I hadn't seen this video before. I can't say it sways me to wanting to buy one until some of the "killer" features I want are included, but it definitely makes me think the product will be successful due to the attention to detail shown.
Its not possible. You dont realize how little 1/2 ounce is. I know because watches with far smaller watch faces use more than 1/2 ounce. In fact i've never heard of a gold watch using less than 1/2 ounce. At that point the case will be so thin you could litterally bend it with your hand
1) Again, you're still not making a case for ?Watch Edition starting at $10,000.
2) There is an excellent example in this thread of what your argument should have been. It's worth a careful read.
Its not possible. You dont realize how little 1/2 ounce is. I know because watches with far smaller watch faces use more than 1/2 ounce. In fact i've never heard of a gold watch using less than 1/2 ounce. At that point the case will be so thin you could litterally bend it with your hand
"... two Swiss watch brands – Frederique Constant and Alpina – have teamed up with Fullpower Technologies to add all those smart fitness sensors to their luxury watches. Fullpower Technologies may not be known by many independently, but the company has been involved with the likes of Jawbone, Nike FuelBand and a bunch of other wearables as well, adding all that required tech to push the watch into the ‘smart’ category."
"As for the price, the watches could start from around $1,000, which is not that high for a luxury Swiss watch, and could go up to $1,300 for the gold-plated Frederique Constant model."
To put things in an even better perspective how much gold do you think there is in the massive Rolex President?
All of these weights are converted to pure gold from the 18K gold used in that particular Rolex watch.
Case has 13.875 grams of pure gold. Case back contains 5.41 grams of pure gold. Bezel uses 3.98 grams of pure gold. The bracelet uses the most pure gold at 51.64 grams.
A Troy ounce has 31.1 grams of precious metal making today's price per gold gram about $39. With 74.9 grams of gold used for the President that's $2900.
Half an ounce is equal to 5 pennies. Do you seriously think you can make a watch case ( back, front, and sides) and buckle wuth that little material? Hell no. It would have to be extreremly thin and you could gend it with you hand.
I've never once said it can be done. I've clearly stated I'm leaning toward around $5,000 and up. What you keep doing is simply making shit arguments. Even know you say "Half an ounce is equal to 5 pennies" but since we're dealing a different metal you need to indicate if that means weight or volume, but that's neither hear nor their because a fucking penny is useful measure for a casing we have only a reasonable guess as its outside dimensions and zero indication as to how much of the WHOLE device will need to be gold. Despite my repeated queries to lead you to water you still haven't given us a single comment about the minimum thickness that an 18-kt gold needs to be in order to be durable for this use case. Saying that some traditional watch you pick out of hat uses x-amount of gold is useless in and of itself.
Certainly less expensive than the over $10,000 prices some are quoting as the minimum
I'm also not hearing much in the way of how Apple might be able to bring prices down because 1) they are only selling one watch proper in three different metals with a total of 6 finishes. How many watches will any one traditional watch company sell for a case type? I'd think economics of scale would help reduce prices of the overall design and implementation so that the precious metal costs become the overwhelmingly most important aspect of ?Watch Edition, with everything else become nearly inconsequential in the price. How much does it cost to have some guy in Switzerland putting a traditional watch together? How much to manufacturer those internal pieces? I'd think that if ?Watch Edition and x-traditional watch used exactly the same amount of gold that ?Watch Edition would be less expensive simply because of the other cost saving factors involved. And let's not forget Apple has no position in this market. Even thought they have amazing mindshare in CE they have none in the jewelry world so can they charge the same premiums that high-end watch makers charge? I'm not convinced they can without a brilliant upgrade path that makes ?Watch timeless to own.
Why don't you show me a SOLID gold watch, first. Now show me a SOLID gold smartwatch? Finally, show me how much gold is used in Apple Watch?
You can't do all those tasks because you don't have the data. You haven't even made a single objective and balanced comment that showed a range of possibilities in theie pricing matrix. If you were so aure about your pricing you would be able to pull up the data you spent hours or days researching so you could create a graph that details how Apple could reach various price points and why you think a $10k minimum is the most likely.
Show me a solid 18k watch for under $2000. There is none.
So you are expecting Apple to have the CHEAPEST gold watch on the market? Even cheaper than Chinese brands? Get real. You only need common sense to realize the watch will cost more than $2000.
Even when gold was $600 an ounce there was no gold watch for under $2000. How can you expect that now when gold is $1200? You do realize half an ounce is pretty much the absolute minimum amount of gold you need to make the case and buckle? You expect Apple to get gross margins less than iphone? Seriously? They did not hire tons of fashion and luxury executives to sell the cheapest gold watch on the market.
