So, it doesn't matter why you go into the store - just spend your money on some random item?
Wouldn't you rather ask "one SS Watch, or two sport Watches - do I really need two watches, or just the one? - for about the same money..
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
So, it doesn't matter why you go into the store - just spend your money on some random item?
Wouldn't you rather ask "one SS Watch, or two sport Watches - do I really need two watches, or just the one? - for about the same money..
Honestly, this right here makes quite a bit of sense. Apple Watch will start at $350. Apple Watch Sport will be $199-$249. Maybe Tim wasn't taking about Apple Watch as the line, but Apple Watch as the model. Only time will tell though; I'm expecting the keynote sometime in early March which is too far away!
No way Cook would say the watch starts at X if it was cheaper than that. I've never seen an Apple keynote where the "starts at" price mentioned was not the cheapest price in the product line.
What does a Rolex do that my £8 watch doesn't?
It's fashion, people pay for image, not functionality. Your watch, your bag, your coat, all say something about you.
My £8 watch says i'm cheap, or it says i'm a hipster, or whatever, but it says something.
It's a statement. And if that all sounds silly to you, then that's fine, and the Sports watch will start at $350. But the Steel Apple Watch will be much more expensive.
----------
Not even close.
Hopefully you are right on one thing, a Keynote will clear things up!
I personally think that the sport model was made with those materials to be stronger and lighter for sports, not to necessarily be less expensive. I think it's entirely possible we could see both the sport and regular watches start at $350.
I don't see Apple pricing the steel and aluminum versions very high. They want to sell a lot of these. It would be a very niche product at $1000. They want these to be must-have accessories for the iPhone. I think the initial watch purchase for the non-gold models will be less than $500, and then there will be all those selections of bands available as additional purchases for $50-100 each.
I don't see Apple pricing the steel and aluminum versions very high. They want to sell a lot of these. It would be a very niche product at $1000. They want these to be must-have accessories for the iPhone. I think the initial watch purchase for the non-gold models will be less than $500, and then there will be all those selections of bands available as additional purchases for $50-100 each.
Generally Apple never did that.
But the Apple Watch is a brand new item and product category.
Remember when the iPhone launched and it did NOT sell like hotcakes because it was too expensive?! And how they lowered the price after a couple of months?!
So maybe, just maybe, they were testing the waters to see what the initial reaction to that $349 price point would be...
Somewhat different situation since Apple was selling the original iPhone at an unsubsidized price but ATT was still requiring a contract. At the time unsubsidized phones were almost unheard of so $600 sounded outrages (though I stood in line).
Apple has never raced to the bottom and they are not about to start near the bottom on what they see as a high fashion play. It will be $350 starting price for the Sport and the SS will be significantly higher, even with the least expensive fluoroelastomer band.
Anyone who thinks that a 316L Stainless Steel with Sapphire, ceramic back and with a
"...Link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. In part that’s because they aren’t simply a uniform size, but subtly increase in width as they approach the case. Once assembled, the links are brushed by hand to ensure that the texture follows the contours of the design. The custom butterfly closure folds neatly within the bracelet. And several links feature a simple release button, so you can add and remove links without any special tools...."
or a
"...MODERN BUCKLE
A small French tannery established in 1803 produces the supple Granada leather for this elegant band. The smooth top-grain leather is lightly milled and tumbled to maintain its refined texture. What looks like a solid buckle is actually a two-piece magnetic closure that’s delightfully simple to secure. We also added an inner layer of Vectran weave for strength and stretch resistance. It’s the same material NASA used to make the landing airbags for the Mars Rover spacecraft..."
will cost less than a much cheeper to produce aluminum/glass/fluoroelastomer Sport is delusional. I foresee those bands costing nearly as much as the Sport
Watch.
Somewhat different situation since Apple was selling the original iPhone at an unsubsidized price but ATT was still requiring a contract. At the time unsubsidized phones were almost unheard of so $600 sounded outrages (though I stood in line).
Apple has never raced to the bottom and they are not about to start near the bottom on what they see as a high fashion play. It will be $350 starting price for the Sport and the SS will be significantly higher, even with the least expensive fluoroelastomer band.
