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

What Should the Watches Be Priced At? (In Your Opinion)

MICHAELSD

MICHAELSD

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jul 13, 2008
5,522
3,535
NJ
From what we have seen this would be my ideal, educated pricing breakdown:

$299 for 38mm Sport model
$349 for 42mm Sport model

$399 for 38mm Watch model
$449 for 42mm Watch model

Although in this ideal scenario, I would prefer that the Watch model comes with a choice of band rather than the huge price range. Perhaps the leather and stainless steel bands could cost $50-$100 extra respectively, but paying more for a Watch than an iPad makes no sense financially.

$1999 for 38mm Editon with leather strap
$2499 for 42mm Edition with leather strap

Rather than a huge price disparity that makes zero sense for 99.9% of consumers to purchase it, the Edition model should factor in the cost of gold with around a 50% margin after manufacturing costs. This may mean a $1000 higher price than the prices above but I believe the $1999-$2999 range is a fair price depending on the amount of gold. $9999 for an Edition with a $50 sport band is sheer madness.

I'd even venture to say that within two generations all prices above should be dropped an additional $50+.
 
Define "educated." We don't know the full cost of materials or the amount of R&D that goes into these devices. They cost half as much as an iPhone to start, which considering the amount of materials needed to make these versus the insanity of packing it all into such a small case sounds about right.

Go look at the cost of Rolex gold watches. They cost 3x more than the Edition watch. And again, THESE ARE TARGETED FOR ALMOST NOBODY WHO WOULD DARE SPEND TIME ON THESE MESSAGE BOARDS SO PEOPLE PLEASE STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE EQUIVALENT OF THE COST OF YOU RIDING TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

If you want a cheaper watch, there are a bazillion of them out there. Are they better for you than an Apple Watch? That's for everyone to decide. But as I tell everybody when they choose a product from a competing company instead of Apple after asking me about it, "Don't make me say 'I told you so.'"
 
$299 Sport 38
$349 Sport 42

$449 Watch 38
$499 watch 42

Edition wouldn't even exist. Though I'm going for the $399 Sport 42, at least the $10,000 edition is still running the same software so you are not missing out on anything short of the materials.
 
The Edition could cost $2000, $20000, or $200000... It wouldn't matter to me as Gold is not my thing.

However, I would expect an accessory to my unlocked iPhone, to cost less than my unlocked iPhone... And all of the watches (without a plastic toy band) are actually more expensive than the phone they accessorize. Doesn't that seem odd? In fact, it seems ridiculous to me that a Retina iPad is cheaper than most Apple Watch combinations, and that one made from materials befitting a watch (stainless and sapphire) and not that of an iPod Shuffle fitness band, cost almost as much as the new Retina Macbook... Which ironically is way more jewel like in its design than the watch :confused:

Anyway, it is what it is. Apple is the smartest company I know... As a shareholder, it's awesome. :) As a consumer of Apple products it's getting painful to keep up. :(
 
Last edited:
MICHAELSD said:
From what we have seen this would be my ideal, educated pricing breakdown:

$299 for 38mm Sport model
$349 for 42mm Sport model

$399 for 38mm Watch model
$449 for 42mm Watch model

Although in this ideal scenario, I would prefer that the Watch model comes with a choice of band rather than the huge price range. Perhaps the leather and stainless steel bands could cost $50-$100 extra respectively, but paying more for a Watch than an iPad makes no sense financially.

$1999 for 38mm Editon with leather strap
$2499 for 42mm Edition with leather strap

Rather than a huge price disparity that makes zero sense for 99.9% of consumers to purchase it, the Edition model should factor in the cost of gold with around a 50% margin after manufacturing costs. This may mean a $1000 higher price than the prices above but I believe the $1999-$2999 range is a fair price depending on the amount of gold. $9999 for an Edition with a $50 sport band is sheer madness.

I'd even venture to say that within two generations all prices above should be dropped an additional $50+.
Click to expand...

Your opinion on pricing would change dramatically if you were running the company.
 
There should be no sport version as it looks cheap and pushes the price of the stainless steel up. Apple wouldn't price the sport under $200. So, take the sport away and make the SS version $350 for the base. $150 for the SS strap.

This is all considering fair pricing and a generous mark up. I have an issue with companies pricing products based on prices of similar products. That's what Apple have done and then some.
 
I have a SS Tissot. Cost me over $1000. It has a rubber strap. It tells the time and has a stopwatch( that chews through the battery's!). Do I regret my purchase? No. Is the SS Apple Watch too expensive? Absolutely not.
 
Nice thread.

Apple had a chance to revolutionize the luxury watch market and missed it. Nobody in their right mind will buy a first gen :apple: Edition watch now when they can get a fine mechanical timepiece from a traditional watchmaker for the same price. This is not to say that there aren't enough mindless people around.

