What the Apple Watch should cost

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by roland.g, May 28, 2015.

  1. roland.g macrumors 603


    Apr 11, 2005
    My opinion on pricing:

    Sport 38mm - $269
    Sport 42mm - $299

    Sport Black 38mm - $319
    Sport Black 42mm - $349

    Watch model should start with Classic Buckle as base with Sport Band available separately.

    Watch Classic Buckle 38mm - $469
    Watch Classic Buckle 42mm - $499

    Watch Modern Buckle 38mm - $599
    Watch Leather Loop 42mm - $549

    Watch Milanese Loop 38mm - $569
    Watch Milanese Loop 42mm - $599

    Watch Link Bracelet 38mm - $769
    Watch Link Bracelet 42mm - $799

    Watch Black Link Bracelet 38mm - $869
    Watch Black Link Bracelet 42mm - $899
  2. LoveToMacRumors macrumors 68020


    Feb 15, 2015
    $30 for the size difference? Impossible, apple would lose too much money because the 42mm would worth much more than the 38mm
  3. Michael CM1 macrumors 603

    Feb 4, 2008
    And you're basing these numbers on ... ?

    Apple didn't price these things arbitrarily. If you take a look at the cheaper watches, you'll usually see a pretty noticeable reason why. Loads of plastic, awful design or Super Nintendo graphics come to mind.

    Somehow people also don't notice that this is cheaper than every current generation iPhone and iPad. Smartwatches will probably never be great standalone devices because you're going to sync any data up with a phone and your screen is too small to do much of anything by itself. I can see the benefit of adding cellular and GPS to the watch down the line, but right now it starts at $350 with 18 hours of battery life and is probably about the right size.
  4. MICHAELSD macrumors 68040


    Jul 13, 2008
    Honestly when you look at the competition I believe Apple will end up dropping the price $100 within a few years.
  5. Supermallet macrumors 65816


    Sep 19, 2014
  6. Newtons Apple macrumors Core

    Newtons Apple

    Mar 12, 2014
    Jacksonville, Florida
    I trust Apple had its reasons for how it priced the watch.

    Apple seems somewhat "successful" and seems to know what they are doing!
  7. TreoRenegade macrumors regular

    Aug 7, 2008
    Some companies make good hardware. Others make good software. Precious few comprehend the value of good customer service. Apple has converted that trio into a knock-out punch re the competition. Hence, it currently reigns as the world's most monetarily valued company.

    Reminds me of Walmart, Best Buy & similar mental midgets endlessly kavetching about Amazon's "unfair advantage" sourced in no sales tax. Amazon now charges sales tax, yet remains successful. Key: customer service.

    Toss in a bit of innovation, and one better comprehends how & why some companies can viably charge top dollar, while the vast majority barely eek out a profit. Capitalism has many facets. Those who are wise learn to delve beyond the surface, and are rewarded accordingly in the marketplace.
  8. dan.synergy macrumors member


    Oct 9, 2014
    I think this is now built in to their sales model. The expectation that they will keep at least 1 gen prior for a $100 discount. Yes, its just my arbitrary opinion on this, since this is a new category.
  9. jds4300 macrumors member

    Mar 4, 2008
  10. roland.g thread starter macrumors 603


    Apr 11, 2005
    I understand that they didn't price arbitrarily. However, when I tried on the Apple Watch the Sport feels cheap in a lot of ways. Or more to the point it looks cheap. It looks like plastic. For that reason it doesn't say "$350-$400" product. The stainless steel on the other hand does feel like it is worth $600 but in my opinion, which is all any of us offer, is that it should come with the Classic Buckle, not the Sport Band because it is higher end. Originally I thought the Classic Buckle should be $549-$599, Sport Bands available separately for the SS models for $50, and adjust some of the other SS models accordingly. But I really think $500 for a SS Classic Buckle is the sweet spot in pricing for a piece of wearable tech. It is based on a rechargeable battery which has a cycle limit, it is effectively designed with planned obsolescence since tech will get faster and better and each year or every two as they decide they will update their lineup with newer models. This is not a product meant to last 5-10 years, and continue to hold a charge and function well within the ecosystem. As such, I believe the pricing needs to reflect that. Let's not kid ourselves and think that Apple is not making serious profit margins here.

    I think that while it is just a color, it comes off as looking nicer and due to demand, it could be priced slightly higher because they can. Obviously they are getting $350-$400 now and no problem getting lots of people to shell out $1,100 for the 42mm Space Black Link, so Apple is doing an excellent job of separating people from their cash. But as I said I don't think for the product lifespan expectations that it represents good value at those prices, even in Apple terms. This is not a Tag, Movado, Raymond Weil, or other timepiece that has an intrinsic collection value built in. It is tech.

    Yes they are successful. This is only my opinion. I will probably still get one and because I like nice things it will be a ridiculously priced SS Link. Verdict is still not out on that decision. But just because a lot of over eager early adopters are lining up to a buy a gen. 1 product at these prices doesn't mean that the pricing is validated or appropriate. If you pay attention to the boards, Apple is simply taking advantage of cultural realities.
  11. bbeagle macrumors 68040


    Oct 19, 2010
    Buffalo, NY
    Bad business. Apple is selling them at a rate they can't keep up with. Any businessman knows that:

    a) your product sells out. You need to make more, or your prices are too low - RAISE PRICES!
    b) your product is not selling well. LOWER THE PRICES - hopefully people will buy at a lower price.

