or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple has discussed charging 'around $400' for its wearable 'iWatch' - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple has discussed charging 'around $400' for its wearable 'iWatch' - report

post #1 of 128
Thread Starter 
Apple's anticipated "iWatch" may carry a price of around $400 when it goes on sale, though the wearable device is likely to be offered at a range of price points, according to a new report.

"iWatch" concept by Martin Hajek.


The new details on Apple's first wearable device were reported on Saturday by Re/code, which said sources at the company indicated executives "have discussed charging around $400" for the so-called "iWatch." But the report cautioned that pricing has yet to be finalized, and may not even be known by the company's Sept. 9 event, when it's expected to formally unveil the rumored product.

The same publication reported on Friday that Apple's "iWatch" is not expected to launch immediately after it is finally disclosed. Sources have reportedly indicated that the wearable smart device will not end up on consumers' wrists until early 2015.

If $400 proved to be the entry price of the device, it would be on the high end of the market. Newer Android Wear devices have generally been priced between $250 and $300, while the lower end of the market is catered to by the black-and-white Pebble, priced starting at $150 for its entry-level model.

Going beyond a possible $400 starting price, it's possible that Apple could compete with luxury watches at the high end of the market. Earlier this year, in April, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo of KGI Securities said that Apple's "iWatch" could reach prices in the thousands of dollars with some premium models.

Pegging down a possible price range on the "iWatch" has been difficult for observers because rumors have not yet painted a clear picture of exactly what the device will be and what functionality it will accomplish. In fact, there haven't even been any parts leaked from the device, as manufacturing is not believed to have yet begun.

The accessory is said to be an iPhone-connected smart watch that will collect and interpret health and fitness related data, while also providing the usual expected functions such as notifications.

Reports have claimed it will feature a touchscreen of some type, whether OLED or otherwise, and that the "iWatch" will run a modified version of the iOS platform that powers the iPhone and iPad. It's expected to connect to and act as an accessory for the iPhone, and also to focus on tracking and measuring health and fitness data. To that end, it's been speculated that the "iWatch" will be a key component of the new Health application built into the forthcoming iOS 8 update for iPhone.

Apple send out invitations to members of the media on Thursday for a Sept. 9 event, where the company is widely expected to unveil both the "iWatch" and a next-generation "iPhone 6." While consumers may have to wait for the "iWatch," it's likely that the next iPhone will go on sale the following Friday, Sept. 19, after it is unveiled.
post #2 of 128
I can hardly wait to see long lines of hypochondriacs queuing outside Apple stores.
post #3 of 128
Depends what it does and how it works. Like any AAPL product, it is all about value, and the price is only part of the story.
post #4 of 128

Wowsa. 

 

So the same price as an iPad mini. I feel that it'll need to be compelling to garner a similar pattern of sales.

 

My inkling was that $300 might have been a good figure, albeit knowing sod all about the rumoured iTime.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #5 of 128
400? I will pass on that one.
post #6 of 128
I'd think Apple would have to break from their norm but releasing multiple versions of a wearable that that are differentiated in price, not by NAND capacity, but mostly by their appearance for different kinds of buyers, like with other wrist-worn devices.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #7 of 128

I like the idea of this trying to play in the elite mechanical watch price bracket.

 

Now let me see, will I buy that Omega Seamaster or the iWatch that will be superseded in 12 months?  Damn, that's a hard choice.  I wonder what Ming-Chi Kuo would do...

post #8 of 128
BREAKING NEWS: Price Unknown for Unknown Product

JUST IN: Commenters Commenting on Price Being Too High or Low for Unknown Product
post #9 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

BREAKING NEWS: Price Unknown for Unknown Product

JUST IN: Commenters Commenting on Price Being Too High or Low for Unknown Product

 

Lol! After all, the iPod went from about $25 to $400 or more. 

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #10 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Wowsa. 

