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.
Why wouldn't the same wireless conduit you expect to use with the iPhone be available through the computer? Other than the cellular radios a computer has the same transmitter receiver set: such as my suspect, LE BlueTooth (though WiFi would have better bandwidth for such) .of the iPhone,
How do you expect the watch to pair with the phone for such upgrades?
ETA: I can wirelessly sync my iPhone to my iTunes now for instance.
Why wouldn't the same wireless conduit you expect to use with the iPhone be available through the computer? Other than the cellular radios a computer has the same transmitter receiver set: such as my suspect, LE BlueTooth (though WiFi would have better bandwidth for such) .of the iPhone,
How do you expect the watch to pair with the phone for such upgrades?
ETA: I can wirelessly sync my iPhone to my iTunes now for instance.
From a technological standpoint the HW that it uses to connect to the iPhone could be used to connect to an IPad, Mac, WinPC, Android-based device, etc. Right now they are only focusing on the iPhone, probably because it's assumed that 1) many of the more advanced features use an iPhone which are more likely to be carrying on your person all day (unlike a Mac or iPad), and 2) iPhones are far and away the most popular Apple device so ?Watch customers are probably iPhone owners.
Perhaps a few have an iPad but no iPhone and want ?Watch but I doubt it's number worth spreading their development teams for. In the future they may very well open it up.
From a technological standpoint the HW that it uses to connect to the iPhone could be used to connect to an IPad, Mac, WinPC, Android-based device, etc. Right now they are only focusing on the iPhone, probably because it's assumed that 1) many of the more advanced features use an iPhone which are more likely to be carrying on your person all day (unlike a Mac or iPad), and 2) iPhones are far and away the most popular Apple device so ?Watch customers are probably iPhone owners.
Perhaps a few have an iPad but no iPhone and want ?Watch but I doubt it's number worth spreading their development teams for. In the future they may very well open it up.
True as an iPhone accessory that would be a logical focus and the iPhone long ago passed the point where it's really a full fledged computer it'd have the horsepower for whatever was needed.
Which does bring up the specter of OTA upgrades given recent glitches....
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....
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.
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.)
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):
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.
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.
Wow, glad I went back and checked out this thread. Thanks for all that great info, very interesting to ponder ahead of the big reveal.
Given the fact that Apple is reporting the case to be 2 times harder than regular gold seems to suggest that, 1) Apple may be using their liquid metal technology (for which the licensing for watch use expires 3/2015, if I'm remembering correctly), and 2) that Apple will be able to use less volume than would typically be expected (as you suggested). This would allow Apple to maintain good margins, without getting into ostentation, and maintaining their typical modus operandi of affordable luxury (relatively speaking).* In this case, it seems that prices of $3,999 (38mm) and $4,999 (42mm) would be expensive enough to be viewed as a luxury product (realistically accessible only to the upper portion of the 1%), but for those who can afford it, they will view it as relatively cheap, and won't be concerned about obsolescence. I think $4,999 would be a key psychological marker to hit.
Since I'm on the subject, $499 seems much to low for the stainless steel version, and inconsistent with Apple's typical pricing model. If you consider the $349 start price of the Sport, then add $100 (at least) for stainless steel, then add $100-200 for the sapphire crystal that is "polished for several hours," you get a starting price around $599 (38mm) and $699 (42mm).
So, just to make it official:
Apple Watch 38mm $599
Apple Watch 48mm $699
Apple Watch Sport 38mm $349
Apple Watch Sport 42mm $399
Apple Watch Edition 38mm $3,999
Apple Watch Edition 42mm $4,999
*On the surface, given the use of gold and the focus on luxury marketing, it seems that Apple is straying away from its usual MO of charging a reasonable price based on intrinsic value. But, obviously, this is different from other Apple products, and I would argue that personal style is a key feature of the product of equal importance to the function (Ive has actually said as much), as opposed to say a MacBook, where the minimalist design seems more a consequence of form flowing function (although it is not quite this simple). This warrants the use of precious metals as Apple is designing to the style of luxury, rather than luxury for luxury's sake. As one of the Apple designer's said (in that long New Yorker piece), and I'm paraphrasing: "look at all the quality materials, gold, ceramics, sapphire on the front and back (sensors), other companies [presumably traditional watch makers] would charge $100k for something like this." If I'm correct in my assumptions, a side effect of the Apple Watch may be to point out (very subtly) that many watch makers aren't often wearing any clothes.**
**Reference to the fable The Emperor's New Clothes
Comments
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.
