What to Expect at Apple's 'Spring Forward' Media Event

[thefourthpope]

Consider currently how there is a $100 difference between the 16GB and 64GB iPhone 6. People who can afford the extra would gladly do so since they think they are getting more for their money.

I'd say in that example they are definitely getting more for their money.

Speaking of the Edition, I bet on $4,499 for starting with the rubber strap.

I didn't know they had a rubber strap for that one. I figured Apple would have stricter demands on what kind of band you can wear with their highest end watch.

Also, there is no way Apple is going to charge extra between the 38mm and the 42mm like how Gruber believes.

I think this is the most intereting question: How will they handle pricing the two sizes? Ive is so into the 'fit' and 'feel' of this incredibly personal device, and obviously the size plays a key role in that. But Apple clearly charges more for larger sizes (iPhone 6 / 6+, any ipad or computer). I'm thinking it will be a small price difference, less than $50.

 

[obamtl]

Was the first iPad speculated at $1000? Gruber is no different compared to an average poster in this blog. Apple must be crazy to price it at $750 unless they want no sale. Even me, i want one but would remove myself out if it is more than $500 for stainless steel version.

Spot on. I simply would NOT be buying the Sport variant. I simply cannot justify $750 on a first generation watch that will not be upgradeable. It's the stainless steel version with metal band at less than $550, or I'll give it a pass all together.

 

[thefourthpope]

What to expect....ohhh about 1/2 or more of the rumors to be wrong.

It is amazing how much time is wasted on trying to guess what is coming out and what is being done....Maybe this whole site should seek a rename, MacUNFOUNDEDRumors as you guys just keep tossing more and more garbage up in hopes of luring readers.

It used to be lots of the info here was good, now it is more like it is just a race to outdo the other pundits and "experts" with more claims not founded in reality.

Totally. I remember when MR didn't force us to click, read, and comment on every story like they do now. Those were the good old days.

 

[tennisproha]

Apple's goal is to impact people's lives. You can't do that if nobody buys your products.

Technically if you help someone save their money by them not buying materialistic things, you're impacting their life.

 

[Daalseth]

I don't think the Apple Watch will be a hit, which should be expected as other watches had the same fate. The watch is just for fashion, that's it.

I can understand its use if it had health capabilities but there aren't any. And it takes way too long to do one simple thing on the watch where you can just easily take your phone out of your pocket.

...and how does one update that thing anyways? And its dependent on your phone too, so you can't just leave your phone at home or something. Watches like these just aren't ready for primetime.

Exactly what I've been saying for a year. The technology just isn't ready yet. Sure there will be an initial burst of sales when it rolls out but I expect that they will trail off after a few months to a year. I also expect a lot of the ones that do sell will end up in a drawer in fairly short order.

 

[andy9l]

I'm hoping for a UK release date for Apple pay, probably not going to happen but I hope.

This.

We've been using NFC for years here. I get that the beta test was in the US because there would be/has been very few NFC transactions over there, but it's been long enough now.

This would make me buy the Apple Watch and not return it 14 days later.

 

[DrJohnnyN]

You know that this watch will be laughably obsolete in five years. No one will want it because the newer Apple Watch will be so much better. You will be able to keep this "collectable" watch right next to your iPhone 1. Both will represent a bit of history but be useless.

Will this $6,000 gold "edition" watch even continue to function after IOS 9 is replaced by IOS 10? Given apple's history I'd guess "no". I'd give it a 6 to 8 year lifetime. Same as phones.

Eventually it will fail. For a few years Apple will keep replacement parts in stock, it five years those parts will be gone, if not in five then in eight. But after that you will have a nice looking gold brick with a blank black glass face that is unrepairable. Not really the best collectable watch. It is a consumer item, made to be used then trashed (or recycled for metal content)

$6,000 for 5 years of enjoyment isn't a bad tradeoff.

 

[thefourthpope]

I want one myself but will not spend far from the entry price. Mainly because I still need to figure out why I need one and because this is a first gen device. Once a future version of the watch can
- display on all time
- last 3 days or more ( need this for traveling. )
- include GPS
- can be used more independent from iPhone and synced with either iPad and or Mac as well

I will spend some more money on a keeper.

Yep. I am willing to treat the first gen as a test run to see if I want one of these. I knew *exactly* why I wanted an iPhone and jumped at the first release. Wasn't too sure on the iPad, waited for round two, and got hooked. I only have a hunch how I will use the apple watch, but it's several years later and I have more money. I'm willing to buy one to find out.

 

[GhostRaider]

For those who like to save money and like more features, you know that the Apple Watch should of had FaceTime capabilities. Maybe Apple doesn't like differentiating themselves.

