1. It only proves my point further, they put gold in a PLASTIC strap. That's a horrible and greedy decision.
What a sensible statement¡ :rolleyes:
It seriously costs $7,000 more get a leather strap with gold?
There you go again making stupid comments. Do you honestly think it's $7000 more for the leather in the strap or are you just trolling?
2. Just because I'm not the intended market, doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on their creative/marketing ideas. Apple isn't perfect. And I invest in Apple.
You can have an opinion, and I can roll my eyes at the absurdity of your opinion.
There you go again making stupid comments. Do you honestly think it's $7000 more for the leather in the strap or are you just trolling?
You can have an opinion, and I can roll my eyes at the absurdity of your opinion.
Funny you call me a troll when I'm not attacking you or using brash language towards anyone. I'm just disagreeing and you're being sarcastic and calling my comments stupid. Do you lack self-awareness or something? I have everything apple and invest in them, I just don't think they're perfect. Some people have a "don't question or don't ever critique their decisions" attitude. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple doesn't do well with the Edition watch, since the hardware will be outdated quickly (as well as the fashion statement). And when the new edition comes out, nobody will want to pay that much for a used an outdated tech watch (if some is in that income caliber, they'll be the new one). But I'm hoping Apple proves me wrong, since I'm invested in their company.
Funny you call me a troll when I'm not attacking you or using brash language towards anyone.
1) Ad hominem personal attacks and naughty language is not the definition of trolling.
2) I didn't call you a troll. My implication is that I believe you're either trolling or your comprehension of the watch market is so horribly inadequate that you have no choice but to make stupid comments about the subject.
I'm just disagreeing and you're being sarcastic and calling my comments stupid.
Yes, I think your comments about gold being paired with a fluorocarbon-based synthetic rubber are stupid.
Do you lack self-awareness or something?
Well stated¡
I have everything apple and invest in them, I just don't think they're perfect.
1) No one asked.
2) No one asked because it's irrelevant, but such statements are popular amongst those that I do consider trolls.
3) It's questionable when anyone says they have everything Apple.
Some people have a "don't question or don't ever critique their decisions" attitude.
Are you implying that because I think your comment about fluorocarbon-based synthetic rubber strap is stupid that I "don't question or don't ever critique their decisions"?
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple doesn't do well with the Edition watch, since the hardware will be outdated quickly (as well as the fashion statement).
See, that's a reasonably stated comment. I don't completely agree, but you're entitled to your opinions (and I appreciate when you stated them as).
And nobody will want to pay that much resell for an outdated watch
Now you go back to making an unfounded claim which should be stated as an opinion but instead you make in an absolute.
(if you're in that income caliber).
Is that a passive-aggressive dig at my ability to buy ?Watch Edition? Regardless of my ability, I'm simply not interested in either a yellow or rose gold coloured watch.
But I'm hoping Apple proves me wrong, since I'm invested in their company.
To me, that just sounds like a concern troll comment.
Bottom line: Despite your comments about "plastic" straps there are innumerable solid gold watches for sale that have rubberized straps that costs a lot more than even the most expensive ?Watch Edition. Here's one I googled in about 4 seconds.
1) Ad hominem personal attacks and naughty language is not the definition of trolling.
2) I didn't call you a troll. My implication is that I believe you're either trolling or your comprehension of the watch market is so horribly inadequate that you have no choice but to make stupid comments about the subject.
Yes, I think your comments about gold being paired with a fluorocarbon-based synthetic rubber are stupid.
Well stated¡
1) No one asked.
2) No one asked because it's irrelevant, but such statements are popular amongst those that I do consider trolls.
3) It's questionable when anyone says they have everything Apple.
Are you implying that because I think your comment about fluorocarbon-based synthetic rubber strap is stupid that I "don't question or don't ever critique their decisions"?
See, that's a reasonably stated comment. I don't completely agree, but you're entitled to your opinions (and I appreciate when you stated them as).
Now you go back to making an unfounded claim which should be stated as an opinion but instead you make in an absolute.
Is that a passive-aggressive dig at my ability to buy ?Watch Edition? Regardless of my ability, I'm simply not interested in either a yellow or rose gold coloured watch.
To me, that just sounds like a concern troll comment.
Bottom line: Despite your comments about "plastic" stripes there are innumerable solid gold watches for sale that have rubberized straps that costs a lot more than even the most expensive ?Watch Edition. Here's one I googled in about 4 seconds.
