Apple Watch Edition to start at $10,000, availability will be limited

145791013

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 255
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    danielsw wrote: »

    They're not mad. You're simply jealous. They'll sell like hotcakes. $10K is nothing for those who want the best.

    Those who want the best might still prefer old school mechanical Swiss watch. They come with tradition and craftsmanship that goes well beyond the nice casing. Electronic watches never reached this price level, to my knowledge.

    If anyone can pull digital watch at this price level, I'd say Apple can... but I'm not convinced it is really possible. We'll see...
  • Reply 122 of 255
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Why so salty?  YOU MAD BRO.  Are you going to sue Apple now since you can't afford an Edition Watch?  LOL.

     

    If its too expensive for your taste it was never meant for you.




    You have no idea about how much I have in the bank - so refrain from making such embarrassing assumptions. Let me rephrase it for you: even those (myself included) with USD 10,000 to spare would NOT buy such a soon-to-be-obsolete device. Got it now?

  • Reply 123 of 255
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    why wouldn't they 'work'?  You would only need to replace the battery if its an unopened unit.


     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    why wouldn't they 'work'?  You would only need to replace the battery if its an unopened unit.




    In 20 years it won't be working because it won't be compatible with anything. Instead of having to pair with an iPhone it will most likely be a standalone unit. Bluetooth will be so outdated it won't meet the standard of current BT 20 years from now. This is wearable technology, anything can be called luxury, so the gold version is the luxury edition but it's still a watch that can't do much of anything without an iPhone. 

     

    For the first generation that will never change. Also regarding the gold, it has about half the gold by volume compared to a watch made from gold and standard alloys. Apple is making the gold harder they are also decreasing the amount of gold by half. 

     

    Also in no way can something be considered rare if there are several hundred thousand units. If it is truly rare you will never get to see one in person. There are too many truly rich people with major connections that will have these before you can even get your credit card out. 

     

    I'm sure Shaq is already on the phone with Tim Cook trying to get one before they are released. 

  • Reply 124 of 255
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    magman1979 wrote: »
    So without actually knowing Apple's plans for this device in terms of upgradability, you've already declared it shit and useless junk?

    Yup, Darwin winner here folks!

    Did they say there's a plan? If they do announce then I'll adjust my opinion
  • Reply 125 of 255
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Why so salty?  YOU MAD BRO.  Are you going to sue Apple now since you can't afford an Edition Watch?  LOL.

     

    If its too expensive for your taste it was never meant for you.




    Quoting Richard Sherman. Yep you're about 18 years old. 

  • Reply 126 of 255
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    It matters a HELL OF A LOT.  If its gold platted then its poser territory.  If its real deal 18k then much respect.


    All gold watches, real or fake, look gaudy in my opinion. 

  • Reply 127 of 255
    arlorarlor Posts: 532member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

     



    I think if you look at other 18k watches on the market, it's actually quite reasonable. Take a look at a Rolex. You can't get a gold rolex for less than $15,000. Just saying.


     

    The Rolex won't be functionally obsolete in a few years. 

     

    If Apple creates some sort of upgrade path, I take it back. But until then, this doesn't really compare to other watches in its price class. 

  • Reply 128 of 255
    I think the people comparing the price of this watch to that of any other gold watch (and saying how reasonable it is) are missing one key point. Whereas all other luxury watches are timeless and will last you a lifetime, this time next year Apple will release the new version and your 10K watch will be old and outdated. That is why this price is ludicrous for a piece of technology.
  • Reply 129 of 255
    arlorarlor Posts: 532member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

     



    Both. The Apple Watch will have its battery replaced, and the rolex will go through enough services to effectively double the purchase price.


     

    It's not the battery I'd worry about. Will you really want to use your 1st gen Apple Watch with a 40th gen iPhone, when it probably won't even come close to supporting the features of whatever's then current on the wrist? Chances are Apple will stop supporting the 1st gen watch with upgrades in five years or so, *unless* they create a way to upgrade the internals or provide a discounted upgrade path. 

  • Reply 130 of 255
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    hill60 wrote: »

    Here's mine, 1967 Oyster, after spending $A1600 for Rolex to restore it.

    <img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="56353" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/56353/width/500/height/1000/flags/LL" style="; width: 500px; height: 500px">



    It depends on how limited, the limited edition is, will it be numbered as part of a series?

    That will give it some future value.

    I can see a single Product Red auction version going through the roof, maybe platinum.

    Oh, yeah. Now that's a REAL thing.

    I mean, your children, grandchildren and their grandchildren might - should - will - still have this watch in perfect working condition. That fact alone, in my book, is worth asking price. You are not only buying premium piece, you are investing in your family's legacy.

    I have my grandfather's Longines, one of those railways' pocket watches. I believe it is 1907 and probably nothing special - simple silver casing, steam locomotive engraved on outer back cover, simple blued (steel?) hands... built like a tank (glass is solid 4mm thick, if not more), can easily double as a weapon, works perfectly. Some time in future, my descendants might take some pride from still having it in the family.

    But... with electronic device?
  • Reply 131 of 255
    arlorarlor Posts: 532member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    The Watch is $349.

    Edition is an investment, unless you think gold might lose value.

     

    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.

  • Reply 132 of 255
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    If you buy a $25k Rolex watch today it has been obsolete FOR FORTY YEARS!!! Got it now?

     

    This is luxury BRO.  

     

    And yes if you think these prices are ridiculous then it wasn't meant for you.




    They're all pretty nice watches but effectively the Edition is out of my price range. I think people are deluding themselves to think that Apple expects people to pay 10-20k every year for a new Edition watch. Sure some will but I'd wager for many this is an investment long-term and Apple will deal with such accordingly.

  • Reply 133 of 255
    dugbugdugbug Posts: 283member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Except those watches last decades.

     

    I don't think the folks buying it are that worried.

  • Reply 134 of 255
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    If you buy a $25k Rolex watch today it has been obsolete FOR FORTY YEARS!!! Got it now?

     

    This is luxury BRO.  

     

    And yes if you think these prices are ridiculous then it wasn't meant for you.




    So now we have 'BRO" "Much respect" and "YOU MAD BRO". Better stick tot he sport version you will never make it out of the ghetto with the gold version. 

  • Reply 135 of 255
    Apple have jumped the shark.

    Alas, the Apple Watch represents an ominous direction for this once-great company.

    I remember the Apple of Steve Jobs with fondness and sadness.
  • Reply 136 of 255
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     



    So now we have 'BRO" "Much respect" and "YOU MAD BRO". Better stick tot he sport version you will never make it out of the ghetto with the gold version. 




    So now you've outed yourself as a complete bigot. Are you and Benjamin Frost one & the same person?

  • Reply 137 of 255
    arlorarlor Posts: 532member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    The rolex will tell time.

    The AppleWatch will also tell time with a new battery.

     

    so what exactly is your point again?


     

    I know you're hypercombative by nature, but you can't be that obtuse. App makers will not keep their apps up to date for this watch 5  years from now, much less 40. Plus the SOC will be so slow by the standards of 5, 10, or 15 years from now that you won't want to use it by comparison to newer devices. 

     

    Apple's unlikely to keep it working with new phones past the next several years, and I'm sure that you won't want to keep using your iPhone 6 40 years from now just so you can keep using your first gen watch. 

  • Reply 138 of 255
    arlorarlor Posts: 532member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    yes.  Apple will be selling batteries/internals/screens for these Edition watches for a very, very, very long time.

     

    To replace the battery/internals/Screen would probably only cost $400 or less.  


     

    You're making some big assumptions there, and Apple has said nothing to support your line of thinking...which is what many people in this thread have been asking for. 

     

    Will Apple really keep the internals of future generation watches in a compatible form factor? They haven't done it for the phones or tablets, except for a pair of generations at a time. 

     

    Again, I'd be delighted to be proven wrong on this point. But it seems to me that it runs against Apple's grain to let the design stand still while the internals change for more than a few years at a time, especially on a device that's intended to exhibit bleeding-edge design.

  • Reply 139 of 255
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

     



    So now you've outed yourself as a complete bigot. Are you and Benjamin Frost one & the same person?




    First of all no I like to take full credit for my posts. Second  YOU MAD BRO. There now I fit your standards. 

  • Reply 140 of 255
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    atlapple wrote: »

    So now we have 'BRO" "Much respect" and "YOU MAD BRO". Better stick tot he sport version you will never make it out of the ghetto with the gold version. 

    He sounds like "Dr Dre", that's for sure.
Sign In or Register to comment.