The gold isn't worth anywhere close to $9,651. The investment value will be in nostalgia, the privilege of owning a first edition, etc. The price of the gold is the "melt value," which is likely to be far lower.
Functional Apple Is don't sell for hundreds of times their original value because of the value of the components.
This does make me curious, though, for all those talking about the value of the gold: how much gold does the watch actually contain?
edit. I hadn't read the post about the 1.666 Troy ounces when I wrote this. So it's about $2000 of gold at current prices. $349 for the watch, $2000 for the gold, and $7500 for the design, impression it produces on yourself and others, and nostalgia.
"Components." Right. Reductionism at it's worst. Again, that's "Intel Inside" thinking. iFixit thinking. The BYOPC movement taught a generation of dorks to treat the whole as nothing but the sum of its parts. You should have reduced the Apple Watch Edition into a soup of neutrons, protons, and electrons; maybe, just maybe, it would be worth even less.
Guess what? A rolex is obsolete the day you BUY IT. That tech in the Rolex is DECADES OLD.
NO ONE CARES. This is luxury.
Don't matter if you have Gen1 or Gen3 Edition Watch. It is still very presigious. Do people think a 20 year old Rolex is less prestigious than a new Timex? Give me a break.
You people are deluding yourselves if you think that the Apple Watch will still be relevant in 20 years' time. Remember mobile phones 20 years ago?
"Components." Right. Reductionism at it's worst. Again, that's "Intel Inside" thinking. iFixit thinking. The BYOPC movement taught a generation of dorks to treat the whole as nothing but the sum of its parts. You should have reduced the Apple Watch Edition into a soup of neutrons, protons, and electrons; maybe, just maybe, it would be worth even less.
Buying the particles accelerator, or the nuclear reactor to dissassemble/assemble the watch would surely make it slightly hard to work with even for the most dedicated spec nerds ;-).
Celebrity associations matter when it comes to brands and products. They can enhance and they can detract. Some of the first to be flaunting the gold version on their wrists may well be the Kardashians, or Paris Hilton and her younger brother Conrad - who proclaims loudly that he doesn't like to be on the same airplane as "peasants." There is a hazard when a product ceases being aspirational and instead becomes regarded as a symbol of class division and a vulgar display of wealth.
Well, you can laugh at them for having something expensive with no more function than the cheap one then... You see... The jokes on them ;-).
As for aspiration, even the upper middle class aspires to be richer. They want to shoot for something....
Apple's product have always been for the top 2-10% (max) of the world population. Right now it is way way way more acccesible than it was in 1976-1990. Look at the old prices in 2015 money and tell me who outside the top 2% bought that back then.
Do people really dump on Volkswagen for owning Audi, Porsche and Rolls Royce and Lamborgini. Ducati and Bentley?
And I'd rather have $10k than a watch that only tells the time and not very accurately.
Its called choice.
Me, I'm not in the market for the edition. The only reason that I would ever have a high end mechanical watch would be as a backup to modern navigation systems, and unless you are a pilot or mariner, you won't ever need that either.
Sure, there's a pretentious male culture that sees the mechanical watch as one of life's milestones, but frankly, the people that are going to be buying the Edition are movers and shakers in culture anyway and will define the future.
SOG, I would double down on your bet. This is going to be like clubbing baby seals.
Were there not tablets and and smartphones before their respective iDevice was made?
Sigh - do you really think there is as much variability with a device that is on your wrist as there is for a phone or tablet?
Let me put it another way - do you think the iWatch looks suspiciously like other smart watches because Apple was lazy, or constrained in other ways?
Yes Apple took design cues from current watches, but who's to say that can never change?
I didn't say never. I said unlikely. Big difference. There is a slim chance that they may work a miracle and come up with something completely new. But it's highly unlikely. Again, do you think the current Apple watch looks like other smart watches because Apple was lazy, or constrained in some other way?
Sigh - do you really think there is as much variability with a device that is on your wrist as there is for a phone or tablet?
Let me put it another way - do you think the iWatch looks suspiciously like other smart watches because Apple was lazy, or constrained in other ways?
I didn't say never. I said unlikely. Big difference. There is a slim chance that they may work a miracle and come up with something completely new. But it's highly unlikely. Again, do you think the current Apple watch looks like other smart watches because Apple was lazy, or constrained in some other way?
Yet there are more unique designs for watches then there are for smartphones, and tablets. I think with increased functionality the size will increase.
So many unanswered questions after this keynote. Battery life? How long to charge? Upgrades? Trade ins? No demo on the wrist. No demo of the screen turning on automatically when raised. I bet it will come on accidentally all the time. Why the hell haven't we seen such a basic usability feature? We've had two frigging keynotes!
Kevin's demos were pants, as usual. He's so unfocused. He skates over things, and doesn't make things clear. I think someone advised him not to go into as much detail as in the first keynote, so he didn't. But in doing so, he forgot to treat us as babies, which we needed! Remember the first iPhone keynote? Jobs carefully guided us through such basic things! The scrolling! I remember the ooh from the crowd for that! Mundane now, of course. But we needed that ultra-basic demonstration of the basics from Kevin. And Jobs used the iPhone grasped in his hand in anger, like we do, not delicately perched on a shop floor plinth.
Truly the worst keynote I've seen from Apple. That interview with the model; what a waste of time. It told us nothing.
Pish and tosh.
Did you even follow the keynote? I think after 8 years of the iPhone, we would know how to use a touchscreen. No need to explain the wheel again.
I don't recall, but did Apple talk about upgrades, trade-ins with the iPhone? iPad? iPod? iMac?
I hadn't read the post about the 1.666 Troy ounces when I wrote this. So it's about $2000 of gold at current prices. $349 for the watch, $2000 for the gold, and $7500 for the design, impression it produces on yourself and others, and nostalgia.
Yes, when you buy the $10,000+ Watch, you are buying about $2000 of gold, which isn't at its peak value just now but quite high - the following is inflation-adjusted:
It has been as low as 1/5th of what it is now and 65% higher in the last 100 years. If that repeats in the next 100 years, the value of the gold in the Apple Watch will be between $400-3300. This is the same deal with the gold in analog wristwatches though.
The value in these items comes from the uniqueness:
"The watch measures 47.7 mm in diameter and has 1,366 individual components. It took a whopping eight years and 100,000 man hours to develop, 60,000 of which were spent just on the watch's movement."
If it takes 8 years / 100,000 hours to put together, it's going to be hard to recreate, which makes it very unique.
There are replica luxury watches, which are 1/10th the price of the original so the difficulty in manufacturing isn't the only aspect. The biggest factor as you point out is the perception of value (design, impression, nostalgia). One artist can make a picture worth $10m, another worth $10. It's down to how much people respect the artist.
Those are just mass-produced internals put inside a unique outer shell. The Apple Watch takes the same internals in the standard $549 Watch and puts them inside a gold case.
It will be important for it to retain its value but retaining value means limited numbers and that means not many sales so why bother?
There was a mention of the original iPhone but these go for less than their original price:
They sold millions of them. The original Apple 1 computers sell for a lot because they were hand-built, 200 units total and became important because of what Apple became. They'd be worthless if Apple went bankrupt in the 90s. Apple 2 models on the other hand go for less than $300 on eBay.
The market will decide if the gold Apple Watch is worth the 77-86% gross margin. Apple will keep making new ones so there's absolutely no chance the watches will appreciate in value. Nobody would pay more for a 1st gen gold Apple Watch than a 5th gen. The original iPhone should be able to command some premium because it changed phones in a big way but it still doesn't sell for more because they made millions of them. The Apple gold Watch will likely sell fewer than 1 million but it changes nothing in the broad market. It's the most well-built smartwatch but it's not going to immediately convince people to stop using analog watches. Digital phones are driving people away from analog (and wired) phones.
Say they'd made a gold-plated one for $1299, would people think any less of it? No because you accept it will be obsolete in a few years anyway. How many times will people buy the $10k watch? Just once forever. With a $1200 watch, they'd buy one every 5-10 years and it appeals to a much broader market.
What's really funny is all the people arguing about the merits of the Apple Watch Edition who aren't the targets and would never have bought it in the first place.
All while Apple continues to laugh all the way to the bank.
Yet there are more unique designs for watches then there are for smartphones, and tablets.
