John Gruber's thoughts on Apple Watch

[Piggie]

Say Apple sold 30 million watches.

Do you have say 10 million people, from all around the world, all wanting to upgrade their watch battery on the same day?

How easy are they to open up?

Knowing Apple it's not a simple unscrew the back cover task.

We of course need to decide what we consider upgradable.
Taking the device apart and swapping some bits out, or swapping it over for a new model.

It could be made as a single module, which I know goes against Julien's views here.

My view is that, there will be an aluminum or other material internal skeleton which everything it fixed onto, and this unit/module will be inside the thin outside shell.

Julien is of the opinion there is no internal skeleton and it's more like a traditional watch where all the pieces are screwed to the much more solid and chunky inside of the case.

If my theory is correct, then a pop out, pop new module back in and away you go would be far more practical than a tiny set of tools and unscrewing the parts one by one away from the inside of the main case as Julien feels.

Another point to consider = external damage.

Go to Apple store with your watch you've had for a year, or lets say 2 for those who think a slower product cycle. It's been knocked against a few things over that year or two, a few marks on the case, a few dinks here and there. it's soo easy to catch a watch on something, just standing against a wall for example.

So you pop to the Apple store, they pop the back off, pop in the new inside. That will be $300 / $400 dollars please, having your old watch back with the 1 or 2 years of dinks/damage on the outside, but the new internals.

Again, perhaps another reason why a swap-out would be better, faster, and the customer gets the brand sparkly new watch unit which they slide their old straps into.

Apple can take back the old watches, scrap the guts/module, no one is going to want that.
The gold? bodies can simply be melted back down again and re-used as new material.

So, what are we thinking. And just think about YOU as a customer here for a moment.

You want your old watch back with a new inside?
Or you want a new watch body back and they keep the old entire body unit?

 

[mtmac]

That's the thinking of a disposable society. Just replace everything.

The stainless steel band requires 10 hours of machining to create. A swap program would make it much much more expensive to upgrade. People don't take their Rolexes in for a swap every few years, but they take it in to get serviced every few years. Apple is not following the computer market with this release, they are following the watch market.

And yes, just like when a new phone comes out, there will be lines outside the Apple stores for new watches and new upgrades. But just like most people don't get their new phone on day one of the release, most won't get their watch upgrade on day one either.

Apple is a green company. Even though their products have a limited life, they are very conscious of what their made of, and their impact to the environment once they're recycled or thrown away. It has never made sense for Apple offer upgrades before, as the cases are a negligible cost of the product. Now that the case is worth so much more than the componentry, it now makes complete sense to offer an upgrade path.

I guess the difference between Piggie's and Julien's model, is that Julien has Apple supplied photographs to support his theory. Piggie's speculation of a thin skin is not based on any substance. It goes against the photo, Apples 18k gold labeling, and all the reviewers who said the ss and gold versions are noticeably heavier than the aluminum one. I think this theory is based on nothing more than Piggie wanting a cheaper gold watch. I think it's more likely that a plastic frame on the innards will snap into place, potentially without attachment hardware.

 

[Piggie]

That's the thinking of a disposable society. Just replace everything.

The stainless steel band requires 10 hours of machining to create. A swap program would make it much much more expensive to upgrade. People don't take their Rolexes in for a swap every few years, but they take it in to get serviced every few years. Apple is not following the computer market with this release, they are following the watch market.

And yes, just like when a new phone comes out, there will be lines outside the Apple stores for new watches and new upgrades. But just like most people don't get their new phone on day one of the release, most won't get their watch upgrade on day one either.

Apple is a green company. Even though their products have a limited life, they are very conscious of what their made of, and their impact to the environment once they're recycled or thrown away. It has never made sense for Apple offer upgrades before, as the cases are a negligible cost of the product. Now that the case is worth so much more than the componentry, it now makes complete sense to offer an upgrade path.

