it's priced in the same realm of other stainless steel bands. I think you're more used to buying nickel
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Seriously? $449 for a watch band. Is Apple crazy???
- Thread starter AppleFan360
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
it's priced in the same realm of other stainless steel bands. I think you're more used to buying nickel
But then, you can always opt-out and buy the car with cheap fluoroelastomer wheels
I'm thinking it's more about scale and the volume they are projecting. If the watch takes off prices could fall (I said could!). Look at the glass panels and sim tray on the iPhone 5. The fit is pretty good. How many of those did they make?
The link bracelet at first glance seems overpriced when compared with similar 316L link bands that can retail for about $200 or so. At closer glance, the button removable links, flush butterfly clasp, custom CNC cut links, and hand brushed exterior bring the finish of this link bracelet up to high end link bracelet territory of similar luxury brands. Nobody else makes a link bracelet like the Apple version and I think the cost of the metallurgy, finish, and design pretty much make the bulk of the cost of the link bracelet. It may be worth the cost to some people but I think a lot of smart watch consumers will balk at the pricing of this option just because smart watches are typically less than $350. I think it would take seeing the link bracelet in person as well as feeling the link bracelet to determine if it's really worth it. The website photos look good but it's not feel-o-vision. The one thing I would hate is to purchase the link bracelet only for it to feel as cheap as a $200 316L link bracelet. Anyone know what kind of coating is the space black coating?
It would be good to know more about this DLC coating. If it added durability to the 316L, that would be great but if it's a cheaper process that will end up scraping off, pitting, or corroding, that would make me rethink the space black model. There is so much we don't know about the watches yet.
To me this reeks of elitism. Why, as a business with a VERY LARGE consumer base, would Apple price themselves out of the ballpark for a large percentage of this customer base? Remember, this is a base of customers where I recall nearly 40% said they would buy an Apple watch at a minimum of $349 before any real details about it were out. I get it about making a quality product and Apple has always done that. The Apple die hard faithful have always appreciated it and in most cases paid the price for that quality.
I just can't help but think that there is a loss of focus here. Had they made some changes and maybe not gone so hardcore they would sell more watches and make up for the lower cost with the actual number of watches sold.
Me personally? I am disappointed but mostly because I have a skin allergy to leather and rubber wristbands so I need a metal bracelet. I would have shelled out $400 or even $500 for a watch but that's about it for my budget. So it looks like I am going to have to reluctantly pass here.
That's my 2 cents and we all know what that's worth.
I just can't help but think that there is a loss of focus here. Had they made some changes and maybe not gone so hardcore they would sell more watches and make up for the lower cost with the actual number of watches sold.
Me personally? I am disappointed but mostly because I have a skin allergy to leather and rubber wristbands so I need a metal bracelet. I would have shelled out $400 or even $500 for a watch but that's about it for my budget. So it looks like I am going to have to reluctantly pass here.
That's my 2 cents and we all know what that's worth.
It may be pricey, but I like it and will spring for it. The 42mm space black ss model is mine. I'll forget the "black tax" as soon as it is on my wrist. This is not an investment, it is a consumable device I'll enjoy for a few years. Then it will be in a drawer when version 2 or 3 is out. 
There is a major difference between those watches and the
Watch. Those watches will probably last at least a decade before the owner will consider replacing it. Even if the owner does replace them, that older watch will probably continue to keep working and therefore that owner will keep that watch around and wear it from time to time.
If that watch breaks, it can easily be repaired. On every watch today, you can take the back off and fix the internals.
I still have my Bouliva Watch my parents got me for my high school graduation. I still wear it from time to time (a little over a decade ago).
By contrast, the
watch will last at most a single year. Next year, there will be an even better Watch, with useful features the current generation watch does not have. The new Watch will probably have things like better battery life and a facetime camera. So therefore, you will likely replace this generation watch in a year. Furthermore, this watch, like every new Apple product being released, is barely serviceable. Even the battery cannot be replaced. If anything breaks, the watch has to be completely replaced. So the lifespan of this watch is very low.
Apple cannot justify these prices with the kind of product they are releasing. For starters, any watch which costs about 350 should have a leather strap or a chain band. Not this rubber strap Apple is pushing.
Last edited:
The fact that the band is on a sport watch that will only be relevant for a year or two does not change the fact that .....
The link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. In part thats because they arent simply a uniform size, but subtly increase in width as they approach the case. Once assembled, the links are brushed by hand to ensure that the texture follows the contours of the design. The custom butterfly closure folds neatly within the bracelet. And several links feature a simple release button, so you can add and remove links without any special tools.
If its out of your price range or what you deem as "reasonably priced" then don't buy it. But based on the above it's probably priced accurately, whether you like it or not.
The link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. In part thats because they arent simply a uniform size, but subtly increase in width as they approach the case. Once assembled, the links are brushed by hand to ensure that the texture follows the contours of the design. The custom butterfly closure folds neatly within the bracelet. And several links feature a simple release button, so you can add and remove links without any special tools.
If its out of your price range or what you deem as "reasonably priced" then don't buy it. But based on the above it's probably priced accurately, whether you like it or not.