I follow the gold watch market and there is no way apple can made a solid 18k watch with less than 1/2 ounce of gold. No watch on the market with 1/2 ounce gold cost less than $2000. Even the generic no name chinese brands.
It comes down to physical limitations (minimum of 1/2 ounce gold) and the watch market. If Apple is striving to be a luxury brand they cannot be selling gold watches for less than no name chinese brands.
Now if the watch is gold plated then all bets are off and it could easy be less than $2000. Doubt they will do gold plate because that gets easy flaked and scratched. This is luxury not ebay market place
You keep making the same mistakes over and over. At least try to make a case as to how it's physically impossible to have less than a 1/2 an ounce of gold in either the 38 or 42mm casings. Show us that you've at least tried to put in some effort to research your argument instead of simply making sweeping claims that you can't support.
Here's some numbers estimating the amount of gold that will be used. I initially thought they were high given that the back won't be gold and the wall thickness is unknown, so as a former jeweler, had been personally guesstimating less than an T. oz. (31.1gr) in the 42mm but, thanks Solly, I'd forgotten to include the strap buckle.
So if these links are based on actual volumetric analyses, 50-75gr (or more) (of which 75% is gold) and proportionately less in the 38mm model is a starting point:
The watch is ALSO - and significantly - on its way to "fine jewelery and horological" outlets. And something else I know well as a jeweler - and Angela knows far better than I - is that the markups these shops operate on is "triple key" (three times wholesale) and UP*. So I wouldn't expect these stores to change time-honored biz models just to accommodate Apple. (Yet at least. Big A is disruptive after all.)
[SIZE=11px](*Note: This, btw, is why chain jewelers can regularly have "50% off" sales and unlike most retail businesses still make a 50% gross profit. Which is just a smart shopper sidelight - don't expect the ?Watch to be on sale any time soon.)
So if the manufacture costs Apple somewhere around $1250-$1400 (somewhere around a troy oz of 18K gold plus all the ?Sauce), before their markup to resellers, say to $1700 to $1900 at a 40% (minimum) markup, in no way should anyone expect to see the 42mm "Edition edition" priced anywhere below $4999. With $5999 or more hardly out of the question.
[/SIZE]
Everything you said makes sense, but Apple is able to pull hats out of a rabbit (and not harm the rabbit). Remember speculation leading up to the Keynote on the iPad expected it to cost upward to $1200. Apple's disruption was the $499 price point. I suspect you're pricing estimates to be accurate, however Apple is setting up expectation in advance with various tiny clues, but it may all be misdirection too.
Remember speculation leading up to the Keynote on the iPad expected it to cost upward to $1200. Apple's disruption was the $499 price point.
And the reason those people all thought it would start at $1000 is because they were looking at it from a Mac PoV. Most assumed Apple would be basically making a ModBook. Using Intel processors and Mac OS X. They are wrong because they didn't allow for any other path to be taken.
The same folly could happen with ?Watch if one doesn't consider how its' inherently different from a traditional watch when making a comparison to only one thing your only argument.
Perhaps a better way to bond the gold with the underlying metal was discovered to minimize, or even eliminate flaking.
It doesnt matter. Gold is soft and it will still scrape off and reveal the base layer and spoil the whole watch. Thats why all the great gold watches are solid gold. Even if it gets scratched the next layer is still 18k gold so it hides microscrathes.
It can be a gold layer, not plating. There's a thing called gold-filling that puts a solid layer of gold bonded over another metal that only needs about 5% of the weight to be gold. Not that they need to adhere to any gold-filled standard, it's a custom design.
They can have a base shell in a metal common between all the models with the mountings for the display and internal components and then have an outer solid gold layer that is resistant to wear.
They can have a base shell in a metal common between all the models with the mountings for the display and internal components and then have an outer solid gold layer that is resistant to wear.
Stainless is better in my opinion, however I would prefer solid stainless not some laminated construction. I think it is unlikely that they will use some core case construction and then wrap it in another material depending on the model. Same goes for the aluminum, much better if it is one solid piece. I think the gold will also be one solid piece, although I could imagine they could find a way to cast a piece that was some alloy toward the center but transitioned to 18K gold at the outer layer but still one solid piece of metal. I'm not a metallurgist, just speculating how they could use some innovative process to use less gold yet retain the strength of solid metal construction.
Stainless is better in my opinion, however I would prefer solid stainless not some laminated construction. I think it is unlikely that they will use some core case construction and then wrap it in another material depending on the model. Same goes for the aluminum, much better if it is one solid piece. I think the gold will also be one solid piece, although I could imagine they could find a way to cast a piece that was some alloy toward the center but transitioned to 18K gold at the outer layer but still one solid piece of metal. I'm not a metallurgist, just speculating how they could use some innovative process to use less gold yet retain the strength of solid metal construction.
