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

Obsolete in one year.

T

therezman

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 27, 2014
1
0
There have been rumors circulating that Apple Watch Edition will go for anywhere from $5k-$20k based on which rumors you believe.

The number one complaint I hear from almost every single person is "A Rolex lasts 50 years, but Apple Watch will be obsolete in one year." So why would anyone spend $20k on a watch that will be outdated in one year?

But I'm super perplexed by the fact that everyone seems to be ignoring the obvious: you can trade up.

If a new Apple Watch comes out in one year, wouldn't the marginal cost of upgrading be relatively tiny once you trade/sell your old model?

Also, Apple is clearly not stupid. I'm sure they will have some kind of upgrade plan for edition users.

To think that we have all outsmarted Apple by discovering this perceived flaw, is erroneous.
 
Obsolete: hardly.

Replaced by a newer model: guaranteed.

How is this different than any tech product? It comes with the territory and IMO does not represent a valid concern.
 
iPhone users I think mostly upgrade every 1-2 years.
iPad is more like 2-4 years...
I think Apple Watch will be like 3-5 years.
It is much more lightweight in processor demand due to its functions. As long as you can live without apps that take advantage of any added sensors for a few generations... I don't feel like new OS versions won't have the same "slow down" effect that iOS updates currently do on 3-5 year old products in those categories.
 
Let's just get one thing straight. The edition version is going to be around 1k plus straps which might be a few extra 100.

This talk of 20k is just speculation and click bait for the rest of us.

----------

Actually. I'm looking forward to the flood of geek watches that will hit this forum release day. Lol
 
Donoban said:
Let's just get one thing straight. The edition version is going to be around 1k plus straps which might be a few extra 100.

This talk of 20k is just speculation and click bait for the rest of us.[
Click to expand...

The gold in the watch is worth more than that.
 
dylman said:
The gold in the watch is worth more than that.
Click to expand...

If my 3D model is correct, and I can't see it's a million miles out.
I would agree with you.

It COULD be $1000 of gold raw value in there, but that would mean cutting it very fine in places.

1mm wall thickness over most of it, with a little bit thicker in some corners (as it would be hard to get cutting tools in some deep pockets)
We'd be looking at around the $1200 just for the Gold.

You could cut this down to $1000 at a push, or perhaps up to $2000 if it was a lot thicker in some areas.

Here is the case wall thickness, as it would look, in reality and to scale, with the 1mm approx. in most areas wall thickness (which my guessing felt did not look a million miles off)

2n695so.jpg


16ateyp.jpg
 
Piggie said:
If my 3D model is correct, and I can't see it's a million miles out.
I would agree with you.

It COULD be $1000 of gold raw value in there, but that would mean cutting it very fine in places.

1mm wall thickness over most of it, with a little bit thicker in some corners (as it would be hard to get cutting tools in some deep pockets)
We'd be looking at around the $1200 just for the Gold.

You could cut this down to $1000 at a push, or perhaps up to $2000 if it was a lot thicker in some areas.

Here is the case wall thickness, as it would look, in reality and to scale, with the 1mm approx. in most areas wall thickness (which my guessing felt did not look a million miles off)

Image

Image
Click to expand...

Good work!
 
dylman said:
The gold in the watch is worth more than that.
Click to expand...

I'm putting it out there that it's going to be some gold alloy that looks great but also will not be a bank account buster.

I mean really, 20k for a smart watch in 2015? Maybe if it projected a hologram...of a virtual girlfriend ala Archer.... but yeah, no way will it be that much.

latest
 
therezman said:
To think that we have all outsmarted Apple by discovering this perceived flaw, is erroneous.
Click to expand...

To rational people yes. 100% correct. To the arrogant couch surfers making the brilliant "discovery" we are a morons for not accepting their superior intelligence and believing the collective Apple Brain Trust probably considered such "unfathomable" details when mapping out the Apple Watch marketing program. We are suppose to believe a false notion that Apple is a relatively new company with zero executive experience reinventing brands or launching new products or product categories.
 
I will say the same here as I have said to people in real life.

The real cost of an object, it really the "cost of ownership"

It would be like saying OMG I took $1000 to the bank and all I bought for that was a little paper book with some writing in it that said $1000.

That's a rip off, such an expensive book.
No it's not an expensive book.

Yes, it cost you $1000 to get that book.
But you can take the book back, and get your $1000 back in exchange for the book.

So that book (cost of ownership) was nothing.

Yes, we can buy any of the Apple watches the moment it's launched, and then buy the new model, if it's launched, next year.

It's how much we can get for the old model which is how much it cost us.

Which model will depreciate the fastest would be a good question.
 
Donoban said:
I'm putting it out there that it's going to be some gold alloy that looks great but also will not be a bank account buster.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a gold alloy, but it is 18k gold, which means it has to be a certain percent gold. I think it is 75%, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, estimates of the value of the gold in the watch is based on it being an 18k gold alloy. So no, those estimates can't be that much off because Apple is using some special alloy with less gold. Again, if it used less gold, Apple couldn't call it 18k gold.
 
