What the Apple Watch should cost

[JPIndustrie]

I understand that they didn't price arbitrarily. However, when I tried on the Apple Watch the Sport feels cheap...etc

Wait, so you understand that but yet you still explain why your arbitrary pricing is different? Are we to believe you have some sort of knowledge that the whole (market cap: $700B) Apple company does not? You have to be kidding me. The 42 mm Stainless steel watch w/ Black sports band costs $599 because Apple has decided it is $599. Either pay it or go home.

 

[placidity44]

This is a capitalistic country. Apple can and should charge whatever they see fit for their products.

 

[JPIndustrie]

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.

Nope, strictly a result of the business state in 2007 in regards to mobility and cellular service of the time. Apple is still making their, what was it, $599/699 from each device today - the carriers are just willing to do the discounting game now starting in 2008 with the iPhone 3G. The $100 rebate was a small goodwill gesture by Apple itself that they could easily afford at the time...

No doubt Apple could sell those phones at those prices and still achieve domination, people pay those prices even today.

I expect the watch to remain like the iPad, it will hold at it's current price point. This isn't a junk plastic mini android phone without the GSM Radio with a crabby leather bands sticking out, this is an watch.

 

[exxxviii]

I expect the watch to remain like the iPad, it will hold at it's current price point. This isn't a junk plastic mini android phone without the GSM Radio with a crabby leather bands sticking out, this is an watch.

Apple methodically priced the original iPhones, and a few months later they realized they goofed up by $200. They corrected the pricing mistake, sales took off, and the rest is history. The iPad was received as a very good value at its introduction. My hunch is that only the first few million enthusiasts have the willingness to pay for an Apple Watch at this price point.

No one else I know wants to buy an Apple watch. They are intrigued, but no one is interested. If Apple has plans to sell 10s of millions of these watches, they will have to unearth a ton more enthusiasts or they will have to lower prices. Or both.

 

[Itsedstech]

Explain why you think that

----------



It looks like he is not the only one on a "crusade"!

because who doesnt love cheaper things? lol

 

[redman042]

Those prices are not what the watches "should" cost. They are what you WANT them to cost.

Apple is a business. From my standpoint (as a shareholder), they are doing exactly the right thing, including how they price their products. Sure as a consumer I'd love to pay less, but Apple charges more and still struggles to keep up with demand, despite having massive manufacturing capacity at their fingertips. They may be sitting on gobs of cash as a result of the profits, but this gives them the power to weather any storm, fight off intense competition without "rushing" products out the door, and to continue making exactly the kinds of products they want, while doing audacious things like milling casings out of single billets of aluminum and providing the best customer service in the business.

----------

No one else I know wants to buy an Apple watch. They are intrigued, but no one is interested. If Apple has plans to sell 10s of millions of these watches, they will have to unearth a ton more enthusiasts or they will have to lower prices. Or both.

They will unearth a ton more enthusiasts by staying the course, steadily improving the product, and waiting patiently while word of mouth spreads. That's what they did with the iPad. It worked out for them fine.

They may end up dropping the Gen 1 watch by $100 when the Gen 2 comes out, and winning new customers that way, but I don't see them just cutting prices. I don't think they'll need to.

 

[Newtons Apple]

because who doesnt love cheaper things? lol

Plenty of cheaper choices out there. Apple has never been one of them.

 

[JoeG4]

Speaking hypothetically, in a form of "without considering costs or marketing or R&D or anything else"

Sport models: $150
SS models: $250-300
edition: Don't care.

We could argue about how Apple doesn't need to do that because they're already sold the F out, and how they could charge more and still be sold out. Yeah, whatever. In 3 years time I would hope the pricing goes this route.

Then again, they still charge an arm and a leg for their smartphones.. their computers have gotten much cheaper though.

That said, $300 for the aluminum watch and $500 for the stainless steel one isn't that horrible - it goes along the same lines as the iPod Mini and Classic used to.

But the whole "you have to pay another $150 for a band that isn't a cheap piece of rubber" thing is silly. Meh. whatever. The fashion stuff is stupid. I really dislike it, and I really dislike the fashionista trend this forum has suddenly taken up. It's starting to sound like how /r/malefashionadvice threads would randomly show up on reddit. *shudder*

Don't tell me we're going to start talking about wearing skinny-pants suits, clarks dessert boots, and those hideous hand-made canvas bags with the leather strap-down top now.