Perhaps we should look at this from a CE standpoint. How would all these stacked elements need to be held? Is it feasible to go directly into the casing we see or would it make sense to put them altogether as a single unit, and then connect that single unit into the exterior casing. If each component is to be attached separately doesn't that mean more screws, time and complexity. We know the display and ceramic base are different sizes between the 38 and 42mm versions, and I assume the battery is larger in the 42mm version do to the bigger footprint (with the thickness remaining constant if the cases are a constant thickness), but what the SIP. I assume it's the same size across ?Watch sizes, so that would mean there is either more of something to fill up that space or a void internally.
Now that's what I'm talking about! That's a solid argument.
Thanks - I updated the figures and did some more math after you quoted me - which raised my semi-educated guesstimates from the links cited to $4999-$5999 based on using well more than an ounce of 18K gold, but here will look at the lower limits....
Everything you said makes sense, but Apple is able to pull hats out of a rabbit (and not harm the rabbit). Remember speculation leading up to the Keynote on the iPad expected it to cost upward to $1200. Apple's disruption was the $499 price point. I suspect you're pricing estimates to be accurate, however Apple is setting up expectation in advance with various tiny clues, but it may all be misdirection too.
Apple are genius at marketing and misdirection (as our Brit posters would say), but the only way they can influence the cost of gold per se is by driving it up with massive Edition sales... ...and not down.
To illustrate this, I find the assumptions in the link below unrealistic (i.e., they project an ?Watch with 2 oz. of gold - based on the same links above - selling in the million units/month range, which would shatter the kinds of sales reached by other luxury watches and represent 30% of the world's annual gold production) - but this article does show how Apple could impact the market even at a fraction of that amount, even though I personally doubt it will (much if at all).
Nonetheless, a watch that heavy selling even a million copies per year would still be 2.5% of gold production (not allowing for how many of those sales would be stolen from other gold watch making marques, and it would be many), so some impact is not out of the realm of possibility, especially if it's a hit in the populous Asian markets where many are just getting to where they could afford their first gold watch:
The workings of supply and demand in the gold market are interestingly just the opposite of nearly all of Apple's (long-term) critical component costs throughout their history, e.g., storage, screens, cameras, battery and processing power, where volume and production experience generally leads to constantly falling prices. In any case, entering more "terra icognito" for the company.
So, to summarize my main point to here, much of the lower limit of the asking price is irrevocably baked into the amount of the gold bits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It can be a gold layer, not plating. There's a thing called gold-filling that puts a solid layer of gold bonded over another metal that only needs about 5% of the weight to be gold. Not that they need to adhere to any gold-filled standard, it's a custom design.
They can have a base shell in a metal common between all the models with the mountings for the display and internal components and then have an outer solid gold layer that is resistant to wear.
Naww. S'not gonna be gold fill (which is defined as a 5% cladding of gold of a specified Karat by weight - mostly commonly 12K GF in the US, but it can be any above 9K). GF was fairly popular many decades ago but has lost most of whatever cachet it had then. I carried it for my price-sensitive customers who didn't like silver (equivalent in price, btw) to give them options, but never sold much.
Both gold filled and gold plated jewelry are defined as costume jewelry - and Apple didn't promise "costume jewelery" or get on all these prestigious front fashion pages - or add special safes in Apple Stores - nor float the idea of a new line of watch-focused stores - to sell a third line of merch above the stainless line - as costume jewelry.
(Also a a gold plate or gold fill version wouldn't have enough of a cost differential from the stainless line to justify positioning it as the premium model since all have the same guts.)
(Side point: the choice of 18K is a compromise decision by Apple. The great majority of US gold jewelry sales are 14K - a harder, more durable case metal. But the European standard - with a few exceptions like "thrifty" Ireland where 9K is popular -is 18K, 21K in parts of the Middle East, and in India 22K, while parts of SE Asia favor soft, buttery, 24K.And 'scuse, not sure about China or Japan.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
I've never once said it can be done. I've clearly stated I'm leaning toward around $5,000 and up. What you keep doing is simply making shit arguments. Even know you say "Half an ounce is equal to 5 pennies" but since we're dealing a different metal you need to indicate if that means weight or volume, but that's neither hear nor their because a fucking penny is useful measure for a casing we have only a reasonable guess as its outside dimensions and zero indication as to how much of the WHOLE device will need to be gold. Despite my repeated queries to lead you to water you still haven't given us a single comment about the minimum thickness that an 18-kt gold needs to be in order to be durable for this use case. Saying that some traditional watch you pick out of hat uses x-amount of gold is useless in and of itself.
