If the value of the parts its made from is around that value then as long as the materials retain that, so would the overall watch and someone would buy it worst case just to melt it down. But, a price like that means a very limited audience.
The same can be said of other watches, why spend $6.5k on this stainless steel watch:
It's really all about getting people to value the brand. A famous painter is no different from another painter except they have an identity that is valued more highly.
I won't link to the site but here's an image of a $225 replica of a watch in the same series:
Why pay so much for the original? It's about respecting the original designer. This is how I see the smartphone and tablet markets. People can see the originator and while the competition aren't replicas, they are imitations, the next best thing to the original, trying to replicate the experience of owning the original.
I'd be surprised if they had such a large price gap with the Apple Watch though simply because you can almost the exact same watch from the same manufacturer for under $1k. Some people prefer silver too so the stainless steel model could well be more appealing than gold.
People have said the gold model feels heavier so that would point to solid gold but the back has a large cutout for the sensors. There's a solid gold watch here for ~$3k:
It really depends on how much exclusivity they want for it. I think if someone paid $5k for a watch and turned up to a party where someone else had the silver one for under $1k, they'd feel a bit ripped off but not so much if it was just double the price.
The other components may be upgradable, too, but I think those are far less important YoY, save for the battery being replaced after several years of use. If in 10 years you can still use the same 1st gen ?Watch with the latest S-series CoC, a new battery, but the same display and sensors I don't think that would be an issue for me.
Now the OLED display may also be upgradable, too, but it's likely laminated to top glass/crystal since it's made to look perfect and it does offer pressure, not just touch, so it would probably require all those components to re changed, which I don't think will be possible, but that likely won't matter since the resolution is fine.
That leaves the ceramic backing and sensors. The ceramic housing also deals with the induction changing which may need replacing at some point. Since the sensors are in the ceramic housing and that appears to be how one would access the internals my guess is that could very well be replaceable.
PS: Assuming ***my*** hypothesis that Apple design the S-Series CoC to be replaceable for many years of use, I'd like to see Apple offer a certification program for jewelers to have ?Watch updated with the new component(s). That would add a lot of legitimacy to the product by having this be something a jeweler does, not a computer shop.
For a newbie ( )... you're assuming some of us forget what we've personally posted weeks/months ago. Nice to see you coming on board and getting with the program... :smokey:
The main reason is because EVERYTHING changed on the upgrade cycle, most importantly the screen tech, but also assorted functionality chips. This time were talking about the entire tech fitting in a ~4x4 cm square space a few millimeters high. I don't expect people to be able to do this at home, but if Apple or an authorized repair shop could do it for say $250-350... why not?
Normal watches are far more costly and time intensive to repair, and since Apple wants to barge in on the horologist party... why NOT go all the way and crash it?
Edited to add: Think "Watch Repair" signs being replaced by "Authorized ?Watch Upgrades" signs in the mall and on high street jewelers.
And can I get a wee little "woot woot" respect for being able to pull numbers out of my butt with the best of them... even French rumor guys?
I think everyone here can agree that a $5000 Apple Watch is a status symbol. It's hard to say who Apple's target audience would be will be with the Edition series, but it likely won't be people who are worried about swapping out internals to give new life to their watch. Those willing to spend that kind of money will likely want to own the latest version and will be buying the new Edition edition when it comes out. Dropping another $5000 won't be an issue.
Do you think this guy wants to be seen wearing last years model? Do you think $5000 is more then pocket change to him? If the watch seems too expensive and you'd want upgradeable internals, you're likely not the target audience for the product. Then again, we're all just speculating on a rumor.
It's got a lot to do with resale value. A classic mechanical watch has a very significant resale value. A watch with innards subject to Moore's Law will not, I think. If a gold iWatch holds its value the way an Omega Seamaster does, I will be very surprised.
$1k, they'd feel a bit ripped off but not so much if it was just double the price.
That's not the psychology of luxury items.
However they might feel ripped off in 2020 if their $5000 watch is clearly much worse than some other guys $250 watch ( I'm assuming some price drop at the lower end).
Who knows. Apple haven't said anything about upgrades or trade ins but they haven't officially announced prices yet either, except the entry price.
The only thing I have a complaint about is the name 'Edition'. It seems incomplete. Call it the 'Gold Edition', the 'Limited Edition', some edition.
I was blown away by the presentation and I intend to pick up a couple of them - one for me and one for the significant other. Not the Edition one, but the stainless steel one. I actually wished there were more health-related sensors on the thing but I guess it will come in the next release.
As for buying an Apple Watch every year, why not? I buy an iPhone and an iPad every year. A watch would just mean budget more wisely for it!!
OT: Does anyone know if iOS 8.1.1 beta now has the diabetes monitoring options back in the Health App?
