Why 10,000+ Apple Watch?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by ksuyen, Mar 12, 2015.

  1. ksuyen macrumors 6502a


    Jun 26, 2012
    This article tries to explain it.

    Interesting, but I have thought about it.
  2. Michaelgtrusa macrumors 604

    Oct 13, 2008
  3. mrex macrumors 68040


    Jul 16, 2014
    trying to build an imago making luxury/design products... unfortunately it is not only the pricetag...
  4. Micky Do macrumors 68000

    Micky Do

    Aug 31, 2012
    An island in the Andaman Sea.
  5. rjlawrencejr macrumors 6502

    Jun 7, 2007
    Car companies have done this for many years with a halo model. Honda/Acura NSX; Nissan GT-R; Mercedes-Benz... Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Only time will tell if this tactic is successful for Apple.
  6. dacimvrl macrumors newbie

    Mar 14, 2015
    I don't know man, a Swiss-made ceramic J12 with real diamonds is still more appealing, holds value better, and more fashionable, IMO.
  7. megatron2000 macrumors newbie

    Sep 14, 2012
    It's not about holding value. It' about oercieved value.
  8. SHNXX macrumors 68000

    Oct 2, 2013
    I think it may serve the same purpose as a 3 million dollar Patek Philippe in that most Patek buyers won't think about buying it but it sets the tone for the brand as a whole.

    However, I still think the price is too ridiculous, because most high-end watch buyers (watch collection worth over 50k or 100k and own at least one of the haute horlogerie brand's watches) I know have said they won't buy it.

    it may appeal to the super rich who buy single watches worth over 100K.
  9. HelloMikee macrumors 6502a


    Jun 16, 2009
    San Diego
    Artists, athletes, singers, famous, the rich... Who cares really. People fly first class on Emirates airlines for 25k a trip, something that lasts hours. 10k for a gold smart watch doesn't seem that crazy when you compare it to others things the rich spend their money on.
  10. SHNXX macrumors 68000

    Oct 2, 2013
    yeah it probably will appeal to celebrities.

    I've seen some tech entrepreneur types who are into high-end watches come out to say that the gold Edition is a stupid idea but they're a decidedly diff demographic.
  11. CWallace macrumors 603


    Aug 17, 2007
    Seattle, WA
    And that is who Apple wants it to appeal to because they're always being photographed so it's plenty of exposure for the Apple Watch as a product.
  12. Patriot24 macrumors 68030


    Dec 29, 2010
    On the last Talk Show, Gruber had Matthew Panzarino on. He made an excellent point that the message around the Edition models should have been more slanted toward "Limited Edition". His take was that the price issue would be almost nullified if they basically said, "We were so excited about the watch that we just had to try it in Gold. We did and we think it is pretty cool, so we want to share it with you. We're not going to make a lot of them and they'll be pretty expensive due to the materials. Pretty neat, huh?"

    Instead, it seems like they're caught in the middle of wanting to offer an expensive gold option, but are almost embarrassed by it. They didn't even put the price on the slide - Tim just said it verbally. They could've avoided all of it by playing up the "it is just something we cooked up at the last minute as a limited release" angle.

    In the end, it probably doesn't matter much either way. Just a messaging thing.
  13. dumastudetto macrumors 68040

    Aug 28, 2013
    I doubt they are almost embarrassed. They know they have created the most lustworthy smartwatch that everyone who has the money will want to buy. That's a great achievement and one Apple should celebrate.
  14. Patriot24 macrumors 68030


    Dec 29, 2010
    "Embarrassed" may not be the right word, but Panzarino's point is that they didn't really own it. By not putting the price on the slide and failing to show the video about how they manufacture the gold, they downplayed it. Watching the keynote, it was an extremely awkward moment when Cook announced the price. It was like he was looking for a reaction, got silence, and tried to speed ahead. If they wanted to show pride they should have said, "We're super proud of it. It is stupid expensive. You know you want one." Instead it was a whimper.