Yep, as per my earlier take. But here's more useful info and it could possibly go this way (and we'll not likely know until iFixit tells us):
34 mm / Height: 39 mm / Thickness: 9.5 mm / Lug Width: 18 mm. Price? $3300. If you're willing to nuy that same watch on eBay it can be had for $1800.
To put things in an even better perspective how much gold do you think there is in the massive Rolex President?
All of these weights are converted to pure gold from the 18K gold used in that particular Rolex watch.
Case has 13.875 grams of pure gold. Case back contains 5.41 grams of pure gold. Bezel uses 3.98 grams of pure gold. The bracelet uses the most pure gold at 51.64 grams.
A Troy ounce has 31.1 grams of precious metal making today's price per gold gram about $39. With 74.9 grams of gold used for the President that's $2900.
The ?Watch won't have a gold back plate - but likely will have a gold "buckle" on the base band - so calling them equivalent for the case make (I'm not looking up the President at the moment), that's about 3/4 of a troy oz. of 18K gold - which would cost Apple about $700 (1200/oz * 75% gold * 75% of an oz) give or take. Which is roughly what I'd read before the Apple opinion links I posted earlier, projecting 1.5-2 or more oz.
Add the rest of the costs and the markups to fine jewelry/watch stores and the floor price could be as low as $3499, unless it's as low as half an ounce (e.g., in the 38mm model) which might make $2999 feasible if Apple's willing to settle for 40% at their wholesale point to their new retail partners.
And given the relatively low volumes compared to phones, tablets and even MBAirs, can anyone see them settling for less margin with the insanely hyped prod-the-rich-fashionistas (and those who aspire to be in that camp) campaign that's already in full swing??
Many of these customers are not price-sensitive, they're status and design sensitive. And if anything, too low a price might make them less likely to buy.
PS: While the 18K model will establish the watch's high end accessory bona fides, both of the lower priced models will inherit some of the high fashion mantle, and...
1. Accessorizing with bands + apps designed to enhance the look of the band, plus...
2. The ability to easily change bands (which is beyond the skills of most people when dealing with the traditional "wrist pin" attachment devices used on Android Wear watches)...
...will combine to create a vigorous fashion-oriented demand for those as well - which I suspect Apple is counting on to help move the total SKU volume beyond what it would be if marketed only to Apple's more traditional customer base. So all models will be sold to many not on the functional "what does it do" basis revolving around apps and ecosystems, rather on the more ephemeral "how does it enhance how I look" and "what does it say about me" scales of fashion, strong branding and self-image consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
Half an ounce is equal to 5 pennies. Do you seriously think you can make a watch case ( back, front, and sides) and buckle wuth that little material? Hell no. It would have to be extreremly thin and you could gend it with you hand.
Gold crafters (NTM Apple's extensive and famous expertise in material design and fabrication) have long been skilled in making thin/light pieces of gold rigid and quite durable using various techniques (also commonly used is designing planes and things that go into space).
So while it may be more like .75-1.0 oz (or more - whadda any of us really know), hell yeah they could.
Certainly less expensive than the over $10,000 prices some are quoting as the minimum
I'm highly skeptical of suggestions that it will be $10k+, because that goes against Apple's biggest successes. Their successes have pivoted on making things accessible to more people rather than promoting a feeling of exclusivity. In terms of clothing brands, I would view them more like Benetton than Prada. Things Apple makes tend to be priced somewhat high relative to other mass market brands, yet low enough to be accessible a very large number of people. I can't really see the watch deviating too far from that.
I'm highly skeptical of suggestions that it will be $10k+, because that goes against Apple's biggest successes. Their successes have pivoted on making things accessible to more people rather than promoting a feeling of exclusivity. In terms of clothing brands, I would view them more like Benetton than Prada. Things Apple makes tend to be priced somewhat high relative to other mass market brands, yet low enough to be accessible a very large number of people. I can't really see the watch deviating too far from that.
If I had to make some estimate I'd say the Gold watches around $5,000, and since they all have leather straps with no gold straps — note there the two different metal strap options in SS — I would say they will all be close to that, depending on how the 38mm v 42mm prices vary, but that is a complete guess without any calculations involved because there are too many unknowns at this point. I won't be surprised if they are $3,000, $5,000, or $10,000. Actually, I won't be surprised at any price because Apple has a long history of good planning. No matter the price there will be a legitimate reason from Apple's PoV.
Will they do their standard markup or will they do the jewelry markup we hear so much about? Will that apply to ?Watch Sport and ?Watch, or just ?Watch Edition? What cost savings could they have engineered by having 34 models all using the same SIP, 17x38mm and 17x42mm models all using the same internal components, casing designs, and strap latch design to the casings? Could they use Liquid Metal or some other technique to make the molds more cost effective? If they sell 15 million in the first year, as [@]sog35[/@] predicts, won't that be an excessive number of watches with the exact same design and economics of scale that will increase their efficiency well beyond anything a Swiss watch maker has ever considered for a watch costing that much?
