Move beyond analog watches under $10k probably yes. I don't think above $10k will be affected.
In fact, I think it may drive more people to buy such watches.
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.
The Apple Watch Looks 'Like It Was Designed By A Student'
- Thread starter SHNXX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Move beyond analog watches under $10k probably yes. I don't think above $10k will be affected.
In fact, I think it may drive more people to buy such watches.
I like the bands but the watch looks like a square jelly bean that doesn't appear to be worth more than $40 at most. The sensors must be really expensive to be charging $349.
If a product sells well as projected to its target audience then it's NOT over priced.
I think people underestimate the luxury status that the edition apple watch is going to have. Even at $1,500-2,000, which is a much lower price point than higher-end watches, it's still a device that's going to be redesigned and replaced every couple of years. I'm not saying that it will replace the higher end watches, but as far as status symbols go, wearing the latest edition will still have some impact. In other words, the lower price is going to be somewhat cancelled out by the much, much shorter refresh cycles.
Yes.
If you assume three year of usage, 3000/3=1000 per year, not accounting for resale value.
On the other hand a high end watch you can usually expect to outlast your life, at least use for 20-30 years assuming you service every five years.
Assuming 20 years and 5 year service cost of 1000, a mechanical watch that costs 1000 per year would be worth $24000.
Thus it's actually very expensive to buy even a $3000 apple watch.
Exactly.
And I fully expect a two-year refresh cycle because it's still an electronic device that needs to be updated and improved hardware wise. I also fully expect apple to subtly change the design every couple of years because, hey, it's apple. That's one of their ways of distinguishing the new one from the old, giving people the extra push to buy the latest one. I know some people who wouldn't be caught dead using a device that's not the latest and that's gonna carry on to the apple watch.
I don't deny the "18 kt" solid gold issue. However, I've read people argue that they believe the 18 kt gold "case" is going to be a very thin "case" that wraps around the watch. So the "case" can still be solid 18kt but very thin and light. Kinda like when you buy an iphone "case".. It wraps around the actual watch.
Everyone is basing their pricing on assumptions and so am I, so I'll take everyone's opinion with a grain of salt till it's actually released and torn apart to see what's what.
Huh? No. Don't be ridiculous. The casing of the watch is gold. Not "case." "Casing." Freaking tin-foil-hat-wearing crazies.
People who have had hands on time with the Watch, like John Gruber, say it's much heavier than the aluminum one and heavier than the stainless steel one. There was no question/indication it was anything other than a solid chunk of gold. It seems to me those suggesting otherwise aren't doing so from any specific knowledge, they're doing so purely based on price i.e. a thin case would be cheaper than a hunk of gold. But if it was just a thin shell over an aluminum frame would it really be that much heavier than the aluminum version?
[sarcasm]Because Apple is adding lead weights to make it seem like a lot of gold to fool people. Boy is Apple going to be surprised because I head of a new tech in which they will buy a product and tear it down. Examine the innards and report it to the world within minutes of the launch. Too bad Apple doesn't know about this because Apple is in for a big embarrassment and a huge hit in reputation/sales for being so deceitful.[/sarcasm]
We are discussing semantics over casing here.
The case should be thinner than a conventional gold watch.
Most of the inner compartments of the apple watch are filled by battery, chips, and sensors.
They also wanted to make the watch as thin as possible.
There will be enough gold there to make it significantly more heavy than steel watch.
My Patek Calatrava is a very thin watch and there is not much gold.
But it feels hefty because it is solid gold case.
Just like my watch has a relatively thin case compared to the gold Rolex submariner, the apple watch will also have a thinner casing than the sub.
This doesn't mean it's a case in the way your cell phone case is a case.
There will be solid gold and it won't be very thick (the thickest it can be is less than 12.4mm because that is the total thickness of the watxh. How thick do you expect it to be? 10mm?
The case should be thinner than a conventional gold watch.
Most of the inner compartments of the apple watch are filled by battery, chips, and sensors.
They also wanted to make the watch as thin as possible.
There will be enough gold there to make it significantly more heavy than steel watch.
My Patek Calatrava is a very thin watch and there is not much gold.
But it feels hefty because it is solid gold case.
Just like my watch has a relatively thin case compared to the gold Rolex submariner, the apple watch will also have a thinner casing than the sub.
This doesn't mean it's a case in the way your cell phone case is a case.
There will be solid gold and it won't be very thick (the thickest it can be is less than 12.4mm because that is the total thickness of the watxh. How thick do you expect it to be? 10mm?
My official guess is about 2mm and 15g to 20g, sans the band which looks to be another 5g to 8g.
I might even be willing to give it a full oz at 31.1g total.
Last edited: