By that measure, why not buy your fiancée a white gold-plated stainless steel ring with a cubic zirconia gem? Who would know the difference without testing the materials? Jewelry purchases aren't about what's rational.
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.
Why doesn't Apple Watch say where it was manufactured?
- Thread starter Rogifan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
By that measure, why not buy your fiancée a white gold-plated stainless steel ring with a cubic zirconia gem? Who would know the difference without testing the materials? Jewelry purchases aren't about what's rational.
Yeah, but do places actually do gold plating on sensitive electronic equipment?
I am naive of the process, but I'd think it involves high heat & likely isn't feasible after the watch has had the glass/sapphire fused on & the internals sealed in.
I couldn't more strongly disagree with you.
I believe that jewelers sell at silly markups because they may likely NEVER sell that customer another watch. And I believe people are willing to pay the extreme markup because it's one single time, & their heirloom watch could last 80-100 years. Solid investment!!! As you said, Edition will likely have a 4-5 year life span. In my opinion, it is absolutely preposterous to assume people would accept the same mark up on a product that will last roughly 1/20th as long. Would you pay $80,000 for a Porsche if you KNEW it would only be driveable for 6 months?
I am thinking of the Edition (quite realistically) as both a technology piece AND a jewelry piece. That is what it is. It may be hard for you to conceive (or any of us, for that matter...) because this is an absolute unheard of category, outside of Vertu phones. But I think we'll all get more comfortable with the concept in the near future. Having to pay more (obviously) for a luxury item made of the materials we like, but not as much (equally obviously) as you would for an item meant to last more than a lifetime.
I think Apple wants to keep selling the Edition to these customers every 4-5 years... and charging the EXACT same as a watch that does NOT need to ever be replaced is NOT how you do that.
You have to remember this: jewelry that will soon be obsolete has NEVER been marketed before! This is a very interesting and multifaceted concept.
What do you base this on? For a ½ oz (15.05 grams) of gold the case would only have to weigh about 20 grams. So far all tech, watch, media and fashion experts who have held the
Watch talk about the 'heft' of the Edition over the SS and the 'heft' of the SS over the Sport. If anything I would say it's all but "obvious" it will contain over an ½ oz of gold.----------
This is completely incorrect. Jewelers live and thrive off of repeat customers just like most all industries. Higher end fashion and jewelry customers or some of the most loyal and repeat of all types of customers.
Ahhh, well that's different then.
You often buy things as gifts you know are an utter waste of money as gifts, esp to females, to prove a point to them
Some Women as VERY Sensible, and logical and will themselves even say, NO. Don't buy me something NOW, let's wait 3 days for the sale so I can get some bargains.
Others will burst into tears about how little you must value them if you dare think logically about any gift, and it does not matter what it is or how much it's marked up, if you don't buy it, it means they are not worth it.
I suggest you view this video and I think you will understand
http://youtu.be/5-fbslkpnow
And actually I was thinking more about YOU choosing this option for YOU.
Not of course, trying to trick someone with a gift.
However, perhaps your partner may actually be happy to have a Gold Plated Apple Watch.
Gold Plating still carry's punch in the luxury brand industry.
----------
Well, you can get iPhones Gold Plated.
Remember people here keep going on and on and on about how THEY think the Watch will be upgradable at Apple Stores, so if they are right (which I don't think they are) then it will be made for the body to be separated easily from the components
I see Apple selling the Edition watch for the highest price they think they can get for it. I think they'll definitely market that one as a fashion item. We'll probably see advertisements in Vogue magazine. They might even show up at fashion week which runs from mid February (New York) to mid March (Paris).
----------
I'm curious why you're so obsessed with gold plating. I'm very skeptical that someone will be selling gold plated kits you pop on an Watch. And even if someone tries to there's no way it's going to look as nice as the real thing so I can't see who would buy it. I can't imagine many people are handing over their iPhones to get them gold plated.
You are probably SO correct. The Edition is likely not about padding Apple's bottom line and it doesn't have to be. Apple is in the enviable position that they can offer the Edition and have no financial concern on the total numbers sold. Apple probably isn't looking to sell (in relative terms but still a lot in absolute terms) a 'ton' of Editions. Apple probably sees it as an exclusive to be worn by celebs and drive lust and sales of the SS as a status symbol.
It could very well be north of $5000, though I see it in the $3000 to $6000 starting range.
It will probably only be around 1% to 3% of the total
Watches sold.
Last edited:
Yeah... that sounds right to me.
I always figured that those places that gild iProducts removed the casings. I'm not holding my breath that the body of the Apple Watch will be able to easily rehouse new upgraded internals. That would be amazing. I just question the logistics of that at the kind of volume Apple deal in.
