why don't carrier stores stock stainless steel model?

[razmonster]

i find it bizarre that AT&T stores don't even carry a model stainless steel version for display? are all the carriers like this? i remember when getting my SS S3 in 2017 a manager reluctantly let me try his personal one on because i had never seen one and was interested in ordering.

do you think more people would opt for stainless steel if they knew it was available? a lot of people never step foot in an apple store and shop at their carrier store but why don't carriers have at least 1 higher end model? same with ipad pro

i would P.O.'d if i didnt do a little research to even know about the stainless steel model and was sold the aluminum

 

[44267547]

i find it bizarre that AT&T stores don't even carry a model stainless steel version for display? are all the carriers like this? i remember when getting my SS S3 in 2017 a manager reluctantly let me try his personal one on because i had never seen one and was interested in ordering.

do you think more people would opt for stainless steel if they knew it was available? a lot of people never step foot in an apple store and shop at their carrier store but why don't carriers have at least 1 higher end model? same with ipad pro

i would P.O.'d if i didnt do a little research to even know about the stainless steel model and was sold the aluminum

Retail carriers don’t stock the stainless model simply because they don’t sell well. They’re too expensive for what the average consumer likely wants the cheapest version, which is the aluminum model. Best Buy/Target sometimes carries the stainless model, but it’s a very low quantity compared to how much they actually carry in a greater quantity with the aluminum watch.

 

[razmonster]

Retail carriers don’t stock the stainless model simply because they don’t sell well. They’re too expensive for what the average consumer likely wants the cheapest version, which is the aluminum model. Best Buy/Target sometimes carries the stainless model, but it’s a very low quantity compared to how much they actually carry in a greater quantity with the aluminum watch.

oh yeah i understand that completely but what I'm talking about is why don't they keep at least a model or display in-store? I imagine more people would get it if they knee about it or were able to see/feel the difference especially with everyone financing stuff

 

[MrWillie]

I pay cash. The Apple Watch is not a heirloom item that will be passed down generation to generation like grandpa’s old watch. It’s eventually a disposable item.

The aluminum Apple Watch is a much better value than the SS model, thus more people will buy it than the SS model. At least that’s my reasons for having the aluminum.

We currently live in the Information Age. I highly doubt there are many people buying the aluminum model not knowing the SS model exists.

 

[Newtons Apple]

Store do not carry the best Apple Watches or iPhones with the most memory.

It is all about inventory costs and public demand.

 

[willmtaylor]

Store counter space is at a premium. There isn’t enough demand for SS models to justify carriers using space for Apple to get upgraded sales. Just doesn’t make fiscal sense for the former.

 

[posguy99]

oh yeah i understand that completely but what I'm talking about is why don't they keep at least a model or display in-store? I imagine more people would get it if they knee about it or were able to see/feel the difference especially with everyone financing stuff

So they can listen to fools yammer about how dare they have it on display, but have to order it in order to get it? Yeah, right. Carrier stores that depend on turns have FAR better things to waste their time on.

 

[44267547]

oh yeah i understand that completely but what I'm talking about is why don't they keep at least a model or display in-store? I imagine more people would get it if they knee about it or were able to see/feel the difference especially with everyone financing stuff

They do. At least from the stores I have visited, they do have a stainless model on display, (I.e Best Buy/Target/Verizon/). Maybe depends on your particular store, but they do have the stainless model on display, but it’s usually just the ‘regular stainless’ and far more of the aluminum with other colors.

 

[razmonster]

i may be wrong but i still disagree. i would wager majority of the average customer doesn't know a stainless steel version exists the ones who only shop for product ina carrier store the same people who over pay for accessories in a carrier store
[doublepost=1564287033][/doublepost]the market for SS may be a fraction of the average BUT i meet SO many people who don't know anything about it and I rarely ever see anyone else with one and it's almost always because they don't know it is even available and not even carrying a single display model I'm sure has affects that.

