To mediate further, seems like this debate started with "...if you afford...".
I agree the word "afford" seems to be a problem here. Bottom line, there's a vast difference between spending $5K and $10k on something you want, whether you can afford it or not. I don't agree that everyone who might consider paying $5K for a luxury item would be just as willing to pay double that amount. If that were true, Apple would not offer less expensive versions of their optimally configured products, as I illustarted earlier. Seriously, the logic being applied here says that someone who is willing to spend $1200 for a new MacBook is just as willing to spend $1500 -- so why even offer the cheaper model?
The bigger issue behind my comments and others is that Apple has cut out an entire market segment who will most likely not buy a silver watch for any price, and who truly can't entertain spending $10,000. Could all of those people pay $5K? Of course not, and that's not the point -- but more people who desire a gold-tone watch might justify spending $5k over $10k whether they could afford it or not, and Apple would still make a hearty profit margin on the watch. But Apple has made their bed, and now they must lie in it. The watch business is full of beautifully crafted gold-plated watches by respected manufacturers that cater to the large segment of the population who prefer to wear gold-tone jewelry and fashion accessories, but can't afford the solid-gold Cartier and Rolex offerings. I was just looking at a beautiful gold-plated Movado for $850. And honestly how is gold-plate any more inferior than the anodizing process to "plate" their watches with the space gray color? We shall see if Apple eventually releases a mid-priced gold-tone option to cater to this market, which I argue they have to in order to reach the full potential of the watch market. Indeed their own marketing of gold-tone products seems to suggest they already know this.
MOON SHOT: Any chance the awatch will be upgradable? Just looking at the utilitarian case across entire product line makes me think that the chipset could be replaced, along with the sensors, really the entire rear. With a quality screen it could help me make sense of my need to order a $10k watch.
To mediate further, seems like this debate started with "...if you afford...".
I agree the word "afford" seems to be a problem here. Bottom line, there's a vast difference between spending $5K and $10k on something you want, whether you can afford it or not. I don't agree that everyone who might consider paying $5K for a luxury item would be just as willing to pay double that amount. If that were true, Apple would not offer less expensive versions of their optimally configured products, as I illustarted earlier. Seriously, the logic being applied here says that someone who is willing to spend $1200 for a new MacBook is just as willing to spend $1500 -- so why even offer the cheaper model?
The bigger issue behind my comments and others is that Apple has cut out an entire market segment who will most likely not buy a silver watch for any price, and who truly can't entertain spending $10,000. Could all of those people pay $5K? Of course not, and that's not the point -- but more people who desire a gold-tone watch might justify spending $5k over $10k whether they could afford it or not, and Apple would still make a hearty profit margin on the watch. But Apple has made their bed, and now they must lie in it. The watch business is full of beautifully crafted gold-plated watches by respected manufacturers that cater to the large segment of the population who prefer to wear gold-tone jewelry and fashion accessories, but can't afford the solid-gold Cartier and Rolex offerings. I was just looking at a beautiful gold-plated Movado for $850. And honestly how is gold-plate any more inferior than the anodizing process to "plate" their watches with the space gray color? We shall see if Apple eventually releases a mid-priced gold-tone option to cater to this market, which I argue they have to in order to reach the full potential of the watch market. Indeed their own marketing of gold-tone products seems to suggest they already know this.
Well argued.
If the gold iPhone is so popular in China, you would have thought that they would have offered a gold watch too, regardless of what it's made of, that's as affordable as the cheaper versions. Seems that Apple are missing a trick here.
4 decades in the making LOL. The only way forward for Apple is to make a better performing battery, more tech and slightly smaller form. This wont necessarily be acheived or even wanted annually..
It's clear I'm not going to change your mind. But if Apple isn't already working on a way to slim down the next watch I would be stunned. And if they weren't planning to release that next year I would be stunned.
Let's take a look at the 1G iphone and iPad for hints. Both products were rushed to market in substantially different forms than the 2G models released the very next year. Unless your point is that the ?Watch is perfect whereas those products weren't, then there's no reason to believe Apple isn't trying to improve aspects of the watch critics have been harshest about as soon as they can, just like the 1g iphone and ipad. Moreover, releasing a new, likely slimmer design watch next year will enable Apple to lower the price on the 1g model and offer to a wider customer base sooner than they otherwise would have ... And that will deal a greater blow to the competition than anything else.
