Maybe apple says sports edition has a extra GPS sensor, or 3g radio compared to normal edition. Hence it's 200 dollar more.
It might just happen.
It might just happen.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is the steel version actually the cheap one?
- Thread starter Knowimagination
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think when Tim Cook said Watch he meant the product in general not that specific collection. I can't see any way that the stainless steel watch starts at $349 unless that's just the watch and not including the price of the bands. Still my guess is the aluminum watch with rubber band will be $349 and everything else will go up from there.
I think the Stainless will cost more.
The raw material will cost a little more.
The machining time will be a little longer (not a lot, but a little)
The higher quality glass
the much better strap.
I just don't think we will be looking at 349 vs 1000 type difference.
(of course, we currently have no idea yet how much Apple will charge for straps)
Or even if you can select your own choice of strap when you buy the watch or are forced to have one of the few strap's Apple has chosen (that would be sad and silly, but they may do that)
I hope it would be, select the body you want, select the strap you want, then proceed to checkout.
That would please everyone and make it easier for Apple as they don't have to guess, and make up bundles at the factory.
But with Apple you just never know
The raw material will cost a little more.
The machining time will be a little longer (not a lot, but a little)
The higher quality glass
the much better strap.
I just don't think we will be looking at 349 vs 1000 type difference.
(of course, we currently have no idea yet how much Apple will charge for straps)
Or even if you can select your own choice of strap when you buy the watch or are forced to have one of the few strap's Apple has chosen (that would be sad and silly, but they may do that)
I hope it would be, select the body you want, select the strap you want, then proceed to checkout.
That would please everyone and make it easier for Apple as they don't have to guess, and make up bundles at the factory.
But with Apple you just never know
Ha. Ha. I guess that means my $2K vintage razor thin 18K gold Baume Mercier is "cheap," not to mention all those light, thin $10K+ Piaget, Jaeger-LeColtre and other exceptionally fine watches. You clear know nothing about the watch industry or what makes a watch quality if you think thickness and weight is a black and white defining factor.
Do you run? If so then you know a 10oz shoe is considered heavy where an 8oz is moderate. Just 2oz makes a difference, yes, and the difference between all steel and aluminum and plastic is more than that even, so no I'm not exaggerating. Why do you think sport watches are mostly all plastic as a genre? Even the $400 ones. Every oz counts. When running w/ a watch you want it to feel 100% weightless or you feel off balanced.
Last edited:
There are some SKUs with the stainless steel band and a sport strap. I'm of the opinion that the SS version will be pricier, but if they wanted it to be $349, that would be the SKU. However, that would leave very little reason to get the Sport, so I doubt it. But maybe $400-450 or something?
----------
I looked up the weight of the Pebble Steel and the Moto 360, and I imagine the weight would be comparable. Seems doable. Also, I'm not a professional marathon runner. I just run for my health.
Poppycock.
About 15 to 30 miles a week for the last 25+ years. Have used and tested dozens of sports/HR/GPS watchs (current Garmin FR620) over the years/miles and have often ran with 2 at a time.
Also spent almost 15 years (13.5) in the jewelry industry.
And you????
Last edited:
Is the steel version actually the cheap one?
Yet thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, run with their iPhone strapped to their arm that's surely a lot heavier than any model of the Apple Watch. So sorry, but I feel that you making silly analogies about running with a steel watch being comparable to a 'hair shirt' is plain ridiculous when people run with much heavier devices every day.
Ha. Ha. I guess that means my $2K vintage razor thin 18K gold Baume Mercier is "cheap," not to mention all those light, thin $10K+ Piaget, Jaeger-LeColtre and other exceptionally fine watches. You clear know nothing about the watch industry or what makes a watch quality if you think thickness and weight is a black and white defining factor.
Do you run? If so then you know a 10oz shoe is considered heavy where an 8oz is moderate. Just 2oz makes a difference, yes, and the difference between all steel and aluminum and plastic is more than that even, so no I'm not exaggerating. Why do you think sport watches are mostly all plastic as a genre? Even the $400 ones. Every oz counts. When running w/ a watch you want it to feel 100% weightless or you feel off balanced.