 

[cdm283813]

Apple should have released one model at 42mm costing no more than $250. The stainless steel, Edition and 38mm should have been added in the later years to increase sales once it dies down (i.e. white iPhone, gold iPhone and iPhone plus) and sales will die down (iPad anyone?).
After the buzz wears off these watches will lose so much value the closer you get to a refresh. Who is stupid enough to buy a 42mm Apple watch sport for lets say $300 when you can get a Gen 2 with new band, fresh warranty and is scratch free for $100 more? And one that was not sweated on during workouts. Yuk. The watch would have to be $150 to $200 before I would even consider it.
And a year from now would you rather own a new second gen sport or a used scratched up Stainless steel model? You will have to take a lost that could approach 50% of the original value if you're trying to sale to upgrade.
I can see people with multiple phones; I got 3 right now but I use one primarily as a GPS unit for my motorcycle. But I can't see owning 2 watches that will run the same OS. So that's why sales will never approach what you're seeing today due to people keeping their watches longer. Thus the price cut that we will eventually see.

 

[cdm283813]

Apple methodically priced the original iPhones, and a few months later they realized they goofed up by $200. They corrected the pricing mistake, sales took off, and the rest is history. The iPad was received as a very good value at its introduction. My hunch is that only the first few million enthusiasts have the willingness to pay for an Apple Watch at this price point.

No one else I know wants to buy an Apple watch. They are intrigued, but no one is interested. If Apple has plans to sell 10s of millions of these watches, they will have to unearth a ton more enthusiasts or they will have to lower prices. Or both.

Funny you mentioned iPad. Still at $500 and with only 16GB to start. Sales have been declining each year. Apple is too stubborn to make any real changes and have effectively put the first nail in the coffin with the iPhone plus. I doubt a larger more expensive iPad will save the day. And lets not forget the disaster called iPad mini 3. Inexcusable to dumb down a hot product. The entire iPad line is going to hell in a hand basket unless they bring some real improvements to the software such as multi-window. If Apple is not careful the same could happen to this Watch.
And I agree with you last statement. Of course all the Apple die hards will buy the watch in the initial wave but what about the common folk that don't follow tech like we do. The people that never visit forums. Or the people that find spending $350 plus on a accessory that is not needed when all they have to do is whip out their phones.

 

[cosmic68]

Funny you mentioned iPad. Still at $500 and with only 16GB to start. Sales have been declining each year. Apple is too stubborn to make any real changes and have effectively put the first nail in the coffin with the iPhone plus. I doubt a larger more expensive iPad will save the day. And lets not forget the disaster called iPad mini 3. Inexcusable to dumb down a hot product. The entire iPad line is going to hell in a hand basket unless they bring some real improvements to the software such as multi-window. If Apple is not careful the same could happen to this Watch.
And I agree with you last statement. Of course all the Apple die hards will buy the watch in the initial wave but what about the common folk that don't follow tech like we do. The people that never visit forums. Or the people that find spending $350 plus on a accessory that is not needed when all they have to do is whip out their phones.

Agreed.

I think the pricing behind the watches have been as a direct result of their experiences with the iPad. People will be reluctant to upgrade watches every iteration because, frankly there won't be much point. Members of my family are still happily using their 2nd gen iPads.
I think Apples strategy was to get as much money as possible from the watches for as long as possible. It'll be interesting over the coming years to see if price gets adjusted.
I totally bought into it. I bought a SS Link. However it had to go back for a fault and when Apple dragged their feet with the replacement it gave me a chance to pause and think. I decided for a refund in the end. I may go for a sport, but for the time being I feel its overpriced for a first gen product. I'm not knocking them, I enjoyed mine but not £859 enjoyment.

 

[bunnicula]

Apple methodically priced the original iPhones, and a few months later they realized they goofed up by $200. They corrected the pricing mistake, sales took off, and the rest is history. The iPad was received as a very good value at its introduction. My hunch is that only the first few million enthusiasts have the willingness to pay for an Apple Watch at this price point.