I guess the difference between Piggie's and Julien's model, is that Julien has Apple supplied photographs to support his theory. Piggie's speculation of a thin skin is not based on any substance. It goes against the photo, Apples 18k gold labeling, and all the reviewers who said the ss and gold versions are noticeably heavier than the aluminum one. I think this theory is based on nothing more than Piggie wanting a cheaper gold watch. I think it's more likely that a plastic frame on the innards will snap into place, potentially without attachment hardware.

The 10 hours for 1 band can not be what you think it is believe me.
It's quite easy to be churning out a few 100 per day, but it takes 10 hours to move thru the whole production process. Be very careful with words here.
Meanings can get twisted.

It's not a mechanical watch, it's a mini computer in a metal shell, and that's that.

Re my thin/thick issue. I based that upon Juliens own drawing, measuring the area he felt WAS the case that's the size I used, I used his own highlighted area.

Remember, I say it may well have all it's internal components fitted into/onto a small aluminium skeleton/framework.

You are saying they will all be fitted onto a plastic skeleton/framework.

Julien refutes this strongly, saying this is rubbish and all the separate internal parts will be screwed directly onto the thick solid gold on the inside.

Sounds like you agree with me more.



Again, you say my dimension for case thickness is make up.
If you LOOK. You will see Juliens apple photo. See the area he highlighted in RED, then you can see I measured his highlighted area he thinks is the case size, and we came up with about 1.6ish mm

 

[Julien]

...Re my thin/thick issue. I based that upon Juliens own drawing, measuring the area he felt WAS the case that's the size I used, I used his own highlighted area.

....Again, you say my dimension for case thickness is make up.
If you LOOK. You will see Juliens apple photo. See the area he highlighted in RED, then you can see I measured his highlighted area he thinks is the case size, and we came up with about 1.6ish mm

You fail to take into account the case below the gasket. Obviously you know very little about watch construction. Here is a better photo with more (conjectured but plausible) detailed info.

RED: Case as seen with OLED removed.
BLUE: Gasket
Yellow: Thickness of the case below the gasket
LIGHT GREEN: Edge of S1 assembly tray
DARK GREEN: Screes holding the assembly tray screwed into the (Gold) case

 

[Piggie]

Thanks for the detailed image.

I need to ask.....

Assembly Tray?

Where did that spring from in your previous posts?

So, now we have a "Tray" that all the internal components are screwed onto do we?

 

[Julien]

Thanks for the detailed image.

I need to ask.....

Assembly Tray?

Where did that spring from in your previous posts?

So, now we have a "Tray" that all the internal components are screwed onto do we?

The S1 is epoxy incased and a completely contained chip (leading in part to the changeability speculation). It doesn't mount to a traditional circuit board but it still must be mounted to a something (likely a plastic tray) that is grounded from the case.


If it were a traditional chip on board configuration it would still be a be a circuit board mounted to the case. Circuit board or tray it's universally known that you can't mount a chip directly to a case.

 

[iososx]

Interesting article.

Even more interesting man.

Dedicating his career to offering his take on Apple with a jump start endorsement from a very young Steve Jobs, he continues to thrive off Apple.

 

[Piggie]

The S1 is epoxy incased and a completely contained chip (leading in part to the changeability speculation). It doesn't mount to a traditional circuit board but it still must be mounted to a something (likely a plastic tray) that is grounded from the case.


If it were a traditional chip on board configuration it would still be a be a circuit board mounted to the case. Circuit board or tray it's universally known that you can't mount a chip directly to a case.

The silly thing is you are now publicly contradicting yourself.

I have been saying right from the very start of this you have electronic components, that need to fixed to something. I suggested an Aluminium frame/skeleton that these components are fixed to, to make the unit whole, (I did not say plastic as we all know about views on plastic) And that this is then fitted inside the gold shell.

You again and again constantly rubbished this concept, saying:

The case is solid and not hollow. At 1.5mm to 2mm it is a solid and thick (not thin) watch case and you are WRONG about "...an aluminium [sic] skeleton and the outer shell [of gold]....". I spent over a decade in the jewelry business (have you ever disassembled a gold case watch before? I have) and I can tell you for a fact this is not the way quality solid case watches are made.