OTT: Is <a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/208536/SolipsismY" style="display:inline-block;">@SolipsismY</a>
= <a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/150681/SolipsismX" style="display:inline-block;">@SolipsismX</a>
? If not, then Y Solipsism, SolipsismY?
SolipsismY = SolipsismX = Solipsism. The use of the black Apple logo is a dead giveaway. And, he refreshes every 25,000 posts or so.
Nice to see you coming on board and getting with the program
In all fairness this is not the first time I stated my hypothesis as how I see this market working. I've had the same outlook even as many here kept telling me that wearable CE will never work, which I can't help but assume it's because they only looked it at the same as every other failed "smartwatch' OEM.
But, yes, we're definitely on the same page here, and I think Apple will do just that assuming it was technologically feasible for the 1st gen device. We simply don't know at this point.
I think everyone here can agree that a $5000 Apple Watch is a status symbol. It's hard to say who Apple's target audience would be will be with the Edition series, but it likely won't be people who are worried about swapping out internals to give new life to their watch. Those willing to spend that kind of money will likely want to own the latest version and will be buying the new Edition edition when it comes out. Dropping another $5000 won't be an issue.
Do you think this guy wants to be seen wearing last years model? Do you think $5000 is more then pocket change to him? If the watch seems too expensive and you'd want upgradeable internals, you're likely not the target audience for the product. Then again, we're all just speculating on a rumor.
That's not the model for luxury jewellery. It tends to hold its value as well as being a status symbol. Win win.
Cars are a status symbol which seem to follow your model - rich people taking a hit on depreciation and buying new every year. Maybe that will work for the Apple Watch but it's not common for jewellery.
Watches at that price tend to last at least a decade. People don't sell them every year. Some last a lifetime.
That's not the model for luxury jewellery. It tends to hold its value as well as being a status symbol. Win win.
Cars are a status symbol which seem to follow your model - rich people taking a hit on depreciation and buying new every year. Maybe that will work for the Apple Watch but it's not common for jewellery.
Watches at that price tend to last at least a decade. People don't sell them every year. Some last a lifetime.
What about technology accessories? How are those for holding their value? Any edition of the Apple Watch will be a technology accessory first, and luxury jewelry second. But yes, I see your point. We'll just have to wait and see once actual details emerge.
I don't think they will make it that you take in your gold watch and have the electronics replaced but you keep the same gold case. Because like every other Apple product they will want to make it thinner year after year.
You should have noticed by now, after all the announcements and revelations, that the ?Watch is unlike every other Apple product.
Does Rolex or Omega make their watches thinner year after year? No, they have some classic design themes or parameters that they maintain pretty much in perpetuity for at least a couple of reasons, parts and components availability and to avoid design faddishness.
My guess is that down the line Apple might introduce a new family of thinner watches as the technology allows it, but they will keep offering the current lines, and any wins in component miniaturization and compactness will be used to increase/enhance the existing models' functions and battery capacity.
But that's very, very different than buying a $5,000 watch that becomes largely obsolete in only a couple of years because its hardware can't keep up with constantly-updating apps. This becomes especially problematic when software developers need to begin focusing support on newer hardware and ceasing support for older models.
If you fixed certain physical parameters of a smartphone like that, you would be yelled at by the industry. But nobody buys a phone with the intention of keeping and using it their whole life. With luxury watches, actually committing that you are not going to be changing the physical design drastically is a good thing. Customers don't want to buy a faddish design that will look embarrassingly dated in five years. (This is what Cadillac doesn't seem to get.)
I think the Apple Watch looks outdated already. It looks clunky, square, like it was from the 70s. Think boxy cars.
Unless you're saying that gold will have seriously dropped in value by then, you'd be mistaken.
What good is the gold if the watch doesn't function? I guess you could separate the gold parts, melt it down and get something for the weight, but it's still a huge cost sink for only 5 years of use. And I'll bet 5 years is pushing it for support from Apple and app updates.
Apple needs to establish a prestige brand like Honda has with Acura and Toyota with Lexus.
If they don't, the disgust a lot of us feel about this tacky, tasteless, overpriced junk will spill over into our attitude toward Apple products in general.
Besides, people with more money than brains need a simple way to tell prestige products from the plebeian ones that work just as well and only cost a fraction as much.
And no, I don't have any idea what that name should be. Judging by what Honda and Toyota did, though, it should sound like Latin.
My guess is that down the line Apple might introduce a new family of thinner watches as the technology allows it, but they will keep offering the current lines, and any wins in component miniaturization and compactness will be used to increase/enhance the existing models' functions and battery capacity.
Wow, that's a brave prediction. Though I thought SolipsismY had a good point about jewellery norms, it's still Jony Ive doing the design and ever increasing thinness is one of his themes, a reflection of his minimalist aesthetic. I will be really surprised if the 2nd gen Apple Watch isn't thinner than the 1st gen.
