Why's the Apple Watch that much expensive than the Sport?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by dvir971, May 6, 2016.

  1. dvir971 macrumors regular

    dvir971

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    Israel
    #1
    I mean, what's the big difference that made the sport worth 300$ and the normal jump to 650$?
     
  2. bandrews macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    #2
    The resilience of the sapphire screen and stainless steel body over the ionised glass and aluminium is worth it to me even if the cost of the materials isn't that much more.
     
  3. Sigoogle macrumors member

    Sigoogle

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Three words why it's more expensive.

    The materials used :p
     
  4. dvir971 thread starter macrumors regular

    dvir971

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    Israel
    #4
    Is that critical? I mean, if I decide to buy the Sport- is it still durable? Is its glass still strong enough for it not to break from casual bumps? Will it have stains from sweat or whatever? You know where I'm getting at... Let's put it like that- is it still an Apple Grade product, or more like iPhone 5c?
    Seriously can't afford the normal model now, wanna see if it's worth the buy
     
  5. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #5
    The ionX glass on the sport is supposed to be more shatter resistant whereas the Sapphire glass is more scratch resistant. Most medium to higher end mechanical watches come with Sapphire glass.

    Do you plan on working out with the watch and not cleaning it? If so, I would imagine the watch and band could get nasty. Otherwise, it's safe to put your watching under a running faucet to rinse it off.
     
  6. Sigoogle macrumors member

    Sigoogle

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Location:
    UK
    #6


    I've got a Sport and i've been real careful with it since i was given it at Christmas, but somehow recently i've managed to scratch it on something unknown lol. I'm preparing to invest in the Stainless steel model with the next AW because as i've said, i'm prone to scratching the screen than dropping the watch, having that Sapphire glass will help me worry less about damaging the screen, and i can always get a little case for the watch to protect that SS from getting scratched.

    The Sport is probably more worthwhile especially if you wanna use it for working out, and if you're worried about scratching the screen, invest in a little screen protector, there's some real good ones out there i'm sure!
     
  7. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #7
    The AW Sport is Ion-X Glass and aluminum just like the iPhone 6 series. The SS models, being stainless steel and sapphire crystal, are more premium and meant to be worn like a jewelry (watches are considered jewelry, unlike iDevices). If you don't care about the jewelry aspect, then the Sport will suit you just fine.
     
  8. dvir971 thread starter macrumors regular

    dvir971

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    Israel
    #8
    I'm going to buy it as an efficient fashionable good smart watch for my iPhone, not gonna do anything extreme with it or exceptionally sportive or out of the ordinary.... I guess an occasional unintentional bump on a desk or something like that... Do you think that'll do?
     
  9. bandrews macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    #9
    My iPhone screen is covered in fine scratches. My AW scree is completely flawless. There are times I've bashed it or scraped it on something and it still looks like new.

    Also the SS can be polished. Scratch the Aluminium Sport watch and its permanent.

    The way my AW gets treated, if I had bought the sport I would have trashed it by now.

    All depends on what you want.
     
  10. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    I believe in part in the manufacturing costs of Sapphire - its more difficult to make and has lower yields, so its pricier. Stainless steel is also more expensive, I also think its a decision by Apple to charge more.
     
  11. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #11
    Also the SS has a ceramic back and the Sport is plastic.
     
  12. sean000 macrumors 6502a

    sean000

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2015
    Location:
    Bellingham, WA
    #12
    My aluminum Sport still looks new after wearing it 16 to 18 hours a day for 10 months. I have occasionally knocked it into stuff, and it has fallen off a table or nightstand a few times when I accidentally dropped it while picking it up. I don't do much extreme with mine, but I don't baby it much since I bought Apple Care +. I have been pleasantly surprised to find it unscathed on a few occasions when I whacked it pretty hard on something by accident.

    Next time I may splurge on the stainless model just because I like the look, but the aluminum Sport is a very nice looking watch as well in my opinion. I have a couple of third party leather straps that dress it up quite nicely. It still looks like a quality Apple product, but the SS is more jewel like and definitely has a more premium look and feel. You really just need to see them both in person so you can decide for yourself, but I think the Sport will hold up just fine for you. Purchase Apple Care + and don't worry about it.

    Sean
     
  13. tonoboon macrumors regular

    tonoboon

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    #13
    316L steel + sapphire crystal + ceramic back
    worth it or not? , it's depend who concern.
     
  14. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #14
    Except it's not as simple when it comes to the AW. They don't replace on the spot and give you a refurb when swapping out under AC+ (as they do with all other iDevices). They may balk at sending the AW Sport to the depot for a minor repair (e.g., a scratch in the glass that merely bothers you but does not affect the functionality of the device), as AC+ technically doesn't cover cosmetic damage.
     
  15. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #15
    Do you wear watches regularly? I'm guessing you don't because if you did you'd understand that the Apple Watch uses better, more durable materials the the sport.

    Will a ding in the case bother you? Will a scratch on the screen?

    I'd go with the stainless model personally. It'll still ding and scratch, but the sapphire will resist scratches much better.
    --- Post Merged, May 7, 2016 ---
    Most other manufacturers also use refurbs as replacements. Is it really an issue?
     
  16. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #16
    There are many Apple watch cases online if you want extra bump protection. I use the Spigen Tough armor case. Not only does it protect the watch body but it has a built in screen protector built into it.

    [​IMG]


    When I want to keep the watch somewhat pure I use a Monoy Plastic cover.
     
