the iPhone:eek:

    Where else in the world does a accessory cost more than the main product

    Socks to shoes ??

    Ties to Shirts ???

    Pen to Ink

    Hi Fi to headphones
  22. kupkakez macrumors 68000


    Apr 4, 2011
    I don't buy a watch to tell the time, I'll admit I buy a watch as a fashion accessory/jewelry.

    I'm pretty sure anything beyond the base model is going to be targeting people such as myself.
  23. bnorthro macrumors member

    Sep 2, 2010
    Here's where the fashion/jewelry aspect comes in. I much prefer substantial jewelry, and big watches are fashionable right now. I wear a Breitling Superoacean, which is roughly 17mm thick and heavy as hell. I love the feeling of a heavy watch, to me a light watch feels cheap (I've never cared for Titanium watches). To each their own.

    I live in So Cal, and the Nixon 51-30 is incredibly popular, that's a $500 watch with a 51mm case and it's sold in surf shops. A SS Apple Watch approaching $1k is totally possible IMO.
  24. Rogifan macrumors Core


    Nov 14, 2011
    I agree with Ben Thompson. Watch is Apple's most egalitarian product to date. Whether you're spending $349 or far more you're esentially getting the same product.
  25. FrankySavvy macrumors 65816

    Mar 4, 2010
    Long Island, NY
    You are corrrect sir, I can't agree more. Why are people way overpricing this thing?

Share This Page

29 March 9, 2015