Reminds me of a joke:

Two newly rich Russians meet and find they're wearing the same tie: 'Oh, you have same tie like mine - where you bought? I got my in Paris - 3000 Euro' - 'Ha Ha Ha - they cheat you! I got my in Nice - 5000!'
 
In my opinion the watches are priced right. Yes, it would have been good if they were 20% cheaper but that goes for every product available to mankind.

I'm happy to pay the price for the Stainless Steel 42mm with the Link Bracelet..............cant wait to get it :)
 
Define 'should be priced at'.

For Apple to strike the best balance between volumes and profit per unit sold, it probably is priced right for the initial launch but I suspect Apple is keeping the option to slash prices by 50 to 150 dollars if sales are not as strong as they are hoping for (they did that with the iPhone).

For me to think it is the same value for my money as what I get from an iPhone: I wouldn't spend more than 200/250 on it (ie I won't be buying one).
The original iPhone was replacing my mobile, my iPod, bringign a better user experience for communication and music, and giving the best access to emails/calendar/web on a device its size ... which is why I was happy to pay the asking price. The Apple Watch is an additional expense and is basically a small additional screen for my iPhone to allow me to access its functionalities in a different way. Much lower value for money at the current asking price as far as I am concerned.
 
Last edited:
I think they're priced just right. My Breitling was c. £6,000 and it's a timeless dress watch. My Apple Watch will be used for sports, the gym and cycling. It'll do me for £300 which is considerably less.
 
MICHAELSD said:
From what we have seen this would be my ideal, educated pricing breakdown:

$299 for 38mm Sport model
$349 for 42mm Sport model

$399 for 38mm Watch model
$449 for 42mm Watch model
Click to expand...

Educated? Or personal wish?

Consider the Fitbit Surge is $249. The Garmin 620 w/o HRM is $349. The Polar V800 is $320. I could go on. All of these are similar to the Apple Watch but with much less functionality and also uglier. There are plenty more examples of such.

So I'm interested in how you conclude the Apple Watch should cost less or the same price as this category (with plastic case) or just a $50-100 uncharge for SS. Please enlighten us.
 
Won't buy one at $50 in its current form. I think they should split the watch up into 3 distinct models.
1) Fitness band ala nike fuel band with steps, distance, stairs, HR, GPS (user controlled on/off), and sleep tracking 24/7. Only requires phone for sync.
2) An apple watch with all the gimmicks
3) their wannabe jewellery watch.
 
I think the base prices of the watches are fair (See Chupa's examples above for comparison to the competition), the straps are just too expensive. In most cases, the materials/manufacturing processes used may well be "worth" their price, but I think some lower-cost options (which aren't sports rubber) would help keep the total watch costs more reasonable. Just my opinion, as always.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
Educated? Or personal wish?

Consider the Fitbit Surge is $249. The Garmin 620 w/o HRM is $349. The Polar V800 is $320. I could go on. All of these are similar to the Apple Watch but with much less functionality and also uglier. There are plenty more examples of such.

So I'm interested in how you conclude the Apple Watch should cost less or the same price as this category (with plastic case) or just a $50-100 uncharge for SS. Please enlighten us.
Click to expand...

Non of those require a $650 phone to work, offers tons of fitness features that makes the apple watch look like a glorified step counter. People who buy these aren't interested in talking through their watch or having it constantly bug you with twitter updates. They buy it for the fitness aspect.
 
Ries said:
Non of those require a $650 phone to work
Click to expand...

Apple is not aiming non iPhone users, it's aiming the ones who already have iPhone and they just happen to be hundreds of millions. Frankly, I would not spend a penny more from the current price of the Apple Watch, and I would choose it anytime over other ugly designs/cheap plastic material ones.
 
I think they are priced right. I do think the price hike for people with big wrist stinks though.
 
Ries said:
Non of those require a $650 phone to work, offers tons of fitness features that makes the apple watch look like a glorified step counter. People who buy these aren't interested in talking through their watch or having it constantly bug you with twitter updates. They buy it for the fitness aspect.
Click to expand...

Well they kinda do because to view the entire data you need the smartphone app. The watch only gives you a summary. You can also view the data online, but then you need an even more expensive computer.

The Apple Watch offers the same features (some via apps) as all of these watches and more. You need an iPhone sure, but anyone buying an Apple Watch has an iPhone so non-issue there. The point is the pricing proposed by OP is very similar to the more electronically sophisticated Apple Watch.

For the record I use a Garmin 620 w/ HRM every run so I am one of those people. I have no qualms ditching it when the Apple Watch appears IF the HRM is accurate. The Watches I listed above all either don't come with HRM (optional strap is $50-100) or the HRM is LED like the Apple Watch.
 
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