 

[imwoblin]

I'm still completely clueless on Apple's pricing strategy in regards to pricing this new A' Watch. Im sure Cupertino wants to sell boatloads of these things so they can't price the Sport & SS in the stratosphere, but want people to purchase the more expensive SS. I don't think you can justify a $200+ difference in the Sport vs the SS just because the SS has a stainless case and sapphire crystal all other things being equal. So what's else to differentiate? Maybe cripple some features on the Sport?

 

[rickdollar]

I really wish I had bought two original iPhones, one to use and one sealed in the original box, you should see what people are paying for them on eBay ($25k and up). I have my original bag that they gave me when I bought the original iPhone and people are selling/buying those for $200 on eBay, nuts. So part of me wants to get my hands on an Apple Watch and then never open it. But its a gamble, if its a flop, its a flop. If its seen just an an accessory, then its not really going to gain much value. I haven't looked but I bet other apple devices, iPod's, iPad's are not as collectable as an iPhone (at least the first one) and so the Apple Watch might not be either.

I guess we'll be finding out more information and pricing tomorrow at about this time.

I was thinking the same after checking the original sealed iPod sales on eBay. Two sold - $3800 and $5100.
BUT, there were not many of them sold in the first place. MUCH smaller audience for the iPod in 2001/early 2002 than the Apple Watch now.
I'm doubtful a unopened watch will see that much price appreciation in such a short period.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Agreed. $150 is an upsell, $400 is a different product. I could see maybe an extra $150 for the 42mm SS Space Black watch and another $150 for the link bracelet, but not Gruber's $1999.

Evidently he's been talking to a lot of self-styled horologists and wants to preempt his techie audience's presumed sticker shock. I used to work for a company that made watch winders, so I'm pretty with what the market for mechanical watches will bear. Apple has economies of scale that no Swiss watchmaker has, and link bracelets that aren't precious metals are rarely over $100.

I do, however, think there's a kernel of truth to the operational efficiency argument. Stainless steel isn't materially much more costly than aluminum, but it does require more tooling, especially to achieve the high tolerances Apple's link bracelets seem to have. Mass production on the fluoroelastomer and aluminum bands is definitely less capital and labor intensive.

Bottom line: I expect my preferred configuration of SS Space Black with Link Bracelet to weigh in at $849. Can't wait to see who's predictions wind up as claim chowder.

He is saying the entry-level Apple Watch will not just be $400 more, but more than double the price of the Sport with the same band. Really? And again, a $500 premium for a leather band? Really?

I don't see any reason to believe that Apple will charge more for colors (at least outside of the Edition, where all bets are off). In all of Apple's product history we find only one example of them ever doing that, and that time they also boosted a tech spec for the model. Why would they now deviate from years of marketing method to turn color into a cost item? The logic is absent.

Product pricing is about more than costs of production, it's about creating a ladder of pricing steps that induce buyers to talk themselves into spending a little more. Apple doesn't pay anywhere close to $100 to install 32GB in an iPad over 16GB, but they know a certain percentage of buyers will find that $100 to be well-spent. So again, why would they deviate from a strategy they know well and has been so successful for them over the years? Gruber seems to think so but he makes no case for it.

 

[theBigD23]

Was the first iPad speculated at $1000? Gruber is no different compared to an average poster in this blog. Apple must be crazy to price it at $750 unless they want no sale. Even me, i want one but would remove myself out if it is more than $500 for stainless steel version.

You'll be out then. 38mm Sport with a plastic band is $349, the $399 for 42mm, so only about $100 more for a stainless steel model? Not including the black version? No chance.

----------

He is saying the entry-level Apple Watch will not just be $400 more, but more than double the price of the Sport with the same band. Really? And again, a $500 premium for a leather band? Really?

I don't see any reason to believe that Apple will charge more for colors (at least outside of the Edition, where all bets are off). In all of Apple's product history we find only one example of them ever doing that, and that time they also boosted a tech spec for the model. Why would they now deviate from years of marketing method to turn color into a cost item? The logic is absent.

Product pricing is about more than costs of production, it's about creating a ladder of pricing steps that induce buyers to talk themselves into spending a little more. Apple doesn't pay anywhere close to $100 to install 32GB in an iPad over 16GB, but they know a certain percentage of buyers will find that $100 to be well-spent. So again, why would they deviate from a strategy they know well and has been so successful for them over the years? Gruber seems to think so but he makes no case for it.

I'm not saying how high it will go, but they will deviate, according to you, from all of these years of marketing, because it's a completely new category and product. Whether you agree or not, it's a piece of jewelry and will be priced differently than a regular tech product. I hope I'm wrong though.

----------

I'm overwhelmed with the prices being thrown out and underwhelmed with what this watch does.
I'm not at all interested in puchasing the first version, maybe the 3rd, 4th or 10th version, I might consider it.

Out of most of the people on this board, you are not even close to the target market for this type of product.

