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

JayLenochiniMac

macrumors G5
Nov 7, 2007
12,815
2,354
0
New Sanfrakota
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.
Edition? The member was talking about Sport vs. SS.
 

Mac 128

macrumors 603
Apr 16, 2015
5,360
2,902
0
Edition? The member was talking about Sport vs. SS.
Why do you question my response when I actually quoted the OP in post?

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.
OP states clearly that gold is an exception to the "rule" that they would buy the SS if it were only $100 more than the Sport, as if the ~$1,000 in gold justifies the up to $16,400 more they charge for the Edition over the Sport, despite otherwise being exactly the same watch, with even fewer band options.

So "double the price is just crazy", but 56x the price is OK because it's in a "different league"? I think it's exactly the same problem the OP is complaining about, and one more example of Apple charging more without necessarily justifying the increase tangibly.
 
Last edited:

JayLenochiniMac

macrumors G5
Nov 7, 2007
12,815
2,354
0
New Sanfrakota
Why do you question my response when I actually quoted the OP in post?



OP states clearly that gold is an exception to the "rule" that they would buy the SS if it were only $100 more than the Sport, as if the ~$1,000 in gold justifies the up to $16,400 more they charge for the Edition over the Sport, despite otherwise being exactly the same watch, with even fewer band options.

So "double the price is just crazy", but 56x the price is OK because it's in a "different league"? I think it's exactly the same problem the OP is complaining about, and one more example of Apple charging more without necessarily justifying the increase tangibly.
You didn't quote the OP. The member you quoted was talking about Sport vs. SS.
 

Mac 128

macrumors 603
Apr 16, 2015
5,360
2,902
0
You didn't quote the OP. The member you quoted was talking about Sport vs. SS.
My mistake, I though @Freida was the OP.

But with all due respect, it seems like you're being intentionally obtuse just to be argumentative.

I quote the post I was responding to again:

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.
You think @Freida thinks it's OK to pay "double" for the anodized 'gold' Sport (which doesn't cost any more), but not the Stainless Steel, or Space Gray Sport and Space Black Watch for that matter?

Until @Freida weighs in, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were talking about the 'gold' Edition. Otherwise their point that 'gold' is in a "different league" is ridiculous, rather than just biased or uninformed, and undermines their entire argument, which has some merit.
 
Last edited:

Freida

macrumors 68000
Oct 22, 2010
1,759
1,870
0
Ok, I see your point but what I meant is that GOLD is almost always considered as luxury and therefore its easier to justify that price tag (even though I dont' agree with it). Think of it like sport & ss is like 'upgrades' in similar fashion as ipad has 'upgrades' for cellular higher storage etc.
You can get gold ipad with diamonds for ridiculous prices but that is the luxury.

Yes, you can now play word game with me or even say that it may not be any different (and maybe you might be correct in a certain way) but to me it is. Gold is a premium luxury (same as diamonds etc.) whereas SS is not. SS is (in my opinion) an upgrade and so is saphire glass vs ion. Thats why I have excluded EDITION in my analogy previously.

I hope it makes little bit of a sense (hopefully) :D
 

JayLenochiniMac

macrumors G5
Nov 7, 2007
12,815
2,354
0
New Sanfrakota
My mistake, I though @Freida was the OP.

But with all due respect, it seems like you're being intentionally obtuse just to be argumentative.

I quote the post I was responding to again:



You think @Freida thinks it's OK to pay "double" for the anodized 'gold' Sport (which doesn't cost any more), but not the Stainless Steel, or Space Gray Sport and Space Black Watch for that matter?

Until @Freida weighs in, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were talking about the 'gold' Edition. Otherwise their point that 'gold' is in a "different league" is ridiculous, rather than just biased or uninformed, and undermines their entire argument, which has some merit.
I wasn't trying to be obtuse but it previously wasn't clear what part of the member's statement you were referring to, since you quoted the entire statement (which also referred to SS being double the price of Sport) without highlighting the important part in parentheses. It's clear now that you've clarified it.
 
Last edited:

Mac 128

macrumors 603
Apr 16, 2015
5,360
2,902
0
Ok, I see your point but what I meant is that GOLD is almost always considered as luxury and therefore its easier to justify that price tag (even though I dont' agree with it). Think of it like sport & ss is like 'upgrades' in similar fashion as ipad has 'upgrades' for cellular higher storage etc.
You can get gold ipad with diamonds for ridiculous prices but that is the luxury.

Yes, you can now play word game with me or even say that it may not be any different (and maybe you might be correct in a certain way) but to me it is. Gold is a premium luxury (same as diamonds etc.) whereas SS is not. SS is (in my opinion) an upgrade and so is saphire glass vs ion. Thats why I have excluded EDITION in my analogy previously.

