Rumor: Gold Apple Watch Edition priced up to $5,000, steel version at $500, will debut on Feb. 14

145791013

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 247
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,505member
    adyb wrote: »
    I was intrigued when I first spotted the change fro X to Y. Soli very kindly replied to my query as to why:

    "No real reason. I just did it on a whim. No pros or cons to speak of."

    He's made it to level three of course ... ;)
  • Reply 122 of 247
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

    Yes, that's a good point about the past precedents. They are really taking the jewellery thing to heart, so maybe we should look for norms from the jewellery market. Jewellery is more often a gift than something you buy for yourself, so there is an emotional attachment. But a watch is certainly something you would buy for yourself. But perhaps not a gold one.

     

    I don't know the answer to your metallurgy question.


    I'm glad you brought this up.  A huge proportion of the high-end Apple Watches will be purchased as gifts.  In that case, the high price tag is a plus not a minus.  I expect that the gift-giving will go both ways, but "wives buying one for the husband" will account for at least 10-30% of Edition sales.  Gift buying can be challenging, so plenty of people will react to this with "Yes! Now I know what to get my spouse this year for [insert next gift buying occassion here]."  This is already true for Apple devices and for jewelry independently, so this combination will be killer.

  • Reply 123 of 247
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    rogifan wrote: »
    I love all the freaking out over the alleged price of the edition watch. It brings concern trolling to a new level. :smokey:

    Looks like you'll have to up your game to remain the archetype.
  • Reply 124 of 247
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post



    ?Watch is breaking a lot of Apple's habits. I had stated for years that Apple won't be able to do a single product in two sizes when they do release a wrist-worn wearable because of how we perceive fashion and jewelry. I was told that Apple never comes out with a huge number of products for a category. Clearly they are looking at this from a different PoV so I wouldn't hold any previous modus operandi too close to the breast.

     

    It's a single product in two sizes: 38mm & 42mm and four color choices: ALU, SS, Space Black SS, Gold, Rose Gold and a bevy of bands.

     

    Like the latest iPads are a single product in two sizes, three color choices and a bevy of covers.

  • Reply 125 of 247
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AdyB View Post





    I was intrigued when I first spotted the change fro X to Y. Soli very kindly replied to my query as to why:



    "No real reason. I just did it on a whim. No pros or cons to speak of."

    Huh, I figured it was because I changed my mind.

  • Reply 126 of 247
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

     

     

    I've read books on it that contained studies. Wealth accumulation is rarely associated with visible status. Granted, the material is old now, but everyone with more than $1M in assets accumulated it by not spending it on "stuff." Some people certainly outpace their spending on luxury/status and end up there anyway, but the majority are conservative spenders, and that is a big part of why they're wealthy.

     

    My next door neighbor sold his Internet company that he built from the ground up. Tens of millions later, he's remained our next door neighbor in a "modest" $400K house for the ten years after the sale anyway. Drives a Yukon and a 7-year-old 4-cylinder Lexus. He's about to buy a Tesla though... he's test-driven Ferraris and just can't bring himself to write the check, even though the money would make no difference to his family's future. He doesn't spend money like that, and he's making sure he has enough to handle a health catastrophe too. He takes his family all over the world on really cool trips though -- but that's experience spending, not luxury spending, and I think it's valuable.


    But that's just "millionaires."  There are as many billionaires in the world as their were millionaires a few generations ago.  The average doctor and lawyer (and a good proportion of upper middle class retirees) are millionaires.  The audience for the high end watches are people with income in the millions, not assets in the millions.

  • Reply 126 of 247
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

     

    I've read books on it that contained studies. Wealth accumulation is rarely associated with visible status. Granted, the material is old now, but everyone with more than $1M in assets accumulated it by not spending it on "stuff." Some people certainly outpace their spending on luxury/status and end up there anyway, but the majority are conservative spenders, and that is a big part of why they're wealthy.


     

    Yes, but as you say, these aren't the demographics that buy expensive stuff but the families with mid six figure incomes, little savings and 3 months from bankruptcy if their income ever wavers.

  • Reply 128 of 247
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by b9bot View Post

     

    Tim Cook said in the keynote that the Apple Watch will start at $350. Did anybody listen or pay attention?




    Sorry, what was that?

  • Reply 129 of 247
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by malax View Post

     

    But that's just "millionaires."  There are as many billionaires in the world as their were millionaires a few generations ago.  The average doctor and lawyer (and a good proportion of upper middle class retirees) are millionaires.  The audience for the high end watches are people with income in the millions, not assets in the millions.


     

    Yeah, but millions in income is rare. $2M puts one in the top 0.5%. In my family, those incomes are split equally between iPhone and Android, and they all wear Seiko-level watches ($150-$300). These are doctors, lawyers, and executives. Of course we have friends with the $5K-$10K watches as well, and they're not rare in that crowd, but I wonder about people who realize that they replace their iPhone every year or two, if they think  a first-gen Apple Watch is somehow a durable good like an Omega would be.

     

    The point made by Apple ][ was that these gold watches weren't for Android users. In my experience, they're only for a small percentage of the top 0.5% of earners, and most of the buyers will be the mid 6-figure types who... (see below)

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nht View Post

     

     

    Yes, but as you say, these aren't the demographics that buy expensive stuff but the families with mid six figure incomes, little savings and 3 months from bankruptcy if their income ever wavers.


     

    Absolutely. That's the leased BMW crowd I was speaking about.

  • Reply 130 of 247
    nht wrote: »
    It's a single product in two sizes: 38mm & 42mm and four color choices: ALU, SS, Space Black SS, Gold, Rose Gold and a bevy of bands.

    Like the latest iPads are a single product in two sizes, three color choices and a bevy of covers.