 

[T5BRICK]

the market for SS may be a fraction of the average BUT i meet SO many people who don't know anything about it and I rarely ever see anyone else with one and it's almost always because they don't know it is even available and not even carrying a single display model I'm sure has affects that.

The massive price difference is why people don’t buy the SS version. Putting one on display will do very little to change that.

Don’t get me wrong, I think my SBSS AW4 is awesome. It’s just that the vast majority of the population isn’t willing to spend $200-300 for the exact same functionality.

 

[44267547]

the market for SS may be a fraction of the average BUT i meet SO many people who don't know anything about it and I rarely ever see anyone else with one and it's almost always because they don't know it is even available and not even carrying a single display model I'm sure has affects that.

Let’s play a hypothetical scenario:

Let’s say Apple markets the stainless Apple Watch and provides more demo models in stores where consumers can see the gold/regular/black stainless model, do you really think that they’re willing to spend an extra $300 W/tax for a stainless Apple Watch that has the same core features as the aluminum? What it comes down to, is does the consumer care about the aesthetics, I’d say the majority don’t, not for a smart watch, now if were talking a traditional mechanical watch, then I’d say obviously the materials matter more here.

Look at it like this, it’s kind of like Apple adding stainless bands around the iPhone XS, but yet they charge a significant amount of money for that particular phone, did that really help sales or sell that many more models over the other iPhones because they added stainless bands? Not really, because the price point is too high. The same applies to the stainless Apple Watch model, it’s mainly liked by a few that really care about aesthetics.

 

[the future]

I have to side with the OP on this. Most of you make it sound like Apple sells very small amounts of Stainless Watches. If that was the case, it wouldn‘t be worth Apple‘s while and the Stainless version wouldn‘t even exist anymore, let alone in more versions (3) than ever before. Maybe carrier stores attract a different kind of audience vs Apple’s own stores, one that only cares about price and nothing else; I don‘t have a way to judge that. But in general, there are more than enough Apple customers that care about the look and feel of „better“ materials like stainless steel.

 

[Riley-Freeman]

Retail carriers don’t stock the stainless model simply because they don’t sell well. They’re too expensive for what the average consumer likely wants the cheapest version, which is the aluminum model. Best Buy/Target sometimes carries the stainless model, but it’s a very low quantity compared to how much they actually carry in a greater quantity with the aluminum watch.

I disagree with this. If you are buying from a carrier, you are likely buying the watch on a contract. The price difference is roughly $10 more a month. I don’t think anyone is hurting over that small increase per month.

Personally, I have the stainless steel model but I paid full price. The carrier pricing here in Canada is only like 5$ more per month but they never have them either even though they have them on their website. 2 carrier order them on demand, one won’t order them yet display them as if they are for sale.

 

[44267547]

I disagree with this. If you are buying from a carrier, you are likely buying the watch on a contract. The price difference is roughly $10 more a month. I don’t think anyone is hurting over that small increase per month.

You sound like one of the representatives at a carrier trying to sell an Apple Watch to a customer. Actually, with tax, it comes out to be $13 a month for LTE with the Apple Watch, and if you’re already adding in $13 more a month to likely an already expensive carrier bill, can the consumer really justify the means of having the LTE Apple Watch for service they may or may not use?

You can’t look at necessarily the addition of of the LTE service added on per month, I would look at do you really _need_ The LTE service and would you actually benefit from. If $13 isn’t justifiable for someone, then clearly they don’t need to add that type of additional funds on there existing carrier bill.

 

[razmonster]

Let’s play a hypothetical scenario:

Let’s say Apple markets the stainless Apple Watch and provides more demo models in stores where consumers can see the gold/regular/black stainless model, do you really think that they’re willing to spend an extra $300 W/tax for a stainless Apple Watch that has the same core features as the aluminum? What it comes down to, is does the consumer care about the aesthetics, I’d say the majority don’t, not for a smart watch, now if were talking a traditional mechanical watch, then I’d say obviously the materials matter more here.