Firstly it's a hollow case, it's not solid, any more than an Easter egg is solid, it's hollow chocolate. The Apple watch case is Hollow as if it were solid you'd get nothing inside it! Doh!

And you see above you rubbish the parts being screwed to an internal frame. (aluminium sic)

Now you are backtracking and contradicting youself, buy coming up with a Plastic tray of your own (as I said I did not suggest plastic for obvious reasons)

So now you are agreeing with me all of a sudden that the parts ARE screwed to this frame/skeleton/TRAY, and then THAT is fixed inside the hollow body of the watch.

This is exactly what I have been saying since day one, and you have been saying no no no, and now you are saying yes! lol

Our only point we are not sure of is how thin the case's shell wall thickness is.

Using your new image, and your new proposed yellow arrows.

Those show the wall thickness is 6.5% the width of the device.

The whole LARGER of the 2 models width is 36.2mm, which makes this new proposed wall thickness 2.35mm

If we were looking at the smaller watch, we are looking at 2.14mm

Again, I can accept this seems reasonable.
The old previous calculations based upon the red area were around 1.65mm I think and your new yellow zone suggests 2.35mm

So I think around those numbers seem reasonable.

This is of course only relevant as we are pondering the amount of gold in the case shell, and again, we need to remember, pretty whole front of the device is screen and the large majority of the rear is the plastic/glass/ceramic sensor area, so it's mostly the sides of the device that will be gold with a little wrapping around the front and rear.

I don't disagree your new yellow 2.35mm wall thickness is wrong, it may well be spot on.
I'm glad you have finally agree'd with my very starting point that the individual parts are fitted into another piece (I call it framework/skeleton, you now call it a tray)

 

[Julien]

...And that this is then fitted inside the gold shell....Firstly it's a hollow case, it's not solid, any more than an Easter egg is solid, it's hollow chocolate. The Apple watch case is Hollow as if it were solid you'd get nothing inside it! Doh!...

There won't be enough crows in England to bake all the crow pies you will need to eat.

 

[Piggie]

There won't be enough crows in England to bake all the crow pies you will need to eat.

I don't mind, but like me, please stick to your views.

First I say the parts will probably be fitted to something and that something then fitted in the case.

You are like, no no no, you don't know anything.

Then after all that you come out with, well the parts will be fitted to a tray then fitted in the case.

I don't mind but wow, first you say I'm wrong, then you say exactly what I was saying all along but were telling me I was wrong.

Stick to what you say man!

 

[Julien]

I don't mind, but like me, please stick to your views.

First I say the parts will probably be fitted to something and that something then fitted in the case.

You are like, no no no, you don't know anything.

Then after all that you come out with, well the parts will be fitted to a tray then fitted in the case.

I don't mind but wow, first you say I'm wrong, then you say exactly what I was saying all along but were telling me I was wrong.

Stick to what you say man!

The aWatch Edition is an 18K sold gold case. All of your nonsense about an aluminum frame in a hollow gold shell is wrong.

Please stop trying to twist my words into some perverted version of your alternate reality. I bet no one else here can see this misapprehension you are imagining.

Which of the following 2 scenario seems the most reasonable and likely:

1: You sitting at your home having never touched or seen an aWatch know the Edition is a deceptive fraud even though Apple will be fully exposed on launch day. Also Apple has managed to dupe everyone so far BUT you.

2: Apple is not deceiving or lying and is making an 18K solid gold Edition that it intends to impress the watch/jewelry/fashion industry. All the watch/jewelry/fashion experts who have seen and held it believe it's an (substantial) 18K sold gold case. All the the tech experts that have seen and held it believe it's an (substantial) 18K sold gold case.

At times your bizarre rhetoric borders on trolling. You are way out of the mainstream of anything resembling rational foresight.

Again the Edition is an 18K Sold gold case.

 

[Piggie]

The aWatch Edition is an 18K sold gold case. All of your nonsense about an aluminum frame in a hollow gold shell is wrong.

Please stop trying to twist my words into some perverted version of your alternate reality. I bet no one else here can see this misapprehension you are imagining.

