Apple orders 5-6 million watches

[Michaelgtrusa]

Apple orders 5-6 million watches.

Article link. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/17/us-apple-watch-orders-idUSKBN0LL18W20150217

 

[lirn8]

1 of those 5-6 millions is mine!!!
My flight to San Diego is booked for April

 

[extricated]

It was almost an afterthought on yesterday's Front Page post about the removal of health sensors. I don't recall much discussion on the numbers then. I noticed it on a WSJ blog this morning.

It falls in line with the 20-25 million units that some have estimated for the first year.
Ambitious compared to the other players, but I'm glad to see it.

Count me in!

 

[Julien]

1 of those 5-6 millions is mine!!!
My flight [Israel] to San Diego is booked for April

Now that is an expensive Watch.

 

[DoFoT9]

I am keen for this to be in my hands, or.. on my wrist.

 

[gcooldude86]

Thats quite a number of units to order. Guess they expect to sell a lot on launch. One of those Apple Watch or Edition is mine!

 

[kdarling]

What's a bit surprising is that, according to the article, they expect to sell millions of the gold Edition models.

That seems to indicate a far lower price than anyone has expected.

If true, perhaps they've changed their mind about using solid gold, and are switching to gold plated?

Or have otherwise figured out a way to make the case incredibly thin?

 

[Cashmonee]

Apple sets production plans based on its forecast of demand for the new product. But Apple quickly adjusts these plans if sales are different than what it estimated. Suppliers say that Apple adjusts its so-called “plan of record” more often and more quickly than any other consumer-electronics company.

Not to say that 5-6million won't be sold in the first quarter after launch, I believe that is entirely possible, but this statement leads me to believe Apple have that as more of a high water mark than a target.

Also, from 9to5 reporting on the same WSJ article:

With some of the most interesting features now on the chopping block, the Journal claims that Apple’s executive team was left without much of a direction for the device and wondering what would draw customers to it.

This to me is the most interesting part of the article. It certainly would explain the tacked on features and overall non-uniqueness of the watch. To me, it really says that this is not the watch Apple really wanted to release. Perhaps gen 2 or 3 will be the product they originally intended?

9to5's take:
http://9to5mac.com/2015/02/16/apple-watch-health-features-cut/

 

[nebo1ss]

What's a bit surprising is that, according to the article, they expect to sell millions of the gold Edition models.

That seems to indicate a far lower price than anyone has expected.

If true, perhaps they've changed their mind about using solid gold, and are switching to gold plated?

Or have otherwise figured out a way to make the case incredibly thin?

I was wondering if that Paragraph you are referring to was just badly written and when they said production of 1 million per month they were not referring to the Gold Edition model but a total of all watches. 1 Million per month would not be a bad production run.

 

[lirn8]

Now that is an expensive Watch.

I have family in San Diego....
I visit them every year so this year i said why not combine the 2

 

[Julien]

I have family in San Diego....
I visit them every year so this year i said why not combine the 2

What ever excuse gets you an Watch is fine by me.

 

[kdarling]

I was wondering if that Paragraph you are referring to was just badly written and when they said production of 1 million per month they were not referring to the Gold Edition model but a total of all watches. 1 Million per month would not be a bad production run.

The Reuters paragraph was indeed badly written, but the WSJ source statement was pretty clear that it was talking about the gold models:

"Orders for Apple Watch Edition – the high-end model featuring 18-karat gold casing – are relatively small in the first quarter but Apple plans to start producing more than one million units per month in the second quarter, the person said. Analysts expect demand for the high-end watches to be strong in China where Apple’s sales are booming."

Cue the jokes about Apple opening Chinese organ trading centers: one kidney = one Edition Watch.

Seriously, though, I know a lot of regions place gold on a pedestal, but this seems to be an amazing prediction if the price is in the thousands of dollars.

 

[UltimateSyn]

1 of those 5-6 millions is mine!!!
My flight to San Diego is booked for April

Which day in April?

 

[lirn8]

Which day in April?

I land at LAX on April 14

 

[Technodynamic]

this gives me hope that the SS is priced reasonably, like I believe it will.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

this gives me hope that the SS is priced reasonably, like I believe it will.

Yes for the low-end SS models. The high-end SS models (with the link bracelet and Milanese loop) are rumored to be in the $1000 range.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

WSJ Reporting Supposed Initial Production #s: 5-6m

Small article in WSJ this AM (section B IIRC) stating that Apple has ordered production of 5-6m Apple Watches -- a tad less than the initial iPad ramp up.

WSJ reports 50% of that # is the Sport Watch, 33% Apple Watch, with the remaining (unstated but fill in the blank) Apple Edition.

Also WSJ seems to confirm the Sport Watch is the entry level -- we all knew that but this pretty much sets it as fact. Of course we still don't know if all Sport Watches are $350. Likely just the smaller one.

They also suggest the 18K gold model will cost more than $4k

Online version of the story is here:

 

[DoFoT9]

They also suggest the 18K gold model will cost more than $4k

I'm sorry but I really can't see Apple producing a watch at that price. They're not going into a niche market, they are a consumer company now. 2c

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I'm sorry but I really can't see Apple producing a watch at that price. They're not going into a niche market, they are a consumer company now. 2c

Most of the better watch brands are even more expensive at the 18K gold level. Apple wants the Watch to be viewed as much as high end fashion jewelry as it does a health band.