So the same price as an iPad mini. I feel that it'll need to be compelling to garner a similar pattern of sales.

My inkling was that $300 might have been a good figure, albeit knowing sod all about the rumoured iTime.

What is shocking about that? Because it would be smaller than an iPad mini? Well an iPhone of the same capacity is $250(?) USD more than an iPad mini. What if it has a sapphire display (which isn't found on crap watches), some other expensive materials and some radical and intricate design we have yet to see on any of the "smartwatches" that have come before it? We're only talking a $100-200 more than other "smartwatches" which have all looked cheap. The Moto 360 is $250 for a cheap looking, poorly designed "smartwatch" whose original taser months ago ended up being vapourware.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #11 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I like the idea of this trying to play in the elite mechanical watch price bracket.

Now let me see, will I buy that Omega Seamaster or the iWatch that will be superseded in 12 months?  Damn, that's a hard choice.  I wonder what Ming-Chi Kuo would do...

Elite? One of the guys at my company has an $11,000 Breitling. As well as others. $400 is chump change for a nice watch.
post #12 of 128
I don't know why everybody is trying to keep their smart watch under 200 in the believe that it will reach the biggest market. That is just not how wearables work. At that price point, they can never deliver a truly fashionable product. Watch maker can't even deliver a compelling watch under 200 and you think they can do that with a smart watch? I will pay extra for a refined product that is handcrafted. Give me rare metal, beautiful leather, and precious gem. When it comes to something you wear on your wrist, details matter. There is a reason why Rolex can charge the price that they do.

I think Apple understands that when it comes to wearable, you can't just make one model. If it does sell 60M, would you want to wear the same watch along with 60M others? It is a fashion statement so there need to be choices. I believe they will definitely have multiple models at multiple price points... Maybe 3 for males and 3 for females. Unlike the other devices, they will have the same functionally and differentiation is in craftsmanship and material. The lowest model might be sporty with a plastic strap and it goes up to the top model that has stainless steel and price should be in the thousands and people will pay for it.
Edited by quanster - 8/30/14 at 5:09pm
post #13 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by quanster View Post

I don't know why everybody is trying to keep their smart watch under 200 in the believe that it will reach the biggest market. That is just not how wearables work. At that price point, they can never deliver a truly fashionable product. Watch maker can't even deliver a compelling watch under 200 and you think they can do that with a smart watch? I will pay extra for a refined product that is handcrafted. Give me rare metal, beautiful leather, and precious gem. When it comes to something you wear on your wrist, details matter. There is a reason why Rolex can charge the price that they do.

I think Apple understands that when it comes to wearable, you can't just make one model. If it does sell 60M, would you want to wear the same watch along with 60M others? It is an expression statement so there need to be choices. I believe they will definitely have multiple models at multiple price points... Maybe 3 for males and 3 for females. Unlike the other devices, they will have the same functionally and differentiation is in craftsmanship and material. The lowest model might be sporty with a plastic strap and it goes up to the top model that has stainless steel and price should be in the thousands and people will pay for it.

I think Apple has an opportunity here to get people to buy multiple wearables for a single wrist. For instance, they could have one for under $150 for someone that mostly fitness band that works flawlessly with your iPhone, another for the non-luxury smartwatch market that is doesn't everything a luxury model does but isn't a status symbol or made with expensive metals and leathers (a blue collar smartwatch), and then a luxury model with various designs.

All that would go against Apple's product history but it's a radically different market with price variations from the nearly free to hundreds of thousands-of-dollars for devices that all have the same basic output. If these rumours are true and if Apple can do what I think they could then I'd probably opt for at least two of them so that I can switch my more luxury version with a less expensive version (like going from work to the gym) so i can still have the sensors working and responding back to my iPhone.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #14 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Wowsa. 

So the same price as an iPad mini. I feel that it'll need to be compelling to garner a similar pattern of sales.

My inkling was that $300 might have been a good figure, albeit knowing sod all about the rumoured iTime.