Let's see - "unique designs" comes down to bands and faces for watches. The bands are removable and soon there will be an explosion of accessory bands from third party beyond the large number (for Apple) that will be available at launch.
As for the face, since it's a display you put whatever face you want on it. And change it whenever you like. So again I'm not seeing the same limits you are.
I suppose at some point Apple could release a round face instead of square, but since with a physical watch no one would think twice about buying a second watch to get a different style I still fail to see where your hysteria about "longevity" is even remotely warranted.
I think with increased functionality the size will increase.
lol - people are already complaining that it's too big.
Once again, it's on your wrist. There are a very small number of physical changes to the actual watch body itself that can be made over what Apple has now - the biggest one being making it thinner, which 'aint going to happen any time soon unless there is a RADICAL advancement in battery tech soon. This form factor isn't going to change much except for perhaps and eventual round display version.
As for the edition watch, first generation probably will be worth something more if kept in good condition.
I think we have finally found something even more befuddling to geeks than Apple - fashion!
At least now with the Apple Watch when the usual derision of Apple being only fashion oriented there will be some truth to it. Still not sure how it's a bad thing. I don't get it either, but if it provides pleasure to others and tickles there aesthetic then who am I to judge? I'll be going for the sport mainly because it's the lightest of all the options. That it's the cheapest is a bonus, especially for stuff like this you tend to pay MORE for things like smaller and lighter, not less. I suppose this is the benefit of people who value form over function - I'm finally on the good side of that skew
What does god have to do with congress? Nothing is the only correct answer/
How I wish you were right. But a substantial segment of the US voting population as well as congress itself, believe that congress's job is to do their god's bidding.
What's really funny is all the people arguing about the merits of the Apple Watch Edition who aren't the targets and would never have bought it in the first place.
Hit the nail right on the head. There are people too who sound really agitated about it. Those are the scary ones.
The value in these items comes from the uniqueness:
"The watch measures 47.7 mm in diameter and has 1,366 individual components. It took a whopping eight years and 100,000 man hours to develop, 60,000 of which were spent just on the watch's movement."
If it takes 8 years / 100,000 hours to put together, it's going to be hard to recreate, which makes it very unique.
There are replica luxury watches, which are 1/10th the price of the original so the difficulty in manufacturing isn't the only aspect. The biggest factor as you point out is the perception of value (design, impression, nostalgia).
All these unbelievably expensive adornments that men buy? They're no different from a peacock's fantail.
There is no limit to what men are willing to trade, including their standing in society*, just to get some booty.
Comments
Well thank god congress is not passing a law that would require you to wear a gold watch then! :-)
What does god have to do with congress? Nothing is the only correct answer/
The gold isn't worth anywhere close to $9,651. The investment value will be in nostalgia, the privilege of owning a first edition, etc. The price of the gold is the "melt value," which is likely to be far lower.
Functional Apple Is don't sell for hundreds of times their original value because of the value of the components.
This does make me curious, though, for all those talking about the value of the gold: how much gold does the watch actually contain?
edit. I hadn't read the post about the 1.666 Troy ounces when I wrote this. So it's about $2000 of gold at current prices. $349 for the watch, $2000 for the gold, and $7500 for the design, impression it produces on yourself and others, and nostalgia.
"Components." Right. Reductionism at it's worst. Again, that's "Intel Inside" thinking. iFixit thinking. The BYOPC movement taught a generation of dorks to treat the whole as nothing but the sum of its parts. You should have reduced the Apple Watch Edition into a soup of neutrons, protons, and electrons; maybe, just maybe, it would be worth even less.
You people are deluding yourselves if you think that the Apple Watch will still be relevant in 20 years' time. Remember mobile phones 20 years ago?
It's not even the most expensive current Apple product. A full-spec Mac Pro runs upwards of $14K.
Does a bit more than the watch, granted.
If the apocalypse occurs and there is no electricity, the gold watch will be more valuable ;-).
You people are deluding yourselves if you think that the Apple Watch will still be relevant in 20 years' time. Remember mobile phones 20 years ago?
And so what? That phone cost more than the watch in todays money and it wasn't very pretty either.
I find rolexes horrible and ugly. That anyone find them attractive is beyond me.
There are some old beautiful watches, but many are horrible no matter the price or when they were produced.