Why wouldn't the same wireless conduit you expect to use with the iPhone be available through the computer? Other than the cellular radios a computer has the same transmitter receiver set: such as my suspect, LE BlueTooth (though WiFi would have better bandwidth for such) .of the iPhone,
How do you expect the watch to pair with the phone for such upgrades?
ETA: I can wirelessly sync my iPhone to my iTunes now for instance.
From a technological standpoint the HW that it uses to connect to the iPhone could be used to connect to an IPad, Mac, WinPC, Android-based device, etc. Right now they are only focusing on the iPhone, probably because it's assumed that 1) many of the more advanced features use an iPhone which are more likely to be carrying on your person all day (unlike a Mac or iPad), and 2) iPhones are far and away the most popular Apple device so ?Watch customers are probably iPhone owners.
Perhaps a few have an iPad but no iPhone and want ?Watch but I doubt it's number worth spreading their development teams for. In the future they may very well open it up.
From a technological standpoint the HW that it uses to connect to the iPhone could be used to connect to an IPad, Mac, WinPC, Android-based device, etc. Right now they are only focusing on the iPhone, probably because it's assumed that 1) many of the more advanced features use an iPhone which are more likely to be carrying on your person all day (unlike a Mac or iPad), and 2) iPhones are far and away the most popular Apple device so ?Watch customers are probably iPhone owners.
Perhaps a few have an iPad but no iPhone and want ?Watch but I doubt it's number worth spreading their development teams for. In the future they may very well open it up.
True as an iPhone accessory that would be a logical focus and the iPhone long ago passed the point where it's really a full fledged computer it'd have the horsepower for whatever was needed.
Which does bring up the specter of OTA upgrades given recent glitches....
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/
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.
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.)
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):
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.
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.
Wow, glad I went back and checked out this thread. Thanks for all that great info, very interesting to ponder ahead of the big reveal.
Given the fact that Apple is reporting the case to be 2 times harder than regular gold seems to suggest that, 1) Apple may be using their liquid metal technology (for which the licensing for watch use expires 3/2015, if I'm remembering correctly), and 2) that Apple will be able to use less volume than would typically be expected (as you suggested). This would allow Apple to maintain good margins, without getting into ostentation, and maintaining their typical modus operandi of affordable luxury (relatively speaking).* In this case, it seems that prices of $3,999 (38mm) and $4,999 (42mm) would be expensive enough to be viewed as a luxury product (realistically accessible only to the upper portion of the 1%), but for those who can afford it, they will view it as relatively cheap, and won't be concerned about obsolescence. I think $4,999 would be a key psychological marker to hit.
Since I'm on the subject, $499 seems much to low for the stainless steel version, and inconsistent with Apple's typical pricing model. If you consider the $349 start price of the Sport, then add $100 (at least) for stainless steel, then add $100-200 for the sapphire crystal that is "polished for several hours," you get a starting price around $599 (38mm) and $699 (42mm).
So, just to make it official:
Apple Watch 38mm $599
Apple Watch 48mm $699
Apple Watch Sport 38mm $349
Apple Watch Sport 42mm $399
Apple Watch Edition 38mm $3,999
Apple Watch Edition 42mm $4,999
*On the surface, given the use of gold and the focus on luxury marketing, it seems that Apple is straying away from its usual MO of charging a reasonable price based on intrinsic value. But, obviously, this is different from other Apple products, and I would argue that personal style is a key feature of the product of equal importance to the function (Ive has actually said as much), as opposed to say a MacBook, where the minimalist design seems more a consequence of form flowing function (although it is not quite this simple). This warrants the use of precious metals as Apple is designing to the style of luxury, rather than luxury for luxury's sake. As one of the Apple designer's said (in that long New Yorker piece), and I'm paraphrasing: "look at all the quality materials, gold, ceramics, sapphire on the front and back (sensors), other companies [presumably traditional watch makers] would charge $100k for something like this." If I'm correct in my assumptions, a side effect of the Apple Watch may be to point out (very subtly) that many watch makers aren't often wearing any clothes.**
**Reference to the fable The Emperor's New Clothes