  17. JayLenochiniMac, May 7, 2016
    Last edited: May 7, 2016

    JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #17
    That's not the point. With AW, they don't replace on the spot but typically send it to the depot for repair or if found to be unrepairable, get back to you with a white box replacement. Whether or not it's a refurb or remanufactured is beside the point. The AW remains the first and only Apple device that they don't replace on the spot.

    What I was saying with my post is given that AC+ technically doesn't cover cosmetic damage, it's going to be a lot more difficult to get them to send in your scratched-up AW for a "repair". With other iDevices, they just issue you a replacement unit to get it over with.
     
  18. BarracksSi macrumors 68040

    BarracksSi

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    #18
    I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention the ceramic back of the SS model.

    One of my coworkers has the Sport and, after a few months, noticed some light wear on the back where it fits against the charging puck. The back of my SS Watch, however, looks brand new.

    The SS's back also looks like it has steel rings around the LED lenses. I don't know for sure, as I've not yet seen a dismantled caseback yet.

    Most of my regular watches are steel and sapphire, so it seemed natural to buy the same in my AW.
     
  19. dvir971 thread starter macrumors regular

    dvir971

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    Israel
    #19
    Ok I think some of you missed my intention.
    I understand now why the Apple Watch is better than the Sport and why people would want to prefer that one. In my situation, I simply can't afford this one. No way. So what I'm wondering here is will it be worth it to spend money on that Sport model, or if I can't have the regular I better not spend money about it at all because it will look like a used toy some time later.
     
  20. scaramoosh macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    #20
    I work with metal and so I know Steel is way more expensive to work with than Aluminum, obviously Sapphire is probably more expensive than Gorilla Glass too. However it's not £200 more expensive or whatever Apple charge extra because they're making in bulk. Apple are creating tiers, the SS version has to be that more expensive to make you think twice, if you didn't have to then what you be the point of the cheaper option?

    Though personally I just hate working with SS because my work wont spend the couple mil on new machines.
     
  21. BarracksSi macrumors 68040

    BarracksSi

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    #21
    You should've asked this question in the first place. Your opening post was more confrontational than inquisitive.

    I think the band choice, not the case material, makes more of a difference in how the watch looks. Most of the dings and scratches won't be big enough to be visible to other people anyway. But, of course, you'd be venturing close to SS pricing territory -- but-but, you can get third-party straps to change the look without paying as much as an Apple strap costs.

    If necessary, you'd be able to buff the Sport's screen more easily (not that it's "easy" like drinking a beer, but it's easier than polishing sapphire). Same for the plastic back, too.

    Let me ask this: How beat up are your regular watches? Do dings and scuffs on them bother you?
     
  22. Arran macrumors 68040

    Arran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, USA
    #22
    There are many differences:
    1. Physical difference: Materials (obviously)
    2. Electronic functionality difference: None
    3. Durability difference: Varies depending on which activities the user participates in.
    4. Production cost difference: Not much. Certainly nowhere near the consumer price difference.
    5. Margin difference: SS is likely where Apple makes big money.
    6. Desirability difference: Varies by owner. Depends on wearer's priorities. Not for me to say.

    Based on your OP and follow ups, I'm thinking the sport is for you. After a year of owning one, I'm still very impressed with it.
     
  23. Mac 128 macrumors 601

    Mac 128

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2015
    #23
    While there are justifiable costs, your last point seems to conform mostly with Apple's established pattern. One could well ask:

    1) Why does the 42mm version cost $50 more than the 38mm? Is it that the cost of the additional materials, larger screen, and larger battery actually cost $50 more, or even as a proportional percentage more (incl. profit margins)? If so, how can aluminum and glass cost the exact same amount as stainless and sapphire?

    2) why does the 64GB iPhone cost $100 more than the 16GB, is it because it actually costs Apple $100 more?

    3) why does the Plus cost $100 more than the base model, if the SE costs $250 less? Is the 5.5 screen actually worth that much more?

    4) why is the 256gb 13" MacBook Pro $200 more for 256gb storage vs. 128GB, when it's only $150 difference on the iPad Pro?

    5) etc.
     
  24. Freida macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    #24
    I agree to a certain extend but I'm not prepared to pay double for something that has pretty much only fashionable benefits. Yeah, the SS is more scratch resistant but double the price?
    Maybe if I was very rich I wouldn't care that much but I was raised to to believe in value:price ratio and in the case of SS the value is just not there.
    Also, as its very new technology and idevice it will be developing rapidly for the next few years so most likely we will be updating every generation or every other generation and therefore it gets very expensive the higher you go.
    I would argue a bit about the jewellery aspect. If I buy rolex for few thousands then I know it will most likely last me a lifetime but the apple watch won't. I know i'm simplifying a lot here but I see apple watch as consumer product.

    Anyway, I have skipped AW1 as it doesn't offer enough for me but I'm eagerly waiting for AW2 as that is probably going to be the one I'll get but I don't think I'll get SS. If Apple kept their pricing model like ipads or iphone and they would charge around £100 more than I wouldn't think about it and would get it (exception would be the gold as that is different league) but double the price is just crazy. Sorry Apple but I won't be buying SS for the current price.
    The only way I would be willing to pay double is if SS had more sensors or more things that would justify it but that is unlikely to happen.

    Anyway, for me its a rip off to pay SS price. Sport it is :)
     
  25. Mac 128 macrumors 601

    Mac 128

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2015
    #25
    Why do you say the gold is a different league? It's the exact same thing, but worse.

    The only difference between the Sport and the Edition is maybe $1,000 worth of gold. Everything else is exactly the same, and Apple hasn't even offered a solid gold band option for it, much less any other band options. Yet Apple charges 56x as much for it. Talk about ridiculous.
     

Share This Page