No one else I know wants to buy an Apple watch. They are intrigued, but no one is interested. If Apple has plans to sell 10s of millions of these watches, they will have to unearth a ton more enthusiasts or they will have to lower prices. Or both.

The only problem with iPhones was that people in the U.S. were used to carrier subsidies. That was the reason they lowered the prices. If customers in the U.S. had been accustomed to purchasing phones outright, the original iPhone would've sold more units and the price would not have been lowered.

People aren't used to carrier subsidies for watches. They are used to Apple devices costing more than most competitor devices. I doubt they'll lower the prices of the current offerings.

 

[exxxviii]

The only problem with iPhones was that people in the U.S. were used to carrier subsidies. That was the reason they lowered the prices. If customers in the U.S. had been accustomed to purchasing phones outright, the original iPhone would've sold more units and the price would not have been lowered.

People aren't used to carrier subsidies for watches. They are used to Apple devices costing more than most competitor devices. I doubt they'll lower the prices of the current offerings.

Huh? Apple knew that at the time. They just overestimated the perceived value of the phone and consumer willingness to pay. Then they lowered the price to compensate. I do not see the special, unique to Apple, relationship between carrier subsidy on this-- all the competing products at the time were in the same economic landscape.

 

[bunnicula]

Huh? Apple knew that at the time. They just overestimated the perceived value of the phone and consumer willingness to pay. Then they lowered the price to compensate. I do not see the special, unique to Apple, relationship between carrier subsidy on this-- all the competing products at the time were in the same economic landscape.

I know they knew this. Everyone knew this. They just banked on US consumers being willing to pay full price. Some were. Some weren't.

So, they lowered the price. If more people had flocked to buy one, they never would've lowered the price.

 

[kdarling]

The only problem with iPhones was that people in the U.S. were used to carrier subsidies. That was the reason they lowered the prices. If customers in the U.S. had been accustomed to purchasing phones outright, the original iPhone would've sold more units and the price would not have been lowered.

What happened with the first iPhone, was that Apple was even more greedy than usual.

Not only did Apple get full price upfront for the phone, but they were also getting a $10-15 a month royalty payment from AT&T... which was in effect the money set aside for a subsidy that the customer should've been getting. (That's why ATT didn't care. It wasn't costing them anything extra.)

In short, in the beginning Apple was double-dipping. Full price AND taking the customer's subsidy money.

So Apple could afford to drop the price, since the monthly kickback made up for the difference, as it usually does with subsidies.

--

But then that backdoor payment plan backfired when hacker unlocking started, and suddenly anyone anywhere in the world could use the cheaper priced iPhone... WITHOUT Apple getting any extra monthly carrier payment to make up the difference.

Now Apple was in trouble, and financial analysts knew it. The upfront price had been lowered, but the monthly "subsidy" to make up the difference was missing for an estimated 20% or more of sales that ended up unlocked.

That's why, starting with the next iPhone-ATT contract, they switched back to the standard subsidy model, with full price for non-subsidized sales. It's also why Jobs went from being proud of people hacking his baby at first, to having Apple's lawyers urge the US government to not allow unlocking any more.

 

[bunnicula]

What happened with the first iPhone, was that Apple was even more greedy than usual.

Not only did Apple get full price upfront for the phone, but they were also getting a $10-15 a month royalty payment from AT&T... which was in effect the money set aside for a subsidy that the customer should've been getting. (That's why ATT didn't care. It wasn't costing them anything extra.)

In short, in the beginning Apple was double-dipping. Full price AND taking the customer's subsidy money.

So Apple could afford to drop the price, since the monthly kickback made up for the difference, as it usually does with subsidies.

--

But then that backdoor payment plan backfired when hacker unlocking started, and suddenly anyone anywhere in the world could use the cheaper priced iPhone... WITHOUT Apple getting any extra monthly carrier payment to make up the difference.

Now Apple was in trouble, and financial analysts knew it. The upfront price had been lowered, but the monthly "subsidy" to make up the difference was missing for an estimated 20% or more of sales that ended up unlocked.

That's why, starting with the next iPhone-ATT contract, they switched back to the standard subsidy model, with full price for non-subsidized sales. It's also why Jobs went from being proud of people hacking his baby at first, to having Apple's lawyers urge the US government to not allow unlocking any more.