What is shocking about that? Because it would be smaller than an iPad mini? Well an iPhone of the same capacity is $250(?) USD more than an iPad mini. What if it has a sapphire display (which isn't found on crap watches), some other expensive materials and some radical and intricate design we have yet to see on any of the "smartwatches" that have come before it? We're only talking a $100-200 more than other "smartwatches" which have all looked cheap. The Moto 360 is $250 for a cheap looking, poorly designed "smartwatch" whose original taser months ago ended up being vapourware.

I wasn't making a studied comparison.

The iPhone and iPad were two giant bombs dropped on the marketplace. It's hard to imagine that an iWatch will be a third bomb of a similar size.

For those alluding to high-end watches, remember that those are lifetime investments. If you spend some obscene amount on a watch, you have the knowledge that it will last for your lifetime and beyond. An iWatch is liable to get outdated within a few years. That's the problem with catering to the luxury end—it's too short a lifespan.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #15 of 128
Exactly. The watch that is perfect for the gym will not work for a night out of town. People will buy multiple watches so they can swap them out depending on the situation and mood.
post #16 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

That's the problem with catering to the luxury end—it's too short a lifespan.

The iPhone is considered luxury CE by many buyers. I think the gold iPhone 5S's were popular, not because people love gold, but because it was only on the very latest iPhone.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #17 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by quanster View Post

Exactly. The watch that is perfect for the gym will not work for a night out of town. People will buy multiple watches so they can swap them out depending on the situation and mood.

Really? I think that's a wildly over-optimistic scenario. I don't think people care enough. It would go completely against Apple's ethos. It would also limit the market drastically.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #18 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

BREAKING NEWS: Price Unknown for Unknown Product

JUST IN: Commenters Commenting on Price Being Too High or Low for Unknown Product

 

Don't forget that Steve Jobs faked out the competition when he told Walt Mossberg that Apple's future tablet would be "under $1,000." Mossberg replied something like, 'That usually means $999 from Apple,' and Jobs just shrugged. The entire computing industry took that as a given and started working on tablets for $600-$700 ... then were shocked when Jobs later announced the price at $499.

 

I have no doubt that a full-featured iWatch with full electronics (for those who don't already have M7 or later chips in their iPhones, or don't have iPhones at all) could reach as much as $399 with extra storage or 3G or whatever, but I have a strong suspicion that we're going to see diferent units at lower prices as well. Say a thin bracelet waterproof that comes in many colors that works like a Jawbone Up24, does more and costs less (say starting at $99 instead of Jawbone's $125). Consider it the iPod Shuffle of wearables ... that doubles as a Shuffle.

 

Numerous leaks/rumors have stated that Apple intends to have more than one type of unit, so this seems pretty reasonable to me. Go after the mass market (which has barely been touched in this relatively new market category) with colors and limited functionality, go after the high end with a touchscreen and sapphire and direct iPhone connectivity (maybe even Siri), and let the competition try to figure out where to fight it out.

post #19 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornchip View Post


Elite? One of the guys at my company has an $11,000 Breitling. As well as others. $400 is chump change for a nice watch.


I was referring to this part of the article:

 

Quote:
it's possible that Apple could compete with luxury watches at the high end of the market. Earlier this year, in April, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo of KGI Securities said that Apple's "iWatch" could reach prices in the thousands of dollars with some premium models. 
post #20 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

That's the problem with catering to the luxury end—it's too short a lifespan.

The iPhone is considered luxury CE by many buyers. I think the gold iPhone 5S's were popular, not because people love gold, but because it was only on the very latest iPhone.