Look at it like this, it’s kind of like Apple adding stainless bands around the iPhone XS, but yet they charge a significant amount of money for that particular phone, did that really help sales or sell that many more models over the other iPhones because they added stainless bands? Not really, because the price point is too high. The same applies to the stainless Apple Watch model, it’s mainly liked by a few that really care about aesthetics.

i agree with all of this except you are missing something from my point. im talking about having 1 display model in wireless carrier stores. why make a product and then not promote it on all channels possible if only even a little bit.
and there are plenty of apple customers who pay more just to say they have the best available. not to mention there is a significant difference in weight/feel IMO between the two watches.
[doublepost=1564477231][/doublepost]idk maybe some of you have never felt the difference between the two but its significant and its a totally different feeling when wearing. it's like comparing an iPhone 5c to Xs

 

[44267547]

i agree with all of this except you are missing something from my point. im talking about having 1 display model in wireless carrier stores. why make a product and then not promote it on all channels possible if only even a little bit.
and there are plenty of apple customers who pay more just to say they have the best available. not to mention there is a significant difference in weight/feel IMO between the two watches.

We already all know the distinguishable factors between the aluminum and stainless. What I’m trying to convey, even if carrier/retail stores display the stainless model more, that doesn’t change the perspective that $300 _more_ for a smart watch is going to make it any more attractive. It’s too expensive for the average consumer, case in point. There are some that want the stainless model, but having the exact same specifications in both the aluminum and stainless, consumers don’t care necessarily about aesthetics for smart watches. If the stainless model was relatively cheaper, then it might be more sought after, but it’s not, which is exactly why Apple producer/sells way more aluminum models over the stainless, regardless if the stainless model is displayed in stores or not.

 

[razmonster]

We already all know the distinguishable factors between the aluminum and stainless. What I’m trying to convey, even if carrier/retail stores display the stainless model more, that doesn’t change the perspective that $300 _more_ for a smart watch is going to make it any more attractive. It’s too expensive for the average consumer, case in point. There are some that want the stainless model, but having the exact same specifications in both the aluminum and stainless, consumers don’t care necessarily about aesthetics for smart watches. If the stainless model was relatively cheaper, then it might be more sought after, but it’s not, which is exactly why Apple producer/sells way more aluminum models over the stainless, regardless if the stainless model is displayed in stores or not.

We will never know any of this for sure because they don't carry a model for people to compare. It's easy to make that statement because this is how it's been but im sure plenty of people who try it on or are able to physically see it would consider it. especially those who plan to finance. i know it would not sell like the aluminum i just think it doesn't have a fair chance when 80 percent of people going into a carrier store doesn't know it exists. this is like selling the xr and x but not the max because the features aren't different enough to justify it being on display. Apple also makes more of an effort to promote them individually the phones

People who buy a Xs max, ipad pro etc etc are most likely going to buy the SS watch keeping with product quality. Too many people who only shop in carrier stores DON'T know about the SS enough to say one way or the other.... I'm working with personal feelings that if i wasn't an informed consumer I would be upset if i didn't find out until after my purchase that a nicer model exists if i wanted it. it's not like carrier store employees are suggesting it.

i understand economics but with this situation....the iPad pro and SS watch i think the stores should at least carry 1 demo version l. it doesn't even need to be a working one but just enough to be able to compare.
but i guess that's just me

 

[willmtaylor]

B/c the base model (lowest storage tier) phones outsell all others by a significant margin, carrier stores wasting precious space on an Apple product which will net them very little (if any) margin makes no fiscal cents (pun intended).

 

[Ludatyk]

Too many people who only shop in carrier stores DON'T know about the SS enough to say one way or the other.... I'm working with personal feelings that if i wasn't an informed consumer I would be upset if i didn't find out until after my purchase that a nicer model exists if i wanted it. it's not like carrier store employees are suggesting it.

You gotta point. I would think if consumers come in seeing a Stainless Steel model, they will surely lust for it.