    Those are all different SKUs based on appearance. This is atypical for Apple. Were you one of those people that said it would be single one-size-and-style-fits-all, like with other smartwatches?
  • Reply 131 of 247
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    Rampant guesswork and folderol.
  • Reply 132 of 247
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,529member
    If Apple can pull off a technology focused watch that matches the repair and replacement model that people expect from a fine jewelry quality watch in the same price range they will have pulled off an amazing feat. I'm just not sure that they have done it. They dirty little secret about all other wearables today, whether you're talking fitness bands or smart watches, is that they simply don't last. Even if they don't crap out from durability limitations or non serviceable battery depletion the embedded functionality is going to dead end in a couple or few years. They break, they get obsolete, or the get abandoned either by the manufacturer, the ecosystem, or the buyer. This pattern is inevitable especially when you have wrist anchors that are miniature smartphones.

    If Apple can break this pattern - wow, that would be groundbreaking and render every other smartwatch on the planet a semi disposable toy. Can they do it in a version 1.0 product? The jury is still out and may be out for a while.
  • Reply 133 of 247
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,516member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

     

    No thanks, I'd rather buy an Omega Speedmaster if I had that kind of coin. It will retain its value far more than an Apple Watch.

     

    Plus the Speedmaster is less expensive. Spend the difference on some shares of AAPL instead.


     

    Many people that have that kind of coin (for a watch) may not care about "resale value" and will probably just keep buying new "Editions" every couple of years as advancements happen, handing down the previous to family and/or friends.

  • Reply 134 of 247
    Any placing bets that the iWatch will bomb?

    It looks like it will have lackluster response.

    I hope they were asking themselves why people need one.

    My $25 Casio performs admirably and who needs to extend their phone to a watch?

    Making life easier by making it more complicated.
  • Reply 135 of 247
    "Noted analyst"
    Instead of
    "well-connected analyst"?

    Someone is moving up in the world
  • Reply 136 of 247
    Originally Posted by pfisher View Post

    Any placing bets that the iWatch will bomb?



    Views on it are incorrect.

     

    People are treating it as a brand new standalone product, but it is a brand new accessory. For revolutionary products before, the only requisite was “having a computer”, which is straightforward. Now it’s “having an iPhone”. It cannot, therefore, do as well as many are predicting. But it won’t bomb.

  • Reply 137 of 247
    Yup. Sensible. Like what people said about the iPhone (and iPod, and iPad) when they were announced.
    I can't see myself not getting one though.

    Let's not forget not every Apple product has been a success. I think this will sell like hotcakes for a short period then drop precipitously as people realize it really doesn't do a whole lot for them that their iPhone 6, which is always with them doesn't already do for them.
  • Reply 138 of 247
    roakeroake Posts: 790member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Entropys View Post



    That the edition watch has a special display case tells you that the edition is for collectors, not someone that wears it every day on their wrist.

    They probably would be ecstatic if they sold a hundred edition models. It will keep its value, like the Apple 1.



    The purpose of the edition is about positioning the entire Apple watch line.



    Except that in 30 years, unlike the Apple I, the Apple Watch Edition will not function because the battery will have long been toast, and no-one will sell replacements for such a niche product.

  • Reply 139 of 247
    roakeroake Posts: 790member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by draugminaion View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

     

    Nah, but I'll look super stylin' in my coffin. ;) 

     

    Besides, square watches = yuck.


    Whatever floats your boat.

    For me, round watches with their gauges and dials?

    Too steampunk.

    Not my thing.




    I don't think that word means what you think it means.

  • Reply 140 of 247
    roakeroake Posts: 790member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by malax View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

     

     

    I've read books on it that contained studies. Wealth accumulation is rarely associated with visible status. Granted, the material is old now, but everyone with more than $1M in assets accumulated it by not spending it on "stuff." Some people certainly outpace their spending on luxury/status and end up there anyway, but the majority are conservative spenders, and that is a big part of why they're wealthy.

     

    My next door neighbor sold his Internet company that he built from the ground up. Tens of millions later, he's remained our next door neighbor in a "modest" $400K house for the ten years after the sale anyway. Drives a Yukon and a 7-year-old 4-cylinder Lexus. He's about to buy a Tesla though... he's test-driven Ferraris and just can't bring himself to write the check, even though the money would make no difference to his family's future. He doesn't spend money like that, and he's making sure he has enough to handle a health catastrophe too. He takes his family all over the world on really cool trips though -- but that's experience spending, not luxury spending, and I think it's valuable.


    But that's just "millionaires."  There are as many billionaires in the world as their were millionaires a few generations ago.  The average doctor and lawyer (and a good proportion of upper middle class retirees) are millionaires.  The audience for the high end watches are people with income in the millions, not assets in the millions.




    As a doctor myself, with an income higher than the average lawyer, I can assure you that the average doctors and lawyers are not millionaires.  There are exceptions to the rule.

     

    There are basically two kinds of doctors (with regard for expenditures), the conservative doctor that saves for retirement and lives within his/her means, and the doctors that go nuts with debt and have to work ALL the time just to pay the monthly bills; the latter are the doctors you see with a million-dollar house and the luxury cars... always just one step ahead of bankruptcy.  I have a very modest house, two vehicles in a 4-person family (both of which we purchased used), and no special luxury items (no pool, no vacation house, we don't buy expensive jewelry or even watches, etc.).  My wife is a native of another country, and we do save up and travel there every 3-years or so, but that's about it for unusual expenses, and when we make that trip, we don't stay in fancy hotels; we fly economy, and stay in places that are affordable.  When we travel within the US, we drive.  I'm not sure how people get the idea that being a doctor means you are filthy rich.

Sign In or Register to comment.