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.
Will 38mm and 42mm be the same price?
- Thread starter JerTheGeek
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Indeed, and you may be right, and many here are going to get a cold hard shock when they see, the Apple watch won't be upgradable at all, and there will be a new model out next year if you wish to buy it, just like iPods, iPhone, iPads etc etc.
So many here are thinking this is going to be a "New Fresh, Wearable division of Apple that will change from it's ways of the past"
As I say, they may be in for a shock, when they find Apple just wants you to sell your old watch and buy the new model each year, like all it's other products
We'll see
I currently buy a new iPhone every 2 years (3G, 4, 5, 6) and a new MacBook Pro every 6-7 years (Well, technically I was using a Windows machine before my 2010 MBP, but I plan on upgrading that in 2016/2017). I suspect I'll be purchasing a new Apple Watch somewhere in between those intervals. Depending on pricing and how much each iteration improves it's usefulness, I suspect I'll budget in a new watch every 3-4 years or so. I'm going to try to avoid buying a new MBP, iPhone and Watch all in the same year if I can. It would be an awesome year for new stuff, but it's more than I can justify spending on new personal electronics in a year.
Reminds me of one of those manufacturing parts companies that have a whole PDF document outlining the different prices based on different parts and combinations.
That's why I expect the Sport Band to be the default bundled into the purchase price of each collection and size of Apple Watch, with the additional bands being accessories to purchase separately. It's a far cleaner and less confusing solution to the problem than offering a dozen different configurations at varying price points. Coming up with a price chart for each watch configuration would be incredibly unfriendly to the consumer and decidedly un-Apple.
Furthermore, since Apple makes it clear that the bands are designed to be interchangeable, it would make sense for Apple to include a band as a default and then have the additional bands available for purchase.
I did suggest this might be the case, but a certain person shot me down in flames for suggesting it.
It would make it easier for everyone yes, esp, as I pointed out later on when you wish to sell the watch on, but keep the special band you paid a lot for, as it would be harder to take your band off and then try and sell a watch body on it's own.
We shall all see in perhaps another 8 weeks anyway
Agreed, we shall see.
It'd be like Apple not including EarPods with an iPhone or iPod. Yes, you could buy them separately. You could even buy better options from a third party (both in the Apple Store and elsewhere). But to not include that one set of EarPods would be wrong, particularly with an iPod.
It'd be like Apple not including EarPods with an iPhone or iPod. Yes, you could buy them separately. You could even buy better options from a third party (both in the Apple Store and elsewhere). But to not include that one set of EarPods would be wrong, particularly with an iPod.
I know that I already posted this in another thread, but it's relevant here as well: All they have to do is have a "base" price for each model/collection that would include the Sport Band, and then charge an additional fee for band upgrades. They already do this with Macs and no one seems to think that it's too complicated.
Attachments
I think y'all are making this much more complicated that it needs to be. It's as simple as:
If Apple designed the fluoroelastomer band to be the equivalent of EarPods as a default band that comes with every watch why wouldn't Apple display it that way on their website? The Watch page on their website clearly shows 18 models in that collection not 4 models with the option to upgrade.
----------
Basically this just another way of saying the SS watch with sport band will be the cheapest model in that collection. Which I agree with 100%.
- Choose a collection
- Choose a size
- Choose a band from the list of available bands for that collection/size
- Get a price quote and click buy
If Apple designed the fluoroelastomer band to be the equivalent of EarPods as a default band that comes with every watch why wouldn't Apple display it that way on their website? The Watch page on their website clearly shows 18 models in that collection not 4 models with the option to upgrade.
----------
Basically this just another way of saying the SS watch with sport band will be the cheapest model in that collection. Which I agree with 100%.
Totally agreed. What I was really trying to get at is that Apple already has their store set up to take exactly that kind of product order. People have been ordering that way from Apple for years. Customers will find it familiar and intuitive; no issues.
Yes, but they will have a lot more sold of Watch.
That will be very complicated for Apple.
People probably aren't choosing between two different experiences due to a difference in screen size, but choosing based on what fits their body type best. Having said that, I've wondered if the experience would be better on the larger screen.
I hope they are priced the same. We'll know in a few weeks!
I agree. Although I feel Apple has strayed somewhat from their devotion to simplicity. Like when they announced five different iPad models a few months back. It reminded me of an article I read a couple of years ago (maybe on this forum?) about how the Apple model is (or was) based on the science of limiting choice. Limiting options results in greater customer satisfaction because there is less anxiety in the choosing process and less second-guessing about whether you made the right purchase afterwards.