Which of the following 2 scenario seems the most reasonable and likely:

1: You sitting at your home having never touched or seen an aWatch know the Edition is a deceptive fraud even though Apple will be fully exposed on launch day. Also Apple has managed to dupe everyone so far BUT you.

2: Apple is not deceiving or lying and is making an 18K solid gold Edition that it intends to impress the watch/jewelry/fashion industry. All the watch/jewelry/fashion experts who have seen and held it believe it's an (substantial) 18K sold gold case. All the the tech experts that have seen and held it believe it's an (substantial) 18K sold gold case.

At times your bizarre rhetoric borders on trolling. You are way out of the mainstream of anything resembling rational foresight.

Again the Edition is an 18K Sold gold case.

Is there something wrong with you?

I really don't think you are reading anything.

Let's try again:

I said the components are probably screwed to an aluminium frame or something and this is fitted inside the gold shell.

You said rubbish no Aluminium sic, the would not do that, it's all fitted to the gold.

I questioned this.

then you come back with saying the individual components are going to be fitted into a "PLASTIC" tray and then fitted inside the watches gold shell.

I said aluminium that you rubbished holding the parts.
You said plastic holding the parts.

Re the stupid hollow and solid mess you are getting into:

This is SOLID:
http://www.mirconcreteproducts.com/sites/default/files/100mm-hollow-block-2.jpg

This is HOLLOW:
http://media.ais-online.de/media/64951/images/14467263px401x344.jpg


Hint: You can't get anything inside something that is SOLID!

The Apple watch case in all materials is HOLLOW!
I trust you know the meaning of the word hollow? It means it's not solid, there is a space inside where things can go.

If you wanted any more proof, here is what's supposed to be a CAD drawing of the hollow shell of the watches case:
http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/138791-image/iWatch-chassis.jpg

Look at it, it's a hollow shell which surrounds the components
It's not solid!

We have no disagreements again.

I said the parts are fixed to aluminium then fitted into the watches shell
You said in your own posting you think they are screwed to plastic then fitted into the watches shell.

And see above the difference between solid and hollow.

I am at a loss how you can't grasp these simple concepts.

Nothing I say in any way goes against anything anyone has logically said or any reports or photo's of the device, or how it can be put together.

Nothing I have said has changed from my very 1st posting.

 

[bigred7078]

I think you both need to step away from the keyboard....

 

[Piggie]

I think you both need to step away from the keyboard....

Indeed

I think actually we both agree, but Julien is not understanding what I'm saying in reality.

It's ok, from CAD images and other photos I think it's pretty clear how it's put together, the only real question is over the wall thickness of the outer shell, be it Aluminium, Steel or Gold.

I guess we are thinking it's between 1.5 and 2.5mm so not much of a thing really.

 

[capitanbuzo]

Most of the arguments here focus on the Watch Edition but what about the regular Watch? I'm no fan of gold watches but with people speculating that the Watch will cost $1k makes me wonder how that will even be possible given the starting price of the sport watch. There's not much more value added between the two models so I'm not sure where the logic of the extra $650 comes from.

 

[mtmac]

Yeah, we should ban Julien for making strong educated speculation based purely on Apple supplied watch photos and a strong background in the watch industry. He further defamed Piggie by quoting exactly using ellipses to correctly inform readers that these quotes were taken from separate posts. Mods, please disregard Piggie’s unfounded objection to Julien’s well thought out posts and correct quoting technique.

Piggie, you make no sense with your "hollow" theory. By your bizzare definition, there isn't a watch in the world that is solid gold. A solid gold case means it isn't plated, the case is made of solid gold, not that it is a solid brick of gold without internals. Of course there is room for the movement or electronic components, they’re not sundials! Unlike what Julien and I are saying, you promote structure coming from an aluminum skeleton, with a superficial gold covering. Both Julien and I believe the structure will come from the casing, with a plastic tray that is fitted within. The plastic will be used to insulate electronics from shorting, and provide a mounting solution, but not provide structural integrity to the watch. You do not agree with either of us.