Yeah. This is my overall recollection as well.

And it's why I doubt we'll see any big price drop on watches. Minor adjustments, at best. Perhaps new cases that sell for less. That'll be it. Even those won't be much less.

 

[Mac 128]

Apple should have released one model at 42mm costing no more than $250. The stainless steel, Edition and 38mm should have been added in the later years to increase sales once it dies down (i.e. white iPhone, gold iPhone and iPhone plus) and sales will die down (iPad anyone?).
After the buzz wears off these watches will lose so much value the closer you get to a refresh. Who is stupid enough to buy a 42mm Apple watch sport for lets say $300 when you can get a Gen 2 with new band, fresh warranty and is scratch free for $100 more? And one that was not sweated on during workouts. Yuk. The watch would have to be $150 to $200 before I would even consider it.
And a year from now would you rather own a new second gen sport or a used scratched up Stainless steel model? You will have to take a lost that could approach 50% of the original value if you're trying to sale to upgrade.
I can see people with multiple phones; I got 3 right now but I use one primarily as a GPS unit for my motorcycle. But I can't see owning 2 watches that will run the same OS. So that's why sales will never approach what you're seeing today due to people keeping their watches longer. Thus the price cut that we will eventually see.

The Gen 1 watch will likely drop at least $100 to $250 next year when the Gen 2 model is released at the same price point. That will price a still superior to the smartwatch market device more in line with the competition and broaden the customer base willing to drop about $200-300 just to check it out. By the Gen 3 watch in two years, the Gen 1 may still be around at $150 -- still a bargain -- and broaden the customer base even more.

As for having multiple watches, I completely disagree. Having multiple phones is an anomaly -- most people just have one (just ask Hilary Clinton ;-) but watches are another story -- most people have at least two, and many have entire collections. Apple is rumored to be coming out with new case materials by Fall, just in time for the holidays, which makes a lot of sense. I expect a gold clad watch priced in the $1K-2K range for those many customers who won't consider the watch because they don't wear silver jewelry or accessories, and can't afford the Edition. This will also open the door for those who love their Watches, but don't want to wear a silver watch with a gold outfit, to buy a second watch, or get it for Christmas. The fact that the watch only has an average 18 hour battery life, having a Sport watch on a charger ready to take to the gym would be an additional purchase for many. And despite the ease of changing watch bands, many will prefer to have an additional watch that they can just grab off the charger already configured with a different band when they want to mix it up. This is actual behavior by people who wear watches now. I definitely don't see people using iPhones this way.

So, no the future is bright for the Watch. Whether it is successful as even the iPad is in question, but considering the margins Apple makes on the watch, it doesn't have to be.

 

[cdm283813]

The Gen 1 watch will likely drop at least $100 to $250 next year when the Gen 2 model is released at the same price point. That will price a still superior to the smartwatch market device more in line with the competition and broaden the customer base willing to drop about $200-300 just to check it out. By the Gen 3 watch in two years, the Gen 1 may still be around at $150 -- still a bargain -- and broaden the customer base even more.

As for having multiple watches, I completely disagree. Having multiple phones is an anomaly -- most people just have one (just ask Hilary Clinton ;-) but watches are another story -- most people have at least two, and many have entire collections. Apple is rumored to be coming out with new case materials by Fall, just in time for the holidays, which makes a lot of sense. I expect a gold clad watch priced in the $1K-2K range for those many customers who won't consider the watch because they don't wear silver jewelry or accessories, and can't afford the Edition. This will also open the door for those who love their Watches, but don't want to wear a silver watch with a gold outfit, to buy a second watch, or get it for Christmas. The fact that the watch only has an average 18 hour battery life, having a Sport watch on a charger ready to take to the gym would be an additional purchase for many. And despite the ease of changing watch bands, many will prefer to have an additional watch that they can just grab off the charger already configured with a different band when they want to mix it up. This is actual behavior by people who wear watches now. I definitely don't see people using iPhones this way.

So, no the future is bright for the Watch. Whether it is successful as even the iPad is in question, but considering the margins Apple makes on the watch, it doesn't have to be.

Two issues with your comment.