Sheena Iyengar wrote a book called "The Art of Choosing" that talks about some of these principles.
I hope they are priced the same. We'll know in a few weeks!
I agree. Although I feel Apple has strayed somewhat from their devotion to simplicity. Like when they announced five different iPad models a few months back. It reminded me of an article I read a couple of years ago (maybe on this forum?) about how the Apple model is (or was) based on the science of limiting choice. Limiting options results in greater customer satisfaction because there is less anxiety in the choosing process and less second-guessing about whether you made the right purchase afterwards.
Sheena Iyengar wrote a book called "The Art of Choosing" that talks about some of these principles.
People probably aren't choosing between two different experiences due to a difference in screen size, but choosing based on what fits their body type best. Having said that, I've wondered if the experience would be better on the larger screen.
I hope they are priced the same. We'll know in a few weeks!
I agree. Although I feel Apple has strayed somewhat from their devotion to simplicity. Like when they announced five different iPad models a few months back. It reminded me of an article I read a couple of years ago (maybe on this forum?) about how the Apple model is (or was) based on the science of limiting choice. Limiting options results in greater customer satisfaction because there is less anxiety in the choosing process and less second-guessing about whether you made the right purchase afterwards.
Sheena Iyengar wrote a book called "The Art of Choosing" that talks about some of these principles.
Once you get into fashion though that doesn't work. Apple can't know what the perfect watch style is that everyone will want. Its not like there's 18 different watch models with different displays, SoC's, storage capacity etc.
I agree with you though....the iPad line up is ridiculous. The first gen iPad mini should be gone and the 3rd gen mini should have the same specs as the Air. But unfortunately marketing and the bean counters got their way.
Just wanted to come back in and say anyone who thinks they're going to be the same price really are kidding themselves. If you think Apple is going to take a cut on margins when they're putting a larger screen, bigger battery and more materials into the 42mm version you're dead wrong.
Bigger device = larger cost to Apple = larger cost to customers
See iPhone, iPod, iPad, Macs for examples.
Bigger device = larger cost to Apple = larger cost to customers
See iPhone, iPod, iPad, Macs for examples.
It's strange how you cannot see how this works for so many companies, and it costs them zero.
You make a product in 2 sizes, and it costs you $100 to make the small one and $120 to make the large one.
You wish to make $100 clear profit, so to the customer that would be $200 and $220
But you don't want to be seen as if you are punishing someone for the shape of their body, so you decide you will charge everyone $210 and balance it out.
Then you think, well, there is a chance that most will buy the larger one, so better play it safe, and make a little extra profit on the smaller one also.
So we will charge $220 for both sizes.
That way, we make maximum profit, AND we look great to customers who don't feel like we are punishing them for the size of their body.
Win Win for the company and customers are happy also.
Or do you think customers get angry in shoe shops when they find out their size 6 shoes are the same price as the size 12 shoes, and demand a lower price as their shoes have less leather in them?
This is a valid argument, but doesn't usually apply to the tech world.
We'll see but all I'm saying is that in ANY size variation in products before Apple has charged a premium price to upgrade to the larger model, and I am fully expecting them to continue that trend.
They have charged a premium price for larger models before. But this is a totally different device category; a device that is worn on the wrist and can be considered a fashion product; that is why I expect Apple to make them the same price, because this is a totally different product unlike anything they've ever made before.
If they charge the same for 38/42mm Sport and regular Apple Watches, they're going to have to charge the same price for the 38/42mm Edition watches, and the 42mm Edition will likely cost hundreds $ more in the price of raw gold than the 38mm.
With shoes, the difference in cost of leather is merely a few cents. With technological devices we're talking about different sized batteries, retina displays and steel/aluminum/gold which can add up. Even if it is an entirely new product category, this is still Apple we're talking about.
Also, luxury watch makers already charge more for an increase in casing size within specific models.
They might not have to charge the same for the Edition models. Since this is the high end watch, it would make sense for the difference in price for the 2 sizes to be a couple hundred dollars. But of the Sport and SS models, I think the price will be the same.
As nice as it would be I don't think they will be the same price. But the Apple Watch sport shouldn't be ANY more then $50 more or Apple is just being dick's.
Someone on 9to5Mac said they didn't think the different sizes would be different prices using clothing as an example (XS and XL are the same price for example). My guess is unless there's a big raw material cost difference between the two they'll be priced the same.
I don't see any of the steel bands going for less than $100. If they're as high quality as some of these watch specific blogs say Apple will price accordingly.