From the Apple site, "Crafted from the same 316L stainless steel alloy as the case, the 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.” 9 hours of machining, not the time to travel the production process as you so wrongly stated. You also think Apple is lying to us about being 18k gold as well, despite being stamped on the case, Apple reaffirming this specification, and multiple wearers verifying the ss and gold versions are noticeably heavier. Your whole speculation is based on your belief that Apple is downright lying to us. I’m not trying to convince you of anything, as you have shown that logic doesn’t apply to you. I’m only pointing this out so others do not believe your bizarre theories.

Of course we are all speculating, some are just doing a better job of it. Julien worked in the watch industry and his detailed explanation of the Apple supplied photo along with Gruber's comments has provided the best speculation of any information contained in the entire Apple Watch forum. Apple never sells stuff cheap. They often sell things that offer a good value, but most often there is a price premium for buying Apple. Hodinkee stated the design and attention to detail on the bands is unheard of at a $350 price point. Gruber recently has been leaking very accurate information. All of this points to higher priced upgradeable ss and gold versions.

capitanbuzo, the ss version will be the same as the gold version, other than its material. The sport version has ion glass and no ceramic coating plus will have an elastomer band. The ss and gold have sapphire glass and ceramic coating on the rear. The two metal bands will likely be what drives the ss version up to $1k, yet likely much less for the leather, but still costlier than the sport. Like Gruber implied, likely the ss and gold will be upgradeable, which in the long run may make the ss competitive to the sport version when you factor in upgrades vs replacement. I like you are mostly interested in the ss version, but it only makes sense that Apple will charge quite a bit more over the aluminum/ion glass/non-ceramic/elastomer model. The upgradeability will justify Apple charging a higher price for the more refined versions of their watches, and likely will drive sales in both these lines, encouraging first generation adoption.

And yes, I do realize Apple limits upgrades. Soldered RAM in the Mini and Air. But those are both their cheapest desktop and laptop, just like the Sport. Their more expensive iMacs, MacPro, and MacBook Pros do allow for upgrades, just like I believe they will do with the ss and gold models. They are approaching this product release very differently. The expensive cases, especially the gold version, only makes sense Apple plans on offering an upgrade program. They do not cater to the 1% luxury market. They cater to the mass market, and the mass market will support those higher prices knowing that they will last for a long time as they will be economical to upgrade.

 

[capitanbuzo]

capitanbuzo, the ss version will be the same as the gold version, other than its material. The sport version has ion glass and no ceramic coating plus will have an elastomer band. The ss and gold have sapphire glass and ceramic coating on the rear. The two metal bands will likely be what drives the ss version up to $1k, yet likely much less for the leather, but still costlier than the sport. Like Gruber implied, likely the ss and gold will be upgradeable, which in the long run may make the ss competitive to the sport version when you factor in upgrades vs replacement. I like you are mostly interested in the ss version, but it only makes sense that Apple will charge quite a bit more over the aluminum/ion glass/non-ceramic/elastomer model. The upgradeability will justify Apple charging a higher price for the more refined versions of their watches, and likely will drive sales in both these lines, encouraging first generation adoption.

And yes, I do realize Apple limits upgrades. Soldered RAM in the Mini and Air. But those are both their cheapest desktop and laptop, just like the Sport. Their more expensive iMacs, MacPro, and MacBook Pros do allow for upgrades, just like I believe they will do with the ss and gold models. They are approaching this product release very differently. The expensive cases, especially the gold version, only makes sense Apple plans on offering an upgrade program. They do not cater to the 1% luxury market. They cater to the mass market, and the mass market will support those higher prices knowing that they will last for a long time as they will be economical to upgrade.

I might be able to somewhat justify $1k for the metal band ss (if upgradeability is a thing) watch but that's still a big ask in my opinion. The only difference is the materials, and materials that I'd argue aren't as costly as others make it to seem. I'm staying out of the whole edition debate here but it just doesn't seem that it can be logically that much more expensive. For the back, it's a ceramic coating, not much value added cost there. In regards to the display, yes it will be more costly but not incredibly due to the smaller screen size. I'd really like to buy a ss watch but if I'm going to have to drop a grand to get it, that might be a deal breaker considering I could get a sport and a third party leather/metal band and have the exact same functionality and still have another $500 to use to get next years model.