1) I could see Apple stores servicing them, too, but I think by themselves Apple Stores aren't sufficient for such upgrades. Plus, if it's limited to the S-Series CoC and battery that shouldn't take very long. How long do jewelers take to replace a traditional watch battery?
2) I wonder how that ceramic cap comes off.
Yes, and I replied to your comment. Recap: Your comment was over my head.
You told me about Steven Moffat / Dr. W ... I had not come across him. Regeneration was the answer.
Apple needs to establish a prestige brand like Honda has with Acura and Toyota with Lexus.
If they don't, the disgust a lot of us feel about this tacky, tasteless, overpriced junk will spill over into our attitude toward Apple products in general.
Besides, people with more money than brains need a simple way to tell prestige products from the plebeian ones that work just as well and only cost a fraction as much.
And no, I don't have any idea what that name should be. Judging by what Honda and Toyota did, though, it should sound like Latin.
You're trolling more than usual on this completely speculative rumor.
Also, ever heard of Apple Watch "Edition"? The "Edition" name indicates their high-end model. I personally think its an absolutely terrible name, but then I don't work at Apple and can't do anything about that.
I honestly don’t see how people are going to spend that much for an accessory to the iPhone if the tech will be outdated every year. The only way I see that happening is by making their S-series computer-on-a-chip replaceable, like a watch batter, so that you can update the performance and capabilities, without buying a new device.
That is very difficult engineering, but I think it would have the added bonus of allowing Apple to create completely new looks each year that many would want to collect. I really have to think Apple knows that a luxury item that is also jewelry can’t effectively be repurchased every year, losing support in 3 years, and teetering on being obsolete within 5 years, so I am going to say that is part of the ?Watch design.
Don't try to pawn off John Gruber's comments are your own.
Comments
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/52000/width/500/height/250[/IMG] [IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/52001/width/500/height/250[/IMG]
If the value of the parts its made from is around that value then as long as the materials retain that, so would the overall watch and someone would buy it worst case just to melt it down. But, a price like that means a very limited audience.
The same can be said of other watches, why spend $6.5k on this stainless steel watch:
http://www.amazon.com/Omega-232-32-46-51-01-005-Seamaster-Planet-Ocean/dp/B0072C8VK0
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/52002/width/300/height/1000[/IMG]
It's really all about getting people to value the brand. A famous painter is no different from another painter except they have an identity that is valued more highly.
I won't link to the site but here's an image of a $225 replica of a watch in the same series:
[IMG ALT="CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 90"]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/52003/width/300/height/1000[/IMG]
Why pay so much for the original? It's about respecting the original designer. This is how I see the smartphone and tablet markets. People can see the originator and while the competition aren't replicas, they are imitations, the next best thing to the original, trying to replicate the experience of owning the original.
I'd be surprised if they had such a large price gap with the Apple Watch though simply because you can almost the exact same watch from the same manufacturer for under $1k. Some people prefer silver too so the stainless steel model could well be more appealing than gold.
People have said the gold model feels heavier so that would point to solid gold but the back has a large cutout for the sensors. There's a solid gold watch here for ~$3k:
http://www.bernardwatch.com/Armand-Nicolet/Arc-Royal-Small-Second/ANC27
The following site takes the cutout into account and estimates ~$1500:
http://bgr.com/2014/09/18/apple-watch-price-cost-release-gold-edition-sport/
It really depends on how much exclusivity they want for it. I think if someone paid $5k for a watch and turned up to a party where someone else had the silver one for under $1k, they'd feel a bit ripped off but not so much if it was just double the price.
For a newbie (
And can I get a wee little "woot woot" respect for being able to pull numbers out of my butt with the best of them... even French rumor guys?
Within minutes of the reveal of the ?Watch and Apple still having not revealed the "starting" price:
Just to start off the backlash regarding my request:
I think everyone here can agree that a $5000 Apple Watch is a status symbol. It's hard to say who Apple's target audience would be will be with the Edition series, but it likely won't be people who are worried about swapping out internals to give new life to their watch. Those willing to spend that kind of money will likely want to own the latest version and will be buying the new Edition edition when it comes out. Dropping another $5000 won't be an issue.
Do you think this guy wants to be seen wearing last years model? Do you think $5000 is more then pocket change to him? If the watch seems too expensive and you'd want upgradeable internals, you're likely not the target audience for the product. Then again, we're all just speculating on a rumor.
It's got a lot to do with resale value. A classic mechanical watch has a very significant resale value. A watch with innards subject to Moore's Law will not, I think. If a gold iWatch holds its value the way an Omega Seamaster does, I will be very surprised.
