In other words, does having a sapphire display, a ceramic back, and being made of SS worth $200 more than the aluminum Sport? I don't know how much better sapphire is compared to Ion-X glass, ceramic over composite, or how much stronger SS is over aluminum. And whether it matters.
I do think the SS looks better.![]()
I don't think it's that obvious to that many.
When the first Macintosh came out, S.J. wanted to price it at something like $1500, but Sculley and the board insisted on $2500 because they felt they could. The decision cost them their dominance in the PC market.
Imagine how they'd be doing if they had priced the Sport at $249, the SS with any band at $349 (no Edition, or just for charity). Don't think they'd have had to go hungry at those prices, and would probably have boosted iPhone sales at the same time.
The differences with bicycles and cars is that lighter weight is a feature (all else equal, it helps you go faster, and in the case of cars, use less fuel). With watches, the extra heft is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but adds a premium "feel" since aluminum is more easily dented.
I've had bunches of Casios over the years, most of which were G-shocks. I've always enjoyed the nice, heavy feel of a fat watch on my wrist, but Casio case (and strap) designs are often very busy, with unnecessary ridges and grooves and so on, lots of text labels and such. It got on my nerves in later years.Of course, with the Casio the titanium on the body is a veneer on a plastic structure. They hold up well, but no one would accuse them of being haute couture.
I've had bunches of Casios over the years, most of which were G-shocks. I've always enjoyed the nice, heavy feel of a fat watch on my wrist, but Casio case (and strap) designs are often very busy, with unnecessary ridges and grooves and so on, lots of text labels and such. It got on my nerves in later years.
Apple Watch will be perfect for me. It has friggin none of that, while retaining the sensation of a nice lump of a watch on my wrist.![]()
I believe steel is cheaper than aluminum and easier to work with
I'm afraid you are wrong on both points. High quality stainless steel is more expensive than aluminum and Stainless steel is much harder to work with than aluminum.
There's a lot in the world I don't know about, but I was a machinist for many years and do know what I'm talking about when it comes to stainless steel vs aluminum.
(Oh, and the extra heft of a SS watch is anything but insignificant to many consumers. It's actually a major drawback for SS.)
I looked into it and you seem to be right. But I doubt the cost difference between either devices is material at this price point.
Though another one of or commentators said:
Machining is the opposite. It's much faster (and therefore cheaper) to machine aluminum, and easier on the tooling. Aluminum is a dream to mill and form. I'm not the only one to think so: read Slocum's "Precision Machine Design" and you'll find that aluminum is really quite a wonderful material in all sorts of ways that run very deep.
So maybe there is a bit of debate between the pros and cons of the material.
I will defer to others who have more experience. I have no relevant experience here.
I looked into it and you seem to be right. But I doubt the cost difference between either devices is material at this price point.
Though another one of or commentators said:
Machining is the opposite. It's much faster (and therefore cheaper) to machine aluminum, and easier on the tooling. Aluminum is a dream to mill and form. I'm not the only one to think so: read Slocum's "Precision Machine Design" and you'll find that aluminum is really quite a wonderful material in all sorts of ways that run very deep.
So maybe there is a bit of debate between the pros and cons of the material.
I will defer to others who have more experience. I have no relevant experience here.
I'm that other commentator. In my work I've been responsible for products (not watches though) that were available in precision-machined aluminum or stainless steel.
The material cost differences are insignificant, and they vary with the specific alloys chosen. It's the machining and finishing that is significantly more costly for stainless steel. If welding were involved, it would be a different story, as aluminum welding is a specialized, complicated and costly process.
I agree that the cost difference between SS and aluminum would be minimal. They are certainly charging a premium for the SS version.
So the $200 difference is due to the labor of working with SS, sapphire front, and ceramic back? Plus maybe a $50 markup because Apple considered moving to SS an upgrade?
I'm that other commentator. In my work I've been responsible for products (not watches though) that were available in precision-machined aluminum or stainless steel.
The material cost differences are insignificant, and they vary with the specific alloys chosen. It's the machining and finishing that is significantly more costly for stainless steel. If welding were involved, it would be a different story, as aluminum welding is a specialized, complicated and costly process.
So the $200 difference is due to the labor of working with SS, sapphire front, and ceramic back? Plus maybe a $50 markup because Apple considered moving to SS an upgrade?
But I have no idea if the $50 guess is right.
You nailed it. Because they can.As you mention, the crystal is different. Sapphire is more expensive, the bands are pricier as well, and I think SS can be pricier.
Finally, the best answer I can come up with, aside from those reasons - because they can.