The Apple Watch looks good, but that model is wearing the ugliest clothes possible it seems. They looks like ugly man clothes, even a guy wouldn't look good in what she's wearing.
I can agree with that. Also, I'd say that any solid gold anything from Apple, in and of itself, goes against any previous held notion that all products have to be accessible to all, so we really need to change our perspective as to how Apple will be marketing these devices. Apple setting up mini-stores for ?Watch inside of the most luxurious department stores is not what I consider accessible. In fact, I seem to remember people on this forum being upset when Apple started selling their products in Walmart.
Apple did not hire the Burbery CEO and various other luxury/fashion executives to just sell to the masses. They are targeting the masses with the sport/regular version but the luxury crowd with the edition. Apple is truly blazing a new path for the company
Agreed in full, except to add there's going to be a nice niche for all three versions in those mini-stores within department stores and at selected "fine jewelers" and haute couture boutique places... ...bands and apps being matched and accessorized for the Editions and the rest (for the fashion forward on a real world budget, for the well to dos daughters, sons and as stocking stuffers for brokerage house Christmas parties, etc., etc.) - your at work look, your night on the town look, formal, rave, sporty, etc.
Jewelers love trends that can be heavily accessorized at high markups. And will happily co-promote a hot new way to get add-on sales.
I was a doubter, but more and more thinking Apple's going to hit at least pretty close to a very sweet spot with this new strategic move.
(PS: While hard to measure, new Apple customers wanting the watch won't hurt iOS market share either....!!)
That is what I thought. Once it is setup you can use it to some degree independently, but to add software, music or update the OS you would likely need an iPhone.
Or iTunes and a computer? Like how you can add those very sane things to an iPhone?
That is what I thought. Once it is setup you can use it to some degree independently, but to add software, music or update the OS you would likely need an iPhone.
Or iTunes and a computer? Like how you can add those very sane things to an iPhone?
In that scenario you would plug in the iPhone to USB. As far as I know ?Watch has no USB. I think the pairing with an iPhone is going to be the recommended method if not they only method of updating media or software.
Comments
[VIDEO]
**** you!
1) Again, you're still not making a case for ?Watch Edition starting at $10,000.
2) There is an excellent example in this thread of what your argument should have been. It's worth a careful read.
"... two Swiss watch brands – Frederique Constant and Alpina – have teamed up with Fullpower Technologies to add all those smart fitness sensors to their luxury watches. Fullpower Technologies may not be known by many independently, but the company has been involved with the likes of Jawbone, Nike FuelBand and a bunch of other wearables as well, adding all that required tech to push the watch into the ‘smart’ category."
"As for the price, the watches could start from around $1,000, which is not that high for a luxury Swiss watch, and could go up to $1,300 for the gold-plated Frederique Constant model."
Or perhaps you expect solid 18K gold?
http://www.bernardwatch.com/International-Watch-Company/Portofino-34/IWC443
34 mm / Height: 39 mm / Thickness: 9.5 mm / Lug Width: 18 mm. Price? $3300
My quote:
Or perhaps you expect solid 18K gold?
http://www.bernardwatch.com/International-Watch-Company/Portofino-34/IWC443
34 mm / Height: 39 mm / Thickness: 9.5 mm / Lug Width: 18 mm. Price? $3300. If you're willing to nuy that same watch on eBay it can be had for $1800.
To put things in an even better perspective how much gold do you think there is in the massive Rolex President?
All of these weights are converted to pure gold from the 18K gold used in that particular Rolex watch.
Case has 13.875 grams of pure gold. Case back contains 5.41 grams of pure gold. Bezel uses 3.98 grams of pure gold. The bracelet uses the most pure gold at 51.64 grams.
A Troy ounce has 31.1 grams of precious metal making today's price per gold gram about $39. With 74.9 grams of gold used for the President that's $2900.
I've never once said it can be done. I've clearly stated I'm leaning toward around $5,000 and up. What you keep doing is simply making shit arguments. Even know you say "Half an ounce is equal to 5 pennies" but since we're dealing a different metal you need to indicate if that means weight or volume, but that's neither hear nor their because a fucking penny is useful measure for a casing we have only a reasonable guess as its outside dimensions and zero indication as to how much of the WHOLE device will need to be gold. Despite my repeated queries to lead you to water you still haven't given us a single comment about the minimum thickness that an 18-kt gold needs to be in order to be durable for this use case. Saying that some traditional watch you pick out of hat uses x-amount of gold is useless in and of itself.
This is under $3200.