Since it's 18K gold, the actual gold content would be 75% or 34.2g which when I made the calculation would have been worth $1,265.
There's also the need to take into account their patented process which states it allows them create 18K gold "with as little gold as possible". So it could actually be slightly less. Ha!
I would expect at least 80% of the gold edition price to be, well, based on the international value of gold.
They have to allow for gold fluctuating in value. If the gold was 80%, a 25% increase in gold price would mean the watch would make a net loss at retail. Traditional gold watches can be marked up 100% by the manufacturers and then another 50% by resellers so $1000 of gold in a traditional watch could be about $3k at retail but the market eventually decides the price - too fast sales, they up the price, too low and they cut margins.
When Apple gives resellers Macs, they sell to them at something like 85% of the price and resellers can then price below Apple's store but they make a very small percentage profit of the price. For the Watch, they can have a very large buffer (i.e large incentive for 3rd parties to push the ?Watch over traditional watches). With about under $2k of build cost, they have a massive $8k+ margin to be able to offer resellers an incentive to promote the Watch.
The difficulty with this kind of margin is that the buyer expects a limited edition. The value is partly based on having one of a limited supply. The more they make, the lower value it is. If you look at the James Bond Omega watch, only 10,007 were made of some of them (I assume 007 for obvious reasons), some were just a few thousand:
If Apple sells less than 100k of their watch to maintain the exclusivity then that will max out at $1.7b revenue, possibly $1b net per version of the edition model (this is about 1/40th of their current yearly income). I very much doubt they'll make anywhere near 1 million of them because that takes away the exclusivity and I doubt there's a million-strong audience at that price point who would all be interested in that particular watch.
I think they should have made a gold version under $3k so that it was attainable to a mass market. They didn't have to make the whole watch body out of solid gold, they could have had a thinner solid gold outer layer. The idea of having an exclusive edition for the wealthy runs contrary to Apple's goals of inclusion and diversity and it's not likely to make them a lot of revenue because of the limited production run so why bother? A gold layered (not plated) watch wouldn't need to have a limited production run to be worth the money.
There's also the need to take into account their patented process which states it allows them create 18K gold "with as little gold as possible". So it could actually be slightly less. Ha!
I took that into account I think. To be able to call the gold 18K 75% of it has to be actual gold by weight. Apple Gold has ceramic particles that are low mass compared to gold and the more usual alloy metals like silver and copper so only abot 50% of the volume of the Edition case is actually gold.
Asia is a very gold conscious region. India and Thailand in particular have quite a thing for gold. I am very curious as to how the Edition will be received in Asia if the nature of Apple Gold becomes widely appreciated - which I suspect it will.
There's also the need to take into account their patented process which states it allows them create 18K gold "with as little gold as possible". So it could actually be slightly less. Ha!
I took that into account I think. To be able to call the gold 18K 75% of it has to be actual gold by weight. Apple Gold has ceramic particles that are low mass compared to gold and the more usual alloy metals like silver and copper so only abot 50% of the volume of the Edition case is actually gold.
Asia is a very gold conscious region. India and Thailand in particular have quite a thing for gold. I am very curious as to how the Edition will be received in Asia if the nature of Apple Gold becomes widely appreciated - which I suspect it will.
Interesting.
So Apple are lying when they call it gold? This could be bad news.
The idea of having an exclusive edition for the wealthy runs contrary to Apple's goals of inclusion and diversity and it's not likely to make them a lot of revenue because of the limited production run so why bother?
A) There is no known functional difference in the models. There is actually no upsell unlike in Apple's computer product lines.
B) It is not a goal of Apple to maximize inclusion and diversity or they would make lower tier products like netbooks in addition to $1200 ultrabooks.
C) Almost all of Apple product owners are "wealthy" in comparison to the average global income. The average income of adult Mac owners is $98,560. 33% of iPhone owners in the US make over $100K. Even the "poor" segment of iPhone users make far more than most people in the world.
I think they should have made a gold version under $3k so that it was attainable to a mass market. They didn't have to make the whole watch body out of solid gold, they could have had a thinner solid gold outer layer. The idea of having an exclusive edition for the wealthy runs contrary to Apple's goals of inclusion and diversity and it's not likely to make them a lot of revenue because of the limited production run so why bother? A gold layered (not plated) watch wouldn't need to have a limited production run to be worth the money.