I hope it makes little bit of a sense (hopefully) :D
I totally understand that you consider gold as a luxury item. Most people do. However, the price of gold itself provides the markup for "Luxury" status. Let's say there's $1,000 worth of gold in the Edition, and you've already said a $399 Stainless model would be acceptable to you. Even if Apple marks up the gold and takes it's usual 40% profit margin, then the price of the Edition shouldn't be any more than $1,800. Let's say even you accept doubling the price to denote luxury, we're still looking at a watch that should be less than $4,000 without offering any other substantive features, which they don't -- that's $3,000 more than the most expensive SS model, so there's your luxury. Add to that after paying $17,000 Edition owners can't even buy different matching gold bands, further cementing the idea of "luxury" as arbitrary. Apple care plus for the gold watch is also $1,000, vs. $69 for the Sport. Granted, the Edition gets 3 years of coverage compared to the Sport's 2. But that too seems awfully arbitrary since everything but the case material is the same as the Sport, and if Apple replaces the watch because of a defect in the gold case, well, Apple gets to keep the gold, which retains 100% of its value. A 3 year plan should only cost ~$99. And you'd think after spending $17,000, or ~$15,000 profit for Apple, that Apple Care + would be included in the price, especially since there are no other perks, and even fewer options than the Sport.

All things considered, I'm all for luxury, but the Edition just doesn't make any sense, just like the rest of Apple's arbitrary price bumps.
 

BarracksSi

Suspended
Jul 14, 2015
3,902
2,625
0
All things considered, I'm all for luxury, but the Edition just doesn't make any sense, just like the rest of Apple's arbitrary price bumps.
It makes sense for people who have already spent between $10-20k on traditional watches and don't want to cheap out on a $600-700 AW.
 

Freida

macrumors 68000
Oct 22, 2010
1,759
1,870
0
It makes sense for people who have already spent between $10-20k on traditional watches and don't want to cheap out on a $600-700 AW.
I wish I had that "problem" :)
My salary is way too low to be able to afford 20k on a watch. I would rather buy tesla model S and not buy 3 upgrades worth of watch :)))))
 

ekwipt

macrumors 6502a
Jan 14, 2008
722
148
0
I have two scratches on my watch sport, not enough for me to worry, when the new sport watch comes out i will buy it, so unless you have money to blow on the "agreed" better looking apple watch i'd stick to the cheaper version and upgrade when the new one comes along, i really hope they don't offer a watch pro, that would annoy the heck out of me
 

exxxviii

macrumors 65816
May 20, 2015
1,423
552
0
I mean, what's the big difference that made the sport worth 300$ and the normal jump to 650$?
Apple conducted a willingness to pay market study, and discovered that people would pay significantly more for a shiny case and mineral screen. So, they priced the SS at at the highest point that could deliver the sales targets. The price difference probably has no relation to the actual incremental cost of the materials used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JayLenochiniMac

dBeats

macrumors 6502a
Jun 21, 2011
633
206
0
I have the sport AW and there is a single scratch on the screen that I'm pretty sure I got when I was a the beach last year. I assume a grain of sand and the watch face had a meeting and the sand won. So the Sport glass is pretty good, but not perfect. Compare that to my premium watch that I wore for almost ten years with a sapphire crystal face that has been through hell and back including two replacement leather straps due to wear, and it is absolutely flawless. Sapphire is amazing.
 

BarracksSi

Suspended
Jul 14, 2015
3,902
2,625
0
Thought about this a couple days ago --

The price of the SS, I'd say, has more to do with the price of the Sport than anything else.

Fitness trackers and other smartwatches were at the $150-250 range at the time. Sporty fitness watches from Garmin and Mio were about $250-300. Apple's base model has more capability, and pricing it just one notch above these competitors makes sense.

To have another tier, you can't just price the next higher model at $25-50 above the cheaper one -- you need to go higher, but only enough to make it seem attainable with a little extra effort.

The same pricing strategy works in many other product lines. Go check out prices for Shimano bicycle components, for example.
 

BarracksSi

Suspended
Jul 14, 2015
3,902
2,625
0
Except there is a world of friggin' difference in performance and value between 105/Ultegra/Dura Ace versus the case and screen of the AW.
Kinda... but the bottom of Shimano's range is below Tourney, not 105 (or Tiagra or Sora), and they can't exactly sell a Tourney derailleur for fifty cents. They have to make some money, even in bulk sales, and each product level needs to have a big enough gap from its neighbors. Otherwise, nobody would bother buying the mid-level stuff.
 

maxsix

Suspended
Jun 28, 2015
3,102
3,683
0
Western Hemisphere
I mean, what's the big difference that made the sport worth 300$ and the normal jump to 650$?
A large part of Apple's successful race to the top has been their powerful influence over buyers. Commanding huge gross profits, far above industry average, it's Apple's greatest strength.