 

[sledgehammer89]

With Broadwell-U 13" Retina MacBook Pro supports then 4K/60hz. Hope it comes also with native 2880x1800 resolution, then it's perfect.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not saying how high it will go, but they will deviate, according to you, from all of these years of marketing, because it's a completely new category and product. Whether you agree or not, it's a piece of jewelry and will be priced differently than a regular tech product. I hope I'm wrong though.

Every new product has been a new category but none of them totally shattered the mold. Apple has lots of options for pricing this product differently than a conventional tech product without doing that.

 

[elgrecomac]

Not impressed

In a video intended to WOW it's viewers, I am unimpressed. Even more now I ask the question...
"Why do I need this device?"

And the answer is, "I don't. Let's see what apple watch version 2 has in store in 2016 cuz the first iteration has no practical use thus far".

 

[Gameboy70]

Until a smartwatch can act as a smartphone I don't get why anyone would find it a need.

Currently the apple watch requires an iphone on your person why wouldn't I just pull my smartphone out of my pocket to do the same function?

Because glancing at your wrist is faster and takes less effort, which is why people like me never stopped wearing watches. Yes, pulling out your phone to check the time or notifications is easy, but glancing at your wrist is easier.

Also, I've never once dropped my phone, but everyone around me seems to do so on a weekly basis. Dramatically reducing the number of times people have to pull out their phones should also dramatically reduce the number of cracked screens people end up with.

 

[940272]

I want new iPods, but I know it won't happen ;-;

 

[Chrjy]

Bearing in mind Apple state this on their website I hate to think how much the steel bracelet will cost....9 hours to cut the links for a single band!!

Crafted from the same 316L stainless steel alloy as the case, the Link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. In part that’s because they aren’t simply a uniform size, but subtly increase in width as they approach the case.

 

[dfs]

I don't get it.

If I had the money, I could imagine investing in an expensive watch, Rolex, Philippe Patek or whatever. But I would do so with the understanding that this was an heirloom, something I would itemize in my will and leave to my grandsonr. What I would NOT do is invest in a similarly-priced watch with the understanding that it would become obsolete within a very few years and replaced with an Apple Watch 2. I wonder if Apple really understands the fact that the purchase cycle for watches is fundamentally different from that of computing gear. I could possibly imagine myself picking up a low end Apple Watch just for grins, if I became convinced that it was useful enough to be worthy buy ing but I can easily see them flopping on the high end. Apple might sell a handful to the type of successful Hollywood type who owns and flies his own MIG-17. But does it make good economic sense to set up a production line for the benefit of such a small market?

 

[thekeyring]

Ironically I think I'm experiencing the GMT bug or similar because the official Apple calendar event says it will start at 6pm UK time

Well if you and I turn up at Apple.com (or a liveblog) at 5pm and have to wait an hour, that's not too bad. But if we turned up at 6pm and were an hour late, that would be frustrating!

 

[dfs]

Bearing in mind Apple state this on their website I hate to think how much the steel bracelet will cost....9 hours to cut the links for a single band!!

Do they propose HAND MAKING their steel bracelets? The world is full of cheap mass-produced bracelet watches by Citizen, Seiko, etc. etc.

 

[bushman4]

Too many scenarios and possibilities.lets wait and see. More important is that the AppleWatch brings the functionality that everyone is expecting

 

[Gameboy70]

He is saying the entry-level Apple Watch will not just be $400 more, but more than double the price of the Sport with the same band. Really? And again, a $500 premium for a leather band? Really?

I don't see any reason to believe that Apple will charge more for colors (at least outside of the Edition, where all bets are off). In all of Apple's product history we find only one example of them ever doing that, and that time they also boosted a tech spec for the model. Why would they now deviate from years of marketing method to turn color into a cost item? The logic is absent.

Product pricing is about more than costs of production, it's about creating a ladder of pricing steps that induce buyers to talk themselves into spending a little more. Apple doesn't pay anywhere close to $100 to install 32GB in an iPad over 16GB, but they know a certain percentage of buyers will find that $100 to be well-spent. So again, why would they deviate from a strategy they know well and has been so successful for them over the years? Gruber seems to think so but he makes no case for it.

Gruber's posts are often well thought out, but with the watch industry he's out of his element, and he wants to imply that the pricing norms of the consumer electronics don't constrain Apple's attempts to position the Watch as haute horology.

I think Apple's just spent the last six months letting the internet speculate itself into a tizzy over Watch pricing, only to announce fairly reasonable prices tomorrow.

 

[larryinfl]

Way off on pricing

Anyone that thinks the mid-level watch will START at $750 for the SMALL one needs their head examined. While Apple will certainly be the priciest option on the market, that pricing would be so dramatically higher than other options on the market it would hurt sales.

I would suspect the mid-level would be in the $500 price range. I also think Apple will make their money mostly on bands due to how much they are pushing them and the effort they put into the watch design to make them so easy to swap out. I'm expecting bands to be in the $100 price range.