    Apple is clearly in category 'a' right now.
    Android Wear devices are clearly in category 'b' right now.
  12. nfl46 macrumors 604


    Oct 5, 2008
    The lower the prices, the longer the wait would have been.

    If we pre-ordered on 4/10 at 3:05AMish, we would STILL be waiting on our watch if the prices were $99-$299. Could you imagine how frustrated people would be...The lower the prices, the more willing people would make an impulse buy. Heck, the wait was already long enough. Lol.
  13. Shanghaichica macrumors G4


    Apr 8, 2013
    Ok so I have the 38 mm sports watch and I think it was definitely worth the £299/£339 asking price. I would have paid a bit more for mine too. I think there is some scope to debate that price of the sports watch could have been lower, when compared to the price of android wear devices, however at the same time the build quality of the Apple watch is superior to the majority of its lower priced competitors and it is more functional so I think it justifies the higher price. However when you move onto the watch and edition models I don't think you can argue that they should be cheaper. You get what you pay for.
  14. Itsedstech macrumors 6502a

    Jul 24, 2011
    The cost should have been what they sell them to apple employees for.
  15. ditzy macrumors 68000


    Sep 28, 2007
    It could reasonably argued that as they can't make them fast enough at the moment, that they are actually underpriced.
  16. speedbumpnv macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2007
    The starting price of $350/$400 is reasonable for a gadget of this caliber. For all the other models above the sport, you are paying for the "luxury" and not the function.

    Considering you pay a few $100s for a decent mass produced mechanical/quartz watch and then a $100s more for a phone-paired fitness tracker-type device, you pretty much end up at the Sport's price point. But a $200+ premium to jump to a SS? That seems a bit excessive for just a materials cost.

    The Watch is an accessory for the iPhone. In my opinion, the accessory should not cost more than the device its meant to serve.
  17. za9ra22 macrumors 6502a

    Sep 25, 2003
    It doesn't - the watch costs $349/$399. It's the extra bling of stainless steel or gold for the fashion-conscious that costs the extra money.
  18. JoEw macrumors 68000


    Nov 29, 2009
    I own a sport, it does not feel "cheap" by any means.

    However, I don't think the functionality is valuable enough yet to justify 550-600 dollar range or the 10,000 clearly judging by the split 80% sport, 20% edition/stainless most people agree.

    Doesn't justify lowering the price, by that logic Apple would lower the price on macs, because PC's are way cheaper.
  19. BillyTrimble macrumors 6502a

    Sep 20, 2013
    By now, everyone knows you. You hate the watch. You have made a career out of bashing it at every opportunity. It's quite obvious why you are still here. 99% of rational human beings would have moved on by now. But please feel free to continue on your crusade. I'm sure most are now having a good chuckle at every one of your posts.
  20. macduke macrumors G4


    Jun 27, 2007
    Central U.S.
    Apple should sell a version without a band for cheaper. Especially when third party bands come onto the market, or at least for future generations when people already own several bands.
  21. foxkoneko macrumors 6502

    Sep 5, 2011
    the prices are fine. Apple is positioning themselves well again in the watch business. It's going to be a race to the bottom again with the android crap watches :p
  22. gsmornot macrumors 68030


    Sep 29, 2014
    My sport does not feel cheap to me either. So far, everyone that has seen it has liked what it was. They are not paying attention to the case or color so much as the display anyhow. The finish is more or less for you to enjoy. I would be happy with the stainless and most likely will go that route next time not that I know how much I enjoy my watch but it not because I think the sport is cheap. I would do it just for the ease of matching bands to the watch. Everything goes with the stainless like blue jeans go with everything.
  23. Newtons Apple macrumors Core

    Newtons Apple

    Mar 12, 2014
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Explain why you think that:rolleyes:


    It looks like he is not the only one on a "crusade"!
  24. exxxviii macrumors 65816


    May 20, 2015
    I am guessing there will be a price cut of some type. It is not without precedent for Apple: they cut the original iPhone by $200 and offered recent buyers a $200 price protection refund followed by a $100 coupon to everyone else. I bet apple figured out very early on that they would not achieve phone world domination at that original price point.

    I have been buying smart watches since 2007 when I got a Garmin 305. At the time, the watch was a whopping $300, today's equivalent watch is $500. To me, that is way overpriced, but I am an athlete, and this is a specialized tool that I need for effective training. Garmin's Fenix 3 which roughly compares to the AW sport is a whopping $500 without HRM, and the Fenix 3 Saphire, which matches up to the AW Stainless is $600.

    Apple is roughly priced to align with the Garmin watches, but the problem is that the Garmin serves a very narrow market that has a high willingness to pay. If Apple wants to attract a broader market, beyond the enthusiasts willing to wake up at 12:01 AM to pre-order a watch, it will have to lower prices.

    I don't think that it will be a $200 cut, or something even and across-the-board. But I bet they lower the difference between the SS and sport watches or they offer the base SS with a better band than the sport band. Similarly, I would not be surprised if they cut the premium pricing of the SS stainless bands substantially. And I would not be surprised if they narrow the price difference between the 38mm and 42mm watches.

    I think they need to get the sport-- both sizes-- below $300 to sustain the sales velocity. And the stainless watches probably need to top out in the $700 - $800 range to be a sustainable product.
  25. IllusionEntity macrumors 6502


    Jun 23, 2013
    Kent, UK

    Have you emailed Tim yet? Although I doubt he would care. Most of us bought one anyway.

Share This Page

54 May 28, 2015