Yet thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, run with their iPhone strapped to their arm that's surely a lot heavier than any model of the Apple Watch. So sorry, but I feel that you making silly analogies about running with a steel watch being comparable to a 'hair shirt' is plain ridiculous when people run with much heavier devices every day.
So if the weight doesn't matter then why make a sport version at all?
If Apple just wanted a cheap watch then they could have called the sport version
watch and then had an apple watch steel and explain the benefits of the premium case and sapphire. That's not what they are doing though they are showing off the lighter weight of the sport model.
So if the weight doesn't matter then why make a sport version at all?
If Apple just wanted a cheap watch then they could have called the sport version
That's not what they are doing though they are showing off the lighter weight of the sport model.
The sport model looks bad in comparison to the other two, the logic here is you wouldn't want to wear it as jewelry like the other two and would mainly use it for spots related stuff instead.
Ok but even if that is the case why not list it first if it's the cheapest category?
So if the weight doesn't matter then why make a sport version at all?
If Apple just wanted a cheap watch then they could have called the sport version
That's not what they are doing though they are showing off the lighter weight of the sport model.
I'm not saying the weight doesn't matter. I'm saying that the original analogy was ridiculous and that many people will run with the stainless steel watch and probably the gold watch.
He wasn't saying people won't, he was saying that given the choice runners will see the lighter weight as a benefit despite you feeling like it is a small change.
I'm sure people will run in the stainless and gold watches but they would probably be happier in the sport edition.
To appeal to a broader market and make the watch more affordable for those not looking for a stainless steel or gold watch.
They do both. They describe the benefits of the Sport model and the benefits of the stainless steel.If Apple just wanted a cheap watch then they could have called the sport version
That's not what they are doing though they are showing off the lighter weight of the sport model.
Because it's not organized by price.
I'll be plenty happy with the stainless steel version actually.
Because I think Apple is positioning the stainless steel Watch as the mainstream watch with the sport and edition collections being cheaper/more expensive versions. Kind of like a designer that has their regular ready-to-wear collection but also a cheaper collection they sell at Kohls or wherever and couture stuff for celebrities/very wealthy.
Why would they be happier? They would have purchased the sport watch if that was the case. If someone purchases the apple watch or apple watch edition as opposed to the apple watch sport I'm sure they'll happier knowing they're running with the watch that they wanted as opposed to being happier with the version that they didn't want but it was just that little bit lighter.
As it is vintage the design and style would reflect the desires of that time period. I remember up until the mid-80's watches were getting thinner and thinner. Now watches have gotten larger to the point that a 1970's Men's Rolex looks smaller than many woman's watches today.
All I am saying is that given the choice a runner is going to choose lighter weight all things being equal. In this case I understand why some will choose another model, but if someone owned both they would run in the lightest apple watch they own.
You really think apple is going to jump from 350 to 800?
Edit: Thinking about it more the huge price jump makes even less sense if they are in fact trying to market the Steel version as the main version. Trying to market an $800 - $1000 dollar watch as the main product and then saying oh and by the way here is something identical in function for $350 would make the Stainless model DOA for the vast majority of people. It makes zero sense.
Last edited:
Shall I buy a brand new iMac ($1099) or a phone ($949) for <almost> the same price.
Except you can get an iPhone for $650 and use it by itself. The watch is an iPhone accessory.
Every day people buy things that have a cheaper alternative. I probably own 4 or 5 Coach handbags. There are certainly cheaper handbags with the same functionality that I could buy. Why do people spend thousands of dollars on a watch that doesn't tell time any differently than a cheap watch from Target?
You're thinking of Watch purely as a tech product with no fashion component. But how about when at Apple's launch event someone is up on stage talking about all the intricacies that going to manufacturing the link band and how it takes 9 hours just to make just one. Or the hand crafted machines from Italy that are used to make the milanese loop. I have no doubt Apple will find a way to get people to want (and buy) the more expensive watches.