I can't imagine the apps that run on Watch will take a lot of processing power so my guess is the replacement cylcle will be less than iPhone. Obviously that might not be the case with gen 1 but I doubt Apple is expecting iPhone like replacement cycles long term. I wouldn't be surprised to see them introduce new bands (colors/styles) so even if you don't ugrade your watch your enticed to spend $$ on new bands. There's a reason Apple made it so easy to swap out bands.
What a GREAT way to get customer lock in!!!
Can you imagine how hesitant after owning Apple Watch you'd be to switch to Android Wear if you had say.... $600 in custom bands for Apple Watch??!! =)
Actually, you raise a good point in general with buying into any system.
And one that we, as customers should be fully against and not for.
In days gone by, when industry was starting up, people had their own standards. The best known one would be threads.
A nut and a bolt would not fit as every company made nuts and bolts that went together but were incompatible with other companies.
Now, I'm sure we can all see how bad that was. In time some standards were agreed upon. BSF UNF BSP and other standards, then of course years later, metric threads.
So I could buy an M5 nut from the hardware store and know it fits on the M5 bolt on my 10 year old garden swing.
I think we can all understand how good an idea standard are, esp for us consumers.
As consumers, we should NEVER applaud and proprietary that will tie us to any one brand, that's bad for us as consumers.
Virtually all normal watches use those fine pins that come in various lengths, cost nothing, so as long as the width of the strap is ok, you could fit almost and brand and style of wath to any brand or style of watch in the world.
That's good yes? Of cirse it's good for us consumers.
Only on an Apple forum would you probably find people applauding being tied don pen to a new proprietary design.
What we should want as consumers is for apple to make the strap attachment method an open standard, like many things we have in life. Or to licence it for a tiny fee.
Then you as a consumer could invest in straps, knowing you are not tied to a made of watch.
As apple wont do that, What will happen is this....
Strap makers from abroad will start to made very nice straps at a fraction of apples price and fit the watch. Apple will get all upset about it, but won't be able to stop them.
Some clever person will have the idea of making an adaptor that consists of the metal shape that will slide into the attachment groove in the watch but also take the spring pins, so you will be abe to use any of the millions of straps out there and with these adaptor pieces be able to fit normal straps on the apple watch.
Someone else may bring out a watch with the same groove channels to take apple straps. But to be honest if or when the first two of my predictions happen there've will be no need for the third option really.
In THEORY that has some practical application.
In reality... it has none.
With consumer electronics in particular, though. It is a FANTASTIC idea for some industries. With miniaturized electronics... the engineers must decide on design sacrifices towards a particular end. For example: add bulk to make more rugged, add an annoying dongle for a specific accessory that is necessary in an industry, etc. It opens an immense niche market, as one design can NOT be perfect for everyone. This is very good for the consumer. Now let's look at your hypothetical world... for example, your one and only metric for a smartwatch is thinness, let's say. However, it is demanded that all chargers are usb 3.0 & thus, ALL products are bulky. See? It robs consumers of choice. Nobody is forced in to a particular product & the companies self regulate as makes sense. Another example: Apple's 30 pin was used for 11 years across dozens of products. The lightning will likely be the same.
Last edited:
Apple should really dump the Lightning port.
That name was a joke, considering it ran at old USB2 speeds upon launch, but that's another issue.
When the brand new USB comes out, and all other tablet and phone move over to it, it would be best for everyone if Apple did that same, so that all customers could use the same leads on all brands of products.
Not everyone else in the world using one connector and Apple using something else.
Not for this new USB version coming very soon as that looks superb.
I'm curious how frequently the average consumer switches platforms. My guess is it's not really as frequent as we might think.
But I absolutely do think Apple will focus on where it thinks it can differentiate from the rest of the smartwatch market. Obviously they do it with software but I also think they're going to push it on the hardware side too with custom chips and bands showing off their chip design and manufacturing prowess. Let Android Wear be the home for commodity hardware and software and race to the bottom prices.
----------
So basically you just want Apple to become a commodity hardware player like every other Windows and Android OEM?
Apple's business model is to make money off hardware. What a shock that they're not designing watch straps to be compatible with other people's hardware.
I suppose I am fine with you having that view, if you also want to admit you wish the rest of the world acted in the same manner, and that if they did you would be happy.
You had to use Ford Gas Stations as the nozzles would only fit Ford Cars.
Likewise Tyres had to be Ford only.
The lights in your home, then a bulb blew you had to buy a bulb from the lamp maker as there was no standard for bulbs.
and so it would go on and on and on.
If that is the world you think you would like to live in, then so be it.
Perhaps you disagree with the method of fitting watch straps to bodies that has been used for decades, so that people could buy millions of straps as almost all used the same sprung pin method of attachment.