Certainly less expensive than the over $10,000 prices some are quoting as the minimum
I'm also not hearing much in the way of how Apple might be able to bring prices down because 1) they are only selling one watch proper in three different metals with a total of 6 finishes. How many watches will any one traditional watch company sell for a case type? I'd think economics of scale would help reduce prices of the overall design and implementation so that the precious metal costs become the overwhelmingly most important aspect of ?Watch Edition, with everything else become nearly inconsequential in the price. How much does it cost to have some guy in Switzerland putting a traditional watch together? How much to manufacturer those internal pieces? I'd think that if ?Watch Edition and x-traditional watch used exactly the same amount of gold that ?Watch Edition would be less expensive simply because of the other cost saving factors involved. And let's not forget Apple has no position in this market. Even thought they have amazing mindshare in CE they have none in the jewelry world so can they charge the same premiums that high-end watch makers charge? I'm not convinced they can without a brilliant upgrade path that makes ?Watch timeless to own.
Everything you said makes sense, but Apple is able to pull hats out of a rabbit (and not harm the rabbit). Remember speculation leading up to the Keynote on the iPad expected it to cost upward to $1200. Apple's disruption was the $499 price point. I suspect you're pricing estimates to be accurate, however Apple is setting up expectation in advance with various tiny clues, but it may all be misdirection too.
And the reason those people all thought it would start at $1000 is because they were looking at it from a Mac PoV. Most assumed Apple would be basically making a ModBook. Using Intel processors and Mac OS X. They are wrong because they didn't allow for any other path to be taken.
The same folly could happen with ?Watch if one doesn't consider how its' inherently different from a traditional watch when making a comparison to only one thing your only argument.
It can be a gold layer, not plating. There's a thing called gold-filling that puts a solid layer of gold bonded over another metal that only needs about 5% of the weight to be gold. Not that they need to adhere to any gold-filled standard, it's a custom design.
They can have a base shell in a metal common between all the models with the mountings for the display and internal components and then have an outer solid gold layer that is resistant to wear.
Stainless is better in my opinion, however I would prefer solid stainless not some laminated construction. I think it is unlikely that they will use some core case construction and then wrap it in another material depending on the model. Same goes for the aluminum, much better if it is one solid piece. I think the gold will also be one solid piece, although I could imagine they could find a way to cast a piece that was some alloy toward the center but transitioned to 18K gold at the outer layer but still one solid piece of metal. I'm not a metallurgist, just speculating how they could use some innovative process to use less gold yet retain the strength of solid metal construction.
Perhaps we should look at this from a CE standpoint. How would all these stacked elements need to be held? Is it feasible to go directly into the casing we see or would it make sense to put them altogether as a single unit, and then connect that single unit into the exterior casing. If each component is to be attached separately doesn't that mean more screws, time and complexity. We know the display and ceramic base are different sizes between the 38 and 42mm versions, and I assume the battery is larger in the 42mm version do to the bigger footprint (with the thickness remaining constant if the cases are a constant thickness), but what the SIP. I assume it's the same size across ?Watch sizes, so that would mean there is either more of something to fill up that space or a void internally.
So now you're saying that the value of that 18-kt gold isn't as valuable as the value of the 18-kt gold in other watches. :no:
Now that's what I'm talking about! That's a solid argument.
Thanks - I updated the figures and did some more math after you quoted me - which raised my semi-educated guesstimates from the links cited to $4999-$5999 based on using well more than an ounce of 18K gold, but here will look at the lower limits....
Those links were:
https://applespotlight.com/2015/02/18/the-real-value-of-gold-in-an-apple-watch/
https://applespotlight.com/2014/09/17/john-grubers-initial-thoughts-and-observations-on-apple-watch/
Everything you said makes sense, but Apple is able to pull hats out of a rabbit (and not harm the rabbit). Remember speculation leading up to the Keynote on the iPad expected it to cost upward to $1200. Apple's disruption was the $499 price point. I suspect you're pricing estimates to be accurate, however Apple is setting up expectation in advance with various tiny clues, but it may all be misdirection too.
Apple are genius at marketing and misdirection (as our Brit posters would say), but the only way they can influence the cost of gold per se is by driving it up with massive Edition sales... ...and not down.
To illustrate this, I find the assumptions in the link below unrealistic (i.e., they project an ?Watch with 2 oz. of gold - based on the same links above - selling in the million units/month range, which would shatter the kinds of sales reached by other luxury watches and represent 30% of the world's annual gold production) - but this article does show how Apple could impact the market even at a fraction of that amount, even though I personally doubt it will (much if at all).