As for those who say Apple is so far ahead of the competition they have nothing to worry about, I would refer them to Androids quick, however brief, overtaking of the smartphone market. Plus they sound like famous last words -- sure Apple has hit the ball out of the park, they should just sit back and rest on their laurels. Nobody is questioning the build quality of Apples hardware -- you get what you pay for, but whether or not other smart watch makers get into the same jewelry quality case design, they will likely be matching and attempting to best the internals. Heck, Apple has raised the bar for wearables, so unlike smart phones, if Samsung and others want to compete with Apple in this area, they will have to step up their build-quality, because an Apple smart watch is not just a gadget, it's jewelry too (something by the way, not everyone is going to want out of a smart watch). If you want clues to this, just look at the digital watch frenzy of the early 70s. Every tech company was putting out high quality, high end, metal case builds until the bottom fell out of the market with the dramatic LED display cost drop. The same thing isn't likely to happen to Apple, but the tech costs will surely drop year after year reducing at least one aspect of the materials. And it remains to be seen whether Apple has correctly gauged the market's reaction to high fashion wearables.
I still maintain that fashion watches require constant updates to adjust to changing trends in fashion design, not just material updates to the internals every year. Many watch makers come out with a whole new collection of models every year to capitalize on ever changing fashion trends. So at a minimum I expect Apple to come out with a new line of bands every year if not a meterial update to the case itself, assuming they are serious about getting into the competitive watch market from a fashion perspective, and not just a functional one. Indeed, I fully expect Apple to come up with watches in different shapes. After all there's no reason to believe Apple customers who are also watch people won't buy multiple ?Watches to coordinate with their outfits, just like watch people do now.
This thread is really humerous, because some of the same people are arguing what Apple has done in the past doesn't apply because the ?Watch is completely different to make one point, yet in other instances what Apple did in the past is completely relevant to make other points. The bottom line is, nobody knows how this is going to pan out, even Apple, but it's clear the rules are changing for this product and we'll all just have to wait and see if Apple chooses to treat this like a fashion product or a traditional tech product, or some hybrid approach to both.
I agree the word "afford" seems to be a problem here. Bottom line, there's a vast difference between spending $5K and $10k on something you want, whether you can afford it or not. I don't agree that everyone who might consider paying $5K for a luxury item would be just as willing to pay double that amount. If that were true, Apple would not offer less expensive versions of their optimally configured products, as I illustarted earlier. Seriously, the logic being applied here says that someone who is willing to spend $1200 for a new MacBook is just as willing to spend $1500 -- so why even offer the cheaper model?
The bigger issue behind my comments and others is that Apple has cut out an entire market segment who will most likely not buy a silver watch for any price, and who truly can't entertain spending $10,000. Could all of those people pay $5K? Of course not, and that's not the point -- but more people who desire a gold-tone watch might justify spending $5k over $10k whether they could afford it or not, and Apple would still make a hearty profit margin on the watch. But Apple has made their bed, and now they must lie in it. The watch business is full of beautifully crafted gold-plated watches by respected manufacturers that cater to the large segment of the population who prefer to wear gold-tone jewelry and fashion accessories, but can't afford the solid-gold Cartier and Rolex offerings. I was just looking at a beautiful gold-plated Movado for $850. And honestly how is gold-plate any more inferior than the anodizing process to "plate" their watches with the space gray color? We shall see if Apple eventually releases a mid-priced gold-tone option to cater to this market, which I argue they have to in order to reach the full potential of the watch market. Indeed their own marketing of gold-tone products seems to suggest they already know this.
Why does Apple have to cater to every market? Let's say the gold watch is $5k. You'll probably complain that it should have been $2500. Apple is leaving out that market. Clearly there are people who want to spend 2500 but not 5k on a watch.
It's s watch. Rich people have no problem spending thousands on a watch.
Why does Apple have to cater to every market? Let's say the gold watch is $5k. You'll probably complain that it should have been $2500.
Straw man arguments?
Well history has shown us that Apple eventually caters to all markets, except so far, the extreme low end -- including those with a taste for gold (at no premium I might add). And a stockholder would most likely want Apple to cater to potential customers who are not interested in silver and black jewelry and fashion accessories -- which judging by every watch counter at the mall, is a very large percentage of people. That or every watch maker in the world has no idea who is buying their watches. AndApple will do this, just as they eventually made a phablet after saying the iPhone was perfect as it is, and wasn't interested in catering to that market segment.