1. Once the gen 1 drops by $100 when gen 2 comes out a used Apple watch will drop $150 minimum (that's excellent condition no scratches). That's why the next Apple watch will not sale more then gen 1. You're throwing money away and I'm willing to bet that half the original buyers won't bother upgrading.

2. You can't have 2 watches paired at the same time. You have to unpair watch 1, re-pair watch 2, unpair watch 2 and re-pair watch 1. That is plain silly. So while people do have multiple watches the difference is that the Apple watch was not designed to be a standalone device.

I guarantee that future Apple watch sales will not beat gen 1. Only a price drop for gen 2 and lots of software refinements will overtake gen 1.

 

[robbie12345]

The Problem with the Apple Watch is that it is priced as a watch rather than an electronics unit.

Apple priced the Watch competitively around other luxury time pieces such as rolex and Swatch. When you look at the cost of their bands compared to Apple's you see that they are similar, also the watch itself is very similarly priced.

What Apple didn't foresee is that Watches are a very low-unit, high-margin marketplace. It is difficult for apple to sell the millions of Apple watches they want to while costing the same as a Rolex.

However, if Apple were to lower the price of the watch below Rolex and Swatch, they are effectively conceding that the Watch is an inferior product. I guess that's why they decided to compete with them with a heavy marketing strategy.

Also guys, don't question the pricing of the Apple Watch. I'm pretty sure Apple knows exactly what they are doing with the prices, making sure they hold up with margins and such.

 

[Mac 128]

Two issues with your comment.

1. Once the gen 1 drops by $100 when gen 2 comes out a used Apple watch will drop $150 minimum (that's excellent condition no scratches). That's why the next Apple watch will not sale more then gen 1. You're throwing money away and I'm willing to bet that half the original buyers won't bother upgrading.

2. You can't have 2 watches paired at the same time. You have to unpair watch 1, re-pair watch 2, unpair watch 2 and re-pair watch 1. That is plain silly. So while people do have multiple watches the difference is that the Apple watch was not designed to be a standalone device.

I guarantee that future Apple watch sales will not beat gen 1. Only a price drop for gen 2 and lots of software refinements will overtake gen 1.

1. What does the used market have to do with a new product with a warranty? Isn't this already happening with phones? I paid much less for a used 5S on eBay than it would have cost to buy a new one from Apple, yet they're still selling them new like hot cakes. And why wouldn't original buyers upgrade if there's some compelling reason for them to. I can think of one at a minimum -- better battery life.

2. I'm well aware you can't have two watches paired at the same time, presently. But that's a software fix. Apple would be foolish to come out with multiple case options and model designs without allowing a single user to pair multiple watches. There's absolutely no reason it couldn't be done, nor any reason I can see why it shouldn't. It made sense to limit this ability for the launch while they worked out the initial bugs. But there's no reason not to add it when they can get around to it. It makes the most sense to do it when they launch more model options, but definitely by gen 2.

You can predict the future generations won't outsell the original annually, but by the same token, I don't see sales plummeting either. As long as they keep selling consistently year after year, then that's a success. And that of course is based on everything staying more or less as they are, which I predict won't happen. I fully expect every generation to move toward more features and ultimately complete autonomous operation. Gen 2 will likely incorporate a FaceTime camera which will cause quite a stir for both upgrades and those who weren't previously interested. I won't say whether it's enough to outpace gen 1 sales, but it's enough to motivate similar numbers. And that camera will do more than let people take spontaneous selfies and accept FaceTime calls without getting out their phone ... It will likely also be a way to control the display activation, by verifying a face is looking at the watch, maintaining the backlight until the user stops looking at it. That's another huge reason to upgrade. Then there's more storage for more stand-alone apps users come to rely on. And the list goes on and on for potential improvements.

Of course if Apple just puts this watch on the back burner like the TV, then I agree with you, the watch will sell poorly and have a short product life cycle. But I just don't see them doing that.

 

[cdm283813]

1. What does the used market have to do with a new product with a warranty? Isn't this already happening with phones? I paid much less for a used 5S on eBay than it would have cost to buy a new one from Apple, yet they're still selling them new like hot cakes. And why wouldn't original buyers upgrade if there's some compelling reason for them to. I can think of one at a minimum -- better battery life.