Nonetheless, a watch that heavy selling even a million copies per year would still be 2.5% of gold production (not allowing for how many of those sales would be stolen from other gold watch making marques, and it would be many), so some impact is not out of the realm of possibility, especially if it's a hit in the populous Asian markets where many are just getting to where they could afford their first gold watch:
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/technology/could-the-apple-watch-edition-spark-a-gold-supply-crunch.html/?a=viewall
The workings of supply and demand in the gold market are interestingly just the opposite of nearly all of Apple's (long-term) critical component costs throughout their history, e.g., storage, screens, cameras, battery and processing power, where volume and production experience generally leads to constantly falling prices. In any case, entering more "terra icognito" for the company.
So, to summarize my main point to here, much of the lower limit of the asking price is irrevocably baked into the amount of the gold bits.
It can be a gold layer, not plating. There's a thing called gold-filling that puts a solid layer of gold bonded over another metal that only needs about 5% of the weight to be gold. Not that they need to adhere to any gold-filled standard, it's a custom design.
They can have a base shell in a metal common between all the models with the mountings for the display and internal components and then have an outer solid gold layer that is resistant to wear.
Naww. S'not gonna be gold fill (which is defined as a 5% cladding of gold of a specified Karat by weight - mostly commonly 12K GF in the US, but it can be any above 9K). GF was fairly popular many decades ago but has lost most of whatever cachet it had then. I carried it for my price-sensitive customers who didn't like silver (equivalent in price, btw) to give them options, but never sold much.
Both gold filled and gold plated jewelry are defined as costume jewelry - and Apple didn't promise "costume jewelery" or get on all these prestigious front fashion pages - or add special safes in Apple Stores - nor float the idea of a new line of watch-focused stores - to sell a third line of merch above the stainless line - as costume jewelry.
(Also a a gold plate or gold fill version wouldn't have enough of a cost differential from the stainless line to justify positioning it as the premium model since all have the same guts.)
(Side point: the choice of 18K is a compromise decision by Apple. The great majority of US gold jewelry sales are 14K - a harder, more durable case metal. But the European standard - with a few exceptions like "thrifty" Ireland where 9K is popular - is 18K, 21K in parts of the Middle East, and in India 22K, while parts of SE Asia favor soft, buttery, 24K. And 'scuse, not sure about China or Japan.)
I've never once said it can be done. I've clearly stated I'm leaning toward around $5,000 and up. What you keep doing is simply making shit arguments. Even know you say "Half an ounce is equal to 5 pennies" but since we're dealing a different metal you need to indicate if that means weight or volume, but that's neither hear nor their because a fucking penny is useful measure for a casing we have only a reasonable guess as its outside dimensions and zero indication as to how much of the WHOLE device will need to be gold. Despite my repeated queries to lead you to water you still haven't given us a single comment about the minimum thickness that an 18-kt gold needs to be in order to be durable for this use case. Saying that some traditional watch you pick out of hat uses x-amount of gold is useless in and of itself.
Yep, as per my earlier take. But here's more useful info and it could possibly go this way (and we'll not likely know until iFixit tells us):
You missed the edit then.
My quote:
Or perhaps you expect solid 18K gold?
http://www.bernardwatch.com/International-Watch-Company/Portofino-34/IWC443
34 mm / Height: 39 mm / Thickness: 9.5 mm / Lug Width: 18 mm. Price? $3300. If you're willing to nuy that same watch on eBay it can be had for $1800.
To put things in an even better perspective how much gold do you think there is in the massive Rolex President?
All of these weights are converted to pure gold from the 18K gold used in that particular Rolex watch.
Case has 13.875 grams of pure gold. Case back contains 5.41 grams of pure gold. Bezel uses 3.98 grams of pure gold. The bracelet uses the most pure gold at 51.64 grams.
A Troy ounce has 31.1 grams of precious metal making today's price per gold gram about $39. With 74.9 grams of gold used for the President that's $2900.
The ?Watch won't have a gold back plate - but likely will have a gold "buckle" on the base band - so calling them equivalent for the case make (I'm not looking up the President at the moment), that's about 3/4 of a troy oz. of 18K gold - which would cost Apple about $700 (1200/oz * 75% gold * 75% of an oz) give or take. Which is roughly what I'd read before the Apple opinion links I posted earlier, projecting 1.5-2 or more oz.
Add the rest of the costs and the markups to fine jewelry/watch stores and the floor price could be as low as $3499, unless it's as low as half an ounce (e.g., in the 38mm model) which might make $2999 feasible if Apple's willing to settle for 40% at their wholesale point to their new retail partners.
And given the relatively low volumes compared to phones, tablets and even MBAirs, can anyone see them settling for less margin with the insanely hyped prod-the-rich-fashionistas (and those who aspire to be in that camp) campaign that's already in full swing??
Many of these customers are not price-sensitive, they're status and design sensitive. And if anything, too low a price might make them less likely to buy.