But I'm not concerned, just pointing it out. I get what they are doing, and Apple will eventually offer a gold-tone option in the under $1,000 category. Maybe by Chrismas. And by 2G there will be a $1500 gold-plate option, after they come up with a way to otherwise distinguish the Edition from the common watch, since after all the Platinum Edition will look just like the stainless.
Well history has shown us that Apple eventually caters to all markets, except so far, the extreme low end -- including those with a taste for gold (at no premium I might add). And a stockholder would most likely want Apple to cater to potential customers who are not interested in silver and black jewelry and fashion accessories -- which judging by every watch counter at the mall, is a very large percentage of people. That or every watch maker in the world has no idea who is buying their watches. AndApple will do this, just as they eventually made a phablet after saying the iPhone was perfect as it is, and wasn't interested in catering to that market segment.
Really? So we did get that Mac mini tower people have wanted for a long time? Did we also get that hybrid Mac/tablet device too?
As a shareholder, I trust the current execs and their ideas. I'm pretty sure they are more knowledgeable about markets than we are.
How many of those customers at these watch counters bought 18k gold watches...in a mall.
I want a cheap plastic piece of crap case like Samsung For $29.99 , clearly a huge market! I would love to see Jony Ive do a commercial extolling the virtues of plastic , perhaps "we took really shoddy plastic, and made it 20 times harder, so that you can really FEEL the crappy quality" All done in the sleazy patronizing way, showing slick plastic dripping out of molds , then it cuts to a really ugly scratched up Galaxy gear lying in a puddle, with Ive sarcastically saying "only $29.99 at Walmart, no Apple pay and an extra 10% off for morons"
I want a cheap plastic piece of crap case like Samsung For $29.99 , clearly a huge market! I would love to see Jony Ive do a commercial extolling the virtues of plastic , perhaps "we took really shoddy plastic, and made it 20 times harder, so that you can really FEEL the crappy quality" All done in the sleazy patronizing way, showing slick plastic dripping out of molds , then it cuts to a really ugly scratched up Galaxy gear lying in a puddle, with Ive sarcastically saying "only $29.99 at Walmart, no Apple pay and an extra 10% off for morons"
I see titanium replacing aluminum in 2016's sport model, but white gold, never. Anyone who is buying gold wants people to know they bought the gold Edition model. White gold will look just like stainless steel, and thus defeat the purpose. Platinum is always possible but depends upon how well gold sells. Platinum, while it looks similar to stainless or white gold actually has a distinctive look that anyone who has a platinum ring would recognize, so it's a possibility
I see titanium replacing aluminum in 2016's sport model, but white gold, never. Anyone who is buying gold wants people to know they bought the gold Edition model. White gold will look just like stainless steel, and thus defeat the purpose. Platinum is always possible but depends upon how well gold sells. Platinum, while it looks similar to stainless or white gold actually has a distinctive look that anyone who has a platinum ring would recognize, so it's a possibility
1) Wouldn't the value of the gold also be a reason? White gold does exist for jewelry for a reason, right?
2) Is titanium a better choice than aluminium? I thought titanium was a more brittle metal which I'd think has its drawbacks for CE, jewelry, and milling. Any guess as to why Apple moved from titanium to aluminium Macs?
3) I'd like to see Platinium (because I'm not a fan of the gold look) but I can't see myself buying one unless has an excellent, longterm upgradability path in place.
Titanium could be interesting. White Gold or Platinum is irrelevant to me.
Titanium, while amazingly strong, light, and corrosion resistant, is also a butt ugly metal. The last time Apple experimented with this product was with an early PowerBook. If I'm not mistaken, many owners complained of the paint peeling off - suggesting that the material was so ugly Apple decided to cover it in silver paint (only for that paint to later peel off.)
Titanium is also extremely hard, making it difficult and costly to machine.
So if it doesn't look nice, it's more costly to manufacture, and any inherent ruggedness is offset by the watch's nominal water resistance... what would be the point?
I predict a gold aluminum model to match the iPad, iPhone, and MacBook, as well as a "gold-plated" stainless model that caters to the average person who wears only gold jewelry and accessories, for whom theEdition prices them out of the market.
There is nothing that screams "cheap" like gold plated jewelry. I would be very surprised if Apple ever made a gold plated wearable product - especially considering their desire to redefine themselves as a luxury brand. You will never see a gold plated watch from a premium watch maker. This would be akin to Ferrari gluing fake cooling vents on the outside of their cars.