Anyone who thinks that a 316L Stainless Steel with Sapphire, ceramic back and with a
"...Link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. In part thats because they arent simply a uniform size, but subtly increase in width as they approach the case. Once assembled, the links are brushed by hand to ensure that the texture follows the contours of the design. The custom butterfly closure folds neatly within the bracelet. And several links feature a simple release button, so you can add and remove links without any special tools...."
or a
"...MODERN BUCKLE
A small French tannery established in 1803 produces the supple Granada leather for this elegant band. The smooth top-grain leather is lightly milled and tumbled to maintain its refined texture. What looks like a solid buckle is actually a two-piece magnetic closure thats delightfully simple to secure. We also added an inner layer of Vectran weave for strength and stretch resistance. Its the same material NASA used to make the landing airbags for the Mars Rover spacecraft..."
will cost less than a much cheeper to produce aluminum/glass/fluoroelastomer Sport is delusional. I foresee those bands costing nearly as much as the Sport
The million dollar question in all this is how much more will it cost? Are we talking $500, $1000 or more? I live in the UK and I want to get the Stainless Steel
Watch with the Stainless Steel link bracelet, but a cost of £1000 or more would be a little too much (that would be around $1,500) I don't mind paying £500 or even up to £1000 but no more. Now I may be way off and it may be cheaper only Apple really knows at this point.
Exactly.
Though Mark Gurman thinks the sport version should be cheaper and packaged like an iPod. But I think Apple sees Watch as something better than what's currently on the market and so they're pricing it accordingly. Gurman's logic is treating Watch as just another geeky tech gadget instead of a piece of jewelry/fashion that just happens to come with some amazing technology. At this point I think there are too many unanswered questions to know if Apple got it wrong with pricing or not.
Somewhat different situation since Apple was selling the original iPhone at an unsubsidized price but ATT was still requiring a contract. At the time unsubsidized phones were almost unheard of so $600 sounded outrages (though I stood in line).
Apple has never raced to the bottom and they are not about to start near the bottom on what they see as a high fashion play. It will be $350 starting price for the Sport and the SS will be significantly higher, even with the least expensive fluoroelastomer band.
Anyone who thinks that a 316L Stainless Steel with Sapphire, ceramic back and with a
"...Link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. In part thats because they arent simply a uniform size, but subtly increase in width as they approach the case. Once assembled, the links are brushed by hand to ensure that the texture follows the contours of the design. The custom butterfly closure folds neatly within the bracelet. And several links feature a simple release button, so you can add and remove links without any special tools...."
or a
"...MODERN BUCKLE
A small French tannery established in 1803 produces the supple Granada leather for this elegant band. The smooth top-grain leather is lightly milled and tumbled to maintain its refined texture. What looks like a solid buckle is actually a two-piece magnetic closure thats delightfully simple to secure. We also added an inner layer of Vectran weave for strength and stretch resistance. Its the same material NASA used to make the landing airbags for the Mars Rover spacecraft..."
will cost less than a much cheeper to produce aluminum/glass/fluoroelastomer Sport is delusional. I foresee those bands costing nearly as much as the Sport
Oh don't get me wrong. I actually believe that what you just said I'd how it is gonna be. People here were just hoping for the SD Watch to be a bit cheaper than that. Potentially cheaper then the Sport. Which is basically impossible. Do what I offered was the, what I think, only plausible, yet highly unlikely way the SS Watch could come in at $350.
I'm not going to speculate on what the price difference will be between apple watch and apple watch sport. We'll not know until they announce what the difference will be. However if does not make sense to charge more for the sport as it will cost less to make. It might be as Piggy has said that the difference in production cost is small, but there is a difference and that will be past on to us.
I would guess that the stainless steel version is listed first, because Apple view that as the default watch. It is the one they have obviously put the most time into, and the one with the most options.
I would guess that the stainless steel version is listed first, because Apple view that as the default watch. It is the one they have obviously put the most time into, and the one with the most options.
Coincidentally I almost posted a response yesterday to this thread as to why the SS was listed first, saying that in future generations Apple may segregate the Sport from the more expensive fashion/style SS&Edition. Apple could differentiate them in looks and features too. Packaging makes sense also.
The Sport is an 'iPod'
The SS & Edition's are 'Rolex/Neiman Marcus'
I could see it happening if they end up going down different paths in terms of looks and features. I'm sure Apple will be closely tracking what people are doing with the watch and what features proved to be most popular.
Another thing is there are features like digital touch that are basically useless if you don't have any friends/family who also own a watch. I wonder how Apple will approach that from a marketing/selling standpoint and are they going to push that feature heavily to try and increase sales?