PS: While the 18K model will establish the watch's high end accessory bona fides, both of the lower priced models will inherit some of the high fashion mantle, and...
1. Accessorizing with bands + apps designed to enhance the look of the band, plus...
2. The ability to easily change bands (which is beyond the skills of most people when dealing with the traditional "wrist pin" attachment devices used on Android Wear watches)...
...will combine to create a vigorous fashion-oriented demand for those as well - which I suspect Apple is counting on to help move the total SKU volume beyond what it would be if marketed only to Apple's more traditional customer base. So all models will be sold to many not on the functional "what does it do" basis revolving around apps and ecosystems, rather on the more ephemeral "how does it enhance how I look" and "what does it say about me" scales of fashion, strong branding and self-image consciousness.
Half an ounce is equal to 5 pennies. Do you seriously think you can make a watch case ( back, front, and sides) and buckle wuth that little material? Hell no. It would have to be extreremly thin and you could gend it with you hand.
Gold crafters (NTM Apple's extensive and famous expertise in material design and fabrication) have long been skilled in making thin/light pieces of gold rigid and quite durable using various techniques (also commonly used is designing planes and things that go into space).
So while it may be more like .75-1.0 oz (or more - whadda any of us really know), hell yeah they could.
This is under $3200.
Certainly less expensive than the over $10,000 prices some are quoting as the minimum
I'm highly skeptical of suggestions that it will be $10k+, because that goes against Apple's biggest successes. Their successes have pivoted on making things accessible to more people rather than promoting a feeling of exclusivity. In terms of clothing brands, I would view them more like Benetton than Prada. Things Apple makes tend to be priced somewhat high relative to other mass market brands, yet low enough to be accessible a very large number of people. I can't really see the watch deviating too far from that.
If I had to make some estimate I'd say the Gold watches around $5,000, and since they all have leather straps with no gold straps — note there the two different metal strap options in SS — I would say they will all be close to that, depending on how the 38mm v 42mm prices vary, but that is a complete guess without any calculations involved because there are too many unknowns at this point. I won't be surprised if they are $3,000, $5,000, or $10,000. Actually, I won't be surprised at any price because Apple has a long history of good planning. No matter the price there will be a legitimate reason from Apple's PoV.
Will they do their standard markup or will they do the jewelry markup we hear so much about? Will that apply to ?Watch Sport and ?Watch, or just ?Watch Edition? What cost savings could they have engineered by having 34 models all using the same SIP, 17x38mm and 17x42mm models all using the same internal components, casing designs, and strap latch design to the casings? Could they use Liquid Metal or some other technique to make the molds more cost effective? If they sell 15 million in the first year, as [@]sog35[/@] predicts, won't that be an excessive number of watches with the exact same design and economics of scale that will increase their efficiency well beyond anything a Swiss watch maker has ever considered for a watch costing that much?
I can agree with that. Also, I'd say that any solid gold anything from Apple, in and of itself, goes against any previous held notion that all products have to be accessible to all, so we really need to change our perspective as to how Apple will be marketing these devices. Apple setting up mini-stores for ?Watch inside of the most luxurious department stores is not what I consider accessible. In fact, I seem to remember people on this forum being upset when Apple started selling their products in Walmart.
Yes and yes.
Apple did not hire the Burbery CEO and various other luxury/fashion executives to just sell to the masses. They are targeting the masses with the sport/regular version but the luxury crowd with the edition. Apple is truly blazing a new path for the company
Agreed in full, except to add there's going to be a nice niche for all three versions in those mini-stores within department stores and at selected "fine jewelers" and haute couture boutique places... ...bands and apps being matched and accessorized for the Editions and the rest (for the fashion forward on a real world budget, for the well to dos daughters, sons and as stocking stuffers for brokerage house Christmas parties, etc., etc.) - your at work look, your night on the town look, formal, rave, sporty, etc.
Jewelers love trends that can be heavily accessorized at high markups. And will happily co-promote a hot new way to get add-on sales.
I was a doubter, but more and more thinking Apple's going to hit at least pretty close to a very sweet spot with this new strategic move.
(PS: While hard to measure, new Apple customers wanting the watch won't hurt iOS market share either....!!)
That is what I thought. Once it is setup you can use it to some degree independently, but to add software, music or update the OS you would likely need an iPhone.
Or iTunes and a computer? Like how you can add those very sane things to an iPhone?
That is what I thought. Once it is setup you can use it to some degree independently, but to add software, music or update the OS you would likely need an iPhone.
Or iTunes and a computer? Like how you can add those very sane things to an iPhone?
In that scenario you would plug in the iPhone to USB. As far as I know ?Watch has no USB. I think the pairing with an iPhone is going to be the recommended method if not they only method of updating media or software.