Titanium, while amazingly strong, light, and corrosion resistant, is also a butt ugly metal. The last time Apple experimented with this product was with an early PowerBook. If I'm not mistaken, many owners complained of the paint peeling off - suggesting that the material was so ugly Apple decided to cover it in silver paint (only for that paint to later peel off.)
Titanium is also extremely hard, making it difficult and costly to machine.
So if it doesn't look nice, it's more costly to manufacture, and any inherent ruggedness is offset by the watch's nominal water resistance... what would be the point?
I've got some ultracentrifuge rotors that are Ti that have their outer edge stressed at 350,000 Gs at full speed. The anodizing is the same as when we got them 25 years ago and the interiors just as shiny. Coloring might be problematic as it would rely on coating tech: but I like the look of the raw metal better than shiny stainless as far as that goes. But I prefer my watches be a little to the matte side.
IIRC the coating peeled off the plastic bits of that "titanium" laptop, not the metal. [I had one that did not peel so I can't say].
I've got some ultracentrifuge rotors that are Ti that have their outer edge stressed at 350,000 Gs at full speed. The anodizing is the same as when we got them 25 years ago and the interiors just as shiny. Coloring might be problematic as it would rely on coating tech: but I like the look of the raw metal better than shiny stainless as far as that goes. But I prefer my watches be a little to the matte side.
IIRC the coating peeled off the plastic bits of that "titanium" laptop, not the metal. [I had one that did not peel so I can't say].
Interesting, that makes sense. My original impression was that the actual titanium was painted over. At the time Apple hadn't yet achieved a unibody laptop design so I can see how they would have resorted to painting the plastic bits for aesthetic reasons.
If that's the case, then I can see how titanium would make a lot more likely candidate for a future Apple Watch variant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
Isn't Tungsten Carbide toxic?
Not from skin contact. I think the toxicity only arises from inhaling dust. Still, that would be a potential PR nightmare if Chinese factory workers started developing fibrosis as a result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmlco
Actually, what I want to see a story on is how Apple's going to appease its "Gold" customers when the next generation watch ships.
Unlike a traditional watch, this version is going to be "obsolete" within a couple of years as processors, screens, and batteries improve and evolve. What then? Just throw a $17,000 watch in the back of a drawer?
Yes.
Once again, the gold Apple Watch is not intended for someone who makes such a purchase decision based on practical considerations. It's an expensive and exclusive fashion statement for the sort of folks for whom $20k is an impulse buy - people who buy $3000 shoes that go out of fashion in a few months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaybee
"You had me at titanium?
Anyone one to take a guess about a price point on that one?
Shouldn't really be any more than steel - the material cost of the steel watch case must be a tiny percentage of the production cost.
Titanium is not a particularly expensive raw material but due to its hardness, manufacturing costs are extremely high, especially for complex-shaped parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Does the watch magically stop working after each "evolution" of the watch? My 4S kept working after the 5, 5S, and 6 were released.
Comments
The bigger issue behind my comments and others is that Apple has cut out an entire market segment who will most likely not buy a silver watch for any price, and who truly can't entertain spending $10,000. Could all of those people pay $5K? Of course not, and that's not the point -- but more people who desire a gold-tone watch might justify spending $5k over $10k whether they could afford it or not, and Apple would still make a hearty profit margin on the watch. But Apple has made their bed, and now they must lie in it. The watch business is full of beautifully crafted gold-plated watches by respected manufacturers that cater to the large segment of the population who prefer to wear gold-tone jewelry and fashion accessories, but can't afford the solid-gold Cartier and Rolex offerings. I was just looking at a beautiful gold-plated Movado for $850. And honestly how is gold-plate any more inferior than the anodizing process to "plate" their watches with the space gray color? We shall see if Apple eventually releases a mid-priced gold-tone option to cater to this market, which I argue they have to in order to reach the full potential of the watch market. Indeed their own marketing of gold-tone products seems to suggest they already know this.
Well argued.
If the gold iPhone is so popular in China, you would have thought that they would have offered a gold watch too, regardless of what it's made of, that's as affordable as the cheaper versions. Seems that Apple are missing a trick here.