Whereas you’re speaking as a uninformed consumer, I would think the price will be the major turn off. And given I’ve got a Stainless Steel model, I waited until I found a refurbished one before buying one.

What’s the point in having the Stainless Steel models on display if consumers will be turned off by the price... and knowing the Aluminum model can do just about same thing they will go for that model.

 

[44267547]

People who buy a Xs max, ipad pro etc etc are most likely going to buy the SS watch keeping with product quality.

There’s no correlation here for those who purchased the Max or iPad Pro that want the stainless Apple watch. Those products offer different capabilities/features with other models (i.e XR, 9.7 iPad lack certain features compared to the more expensive iPhone/iPad) where as the aluminum and stainless steel Apple Watch perform the _exact_ same features. It comes down to one thing and one thing only, $300 just to purchase something with the ‘stainless casing’ is a lot of money, and I don’t think the average consumer is willing to spend that even if there is a display in store or not.

And FTR, I don’t know about your location, but I have found the stainless on display in carrier stores and retail stores alike in my geographic location.

 

[the future]

It‘s not „just“ stainless casing, though. The stronger sapphire glass is a very valid and easily communicated advantage of the Stainless watches.

Also, if you‘re talking about „exact same features“, the difference between the LTE models alu vs. stainless is 200$, not 300$, right? Which is, to me, a relatively small difference for the much, much classier Watch you get. If you don‘t care for LTE, sure, 300$ is a big gap.

P.S. Do carrier stores offer non-LTE Watches at all? I would imagine not.

 

[Ludatyk]

It‘s not „just“ stainless casing, though. The stronger sapphire glass is a very valid and easily communicated advantage of the Stainless watches.

Also, if you‘re talking about „exact same features“, the difference between the LTE models alu vs. stainless is 200$, not 300$, right? Which is, to me, a relatively small difference for the much, much classier Watch you get. If you don‘t care for LTE, sure, 300$ is a big gap.

P.S. Do carrier stores offer non-LTE Watches at all? I would imagine not.

Regardless of the Sapphire Crystal Display.. .for the average consumer, it doesn't mean much. All that matters.. does the Stainless Steel model have the same (software) "functions" as the Aluminum model? And the answer is yes.

At the end of the day, if it's $200 or $300... it's saving money. I've been a fan of the SS model since the original, I've had the Aluminum model before.. but I like the look of the SS model. Granted, most people do... but not majority are willing to pay the price.

 

[bingeciren]

I have the SBSS 4 with the SB Link Bracelet. My decision was based on entirely for the looks and feel and I’m not even using the LTE.

I guess I represent the minority.

 

[Riley-Freeman]

You sound like one of the representatives at a carrier trying to sell an Apple Watch to a customer. Actually, with tax, it comes out to be $13 a month for LTE with the Apple Watch, and if you’re already adding in $13 more a month to likely an already expensive carrier bill, can the consumer really justify the means of having the LTE Apple Watch for service they may or may not use?

You can’t look at necessarily the addition of of the LTE service added on per month, I would look at do you really _need_ The LTE service and would you actually benefit from. If $13 isn’t justifiable for someone, then clearly they don’t need to add that type of additional funds on there existing carrier bill.

you're totally missing the point. It's not about upselling someone a more expensive watch. The people buying the stainless steel version tend to actually want it and have done their research but not everyone can fork over almost $1000 just like that. Being in canada, with tax this watch is i think $1068. the $13 a month is nothing to someone who genuinely wants it.

I have chosen the stainless steel model because it is the only one that comes in black. I had it in series 3 and again now in series 4. Unless they start making aluminum in black, i cant imagine ever buying the aluminum model.

 

[razmonster]

I have the SBSS 4 with the SB Link Bracelet. My decision was based on entirely for the looks and feel and I’m not even using the LTE.

I guess I represent the minority.

and this is another valid point. the type of band jacks the price up i paid $150 more for a milanese loop with my SS S3 and ended up never using it and made sure I purchased the S4 with a sport band