    Don't get me wrong - I have no issue at all with the gold or the price point. It just wasn't one of their finest moments in product marketing. *shrug*
  15. KauaiBruce macrumors 6502a


    Jul 5, 2007
    Kauai, HI
    There is a LOT more money in the world than people realize. For example, for my upcoming trip to Europe I am flying first class using airline miles. I put everything I spend on a miles card and pay it off at the end of each month and manage to do this every three years.

    Just for grins I decided to see what I would have actually paid for just the one way return trip from Amsterdam through London to Kauai. It was $15,000!!! SO, my point is that people who spend that to fly will have no problem buying the watch without even noticing the money.

    Locally I know realtors who get the occasional big boons of cash. Suddenly they have ANOTHER Rolex and I know one who shipped his Hummer to CA to get some kind of rare leather seats installed.

    So, YES I think there will be no problem selling that watch. There are a lot of people who like toys and like to show off their money.
  16. mojolicious macrumors 68000


    Mar 18, 2014
    Sarf London
    Exactly. The issue is that the word 'Edition' automatically makes you think 'limited edition', but until Apple state just what that limit is then collectors can't make a judgment on its future value, and wealthy bling lovers can't make a judgment on its exclusivity.

    Apple should have said "we're producing 5,000 now, and a second tranche of 5,000 in six months time with a modified strap/crown, and will continue with six-monthly releases for ever and ever and ever".
  17. TallManNY macrumors 601


    Nov 5, 2007

    Hmmm, I don't think this is quite right. I think this is a legit luxury product. Apple has been accused of having crazy fans and being a fashion device, when in fact the iPhone was just a really good smartphone.

    This watch is going to be different. It is going to be a well know luxury good which (A) is really useful and (B) sends a very clear message to everyone around you that you are rich. That is part of the point of luxury goods. Yes many of them look really good and are really well made, so you can justify them. But the main point of using such a product is to show other people that you are rich.

    The Edition will convey this message. And the $17,000 version will convey this message the best and I predict it will be the most sought after version. Apple will never tell us the breakdown, but I bet the $17,000 outsells all the other Edition versions COMBINED.

    And the article is wrong that if Apple sells hundreds of thousands of these watches that it won't be economically significant. The writer is not realizing the profit margin on these watches (espcially the $17,000 version). If Apple sells 300,000 Editions then profit from the Edition Apple Watch will exceed many, if not all, of its lines of business except iPhone and iPad. Now I don't think Apple will sell 300,000 Editions this year. But I'm not ruling it out entirely. That would be billions in profit, especially if I'm right that the $10,000 version is the one least likely to be sold.
  18. cardfan macrumors 68000

    Mar 23, 2012
    Most that you described probably would think their wrists are a billboard in their own right. It's called endorsing.

    There's probably a market that will buy these but it's a very small one. Still, if you're that rich and the purpose is impressing people, there's much better to buy to put on that wrist. For those people, this edition watch just means you bought a cheap watch.

    You can try to rationalize it any way you want. The best thing it does is get people talking and to buy into the fashion thing. That angle is kind of essential for Apple to make. But I think even the 1.5k-2k range would have done it better. The 10k plus just made it laughable.


    True, I never got the message it was limited. Apple isn't portraying it that way in ads. It's a full collection. They are partnering with high end stores to sell it. That doesn't exactly scream one time limited edition. They want people to wear these, not collect them.
  19. mojolicious macrumors 68000


    Mar 18, 2014
    Sarf London
    I believe Apple has said it's available in 'limited quantities', although possibly that might mean that you can't buy three at once. Alternatively it means that there's only 165,000 tons of gold on (as opposed to 'in') the planet, and not all of it is for sale.

    I'm utterly broke and have zero interest in wristwatches so my thinking might be off, but if Apple were to produce 100,000 Editions each year then it's far less covetable than it would be if production one tenth of that.

Share This Page

18 March 12, 2015