Last edited:
In regards to Digital Touch, I wonder if when you try and contact friends without an Apple Watch, it could send a video in a regular message to the persons iPhone. I know that will be the case with the Animated Emoji, so maybe a drawing will be send via iMessage to your iPhone? They could even just use the vibration for heartbeats.
Somewhat different situation since Apple was selling the original iPhone at an unsubsidized price but ATT was still requiring a contract. At the time unsubsidized phones were almost unheard of so $600 sounded outrages (though I stood in line).
Apple has never raced to the bottom and they are not about to start near the bottom on what they see as a high fashion play. It will be $350 starting price for the Sport and the SS will be significantly higher, even with the least expensive fluoroelastomer band.
Anyone who thinks that a 316L Stainless Steel with Sapphire, ceramic back and with a
"...Link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. In part thats because they arent simply a uniform size, but subtly increase in width as they approach the case. Once assembled, the links are brushed by hand to ensure that the texture follows the contours of the design. The custom butterfly closure folds neatly within the bracelet. And several links feature a simple release button, so you can add and remove links without any special tools...."
or a
"...MODERN BUCKLE
A small French tannery established in 1803 produces the supple Granada leather for this elegant band. The smooth top-grain leather is lightly milled and tumbled to maintain its refined texture. What looks like a solid buckle is actually a two-piece magnetic closure thats delightfully simple to secure. We also added an inner layer of Vectran weave for strength and stretch resistance. Its the same material NASA used to make the landing airbags for the Mars Rover spacecraft..."
will cost less than a much cheeper to produce aluminum/glass/fluoroelastomer Sport is delusional. I foresee those bands costing nearly as much as the Sport
Don't forget one little thing- Apple are marketing kings. Descriptions such as those above are what they do. Words- just like the monologue Sir Ive uses in the video. Not sure price should be guessed at using spiel.
Indeed, and, if I'm honest, this kind of speak does make me feel queasy and a little sick as, as soon as they start you can instantly feel the sweet stench of sticky bullpoo that's been generated to spew up into fancy sounding words.
Even basic things like lovingly hand crafted.
I know it's marketing and naturally I expect some of this from every company, you are of course trying to sell a product and make it sound good, but there are limits, which I'm afraid Apple are going to railroad thru on this one.
Old Fred who'd worked in the out of date building for years, and is pretty sick of the mundane job he's doing suddenly becomes the skilled craftsman, who has spent years perfecting his art, in the company that was founded in 1803 steeped in the heritage of fine English hand worked perfection.
Please point to any Apple product that a has a description so embellished that is inexpensive in it's respective category.
Are you saying that the Sport with a rubber fluoroelastomer band will be more expensive?
described as:
"Because it’s made from a custom high-performance fluoroelastomer, the Sport Band is durable and strong, yet surprisingly soft. The smooth, dense material drapes elegantly across your wrist and feels comfortable next to your skin. An innovative pin-and-tuck closure ensures a clean fit. Available in white, blue, green, pink, and black."
But doesn't sound like it will be priced higher? Because this is the point I was making. So if you believe it is more expensive why didn't Apple do a better job of making it sound more expensive?
"Apple Watch Watch"
Watch Watch. What a strange [no] name for the 316L Stainless Steel model.
"Apple Watch Watch"
Watch Watch. What a strange [no] name for the 316L Stainless Steel model.
Really?
I think the Apple Watch will quickly be assimilated like some other familiar products....
How often do you say "Rolex watch"?
or "iPhone phone"?
I don't have one, and never even held one, but I know what a Rolex is. No product identifier needed there.... I think the Apple watch might achieve the same familiarity, if the general public finds it is relevant. Time will tell! - (I made a pun
)
Ok so this has been bothering me for a while now. If you go to the apple website or the store and look at any product category they are all listed from left to right, least expensive to most expensive.
Image
Image
Image
So with that being the case both during the keynote and now listed on the website they list the order as
[url=http://i.imgur.com/YmQfgwz.png]Image[/url]
If we are to believe that the sport edition is the cheap one, which is the overwhelming majority from everything I have read, then why on earth did apple all of the sudden break away from what they do in every other category and list the alleged cheap model in the center? Am I the only one that has thought this or is bothered by it?
So I can get a Mac Pro for less than the Mini? Awesome!
Wow you got me good
Silly thread deserves silly response. I can see the order being interesting or surprising, but bothersome? I'll be surprised if the sport is mid-range but it won't bother me. I have more significant things to worry about.
I don't think any of the bands will be super expensive - they are just described that way!
----------
Exactly!