2. I'm well aware you can't have two watches paired at the same time, presently. But that's a software fix. Apple would be foolish to come out with multiple case options and model designs without allowing a single user to pair multiple watches. There's absolutely no reason it couldn't be done, nor any reason I can see why it shouldn't. It made sense to limit this ability for the launch while they worked out the initial bugs. But there's no reason not to add it when they can get around to it. It makes the most sense to do it when they launch more model options, but definitely by gen 2.

You can predict the future generations won't outsell the original annually, but by the same token, I don't see sales plummeting either. As long as they keep selling consistently year after year, then that's a success. And that of course is based on everything staying more or less as they are, which I predict won't happen. I fully expect every generation to move toward more features and ultimately complete autonomous operation. Gen 2 will likely incorporate a FaceTime camera which will cause quite a stir for both upgrades and those who weren't previously interested. I won't say whether it's enough to outpace gen 1 sales, but it's enough to motivate similar numbers. And that camera will do more than let people take spontaneous selfies and accept FaceTime calls without getting out their phone ... It will likely also be a way to control the display activation, by verifying a face is looking at the watch, maintaining the backlight until the user stops looking at it. That's another huge reason to upgrade. Then there's more storage for more stand-alone apps users come to rely on. And the list goes on and on for potential improvements.

Of course if Apple just puts this watch on the back burner like the TV, then I agree with you, the watch will sell poorly and have a short product life cycle. But I just don't see them doing that.

The used market has everything to do with how future product performs in the market place. Look at the iPad. The market is over saturated and sales are hurting. People don't need to update iPads every year like they do iPhones. Plus old iPhones and iPads can be used as hand me down media players or phones for teenagers. I don't see many people giving their kids a $350 to $1000 watch just because they upgraded. When I buy a Apple watch the plan is to keep it until the wheels fall off. But I'm waiting for all the bugs to get worked out first and the price to drop.
Gen 2 will do fine but not gen 1 fine unless the entry price drops. Gen 3 will be the ultimate test.

 

[Banich2]

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

And the new MacBook should start at $499.

 

[Mac 128]

Plus old iPhones and iPads can be used as hand me down media players or phones for teenagers. I don't see many people giving their kids a $350 to $1000 watch just because they upgraded.

You don't? Why? If people give their kids an $800 phone, why not a $350 watch? My first watch was a hand me down Buolva from my dad, and probably cost him $150 in the 60s (with inflation that's an expensive watch). I got it because it was a windup and he got a new Quartz movement with battery.

Either way, I don't see any of this having an effect on the success of the watch. And I don't see Apple ever dropping the price on the then current models -- it's priced about right for Apple. But just like there are 6 different models of the Fitbit, Apple will attack the lower end users by dropping the price on the previous generation models, just like they did with the phone and tablets. The difference is that unlike Fitbit, even a 1g Watch will still do about as much as the future generations, just like my 1G iPad.

 

[bunnicula]

You don't? Why? If people give their kids an $800 phone, why not a $350 watch? My first watch was a hand me down Buolva from my dad, and probably cost him $150 in the 60s (with inflation that's an expensive watch). I got it because it was a windup and he got a new Quartz movement with battery.

Either way, I don't see any of this having an effect on the success of the watch. And I don't see Apple ever dropping the price on the then current models -- it's priced about right for Apple. But just like there are 6 different models of the Fitbit, Apple will attack the lower end users by dropping the price on the previous generation models, just like they did with the phone and tablets. The difference is that unlike Fitbit, even a 1g Watch will still do about as much as the future generations, just like my 1G iPad.

I agree.

I gave my kid a 38mm SS BCB, new. Birthday gift. People do stuff like that. Why would they not have down a watch?

 

[exxxviii]

And the new MacBook should start at $499.

I actually agree with you, a little. I know it is totally off topic from this thread, but I don't get the new Macbook. It is downgraded in most of its performance specs from the 11" MacBook Air, yet it is a lot more money. The new MB strikes me as a bargain entry computer, not a premium-priced laptop. I think that $499 is a bit low, but $699 seems like its sweet spot. I wonder how the sales have been compared to the MBA?