As for the edition watch, first generation probably will be worth something more if kept in good condition.
"Components." Right. Reductionism at it's worst. Again, that's "Intel Inside" thinking. iFixit thinking. The BYOPC movement taught a generation of dorks to treat the whole as nothing but the sum of its parts. You should have reduced the Apple Watch Edition into a soup of neutrons, protons, and electrons; maybe, just maybe, it would be worth even less.
Buying the particles accelerator, or the nuclear reactor to dissassemble/assemble the watch would surely make it slightly hard to work with even for the most dedicated spec nerds ;-).
Celebrity associations matter when it comes to brands and products. They can enhance and they can detract. Some of the first to be flaunting the gold version on their wrists may well be the Kardashians, or Paris Hilton and her younger brother Conrad - who proclaims loudly that he doesn't like to be on the same airplane as "peasants." There is a hazard when a product ceases being aspirational and instead becomes regarded as a symbol of class division and a vulgar display of wealth.
Well, you can laugh at them for having something expensive with no more function than the cheap one then... You see... The jokes on them ;-).
As for aspiration, even the upper middle class aspires to be richer. They want to shoot for something....
Apple's product have always been for the top 2-10% (max) of the world population. Right now it is way way way more acccesible than it was in 1976-1990. Look at the old prices in 2015 money and tell me who outside the top 2% bought that back then.
Do people really dump on Volkswagen for owning Audi, Porsche and Rolls Royce and Lamborgini. Ducati and Bentley?
I would much rather have an antique Patek Philippe than an Edition for that sort of money.
And I'd rather have $10k than a watch that only tells the time and not very accurately.
Its called choice.
Me, I'm not in the market for the edition. The only reason that I would ever have a high end mechanical watch would be as a backup to modern navigation systems, and unless you are a pilot or mariner, you won't ever need that either.
Sure, there's a pretentious male culture that sees the mechanical watch as one of life's milestones, but frankly, the people that are going to be buying the Edition are movers and shakers in culture anyway and will define the future.
SOG, I would double down on your bet. This is going to be like clubbing baby seals.
Sigh - do you really think there is as much variability with a device that is on your wrist as there is for a phone or tablet?
Let me put it another way - do you think the iWatch looks suspiciously like other smart watches because Apple was lazy, or constrained in other ways?
I didn't say never. I said unlikely. Big difference. There is a slim chance that they may work a miracle and come up with something completely new. But it's highly unlikely. Again, do you think the current Apple watch looks like other smart watches because Apple was lazy, or constrained in some other way?
Yet there are more unique designs for watches then there are for smartphones, and tablets. I think with increased functionality the size will increase.
Did you even follow the keynote? I think after 8 years of the iPhone, we would know how to use a touchscreen. No need to explain the wheel again.
I don't recall, but did Apple talk about upgrades, trade-ins with the iPhone? iPad? iPod? iMac?
Yes, when you buy the $10,000+ Watch, you are buying about $2000 of gold, which isn't at its peak value just now but quite high - the following is inflation-adjusted:
http://www.macrotrends.net/1333/gold-and-silver-prices-100-year-historical-chart
It has been as low as 1/5th of what it is now and 65% higher in the last 100 years. If that repeats in the next 100 years, the value of the gold in the Apple Watch will be between $400-3300. This is the same deal with the gold in analog wristwatches though.
Here is an article about a $2.5m wristwatch:
http://www.businessinsider.com/patek-philippe-25-million-wristwatch-2015-3
The value in these items comes from the uniqueness:
"The watch measures 47.7 mm in diameter and has 1,366 individual components. It took a whopping eight years and 100,000 man hours to develop, 60,000 of which were spent just on the watch's movement."
If it takes 8 years / 100,000 hours to put together, it's going to be hard to recreate, which makes it very unique.
There are replica luxury watches, which are 1/10th the price of the original so the difficulty in manufacturing isn't the only aspect. The biggest factor as you point out is the perception of value (design, impression, nostalgia). One artist can make a picture worth $10m, another worth $10. It's down to how much people respect the artist.
Apple can pull this off for charity:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/23/product-red-mac-pro-auction-brings-in-977000-gold-earpods-sold-for-461000
Those are just mass-produced internals put inside a unique outer shell. The Apple Watch takes the same internals in the standard $549 Watch and puts them inside a gold case.