I think this is by design. The watch cases are all identical. If a apple offered a mid-priced gold watch, or even a gold anodized Sport watch, it might detract from the prestige of the Edition. When someone sees a gold-tone watch on your wrist, they won't know whether you spent over $10K for it, or not. In 6 months this will be less of an issue.
There's also a large number of people out there who won't wear silver jewelry, and for whom buying the ?Watch won't be an option strictly from a fashion coordinating perspective. Likewise, Apple could have opened up the watch to any device that would support it like an iPad or iPod Touch (or even a Mac), for people who don't have iPhones. And they could have made it more water-resistant, for swimmers, and boaters, and other occupations where the watch could be submerged. All of these "limitations" then have the effect of limiting the potential pool of early adopters so the roll out can be more manageable ... And until this article I was only thinking about getting the software working well in the wild, but hadn't given any thought to the complicated logistics of demonstrating it to customers.
So I think there will be a mid-priced gold-tone option by Christmas, at least in the sport, if not the stainless, possibly depending on how well the Edition sells.
A) There is no known functional difference in the models. There is actually no upsell unlike in Apple's computer product lines. B) It is not a goal of Apple to maximize inclusion and diversity or they would make lower tier products like netbooks in addition to $1200 ultrabooks.
C) Almost all of Apple product owners are "wealthy" in comparison to the average global income. The average income of adult Mac owners is $98,560. 33% of iPhone owners in the US make over $100K. Even the "poor" segment of iPhone users make far more than most people in the world.
Rich is indeed relative. However wealth is a power distribution. The real rich (the super rich) are the only possible market for a $17k item that is obsolete next year. The top 1-2 %.
A millionaire would be careful on that. Someone earning $100k and paying tax, mortgage or rent -- he's not getting one unless he's stashed away some wealth and has no significant future outgoings.
Lots of people here saying "you are not the market for this" when the pricing is criticised. That's true of most here ( although it's an ad hominem) but it could well be true of everybody. We just don't know if the super rich will buy this because it doesn't follow the model of normal jewellery and hold its value. The expensive model doesn't work better than cheaper models so it's not like a car. The design is largely the same so it's not like the top model of Hermes bag vs the lower end. It's just the material.
Rich is indeed relative. However wealth is a power distribution. The real rich (the super rich) are the only possible market for a $17k item that is obsolete next year. The top 1-2 %.
A millionaire would be careful on that. Someone earning $100k and paying tax, mortgage or rent -- he's not getting one unless he's stashed away some wealth and has no significant future outgoings.
Lots of people here saying "you are not the market for this" when the pricing is criticised. That's true of most here ( although it's an ad hominem) but it could well be true of everybody. We just don't know if the super rich will buy this because it doesn't follow the model of normal jewellery and hold its value. The expensive model doesn't work better than cheaper models so it's not like a car. The design is largely the same.
We just don't know if the super rich will buy this because it doesn't follow the model of normal jewellery and hold its value....
There is in fact no market which is like this.
I would agree. However, the closest market it falls into is the "collectable" market. As long as it's a sufficiently limited edition, I see there being enough 1 & 2 percenters who are also Apple fans to easily sell out this Edition very quickly.
And I wonder what Apple's policy is going to be on it -- Two per customer? Because you know someone is going to try and corner the market on it and scalp them for even more than $17K.
Then in the Fall they'll release their $2500 "gold-infused" watch for the general public.
I would agree that the gold in the gold band should be taken into consideration when talking about the $17 K version, but the watch only weight seems valid for considering the base model Edition.
2: I delegated the calculation to my son.
I gave him the weights of the two watches (69g and 30g) and the densities of Gold and Aluminium at 19.3 and 2.8 respectively. He then solved for the two unknowns of the weight of the non case parts and the volume of the case, calculating the weight of the non case bits at 23.4g and the weight of gold as being about 45.6g. Since it's 18K gold, the actual gold content would be 75% or 34.2g which when I made the calculation would have been worth $1,265. I was wrong in saying it was $840. I think I must have earlier assumed Apple was adding the ceramic to 18K gold rather than using the ceramic as the constituent that made it 18K.
Still, the profit margin is quite spectacular.
If true, that is simply scandalous - in fact, I am not aware of ANY Apple device comprising such a criminal profit margin - not even the IIfx or the 20th Anniversary Mac did that. So no; I still cannot believe the gold one contains only 1k worth of gold.