Thanks to the world class sales skills of Steve Jobs, he set the precedent, held a hard line on premium prices and convinced people to pay the price.
 

Michael CM1

macrumors 603
Feb 4, 2008
5,674
272
0
Sapphire is the second-strongest transparent material in existence. The only more scratch-resistant material you could use in a watch face would be diamond. If you thought sapphire was expensive, think about a diamond-covered display.

When I looked into this back when deciding to get mine (FYI I'm a geology student), I found that sapphire was more resistant to scratching and the glass is more resistant to cracking/breaking. Also you're talking about stainless steel vs. aluminum. Considering how many times I've worn my watch mowing the lawn and holding off a cypress tree from whacking my face to find my watch NEVER gets scratched, it's kind of awesome.

Also with some of the fancier bands they use stainless steel in them and I wanted the watch to match the band I later got with the tiny magnets in it.

I'd love to see a big survey of usage between people who got each. I know the SS version definitely looks more like a fancy piece of jewelry instead of a little more like a really spiffy sports tracking device. It's just personal preference, and after finding a tiny scratch on my iPhone 6 screen despite my Otterbox covering the rest of the phone, GAH. It's not a big one, but once you find it it's hard to unnotice.
[doublepost=1463218046][/doublepost]
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
It definitely looks fancy. It's just a shame the processing is SO SLOW and doesn't leave a lot of room for software development. I mean it's the same on the sport model, but obviously with the limited power I'll be more apt to upgrade to a model with a processor worth a damn. Maybe Apple will figure out a way to improve speed through software redesign, but that's what I thought with the 2.0 OS. Still takes like six seconds for my damn Wink app to open so I can merely get to my light switch shortcuts. When it's more involved like a weather app, eek.
 

exxxviii

macrumors 65816
May 20, 2015
1,423
552
0
Kinda... but the bottom of Shimano's range is below Tourney, not 105 (or Tiagra or Sora), and they can't exactly sell a Tourney derailleur for fifty cents. They have to make some money, even in bulk sales, and each product level needs to have a big enough gap from its neighbors. Otherwise, nobody would bother buying the mid-level stuff.
To me, the AW's differences are principally cosmetic and perception. Whereas the Shimano stuff is significantly different in materials, design, R&D, performance, etc. as you move up the line. The pricing is non-linear, but the products are totally dissimilar due to the design differences.

Continuing the bike comparison, where I see similar practices to Apple's pricing is in the high-end carbon frames. The frame makers will invest the same R&D in the design of the frame shape (all of the strength and aerodynamics). Then, they will offer the same frame in two or three price points, where the only difference is the type of carbon and layup schedule. There is cost and value in the better carbon, but the pricing is driven more by cosmetics and perception than performance.

The same with the BMW 5 GT and 7 Series and the BMW 5 Series and 6 Series Grand Coupe. Those two respective pairs are essentially the same car in different cosmetic wrappers. But, BMW premium prices the 7 Series and 6 Series about $20K above their corresponding 5 Series counterparts, because they know people will pay for the cosmetic and image differences.
 

Mac 128

macrumors 603
Apr 16, 2015
5,360
2,902
0
To me, the AW's differences are principally cosmetic and perception. Whereas the Shimano stuff is significantly different in materials, design, R&D, performance, etc. as you move up the line. The pricing is non-linear, but the products are totally dissimilar due to the design differences.

Continuing the bike comparison, where I see similar practices to Apple's pricing is in the high-end carbon frames. The frame makers will invest the same R&D in the design of the frame shape (all of the strength and aerodynamics). Then, they will offer the same frame in two or three price points, where the only difference is the type of carbon and layup schedule. There is cost and value in the better carbon, but the pricing is driven more by cosmetics and perception than performance.

The same with the BMW 5 GT and 7 Series and the BMW 5 Series and 6 Series Grand Coupe. Those two respective pairs are essentially the same car in different cosmetic wrappers. But, BMW premium prices the 7 Series and 6 Series about $20K above their corresponding 5 Series counterparts, because they know people will pay for the cosmetic and image differences.
Yes, Apple has long done this. I paid a premium for the black MacBook back in 2007, which they tried to justify by putting a larger hard drive into it, but there was still a significant portion of that price increase that was not directly associated with materials. Not to mention the Edition which is otherwise indentical except for about $1,000 in gold.
 
Last edited:

Mad Mac Maniac

macrumors 601
Ok I think some of you missed my intention.
...
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.
Yes. Arguably you get much more bang for your buck with the sport model, because you can upgrade twice as frequently as if you were to get the steel model.