 

[mtmac]

I agree it's a big ask, but so was the iPod. They're selling this as a watch, and from what other reviewers have said, $1k for the ss and $5k for the is in lines with the watch market. The refinement of this watch (other than the sport) is far beyond and incomparable to anything in the smart watch market.

You would probably have a hard time getting a third party color match for a metal band. The Apple leather bands are really nice and soft, but likely still affordable, a small component of total price, and I don't think you'll be able to buy a watch without a band. You'll have to see what they are charging for upgrades, they will likely announce upgrade price at release. You may pay $650 for a leather ss up front, but maybe only $250 to upgrade, so then you wouldn't have to spend another $500 on gen 2. In the long run, it makes even these pricier options reasonable over time. I think once we see them in person, we'll both want to throw down the extra few hundred dollars on the more refined durable upgradeable ss over the aluminum, and I think that's what Apple is counting on a lot of us to do.

I think this was their only way to get past the "geek" factor of a smart watch, and elevate them to a socially acceptable fashion accessory. I never paid this much for a watch before, and I haven't worn one for decades, but I'd rather spend a bit more to reduce the "nerd" factor. The upgradeability of higher end models is Apple revolutionizing the market.

 

[capitanbuzo]

I agree it's a big ask, but so was the iPod. They're selling this as a watch, and from what other reviewers have said, $1k for the ss and $5k for the is in lines with the watch market. The refinement of this watch (other than the sport) is far beyond and incomparable to anything in the smart watch market.

You would probably have a hard time getting a third party color match for a metal band. The Apple leather bands are really nice and soft, but likely still affordable, a small component of total price, and I don't think you'll be able to buy a watch without a band. You'll have to see what they are charging for upgrades, they will likely announce upgrade price at release. You may pay $650 for a leather ss up front, but maybe only $250 to upgrade, so then you wouldn't have to spend another $500 on gen 2. In the long run, it makes even these pricier options reasonable over time. I think once we see them in person, we'll both want to throw down the extra few hundred dollars on the more refined durable upgradeable ss over the aluminum, and I think that's what Apple is counting on a lot of us to do.

I think this was their only way to get past the "geek" factor of a smart watch, and elevate them to a socially acceptable fashion accessory. I never paid this much for a watch before, and I haven't worn one for decades, but I'd rather spend a bit more to reduce the "nerd" factor. The upgradeability of higher end models is Apple revolutionizing the market.

I'd have no qualms to spend $650 with some sort of leather band for a ss edition. From my understanding earlier, it seemed as though the leather ss would be a grand which I could not justify spending.

 

[melman101]

I have to keep myself thinking that this is all speculation and rumor until Apple declares the prices. I, for one, hope they are reasonable. I have a hard time believing they'll charge more than $500 for the Apple Watch. Again, that's just my opinion.

I hope they announce some things soon.

 

[Julien]

I have to keep myself thinking that this is all speculation and rumor until Apple declares the prices. I, for one, hope they are reasonable. I have a hard time believing they'll charge more than $500 for the Apple Watch. Again, that's just my opinion.

I hope they announce some things soon.

Doubt we will see final pricing until close to pre order date, but would LOVE to be wrong. Could be Apple is still mulling over pricing options. If the (SS) Watch comes in at $500 it will be on the low end of almost all predictions. This would also probably be with a Sport (fluoroelastomer) band so you would need to likely spend at least another $100 to get a dress band.

At least we know you can get full functionality (unless there is a memory upgrade option) for $350 if you can live with the aluminum look (looks great to me). Add in another $100 (probably optimistic) for an Apple dress band, or buy a 3ed party, and you will have an Apple (Sport) watch with a dress and casual/activity bands for under $500.

 

[Julien]

Looks like we now have some 'official' confirmation that the Edition will be in a much higher price bracket. Here is an expert from Re/Code from Apple VP Greg Joswiak.