They have to allow for gold fluctuating in value. If the gold was 80%, a 25% increase in gold price would mean the watch would make a net loss at retail. Traditional gold watches can be marked up 100% by the manufacturers and then another 50% by resellers so $1000 of gold in a traditional watch could be about $3k at retail but the market eventually decides the price - too fast sales, they up the price, too low and they cut margins.
When Apple gives resellers Macs, they sell to them at something like 85% of the price and resellers can then price below Apple's store but they make a very small percentage profit of the price. For the Watch, they can have a very large buffer (i.e large incentive for 3rd parties to push the ?Watch over traditional watches). With about under $2k of build cost, they have a massive $8k+ margin to be able to offer resellers an incentive to promote the Watch.
The difficulty with this kind of margin is that the buyer expects a limited edition. The value is partly based on having one of a limited supply. The more they make, the lower value it is. If you look at the James Bond Omega watch, only 10,007 were made of some of them (I assume 007 for obvious reasons), some were just a few thousand:
If Apple sells less than 100k of their watch to maintain the exclusivity then that will max out at $1.7b revenue, possibly $1b net per version of the edition model (this is about 1/40th of their current yearly income). I very much doubt they'll make anywhere near 1 million of them because that takes away the exclusivity and I doubt there's a million-strong audience at that price point who would all be interested in that particular watch.
I think they should have made a gold version under $3k so that it was attainable to a mass market. They didn't have to make the whole watch body out of solid gold, they could have had a thinner solid gold outer layer. The idea of having an exclusive edition for the wealthy runs contrary to Apple's goals of inclusion and diversity and it's not likely to make them a lot of revenue because of the limited production run so why bother? A gold layered (not plated) watch wouldn't need to have a limited production run to be worth the money.
Good points, Marvin. However, I must emphasize the absurdity of that price even if gold weight calculations are correct and fluctuations are taken into account. Indeed, price comes from two main factors: cost of production AND scarcity (artificial or natural) which are then tempered (upwards or downwards) by demand.
But in this case we see a device being launched without any stated limited production numbers nor clear gold weight values. So it's hard to jump into that flawed logic without even knowing how "unique" the gold edition will be.
And don't even get me started with battery life and overall longevity, of course.
So Apple are lying when they call it gold? This could be bad news.
No, they aren't lying. So long as the definition of 18K is that 75% of the mass is pure gold, and Apple gold fits that definition, they are telling the truth.
So Apple are lying when they call it gold? This could be bad news.
No, they aren't lying. So long as the definition of 18K is that 75% of the mass is pure gold, and Apple gold fits that definition, they are telling the truth.
Okay. I was just going by your post, which seemed to surmise that Apple were stretching the truth by using less than 75% gold.
Comments
What a sensible statement¡ :rolleyes:
There you go again making stupid comments. Do you honestly think it's $7000 more for the leather in the strap or are you just trolling?
You can have an opinion, and I can roll my eyes at the absurdity of your opinion.
What a sensible statement¡
There you go again making stupid comments. Do you honestly think it's $7000 more for the leather in the strap or are you just trolling?
You can have an opinion, and I can roll my eyes at the absurdity of your opinion.
Funny you call me a troll when I'm not attacking you or using brash language towards anyone. I'm just disagreeing and you're being sarcastic and calling my comments stupid. Do you lack self-awareness or something? I have everything apple and invest in them, I just don't think they're perfect. Some people have a "don't question or don't ever critique their decisions" attitude. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple doesn't do well with the Edition watch, since the hardware will be outdated quickly (as well as the fashion statement). And when the new edition comes out, nobody will want to pay that much for a used an outdated tech watch (if some is in that income caliber, they'll be the new one). But I'm hoping Apple proves me wrong, since I'm invested in their company.
1) Ad hominem personal attacks and naughty language is not the definition of trolling.
2) I didn't call you a troll. My implication is that I believe you're either trolling or your comprehension of the watch market is so horribly inadequate that you have no choice but to make stupid comments about the subject.
Yes, I think your comments about gold being paired with a fluorocarbon-based synthetic rubber are stupid.
Well stated¡
1) No one asked.
2) No one asked because it's irrelevant, but such statements are popular amongst those that I do consider trolls.
3) It's questionable when anyone says they have everything Apple.
Are you implying that because I think your comment about fluorocarbon-based synthetic rubber strap is stupid that I "don't question or don't ever critique their decisions"?
See, that's a reasonably stated comment. I don't completely agree, but you're entitled to your opinions (and I appreciate when you stated them as).
Now you go back to making an unfounded claim which should be stated as an opinion but instead you make in an absolute.
