Sport Bands come in 3 pieces and one is just waste

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Pupi, Apr 13, 2015.

  1. Pupi macrumors regular


    Apr 12, 2015
    Doesn't this sound incredibly wrong? I mean, especially considering they are $50 a pop, but also factoring in the actual ecological waste. 1 million Watch Sport sold will equal = 1 million wasteful plastic straps. Plus all the extra Sport Bands sold.

    Separate S/M and M/L SKUs (at $40) or even, god forbid, throwing in 2 complete sets so that the swaparoo would be possible seem like a much more responsible idea, imo.
  2. rhyme macrumors regular


    Sep 22, 2013
    Half a watch band is just a tiny part of the wasted materials in the packaging. I'd worrying about the packaging first.
  3. papa8706, Apr 14, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2015

    papa8706 macrumors 6502a

    Apr 24, 2010
    It costs them peanuts. Selling rubber labeled at $50 under a fancy term "fluoroelastomer" is Apple at it's finest. That being said I still bought one lol

    Also, as stated above Apple's packaging is always quality. It would probably cost them more to sell a packaged S/M and M/L version of the watch than it would be to just give a separate attachment
  4. sinar macrumors regular

    Oct 11, 2007
    It might not end up being a waste if you go on to sell or give away your watch, and the new owner has a different wrist size, and uses the unused part
  5. Pupi thread starter macrumors regular


    Apr 12, 2015
    Fair point, but the packaging ends up being a bit of a necessary evil, while the strap is just free waste.

    I guess though, non-hypocritically, what bothers me the most about it is the fact that you pay $50 to have a 2-piece plastic band on your wrist, and you get 50% more for "free" to dispose of, as in "our margins are through the damn roof and the actual band costs pennies to produce". Not news but a bit too in your face, that's all.
  6. MeFromHere macrumors 6502

    Oct 11, 2012
    You need to add up ALL the costs of keeping 2 separate sizes of each color of band in the whole supply chain, from factory to retail store. Don't forget that every retailer will need twice as many pegs to hang them on (if they want to keep every band in stock). Add in the lost opportunity cost of the OTHER items the retailer would have had space to sell, if they weren't selling twice as many different sport band SKUs. Add in the cost of the uncertainty about which band size will be most popular -- if you're not sure, you have to make too many of one size if you hope to have just enough of the other size. (What will eventually happen to all the excess of the size you made too many of?) Add in the cost of the confusion and dissatisfaction of customers who aren't sure which size to buy, or who make an extra trip to the store to exchange for the other size. (Any bands returned by a customer will almost certainly be thrown away; they aren't worth the cost of cleaning and repackaging that would be required to sell them as refurbished.) Add in the cost of the extra staff time required to help those confused customers, or the cost of the unhappy customers who have to wait longer because the staff is busier than ever.

    Against all of the above considerations (and probably more), compare the cost of using a little more raw material and putting both sizes in each package.

    Apple only sells something if the margin is high enough to make it worth their trouble. Have you noticed that Apple retail stores sell almost nothing that costs less than $19 or $29? It's not because they couldn't sell a $5 item profitably, it's because the $5 item would replace something more profitable or more popular, and they only have a fixed amount of space. What if it turned out that a single-size sport band needed a retail price of $39 (certainly not $25!) to justify its space in the store, and to offset all the extra cost in my guess-list above? Wah! Apple is ripping us off!

    Apple has done the calculation, and they think they chose the better way. Sorry to be blunt, but I trust their judgement more than yours. But you can prove Apple wrong -- all you have to do is offer bands packaged the way you say Apple should have done it. You have to meet demand at least as well as Apple does. And you have to make enough profit to remain in business.
  7. Pupi thread starter macrumors regular


    Apr 12, 2015
    For the record, I am not saying that Apple didn't make the best business decision. As a company, it is their responsibility to increase their producer surplus as it is the consumers' to increase their own.

    Mind, that double the SKUs don't mean double the volume, as it would be split amongst sizes. Yes, the practicality of "one size fits all" would be lost, but then again, that's a common thing. The product itself is already split among tens of SKUs, not all will fit all consumers. And they could keep the "one size fits all" in a less wasteful, more consumer friendly way, by including both complete sizes. But I'm just dreaming aloud ;)

    Lighten up m8.
  8. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Nov 7, 2007
    New Sanfrakota
    You're forgetting that it likely costs Apple under $2 to manufacture a Sport band. They're doing this to cut the SKUs in half than if they were to box S/M and M/L separately. Rubber bands cost next to nothing to make.
  9. VSMacOne macrumors 601


    Oct 18, 2008
    It would really limit the ability to resell the Watch if they only included one.
  10. NavySEAL6 macrumors 6502a

    Dec 13, 2006
    They should allow you to return the band that you don't need for a small credit ($25?)

    Then they can brag about how they're saving the environment, they can refurbish and resell, and you can get another color for $25 which is still above their cost.
  11. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Nov 7, 2007
    New Sanfrakota
    The Sport band is a three piece. 1/3rd of $49 is most certainly not $25.

    Remember it likely costs Apple under $2 to make the three pieces and they're charging a huge markup for it so they most certainly don't care about its value to you.
  12. Bryan Bowler macrumors 68040

    Sep 27, 2008
    Apple is using less waste by doing this. For starters, if you packaged them separately, there would be twice the amount of packaging, more boxes to ship (which would use more carbon emissions), and a lot of folks would decided after the fact that they preferred a different size, which would generate a lot of returns and even more waste.

    The Sport Band will be the most used band and Apple did the right thing by packaging it the way they did. They are a very smart company that is very environmentally conscious. They carefully consider all of these variables when designing and distributing a product. Trust me, they put a lot of effort into this area.
  13. refslady macrumors regular

    Sep 10, 2014
    Thawing North
    The extra piece can also be kept by the purchaser and used when/if there is a significant change in wrist size. You know, from all that weight loss after using the fitness apps and running with your Watch. :rolleyes:
  14. question fear macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Apr 10, 2003
    The "Garden" state
    I don't know if I would call it a waste, but it is a bit odd. They could have done what Fitbit does-they ship two bands with each Flex (sm/lg) and then the additional bands are sold according to size.

    For the Charge and the Surge, which don't have removable bands, they have a measuring strip you can print and wrap around your wrist to determine sizing.
  15. Armen macrumors 604


    Apr 30, 2013
    Apple is in business to make money not give away free bands with every watch you can trade with your friends.
  16. noobinator macrumors 603


    Jun 19, 2009
    Pasadena, CA
    Get fat or skinny then use the other one.

    and they cost pennies to make so no big deal.

Share This Page