Gold was quite cheap prior the 1974. So, if you wanted to bling it out, that was the time to do it...
"Finally, Munster expects Apple to reveal a better sense of device pricing at its March 9 event".Well, no shit!
foggyhill wrote: »
Somebody said that it wasn't plated too.
macky the macky wrote: »
I remember THAT watch from the late '70s. They tried to milk it for a few hundred bucks back then, but the bottom fell out of the Red LED watch market with Texas Instrument's $19.95 announcement. Red LED watches became radioactive overnight. No jeweler would stock them without taking them on consignment from the manufacturers. Omega ended with some egg on their face... And would you LOOK at the watch face! The crazy ugly logo and the name "OMEGA" almost as big as the time numerals. The gold also looks sprayed on...
mac_128 wrote: »
All this talk of Gold, Gold, Gold ... what I want to know is where is the diamond encrusted edition? How can Apple be a serious watch competitor without one? /s
<img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="55991" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/55991/width/350/height/700/flags/LL" style="; width: 350px; height: 350px">
That would indeed be utterly stupid. The AppleWatch has no need of that.
Herman, Lily, Marilyn or Eddie could predict Apple products and pricing info better than Gene.
Now that's funny. They're probably more up to date.
Wait … does that mean Gene …
… could actually be Grandpa ?
The Sport version will be aimed at people upgrading thier old phones for a "cheap" iPhone 5C....get your phone with the same colour as your watch strap etc etc.
LOL. The Huawei watch looks like shit.
yes - how can a round gold watch look bad - well this one looks worse than bad...
and notice the awful writing - and when would a watch ever say that? if you need to get it - then it should have got it - thats not smart thats stupid.....
inkling wrote: »
Is the interior the same for each of these watches and the only reason for that 10-fold difference in cost the case and strap? It that's true, Apple would do well to promise that guts of newer models will fit into those pricey earlier cases. Otherwise, people will be paying thousands of dollars for a watch they'll be replacing a year or two. Upgradability will increase their sales.
As I mentioned, I get the gold part...
But it sounds like you don't. Even with no difference at all in internals and functionality, a solid gold body means a huge price differential. No surprise there at all.
I know, it may sound like a poor value to you or me or anyone who doesn't really care what metal the body is made of. But for anyone (and I understand this may not be you) who's dismayed and angered by Apple (presumably) offering a $5K or $10K watch, I say this:
Yes, Apple's demanding a small fortune for their solid gold watch. But if you're willing to accept a less tony metal, they'll sell you the same watch for a huge discount.
adrayven wrote: »
I don't think it's optimistic.. I think the 1st and 2nd tiers are more economy. You'll only see $50-$100 bump.. I'd say $450 at the highest price point for steel at most.
The gold version, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to see it $7k - $10k
remark wrote: »
remark wrote: »
do you think carriers will subsidize watches?