Perhaps you feel that was an error, and all watches for the past decades should all of use incompatible proprietary methods of strap attachment.
Note: If you were a businessman I can accept that you would have this view as you are doing it to make you money.
But really, as a member of the public you, as an individual should NEVER actually support this.
It would be like you being a Turkey and Promoting Roast Turkey as the ideal meal
----------
Not at all.
The method for attaching a wire, and a device to a 3rd party piece of equipment (speaker stand) would benefit, you, me and tens of millions if makers including Apple agreed on a standard.
USB has helped millions over the years, from Printers, Scanners, Thumbdrives, etc etc etc.
Can you just imagine, if Apple, HP, Sony, Packard Bell, Dell, and a hundred others brands all said no to USB and said we are fitting our own standard plug?
I don't see making a charging and data transfer plug that's compatible with others in any way detracts from a device, in fact it should be looked upon as a plus.
I could have my $400 amazing speaker dock system with my Galaxy Phone, knowing I could swap to an iPhone and still use it, etc etc etc.....
Again, as a Public Consumer, you, and everyone here should be dead against such things.
They are Anti consumer friendly.
And we would tear into other firms in other industries if they did things like this. We should not accept it from Apple either.
No matter how much you like Apple product, you as a consumer should not stand up for having your choices taken away.
Most accessories for iPhone work with Android devices as well. They simply carry both connection methods. As long as Apple provides a charging cable in the box, and licenses the technology so that they aren't the only manufacturer of the cable, I don't really see what is anti-consumer about the lightning port.
Would it not be better if Apple, and all other makers were forced into having to Allow their mobile devices to be able to be charged from the same charger?
No more hunting for the right charger. No more asking others if they have a charger like yours as your device is dead and you forgot to bring your charger.
Less environmental damage and waste of the same thing being make, but with different wire/connections on the end of the transformer to fit your proprietary plug.
Would that not be a better wold all round?
Greener, Cheaper, Less problems for consumers.
Like, as I say, you can take any car and fill it up at any gas station without worrying if your fuel tank filler matches the pump nozzle.
(Thank god Apple don't make cars!)
Would that not be a better world for all of us here as consumers?
I suppose I am fine with you having that view, if you also want to admit you wish the rest of the world acted in the same manner, and that if they did you would be happy.
You had to use Ford Gas Stations as the nozzles would only fit Ford Cars.
Likewise Tyres had to be Ford only.
The lights in your home, then a bulb blew you had to buy a bulb from the lamp maker as there was no standard for bulbs.
and so it would go on and on and on.
If that is the world you think you would like to live in, then so be it.
Perhaps you disagree with the method of fitting watch straps to bodies that has been used for decades, so that people could buy millions of straps as almost all used the same sprung pin method of attachment.
Perhaps you feel that was an error, and all watches for the past decades should all of use incompatible proprietary methods of strap attachment.
Note: If you were a businessman I can accept that you would have this view as you are doing it to make you money.
But really, as a member of the public you, as an individual should NEVER actually support this.
It would be like you being a Turkey and Promoting Roast Turkey as the ideal meal
I don't follow the luxury watch industry at all. Are watch bands from the major players interchangeable? Can you take a band from a Rolex watch and attach it to an Omega face?
I've already said I think Apple will eventually open up Watch to allow third parties to design watch bands. But using your logic, every smartphone or tablet manufacturer should be using the same design so when when you buy a case it will fit any device out there. I think that's ridiculous. Apple isn't going to design hardware that makes it easier to use someone else's platform and buy someone else's hardware. Had Microsoft not had 90% PC market share and had iPod not required a PC for syncing I doubt iTunes would ever have come to Windows.
No. It would not be better, and would limit companies from innovating. USB type C is still sparsely available if at all, and reversible lightning cable has been available for years. This wouldn't be possible if Apple were forced to be luddites.
It's not a hunt. It comes with a charger.
it's one of the most popular phones on the planet.
Very different use scenario.
No. I'd rather Apple have the ability to use whatever is best for their devices.
Basically, yes. Most watches have standard spaced lugs so straps of the same width are interchangeable.
Every phone on the Planet needs a charger (not just Smart Phones)
iPhones are a tiny fraction of all the phones sold.
Heck in some countries they even have a tiny share of the Smart phone market.
Please remember the USA does not represent the World.
Heck even in the UK at my workplace of 30 people, al of which have various phones, 90% of them smart phones I'd say, only 3 have an iPhone, Most are Android.
Ah, interesting. Still I'm not surprised Apple didn't go that route. They make a big point about how easy it is to swap out straps so I think their goal is making money off straps and having 3rd parties want to design straps for Watch.