They need to separate Apple Watch guts from the jewelry

[Night Spring]

This would be a user swappable design. So if you wanted to go stainless, you could pop it in... if you wanted to go to the gym and go with a sport body, you could pop it in. No pairing and unpairing to do... you are taking the intelligence into different jewelry.

I believe I do understand what you are suggesting, but to me that sounds like adding cases to a watch. For instance, to match the current pricing, the main watch "puck" could be priced at $300, and an aluminum case would be $50, and a stainless steel case would be, er, $250. To get people to pay that much for a case is going to be hard.

 

[convergent]

I believe I do understand what you are suggesting, but to me that sounds like adding cases to a watch. For instance, to match the current pricing, the main watch "puck" could be priced at $300, and an aluminum case would be $50, and a stainless steel case would be, er, $250. To get people to pay that much for a case is going to be hard.

Well they are basically paying that now, except they have no flexibility.

 

[Night Spring]

Well they are basically paying that now, except they have no flexibility.

That's true, but people aren't logical. Tell them they can get a steel watch for $200 more, and many will pay the price. Tell them you can buy a bare watch body, then add a removable steel case for $200, and many will think that $200 is too much just for a case.

Also, it occurs to me that the only reason people might want to switch cases is if they want to change colors. I mean, if you have a silver sport, what's the point of switching to silver steel? It'd look almost the same. So maybe your idea makes sense for the different aluminum colors, but not so much for switching between steel and aluminum.

 

[convergent]

That's true, but people aren't logical. Tell them they can get a steel watch for $200 more, and many will pay the price. Tell them you can buy a bare watch body, then add a removable steel case for $200, and many will think that $200 is too much just for a case.

Also, it occurs to me that the only reason people might want to switch cases is if they want to change colors. I mean, if you have a silver sport, what's the point of switching to silver steel? It'd look almost the same. So maybe your idea makes sense for the different aluminum colors, but not so much for switching between steel and aluminum.

They could still sell it as an assembled unit like they do today.

Regarding switching to aluminum, it's lighter and a slightly different look. And if they did this, I'm guessing there would be more bodies with different materials and colors.

And you could upgrade the watch itself down the road.

 

[L.C.W.]

Let's ask this:

If you could upgrade your AW to version 2 innards by sending it to Apple for a week, and the process cost a nominal $150-200, would you do it?

I for sure would... The  Watch isn't super fast... now maybe that's just the software not being yet fully optimized... but I'd pay a small fee for future proofing of hardware... even if that meant sending it in to Apple. Although a great concept, I don't think it would happen, sadly.

 

[L.C.W.]

This does not sounds like the direction Apple is heading. They want us to buy new every year or every other year.

It is the Apple way and the watch will not be an exception.

Well... it would be kinda nice if the upgrade cycle for the  Watch was more like that of the Apple TV... every 2-3 years... At least it would help tame upgrade-itis in my case

 

[sziehr]

I think this is one reason people are slower to adopt this item. I do not want to dump 700 in a watch that i will need to upgrade so soon. This is why the sport watch has sold so well. I am about to get one used so i can save even more money. I just can not justify the price for something that does not have an announced upgrade plan or path. They really need to do a trade in program.

 

[sheldomacrumors]

The initial thought of this is great but then when you start to think about it a lot of negative point do outweigh the positive.

 

[BarracksSi]

I think this is one reason people are slower to adopt this item. I do not want to dump 700 in a watch that i will need to upgrade so soon. This is why the sport watch has sold so well.

Agreed. I didn't really consider the SS model until I learned about Apple being able to replace the battery after it wore down. Once confirmed, I took the plunge; I simply liked the SS body (and sapphire face, and ceramic back) better.

My other regularly-worn watches are mechanical or solar quartz, both of which are about as maintenance-free as you could manage to get.

 

[convergent]

The initial thought of this is great but then when you start to think about it a lot of negative point do outweigh the positive.

What is the negative? My assumption is that it would not add to the weight, function, or cost of the watch.

 

[Night Spring]

What is the negative? My assumption is that it would not add to the weight, function, or cost of the watch.

On what do you base that assumption?

 

[jlczl]

Let's ask this:

If you could upgrade your AW to version 2 innards by sending it to Apple for a week, and the process cost a nominal $150-200, would you do it?

No

 

[nicho]

What is the negative? My assumption is that it would not add to the weight, function, or cost of the watch.

to add new physical constraints in there, you're most likely therefore not going to be able to add any improvements to existing features - so a "gen 2" watch won't feel any better than this one. you'd have to wait for gen 3.

you'd know everyone wants gen 3. appe would know everyone wants gen 3. who's going to spend money on a modular watch when they know for a fact the bits inside will be outdated in the near future?

 

[convergent]

On what do you base that assumption?

On the basis that its my made up scenario.

Looking at how the watch is currently made, and assuming a next generation would include some shrinking of components, I believe that Apple has the engineering capability to add a small sleeve around the "puck" that I described, and insert a locking mechanism without altering the outside dimensions of the watch. If they can't, then all of what I've described wouldn't work. So assuming they can, I think this is the direction that would greatly improve the salability of the watch. But its all speculation.

 

[loon3y]

When you able to spend $10,000 for a smart watch really does not hold value, $10,000 is probably just pocket change.
I have friend in the drought CA, their water bill is easily $3000+ per month, and they don't even blink.
Large high tech toy expense is necessary of their life style.

i haven't met anyone rich that thought 10,000 was pocket change.

whether your a millionaire (i can't say for billionaires) or an average guy, 10,000 is still 10,000.

Unless you came from old money, they know how hard it is to make that much.

Personally i haven't met too many rich people (owners, CFO, CEO, President of our customers) that spend 10,000 like it was pocket change.


Maybe those spoiled chinese kids.

 

[Themoth]

Reading a lot of threads speculating on future pricing and after having an SS AW for a couple of weeks, I have a prediction. The more people pay for the AW, the longer they are going to expect the refresh cycle to come or they will be somewhat annoyed that the value of their high end jewelry tanks. If that happens then they will exit the market on the high end.

I predict when the next generation comes, they will have the guts of the watch removable. So you would buy the body, the band, and the watch separate, or in preconfigured packages. The bands are already this way, but they need to take it a step further. Imagine if you could buy one of 4 watches today ( 38 and 42, sapphire or standard crystal) and then pop them into one of 12 bodies ( 38 and 42, silver sport, gold sport, space gray sport, stainless, black stainless, and 24k gold) and attach one of whatever bands).

This would protect the high end investment for the jewelry, and let the lifecycle of the electronics run a separate course. It would also let them efficiently create more variations of the electronics easily. The way they are currently doing this has too much risk and not enough flexibility. Look at all the threads with people trying to figure out which combo to buy. That is slowing down sales.

The biggest risk to Apple in separating the guts of the watch from the body is it might create a knock-off body market. They have a lot of profit in that piece on the watch and edition models. I'm sure they could find a way to make it difficult and unattractive... Maybe licensing or some chip in the body... Something to deter it. They won't eliminate it.

I thing this approach would boost sales and make the buying price much less challenging. Today people probably buy one and return it for a different one a lot.

Now this is not going to happen

 

[Themoth]

People buying, say, the Edition A.) have plenty of money to toss at a new Apple Watch every year or so, and B.) thrive on everyone knowing they have the latest and greatest; i.e. the thinnest new model, the one with a different polish, or diamond bezel, or whatever Apple has up its sleeve (no pun). These people are not interested in proving they have the latest internal hardware by showing off a new feature...the difference they're looking for will be visible at arm's length.

True with a lot of tech products. A lot of Apple fans have dated products, Very few update yearly