Clearly the "entry" sport version is going to be the meat and potatoes of the line just as the 3 series is for BMW. They sell/lease very few 6 and 7 series by comparison.

Other extremely expensive consumer items Apple has made: the limited edition 20th Anniversary Mac which was about $7500 in '97 -- and that's before adjusting for inflation. The G4 Cube was expensive for what it was too -- problem with that one was it wasn't "limited edition." So this won't be a first.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Small article in WSJ this AM (section B IIRC) stating that Apple has ordered production of 5-6m Apple Watches -- a tad less than the initial iPad ramp up.

WSJ reports 50% of that # is the Sport Watch, 33% Apple Watch, with the remaining (unstated but fill in the blank) Apple Edition.

Also WSJ seems to confirm the Sport Watch is the entry level -- we all knew that but this pretty much sets it as fact. Of course we still don't know if all Sport Watches are $350. Likely just the smaller one.

They also suggest the 18K gold model will cost more than $4k

Online version of the story is here:

So that suggests Apple will aim to sell ~850,000 to 1 million Edition models (also see this MR article), if Apple's prediction for their demand is correct.

As John Gruber said it best, "When the prices of the steel and (especially) gold Apple Watches are announced, I expect the tech press to have the biggest collective ****-fit in the history of Apple-versus-the-standard-tech-industry ****-fits."

 

[DoFoT9]

Most of the better watch brands are even more expensive at the 18K gold level. Apple wants the Watch to be viewed as much as high end fashion jewelry as it does a health band.

Clearly the "entry" sport version is going to be the meat and potatoes of the line just as the 3 series is for BMW. They sell/lease very few 6 and 7 series by comparison.

Other extremely expensive consumer items Apple has made: the limited edition 20th Anniversary Mac which was about $7500 in '97 -- and that's before adjusting for inflation. The G4 Cube was expensive for what it was too -- problem with that one was it wasn't "limited edition." So this won't be a first.

Well no use comparing to other watch or car companies. Apple is neither. If they make the product or not, I probably won't really appreciate it that much. The 20th Ann Mac didn't sell to well, the Cube was a flop, etc. Consumer-centric (and semi-prosumer) is what they've been doing well for the past 10 years. No need to ostracise an entire market by saying "hey look here is a product you can't afford"..

How reliable is this 'rumour' anyway?

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Well no use comparing to other watch or car companies. Apple is neither.

How reliable is this 'rumour' anyway?

Apple is neither to be sure. Apple is Apple just as Rolex is Rolex and BMW is BMW. But all three are viewed as "premier" and admired brands. All three use extreme price points, catering to the entire spectrum of the marketplace. That is the comparison, not the products themselves. Now if I had used Piaget or Bentley as examples, I'd see your point.

Rumors are rumors but I'll take ones printed in the WSJ a bit more seriously than ones say from Digitimes. WSJ has an excellent track record of accuracy when it comes to Apple rumors.

----------

As John Gruber said it best, "When the prices of the steel and (especially) gold Apple Watches are announced, I expect the tech press to have the biggest collective ****-fit in the history of Apple-versus-the-standard-tech-industry ****-fits."

Yes. Popcorn on the ready. Too bad we don't have Steve Ballmer to kick around anymore.

 

[DravenGSX]

Rumors are rumors but I'll take ones printed in the WSJ a bit more seriously than ones say from Digitimes. WSJ has an excellent track record of accuracy when it comes to Apple rumors.

I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the WSJ's track record with regard to Apple rumors, but for some reason I've been under the impression that they were often wrong with regards to iPhone related rumors.

This is also the same rag that posted that incredibly misleading headline regarding removed health functionality. Remember, they cater to wall street sensationalists and speculators.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the WSJ's track record with regard to Apple rumors, but for some reason I've been under the impression that they were often wrong with regards to iPhone related rumors.

This is also the same rag that posted that incredibly misleading headline regarding removed health functionality. Remember, they cater to wall street sensationalists and speculators.

No, it's one of Apple's preferred sources to leak to, which is why they have such a good record... good not perfect. And I read the WSJ daily. It hardly caters to sensationalist or speculators. It's investment reporters and columnists are quite reserved, not "get rich quick" artist.

 

[kdarling]

I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the WSJ's track record with regard to Apple rumors, but for some reason I've been under the impression that they were often wrong with regards to iPhone related rumors.

On the contrary, WSJ is often the first to leak pretty good info about upcoming thigns. Plus they've had some nice insider interview stories.

This is also the same rag that posted that incredibly misleading headline regarding removed health functionality. Remember, they cater to wall street sensationalists and speculators.

Perhaps you're reading secondhand versions. The actual article didn't say they were removed. They said they were originally desired but didn't make it:

"When Apple Inc. started developing its smartwatch, executives envisioned a state-of-the-art health-monitoring device that could measure blood pressure, heart activity and stress levels, among other things, according to people familiar with the matter.

"But none of those technologies made it into the much-anticipated Apple Watch, due in April. Some didn’t work reliably. Others proved too complex. And still others could have prompted unwanted regulatory oversight, these people said."