I've had my sport watch for nearly a year. I've run with it (100s of times), mountain biked with it, played sand volleyball with it, done yoga with it, slept with it, and banged it around all sorts of ways on doors, walls, etc. Is it in pristine, mint condition? Of course not. Would it take a detailed inspection to discover any defects? You betcha. The only time I ever notice any of the minor scratches/scruffs are if I take time to specifically look for them.

Honestly, even for people who could afford the steel version I couldn't rationalize the purchase especially for a 1st get product like the apple watch that is going to improve so significantly in a few years.
 

Mac 128

macrumors 603
Apr 16, 2015
5,360
2,902
0
Yes. Arguably you get much more bang for your buck with the sport model, because you can upgrade twice as frequently as if you were to get the steel model.

I've had my sport watch for nearly a year. I've run with it (100s of times), mountain biked with it, played sand volleyball with it, done yoga with it, slept with it, and banged it around all sorts of ways on doors, walls, etc. Is it in pristine, mint condition? Of course not. Would it take a detailed inspection to discover any defects? You betcha. The only time I ever notice any of the minor scratches/scruffs are if I take time to specifically look for them.

Honestly, even for people who could afford the steel version I couldn't rationalize the purchase especially for a 1st get product like the apple watch that is going to improve so significantly in a few years.
I would argue that that's true only if the Watch currently doesn't meet all of a person's needs. One of the biggest surprises for me about the watch was how much it did upon release. There's very little Apple didn't put into the initial watch, which I personally think was a mistake, as it gives them little room for improvement, and substantially raises the expectations for any improvement Apple makes. About the only complaint about the Watch that most initial adopters might want to upgrade to improve is the speed, and that's only depending on what they use the watch for to begin with.

Based on comments I've read here, most people who are satisfied with their existing Watch, are likely to be satisfied for several years, in which case they should buy whatever they will enjoy wearing the most. The biggest mistake most people make about this product is viewing it like a tech device that needs to be constantly upgraded. The reality is, unless an existing customer needs a specific new feature, or uses apps which require greater speed, then the only reason to upgrade is because they like the look of the new model better. And even then, there's no real reason to upgrade, just keep the old watch in their rotation along with their extra watch bands for a different look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sean000

Michael CM1

macrumors 603
Feb 4, 2008
5,674
272
0
Yes. Arguably you get much more bang for your buck with the sport model, because you can upgrade twice as frequently as if you were to get the steel model.

I've had my sport watch for nearly a year. I've run with it (100s of times), mountain biked with it, played sand volleyball with it, done yoga with it, slept with it, and banged it around all sorts of ways on doors, walls, etc. Is it in pristine, mint condition? Of course not. Would it take a detailed inspection to discover any defects? You betcha. The only time I ever notice any of the minor scratches/scruffs are if I take time to specifically look for them.

Honestly, even for people who could afford the steel version I couldn't rationalize the purchase especially for a 1st get product like the apple watch that is going to improve so significantly in a few years.
Ha, you're probably right. Problem is I had no idea all the third-party apps would be 99 percent useless. There are some things it does REALLY well. But the first-gen iPhone might have done third party apps better and it didn't support them.

Still, I don't mind that I paid an extra $200. I wear it when I mow the lawn and brush up against these cypress trees. I wonder whether the glass cover would get scratched by them. I made a lot of overtime money working way too many hours about when the AW was released, so it was my present for surviving that nonsense. For the next one I get, I think I'll still get SS because I have really liked the look and sturdiness. But Imma wait on everybody to get one and yell about the problems. Then I wait for some $100 off sale and get me one.
 

Chupa Chupa

macrumors G5
Jul 16, 2002
14,830
7,369
0
The Apple watch does cost more to produce than the Sport but not $180 more, if we assume a 40% profit margin. Reality is the SS AW likely costs Apple $20-30 more than the Sport model. It's not much different than how Apple prices RAM on iDevices even though the wholesale cost difference between 16GB and 32GB is less than $1.

Sapphire glass costs about 5x more than Ion-X glass, so $15 vs $3. Aluminum is about 45% less expensive than SS, .70/lb vs 1.24, but there isn't much of either in the respective watch bodies. Sport has rubber band .80/lb vs 1.24/lb for stainless steel -- where a rubber band costs about $3 to make, a SS is maybe $7. Again, these are just raw material prices, not design or manufacturing, but those cost should be similar for both watches.

The main reason for the price jump is consumer perception. This is a common sales strategy for luxury and faux-luxury products. The Sport is the "value" price point so Apple needs premium pricing space between it and the next line up so consumers will perceive SS as more prestigious and luxurious than Sport, even though functionally the two are identical. This also includes the accessory watch band sales strategy, pricing them well above similar bands.