Apple just isn't in the game of making low quality items, and cheap bracelets usually aren't great. The good thing is that there will surely be zillions of 3rd party options available, so you'll be able to find something. I'm probably getting the Milanese bracelet, which is considerably less expensive than the links bracelet.
So you are driving a Toyota and you say is Porsche crazy?
Doubt there will be the same amount of difference
I agree, but with a caveat. Any value-conscious buyer (at any income level) should want to know that a band purchased now will be compatible with future versions of the Apple Watch. If not, then Apple's fine workmanship soon will be sitting in the back of a drawer, and no one should want to pay for that.
Apple isn't going to admit that yet and hamstring themselves into designing future watches around an existing accessory (the current bands). Ive wants the freedom to start from scratch if need be, and not be hindered in keeping the existing bands if they don't fit his upcoming designs. If, and that's a big if, Apple allows the current bands to work for more than one generation Apple watch, I see it as one more generation, max. Kind of how they do the existing iPhone. Get maximum ROI out of the manufacturing/machining set up for 2 generations of product, then dump it for another.
I, of course, have no idea, but, Apple seems to be interested in making something iconic and relatable to watch people, and the general design of most iconic watches stays pretty similar for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if the Apple Watch had the same design for a few years, with just updated internals and improved battery life, and, after that, I'd guess that they'll keep the current design and add another.
If they are smart and, as you said, try to follow the patterns of the most successful watch companies, then yes, I agree. Keeping watch designs relatively static for decades is what has helped to make Rolex so successful and kept their secondary market (used) prices so high. And conversely, it's the same reason modern day Omega watches lose so much value after purchase...they are constantly innovating and changing styles/adding models, but they don't leave anything alone long enough. So the value drops because people know it'll look or be "dated" in a few short years.
So Apple would be wise to watch what Rolex, AP, PP have done.
I recognize the issue you mention (although it need not exist with a watch band in the same way it would with other fitted accessories since a watch band could attach to (for example) a much thinner watch of the same general shape). Absent such a guarantee, though, people have much less incentive to spend significant money on a band for this watch than they would for a traditional watch.
Accordingly, this may be a case where some degree of hamstringing is worthwhile. If people knew that whatever bands they purchased would be future-compatible (at least for a couple of generations), I could see them buying multiple bands or investing more money in one high-end band they really wanted. Otherwise, such behavior makes little economic sense.
Omega is inline with Rolex in that regard since the beginning of the millennium, but, from the mid 70s through the 90s, I'd agree. That's when Omega lost much of its cachet, which they built back up in the last 15 years. Rolex's move to maxi cases and ceramic bezels over the last decade is no worse than what Omega has done in the same time period. Both have introduced case changes for the worse, IMO.
There is a major difference between those watches and the
Even if the owner does replace them, that older watch will probably continue to keep working and therefore that owner will keep that watch around and wear it from time to time.
It's still an item of technology. I fully expect that the bands will be compatible with future models. So in 3 years if you want to update the watch, you can buy the base stainless steel model and reuse your stainless steel link band.
----------
I look at it more like the 30-pin port or Lightning port. I think the hinge will last a few generations, not just 1 or 2. Eventually they will change it, to much consternation, but there's no reason why they couldn't make changes to the watch body while leaving the connection mechanism for the bands the same.
I'm just saying I don't think Apple is going to give any kind of indication as to how long they are going to use it. We can assume, but they/Ive wants the freedom to change it any time they deem necessary.
This strap is made from 316L stainless steel alloy and there is no justification for its price tag other than the fact it has been marked up in price because it's sold under Apple's trademark. I regularly purchase straps from 'Strapcode' and they sell very good quality watch bracelets of the same quality and for s fraction of the price. They are regularly reviewed in the watch communities and are known for their quality. They are unbranded therefore can't demand $449 because they have Apple laser etched onto them.
Sure you can pay £2500 for a Rolex oyster bracelet, but it's gained its place in the prestige watch industry over decades. Apple can't really expect to compete at the mid range level with their first attempt IMO. To put it into perspective for myself, I can purchase 2 Seiko SKX007J's for the price of this one strap and that is one hell of a good watch that offers value and quality. If others can justify it then I can't fault it but I think it's brand before justification.
Sure you can pay £2500 for a Rolex oyster bracelet, but it's gained its place in the prestige watch industry over decades. Apple can't really expect to compete at the mid range level with their first attempt IMO. To put it into perspective for myself, I can purchase 2 Seiko SKX007J's for the price of this one strap and that is one hell of a good watch that offers value and quality. If others can justify it then I can't fault it but I think it's brand before justification.
One thing I will add though I think the iWatch will be good for the watch industry as a whole because it is putting wrist wearables back in the mainstream and will encourage people to check out all watches. I don't need a smart watch myself because I have a good collection of mechanical watches but for those people who don't wear one and enjoy their gadgets, this will grudge the gap nicely.
The SKX007 is a great watch, and a bit of an outlier in terms of performance vs. value, because it is so good for the money, but the native bracelet on it is not very good. The first thing I did with mine was replace it with a Super Oyster, which is also fantastic for the money, but still not at the build quality of a high end bracelet. From everything I've seen and read, the Apple bracelet really competes at the high end of quality bracelets in fit and finish, but, not being made in Switzerland, it's considerably less expensive.