Techcrunch
....Apple Watch could cost thousands of dollars at the high-end, Joswiak didn’t press against the assertion but claimed that offering a wider price range is just another way that people can choose the device that works best for them — so if you’re rich and want a really nice watch, you aren’t forced to decide between having something made out of rose gold and the user experience that comes with Apple’s software and hardware......

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

Techcrunch
....Apple Watch could cost thousands of dollars at the high-end, Joswiak didn’t press against the assertion but claimed that offering a wider price range is just another way that people can choose the device that works best for them — so if you’re rich and want a really nice watch, you aren’t forced to decide between having something made out of rose gold and the user experience that comes with Apple’s software and hardware......

Hmm... yeah that's a good point. Not only are there people who DO buy $5k-$20k watches made out of gold, but these are people who want to CONTINUE to buy $5k-$20k gold watches. It kind of makes sense for Apple to give them that option. I don't really some someone moving from a $10k watch to a $500 watch just because it's made by Apple. And even if they did, surely Apple would prefer to sell them a $10k watch than a $500 one...

 

[capitanbuzo]

Doubt we will see final pricing until close to pre order date, but would LOVE to be wrong. Could be Apple is still mulling over pricing options. If the (SS) Watch comes in at $500 it will be on the low end of almost all predictions. This would also probably be with a Sport (fluoroelastomer) band so you would need to likely spend at least another $100 to get a dress band.

At least we know you can get full functionality (unless there is a memory upgrade option) for $350 if you can live with the aluminum look (looks great to me). Add in another $100 (probably optimistic) for an Apple dress band, or buy a 3ed party, and you will have an Apple (Sport) watch with a dress and casual/activity bands for under $500.

Besides the John Gruber article, I don't see where the consensus of a $500 price point being on the low end comes from. From what I remember, it's more on the lines of "I have no clue how much it costs so I'll just throw out a number" type of deal. I know the argument is that it's a fashion piece but I don't see how you can justify the price hike for just the sd version. $500 seems reasonable with a sports band and no upgradeability. I could see the ss bands costing in the $100-250 range to get it up to $750 maybe but that's the most I could envision.

Also, from my understanding of the presentation of the watches, it doesn't appear that Apples dress bands will work with the sport model. We simply don't have the information right now but they don't offer it in any other configurations. I know it could be due to the target demographic but it's still food for thought.

 

[Julien]

Besides the John Gruber article, I don't see where the consensus of a $500 price point being on the low end comes from. From what I remember, it's more on the lines of "I have no clue how much it costs so I'll just throw out a number" type of deal. I know the argument is that it's a fashion piece but I don't see how you can justify the price hike for just the sd version. $500 seems reasonable with a sports band and no upgradeability. I could see the ss bands costing in the $100-250 range to get it up to $750 maybe but that's the most I could envision.

Also, from my understanding of the presentation of the watches, it doesn't appear that Apples dress bands will work with the sport model. We simply don't have the information right now but they don't offer it in any other configurations. I know it could be due to the target demographic but it's still food for thought.

We know the Sport will be $350 and we know that the SS Watch will have premium materials over the Sport so we know Apple will price it higher. Apple almost always uses $100 price differentiator as a base for minor differences (iPhone 64GB to 128GB for example). So looking this way $500 seems a plausible lowest price.

Now look at what Joswiak said just yesterday. He implied that the Edition would be many thousands of dollars and even said "...so if you’re rich.... about it. He also said "...offering a wider price range is just another way that people can choose the device that works best for them..."

It's not likely that Apple will offer the Sport for $350 and the SS Watch for only $450 and then have the Edition $5000 or more. This would leave a HUGE gape in the price range between the SS and the Edition. There is no way Apple will leave this big of a void in pricing from the SS to the Edition. If anything it may indicate the SS is going to be more expensive that thought.


The difference in materials costs doesn't correlate directly to selling price. As an example: Apple sells a 16GB iPhone for $650. A 128GB chip costs Apple about $5 more but they sell it for $200 more.