I wouldn't call the iPhone a luxury. By luxury, I mean anything that is too unaffordable for the potential market for the iPhone. The iPhone is something of an anomaly as—like the iPad—it is the best a man can get. In most markets, the best is far out of reach of the common man. Hence $400,000 Ferraris and $1,000,000 watches.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #21 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

I wouldn't call the iPhone a luxury. By luxury, I mean anything that is too unaffordable for the potential market for the iPhone. The iPhone is something of an anomaly as—like the iPad—it is the best a man can get. In most markets, the best is far out of reach of the common man. Hence $400,000 Ferraris and $1,000,000 watches.

But this article is about a $400 wrist-worn CE, not $400,000. It doesn't have to be the most expensive to be considered luxury by the buyer. At some point a buyer will say the price is obnoxious. I think my $3.000 suits are considered high-end, but suits can be much more expensive, and there is a guy in India that spent $213,000 just for a shirt. Or consider your Ferrari example, do you not consider a $100k car luxurious? I do, even though it's not the most expensive car in the world.
Edited by SolipsismX - 8/30/14 at 5:36pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #22 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

I wouldn't call the iPhone a luxury. By luxury, I mean anything that is too unaffordable for the potential market for the iPhone. The iPhone is something of an anomaly as—like the iPad—it is the best a man can get. In most markets, the best is far out of reach of the common man. Hence $400,000 Ferraris and $1,000,000 watches.

But this article is about a $400 wrist-worn CE, not $400,000.

Indeed! But other posters made a reference to high-end watches and yourself a reference to the iPhone as a luxury item.

Ultimately, the question is: how many people will want to buy the iWatch at $400 and how often will they want a new one? I own an iPhone, an iPad and a Mac. Would I want to buy an iWatch every three years or so? Dunno. Maybe I’ll find out on 9th.

I find it hard to see a vital need for a wearable device at the moment. Apple may win me over. I used to wear a watch, and may start to wear my current one again; need to get the battery changed. I like not having anything on my arms now, though; it's liberating. Going from glasses to contacts was great; I'd never go back unless I had to.

Anyway, I'm excited to see what's coming; hope that Apple do a live feed like they did for WWDC.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #23 of 128
People will only pay $400 if the $249 version just isn't cool enough for them.

I'm just about to pay another $300-400 for a new phone, so I don't really have $400 to spare for another accessory.
post #24 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seankill View Post
400? I will pass on that one.

Pass on what one?

You have no idea of what it is...

post #25 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Ultimately, the question is: how many people will want to buy the iWatch at $400 and how often will they want a new one? I own an iPhone, an iPad and a Mac. Would I want to buy an iWatch every three years or so? Dunno. Maybe I’ll find out on 9th.

If CE adoption has taught us anything we do seem to purchase new ones to get the faster and better experience.
Quote:
I find it hard to see a vital need for a wearable device at the moment.

Is any CE really vital?
Quote:
I like not having anything on my arms now, though; it's liberating.

I liked not wearing a watch after I got a cellphone because it was redundant, but my vision of a wrist-worn device from Apple does a plethora of things that an iPhone or iPad can't possible do. For this reason I would love to put a useful device on my wrist.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #26 of 128
All I know is that in inclined to want one.
I don't know what its going to do or how its going to look, but Apple has a history of not putting out junk...
I haven't worn a watch for 20 years, but if this keynote hits just a few notes, I'll be early adopting!
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #27 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

People will only pay $400 if the $249 version just isn't cool enough for them.

 

Exactly. There will be a product line, not simply a single product. I would not be surprised if the iPod Nano and Shuffle went away, and were replaced by a $99 wearable/music-player with limited tracking ability. This would smash to bits the current $99-$125 low-end Fitbits and Jawbones.