That's not the psychology of luxury items.
However they might feel ripped off in 2020 if their $5000 watch is clearly much worse than some other guys $250 watch ( I'm assuming some price drop at the lower end).
Who knows. Apple haven't said anything about upgrades or trade ins but they haven't officially announced prices yet either, except the entry price.
SolipsismY = SolipsismX = Solipsism. The use of the black Apple logo is a dead giveaway. And, he refreshes every 25,000 posts or so.
In all fairness this is not the first time I stated my hypothesis as how I see this market working. I've had the same outlook even as many here kept telling me that wearable CE will never work, which I can't help but assume it's because they only looked it at the same as every other failed "smartwatch' OEM.
But, yes, we're definitely on the same page here, and I think Apple will do just that assuming it was technologically feasible for the 1st gen device. We simply don't know at this point.
That's not the model for luxury jewellery. It tends to hold its value as well as being a status symbol. Win win.
Cars are a status symbol which seem to follow your model - rich people taking a hit on depreciation and buying new every year. Maybe that will work for the Apple Watch but it's not common for jewellery.
Watches at that price tend to last at least a decade. People don't sell them every year. Some last a lifetime.
That's not the model for luxury jewellery. It tends to hold its value as well as being a status symbol. Win win.
Cars are a status symbol which seem to follow your model - rich people taking a hit on depreciation and buying new every year. Maybe that will work for the Apple Watch but it's not common for jewellery.
Watches at that price tend to last at least a decade. People don't sell them every year. Some last a lifetime.
What about technology accessories? How are those for holding their value? Any edition of the Apple Watch will be a technology accessory first, and luxury jewelry second. But yes, I see your point. We'll just have to wait and see once actual details emerge.
I don't think they will make it that you take in your gold watch and have the electronics replaced but you keep the same gold case. Because like every other Apple product they will want to make it thinner year after year.
You should have noticed by now, after all the announcements and revelations, that the ?Watch is unlike every other Apple product.
Does Rolex or Omega make their watches thinner year after year? No, they have some classic design themes or parameters that they maintain pretty much in perpetuity for at least a couple of reasons, parts and components availability and to avoid design faddishness.
My guess is that down the line Apple might introduce a new family of thinner watches as the technology allows it, but they will keep offering the current lines, and any wins in component miniaturization and compactness will be used to increase/enhance the existing models' functions and battery capacity.
I think the Apple Watch looks outdated already. It looks clunky, square, like it was from the 70s. Think boxy cars.
Unless you're saying that gold will have seriously dropped in value by then, you'd be mistaken.
What good is the gold if the watch doesn't function? I guess you could separate the gold parts, melt it down and get something for the weight, but it's still a huge cost sink for only 5 years of use. And I'll bet 5 years is pushing it for support from Apple and app updates.
If they don't, the disgust a lot of us feel about this tacky, tasteless, overpriced junk will spill over into our attitude toward Apple products in general.
Besides, people with more money than brains need a simple way to tell prestige products from the plebeian ones that work just as well and only cost a fraction as much.
And no, I don't have any idea what that name should be. Judging by what Honda and Toyota did, though, it should sound like Latin.
My guess is that down the line Apple might introduce a new family of thinner watches as the technology allows it, but they will keep offering the current lines, and any wins in component miniaturization and compactness will be used to increase/enhance the existing models' functions and battery capacity.
Wow, that's a brave prediction. Though I thought SolipsismY had a good point about jewellery norms, it's still Jony Ive doing the design and ever increasing thinness is one of his themes, a reflection of his minimalist aesthetic. I will be really surprised if the 2nd gen Apple Watch isn't thinner than the 1st gen.
You told me about Steven Moffat / Dr. W ... I had not come across him. Regeneration was the answer.
Yes, I got it after you explained it on the other thread. It was your original comment I didn't get.
You're trolling more than usual on this completely speculative rumor.
Also, ever heard of Apple Watch "Edition"? The "Edition" name indicates their high-end model. I personally think its an absolutely terrible name, but then I don't work at Apple and can't do anything about that.
I honestly don’t see how people are going to spend that much for an accessory to the iPhone if the tech will be outdated every year. The only way I see that happening is by making their S-series computer-on-a-chip replaceable, like a watch batter, so that you can update the performance and capabilities, without buying a new device.
That is very difficult engineering, but I think it would have the added bonus of allowing Apple to create completely new looks each year that many would want to collect. I really have to think Apple knows that a luxury item that is also jewelry can’t effectively be repurchased every year, losing support in 3 years, and teetering on being obsolete within 5 years, so I am going to say that is part of the ?Watch design.
Don't try to pawn off John Gruber's comments are your own.
You mean how you stole my hypothesis that Mac OS X could be made free of charge to help boost Apple's Mac sales?