It will be important for it to retain its value but retaining value means limited numbers and that means not many sales so why bother?
There was a mention of the original iPhone but these go for less than their original price:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-COLLECTIBLE-BOX-Apple-iPhone-1st-Generation-8GB-Unlocked-2G-A1203-GSM-IOS-/231500482907
They sold millions of them. The original Apple 1 computers sell for a lot because they were hand-built, 200 units total and became important because of what Apple became. They'd be worthless if Apple went bankrupt in the 90s. Apple 2 models on the other hand go for less than $300 on eBay.
The market will decide if the gold Apple Watch is worth the 77-86% gross margin. Apple will keep making new ones so there's absolutely no chance the watches will appreciate in value. Nobody would pay more for a 1st gen gold Apple Watch than a 5th gen. The original iPhone should be able to command some premium because it changed phones in a big way but it still doesn't sell for more because they made millions of them. The Apple gold Watch will likely sell fewer than 1 million but it changes nothing in the broad market. It's the most well-built smartwatch but it's not going to immediately convince people to stop using analog watches. Digital phones are driving people away from analog (and wired) phones.
Say they'd made a gold-plated one for $1299, would people think any less of it? No because you accept it will be obsolete in a few years anyway. How many times will people buy the $10k watch? Just once forever. With a $1200 watch, they'd buy one every 5-10 years and it appeals to a much broader market.
No, but those devices didn't have some respected members of this forum claiming there would be one.
All while Apple continues to laugh all the way to the bank.
Sound and fury signifying nothing indeed!
Let's see - "unique designs" comes down to bands and faces for watches. The bands are removable and soon there will be an explosion of accessory bands from third party beyond the large number (for Apple) that will be available at launch.
As for the face, since it's a display you put whatever face you want on it. And change it whenever you like. So again I'm not seeing the same limits you are.
I suppose at some point Apple could release a round face instead of square, but since with a physical watch no one would think twice about buying a second watch to get a different style I still fail to see where your hysteria about "longevity" is even remotely warranted.
lol - people are already complaining that it's too big.
Once again, it's on your wrist. There are a very small number of physical changes to the actual watch body itself that can be made over what Apple has now - the biggest one being making it thinner, which 'aint going to happen any time soon unless there is a RADICAL advancement in battery tech soon. This form factor isn't going to change much except for perhaps and eventual round display version.
I think we have finally found something even more befuddling to geeks than Apple - fashion!
At least now with the Apple Watch when the usual derision of Apple being only fashion oriented there will be some truth to it. Still not sure how it's a bad thing. I don't get it either, but if it provides pleasure to others and tickles there aesthetic then who am I to judge? I'll be going for the sport mainly because it's the lightest of all the options. That it's the cheapest is a bonus, especially for stuff like this you tend to pay MORE for things like smaller and lighter, not less. I suppose this is the benefit of people who value form over function - I'm finally on the good side of that skew
What does god have to do with congress? Nothing is the only correct answer/
How I wish you were right. But a substantial segment of the US voting population as well as congress itself, believe that congress's job is to do their god's bidding.
What's really funny is all the people arguing about the merits of the Apple Watch Edition who aren't the targets and would never have bought it in the first place.
Hit the nail right on the head. There are people too who sound really agitated about it. Those are the scary ones.
Here is an article about a $2.5m wristwatch:
http://www.businessinsider.com/patek-philippe-25-million-wristwatch-2015-3
The value in these items comes from the uniqueness:
"The watch measures 47.7 mm in diameter and has 1,366 individual components. It took a whopping eight years and 100,000 man hours to develop, 60,000 of which were spent just on the watch's movement."
If it takes 8 years / 100,000 hours to put together, it's going to be hard to recreate, which makes it very unique.
There are replica luxury watches, which are 1/10th the price of the original so the difficulty in manufacturing isn't the only aspect. The biggest factor as you point out is the perception of value (design, impression, nostalgia).
All these unbelievably expensive adornments that men buy? They're no different from a peacock's fantail.
There is no limit to what men are willing to trade, including their standing in society*, just to get some booty.
There's a parallel story for women, by the way.
*Search term "Eliot Spitzer"