Let's take a look at the 1G iphone and iPad for hints. Both products were rushed to market in substantially different forms than the 2G models released the very next year. Unless your point is that the ?Watch is perfect whereas those products weren't, then there's no reason to believe Apple isn't trying to improve aspects of the watch critics have been harshest about as soon as they can, just like the 1g iphone and ipad. Moreover, releasing a new, likely slimmer design watch next year will enable Apple to lower the price on the 1g model and offer to a wider customer base sooner than they otherwise would have ... And that will deal a greater blow to the competition than anything else.
As for those who say Apple is so far ahead of the competition they have nothing to worry about, I would refer them to Androids quick, however brief, overtaking of the smartphone market. Plus they sound like famous last words -- sure Apple has hit the ball out of the park, they should just sit back and rest on their laurels. Nobody is questioning the build quality of Apples hardware -- you get what you pay for, but whether or not other smart watch makers get into the same jewelry quality case design, they will likely be matching and attempting to best the internals. Heck, Apple has raised the bar for wearables, so unlike smart phones, if Samsung and others want to compete with Apple in this area, they will have to step up their build-quality, because an Apple smart watch is not just a gadget, it's jewelry too (something by the way, not everyone is going to want out of a smart watch). If you want clues to this, just look at the digital watch frenzy of the early 70s. Every tech company was putting out high quality, high end, metal case builds until the bottom fell out of the market with the dramatic LED display cost drop. The same thing isn't likely to happen to Apple, but the tech costs will surely drop year after year reducing at least one aspect of the materials. And it remains to be seen whether Apple has correctly gauged the market's reaction to high fashion wearables.
I still maintain that fashion watches require constant updates to adjust to changing trends in fashion design, not just material updates to the internals every year. Many watch makers come out with a whole new collection of models every year to capitalize on ever changing fashion trends. So at a minimum I expect Apple to come out with a new line of bands every year if not a meterial update to the case itself, assuming they are serious about getting into the competitive watch market from a fashion perspective, and not just a functional one. Indeed, I fully expect Apple to come up with watches in different shapes. After all there's no reason to believe Apple customers who are also watch people won't buy multiple ?Watches to coordinate with their outfits, just like watch people do now.
This thread is really humerous, because some of the same people are arguing what Apple has done in the past doesn't apply because the ?Watch is completely different to make one point, yet in other instances what Apple did in the past is completely relevant to make other points. The bottom line is, nobody knows how this is going to pan out, even Apple, but it's clear the rules are changing for this product and we'll all just have to wait and see if Apple chooses to treat this like a fashion product or a traditional tech product, or some hybrid approach to both.
Why does Apple have to cater to every market? Let's say the gold watch is $5k. You'll probably complain that it should have been $2500. Apple is leaving out that market. Clearly there are people who want to spend 2500 but not 5k on a watch.
It's s watch. Rich people have no problem spending thousands on a watch.
Dream bigger....
I would go out of my way for a titanium variant. I love my titanium Seiko.
Naww, you want durable, ask for admantium....!
Quote:I'm waiting for the anodized flubber %uF8FFWatch.
...and of course, Unobtanium....
Well history has shown us that Apple eventually caters to all markets, except so far, the extreme low end -- including those with a taste for gold (at no premium I might add). And a stockholder would most likely want Apple to cater to potential customers who are not interested in silver and black jewelry and fashion accessories -- which judging by every watch counter at the mall, is a very large percentage of people. That or every watch maker in the world has no idea who is buying their watches. AndApple will do this, just as they eventually made a phablet after saying the iPhone was perfect as it is, and wasn't interested in catering to that market segment.
But I'm not concerned, just pointing it out. I get what they are doing, and Apple will eventually offer a gold-tone option in the under $1,000 category. Maybe by Chrismas. And by 2G there will be a $1500 gold-plate option, after they come up with a way to otherwise distinguish the Edition from the common watch, since after all the Platinum Edition will look just like the stainless.
Really? So we did get that Mac mini tower people have wanted for a long time? Did we also get that hybrid Mac/tablet device too?
As a shareholder, I trust the current execs and their ideas. I'm pretty sure they are more knowledgeable about markets than we are.
How many of those customers at these watch counters bought 18k gold watches...in a mall.
You mean like he did for the plastic 5c?
Got it.
Are you kidding? Gold color != 18k gold.
1) Wouldn't the value of the gold also be a reason? White gold does exist for jewelry for a reason, right?
2) Is titanium a better choice than aluminium? I thought titanium was a more brittle metal which I'd think has its drawbacks for CE, jewelry, and milling. Any guess as to why Apple moved from titanium to aluminium Macs?