Piggie said:
I will say the same here as I have said to people in real life.

The real cost of an object, it really the "cost of ownership"

It would be like saying OMG I took $1000 to the bank and all I bought for that was a little paper book with some writing in it that said $1000.

That's a rip off, such an expensive book.
No it's not an expensive book.

Yes, it cost you $1000 to get that book.
But you can take the book back, and get your $1000 back in exchange for the book.

So that book (cost of ownership) was nothing.

Yes, we can buy any of the Apple watches the moment it's launched, and then buy the new model, if it's launched, next year.

It's how much we can get for the old model which is how much it cost us.

Which model will depreciate the fastest would be a good question.
Click to expand...

I can't see a big market for a used $1,000+ gold iWatch. The wealthy folks who could afford them would probably be only interested in a new watch.

And who would want a watch that has a weaker one-year old battery that may have to be charged twice a day, limited fitness functionality, and starts suffering from poor performance with the addition of more demanding apps and O/S functionality.

Now there may be a few folks who may want to buy a used one just to appear wealthy, even if they have to charge it each time they go out in public.
 
VFC said:
I can't see a big market for a used $1,000+ gold iWatch. The wealthy folks who could afford them would probably be only interested in a new watch.

And who would want a watch that has a weaker one-year old battery that may have to be charged twice a day, limited fitness functionality, and starts suffering from poor performance with the addition of more demanding apps and O/S functionality.

Now there may be a few folks who may want to buy a used one just to appear wealthy, even if they have to charge it each time they go out in public.
Click to expand...

Generally you seem to lose the least money thru ownership by buying the lowest model.

I believe people found with iPad's it was far easier to recoup much more their initial purchase price with a 16GB wifi model, than the 64GB 3G Model.

There will be more people who just want a watch for the lowest possible price, so if you buy for say $349 you could probably sell for $299 even for some time. (I'm guessing there)

If you buy a model that costs say $1499, it would probably be harder to sell it for $1449
 
8CoreWhore said:
They'll be upgradable.
Click to expand...

That's a bold statement :)

Something that's been speculated for some time.

Mostly people are speculating the gold model will be, but others not.
However, then that also would suggest the construction method of the gold version is different to stop those with the sports model from being able to upgrade.

I will admit, I'm not convinced of this.
Trade in yes, reparable yes. Upgradable.....

hmmmm, that's tricky for a variety of reasons that we've all discussed many times over.
 
8CoreWhore said:
They'll be upgradable.
Click to expand...

I know there's been some conversations and postulations that the phone will be upgradeable. This goes against nearly every other product Apple sells. They're moving to a more locked down set of products, so its counter what they've been doing.
 
The biggest problem, and one I would not to get stuck buy, and I'm sure Apple has felt the same in the past.

If TODAY you make a watch, and think, I'll make it upgradable, and you publicly say Yes everyone it will be upgradable every year.

then 6 or 8 months down the line, some new battery, display or even waterproofing method comes along, as companies are developing and releasing new technologies all the time.

You are going to be in the position of not being able to use this, or not as well as you like as you have to make it fit into your old design, meaning it's not as good as it could of been had you been able to start with a clean sheet of paper.

Look how Apple have changed the iPhone's and iPad's bulk over time, be taking advantage of new improved tech they can use within, hence they could change the overall design to best take advantage.

You can do it yet, but you do tie your hands, and end up with worse products than if you were able to start from scratch each time.
 
Apple has a lot riding on this product. They're highly skilled technically, terrific at styling and brilliant at marketing. I expect this watch will be excellent.

Fortunately they now have Tim Cook at the helm, a highly intelligent, experienced man of strength, common sense and wisdom. He's not about to over hype this product like his predecessor was bent on doing whenever he took the podium. As a result people will have reasonable expectations which will serve Apple well.

Being a smartwatch it's state of the art features will be trumped by the second generation watch a mere 11 or 12 months later. Yet it'll still be as good as day one in performing as it was designed to do. So yes, technically it'll be obsolete especially in Apple's world where we are all influenced to buy the latest like we do or don't do with the iPhone.

Personally I think it's too much of a gamble. I'm going to wait comfortably for the second generation. Being a new category of device for Apple, no matter how well they researched the market and features to include, I feel their may be a very big improvement in the second one after seeing how people are using the original as well as learning from all the bugs that are bound to plague the first gen model.
 
Night Spring said:
Yes, it is a gold alloy, but it is 18k gold, which means it has to be a certain percent gold. I think it is 75%, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, estimates of the value of the gold in the watch is based on it being an 18k gold alloy. So no, those estimates can't be that much off because Apple is using some special alloy with less gold. Again, if it used less gold, Apple couldn't call it 18k gold.
Click to expand...

You are correct.

24 karat gold is 99.95% - 100% gold, so 18 kt gold is:

18/24 = 3/4 = 75% gold.

Note that karat (purity) is different from carat (mass). One carat is 200mg of gemstone or pearl.

So you might buy a 1/2 carat diamond set in a 14 kt gold ring.
 
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