 

Low end: starting at $99

Mid end: starting at $199 or $249

high end: starting at $349 or $399 and featuring the most tracking, sapphire, iPhone control, etc....

post #28 of 128
Fitbit Flex - $99.95 sensors: 3-axis accelerometer; battery life: 5 days

Nike+ Fuelband SE Gold - $149 sensors: ambient light, 3-axis accelerometer; battery life: 4 days

Jawbone UP24 - $149.99 sensors: 3-axis accelerometer; battery life: 7 days

LG G Watch - $229 sensors: 3-axis accelerometer, compass, gyroscope; battery life: 36 hours standby

Samsung Gear 2 $299 sensors: 3-axis accelerometer, gyroscope; battery life: 2-3 days (typical usage), 6 days (low usage)

Garmin tactix - $449.99 sensors: altimeter, barometer, 3-axis accelerometer, GPS, magnetometer; battery life: 50 hours (GPS mode); 3 weeks (sensor mode); 5 weeks (watch mode)

Polar V800 GPS Sports Watch - $519.95 sensors: altimeter, barometer, 3-axis accelerometer, GPS, heart rate monitor, temperature; battery life: 13 hours (training time), 50 hours (GPS low power mode)
post #29 of 128
I think this is just a provocation—hoping for the usual suspects to go into foam-flecked paroxysms of rage, like they did about the thousand-dollar iPad ("And that's just to start! You just know that anything anybody actually wants will be at least $1500! Who does Apple think they are?! This is the greatest outrage in the history of civilization! I won't stand for it! This far and no farther!!!!")
post #30 of 128


I strongly believe Apple will create a single iWatch with numerous options for bands. I believe that Apple discontinued the wildly popular iPod nano 6th generation due to the development of the iWatch.

I believe another option is a PAN of devices similar to offerings from Polar; activity monitor, heart rate monitor, watch - each an independent device augmenting a personal area network of the quantified self.
Edited by MacBook Pro - 8/30/14 at 6:42pm
post #31 of 128



In my opinion, Apple could simply add a few features to create the most compelling "smart watch" to augment the accelerometer in the iPod nano 6th generation
Bluetooth 4.0
altimeter
ambient light
barometer
GPS
gyroscope
heart rate monitor
magnetometer

The iPod nano 6th generation was already a compelling device in its time.
Edited by MacBook Pro - 8/30/14 at 6:40pm
post #32 of 128
If this rumor is legit then this device isn't going to be an iPhone accessory.
post #33 of 128

Apple's prices for new products is almost always $100 more than what everyone wants it to be. Yet they sell every device they make by the millions.

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply
post #34 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

Image

Seriously, the square iPod Nano has FM radio? I thought that came and went with the stick-of-gum Nano (Which I consider the greatest iPod ever.)
post #35 of 128

Rabble rabble rabble

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #36 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

BREAKING NEWS: Price Unknown for Unknown Product

JUST IN: Commenters Commenting on Price Being Too High or Low for Unknown Product

 

That sounds about right. 

 

Remember this was the same crew that said the Apple Tablet would start at $800 and go as high as $1000 and be wifi only. 

 

That said, I think $400 or rather $399 could be the price point on one model. A 'high end' looking one. With perhaps a more 'low end' model that is $299. Think a similar gambit as the iPhone S and iPhone C. Sporty looking v luxury looking. 

 

I doubt there will be any difference in internals especially since it's not likely to do anything without a phone so it doesn't need massive storage or even that much RAM. Even the sensor data could be meant to be synced to a device every day so something like 4GB could be enough. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #37 of 128

This thing better give lap dances for that price.

post #38 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post

Apple's prices for new products is almost always $100 more than what everyone wants it to be. Yet they sell every device they make by the millions.

Not the iPad. The media predicted $1,000; Apple shocked everyone with $500.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #39 of 128
Wow, really cheap for all you get!
post #40 of 128
Just to wander, most don't care for a smart watch, so why create a watch that is double an iPhone at base value(or 2/3rds off contract) while an IPad mini comes at same price, based on suspected hardware it could be $200, if it does come Saphire, etc. I still would expect it to be around $330, I guess it's possible but an android one that comes 1/2 or 1/3 the price can sound a lot more compelling.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple has discussed charging 'around $400' for its wearable 'iWatch' - report