3) I'd like to see Platinium (because I'm not a fan of the gold look) but I can't see myself buying one unless has an excellent, longterm upgradability path in place.
I look forward to reading Walt Mossberg's review.
I predict that he won't be sold on the Apple Watch.
I don't consider Mossberg the arbiter of a tech product's success - even less so for a tech product that crosses over into fashion territory.
Titanium could be interesting. White Gold or Platinum is irrelevant to me.
Titanium, while amazingly strong, light, and corrosion resistant, is also a butt ugly metal. The last time Apple experimented with this product was with an early PowerBook. If I'm not mistaken, many owners complained of the paint peeling off - suggesting that the material was so ugly Apple decided to cover it in silver paint (only for that paint to later peel off.)
Titanium is also extremely hard, making it difficult and costly to machine.
So if it doesn't look nice, it's more costly to manufacture, and any inherent ruggedness is offset by the watch's nominal water resistance... what would be the point?
I predict a gold aluminum model to match the iPad, iPhone, and MacBook, as well as a "gold-plated" stainless model that caters to the average person who wears only gold jewelry and accessories, for whom theEdition prices them out of the market.
There is nothing that screams "cheap" like gold plated jewelry. I would be very surprised if Apple ever made a gold plated wearable product - especially considering their desire to redefine themselves as a luxury brand. You will never see a gold plated watch from a premium watch maker. This would be akin to Ferrari gluing fake cooling vents on the outside of their cars.
Titanium, while amazingly strong, light, and corrosion resistant, is also a butt ugly metal. The last time Apple experimented with this product was with an early PowerBook. If I'm not mistaken, many owners complained of the paint peeling off - suggesting that the material was so ugly Apple decided to cover it in silver paint (only for that paint to later peel off.)
Titanium is also extremely hard, making it difficult and costly to machine.
So if it doesn't look nice, it's more costly to manufacture, and any inherent ruggedness is offset by the watch's nominal water resistance... what would be the point?
I've got some ultracentrifuge rotors that are Ti that have their outer edge stressed at 350,000 Gs at full speed. The anodizing is the same as when we got them 25 years ago and the interiors just as shiny. Coloring might be problematic as it would rely on coating tech: but I like the look of the raw metal better than shiny stainless as far as that goes. But I prefer my watches be a little to the matte side.
IIRC the coating peeled off the plastic bits of that "titanium" laptop, not the metal. [I had one that did not peel so I can't say].
I've got some ultracentrifuge rotors that are Ti that have their outer edge stressed at 350,000 Gs at full speed. The anodizing is the same as when we got them 25 years ago and the interiors just as shiny. Coloring might be problematic as it would rely on coating tech: but I like the look of the raw metal better than shiny stainless as far as that goes. But I prefer my watches be a little to the matte side.
IIRC the coating peeled off the plastic bits of that "titanium" laptop, not the metal. [I had one that did not peel so I can't say].
Interesting, that makes sense. My original impression was that the actual titanium was painted over. At the time Apple hadn't yet achieved a unibody laptop design so I can see how they would have resorted to painting the plastic bits for aesthetic reasons.
If that's the case, then I can see how titanium would make a lot more likely candidate for a future Apple Watch variant.
Isn't Tungsten Carbide toxic?
Not from skin contact. I think the toxicity only arises from inhaling dust. Still, that would be a potential PR nightmare if Chinese factory workers started developing fibrosis as a result.
Actually, what I want to see a story on is how Apple's going to appease its "Gold" customers when the next generation watch ships.
Unlike a traditional watch, this version is going to be "obsolete" within a couple of years as processors, screens, and batteries improve and evolve. What then? Just throw a $17,000 watch in the back of a drawer?
Yes.
Once again, the gold Apple Watch is not intended for someone who makes such a purchase decision based on practical considerations. It's an expensive and exclusive fashion statement for the sort of folks for whom $20k is an impulse buy - people who buy $3000 shoes that go out of fashion in a few months.
"You had me at titanium?
Anyone one to take a guess about a price point on that one?
Shouldn't really be any more than steel - the material cost of the steel watch case must be a tiny percentage of the production cost.
Titanium is not a particularly expensive raw material but due to its hardness, manufacturing costs are extremely high, especially for complex-shaped parts.
Does the watch magically stop working after each "evolution" of the watch? My 4S kept working after the 5, 5S, and 6 were released.
But how snappy is it while running iOS 8?