Is that a passive-aggressive dig at my ability to buy ?Watch Edition? Regardless of my ability, I'm simply not interested in either a yellow or rose gold coloured watch.
To me, that just sounds like a concern troll comment.
Bottom line: Despite your comments about "plastic" straps there are innumerable solid gold watches for sale that have rubberized straps that costs a lot more than even the most expensive ?Watch Edition. Here's one I googled in about 4 seconds.
1) Ad hominem personal attacks and naughty language is not the definition of trolling.
2) I didn't call you a troll. My implication is that I believe you're either trolling or your comprehension of the watch market is so horribly inadequate that you have no choice but to make stupid comments about the subject.
Yes, I think your comments about gold being paired with a fluorocarbon-based synthetic rubber are stupid.
Well stated¡
1) No one asked.
2) No one asked because it's irrelevant, but such statements are popular amongst those that I do consider trolls.
3) It's questionable when anyone says they have everything Apple.
Are you implying that because I think your comment about fluorocarbon-based synthetic rubber strap is stupid that I "don't question or don't ever critique their decisions"?
See, that's a reasonably stated comment. I don't completely agree, but you're entitled to your opinions (and I appreciate when you stated them as).
Now you go back to making an unfounded claim which should be stated as an opinion but instead you make in an absolute.
Is that a passive-aggressive dig at my ability to buy ?Watch Edition? Regardless of my ability, I'm simply not interested in either a yellow or rose gold coloured watch.
To me, that just sounds like a concern troll comment.
Bottom line: Despite your comments about "plastic" stripes there are innumerable solid gold watches for sale that have rubberized straps that costs a lot more than even the most expensive ?Watch Edition. Here's one I googled in about 4 seconds.
Dude you have issues. I'm not going to read all of that angry vomit. Chill out, and a good day to you.
Since it's 18K gold, the actual gold content would be 75% or 34.2g which when I made the calculation would have been worth $1,265.
There's also the need to take into account their patented process which states it allows them create 18K gold "with as little gold as possible". So it could actually be slightly less. Ha!
They have to allow for gold fluctuating in value. If the gold was 80%, a 25% increase in gold price would mean the watch would make a net loss at retail. Traditional gold watches can be marked up 100% by the manufacturers and then another 50% by resellers so $1000 of gold in a traditional watch could be about $3k at retail but the market eventually decides the price - too fast sales, they up the price, too low and they cut margins.
When Apple gives resellers Macs, they sell to them at something like 85% of the price and resellers can then price below Apple's store but they make a very small percentage profit of the price. For the Watch, they can have a very large buffer (i.e large incentive for 3rd parties to push the ?Watch over traditional watches). With about under $2k of build cost, they have a massive $8k+ margin to be able to offer resellers an incentive to promote the Watch.
The difficulty with this kind of margin is that the buyer expects a limited edition. The value is partly based on having one of a limited supply. The more they make, the lower value it is. If you look at the James Bond Omega watch, only 10,007 were made of some of them (I assume 007 for obvious reasons), some were just a few thousand:
http://www.omegawatches.com/planet-omega/cinema/bond-limited-editions
If Apple sells less than 100k of their watch to maintain the exclusivity then that will max out at $1.7b revenue, possibly $1b net per version of the edition model (this is about 1/40th of their current yearly income). I very much doubt they'll make anywhere near 1 million of them because that takes away the exclusivity and I doubt there's a million-strong audience at that price point who would all be interested in that particular watch.
I think they should have made a gold version under $3k so that it was attainable to a mass market. They didn't have to make the whole watch body out of solid gold, they could have had a thinner solid gold outer layer. The idea of having an exclusive edition for the wealthy runs contrary to Apple's goals of inclusion and diversity and it's not likely to make them a lot of revenue because of the limited production run so why bother? A gold layered (not plated) watch wouldn't need to have a limited production run to be worth the money.
It's that sort of laws mindedness that led to your initial comment.
It's that sort of laws mindedness that led to your initial comment.
Issues.
There's also the need to take into account their patented process which states it allows them create 18K gold "with as little gold as possible". So it could actually be slightly less. Ha!
I took that into account I think. To be able to call the gold 18K 75% of it has to be actual gold by weight. Apple Gold has ceramic particles that are low mass compared to gold and the more usual alloy metals like silver and copper so only abot 50% of the volume of the Edition case is actually gold.
Asia is a very gold conscious region. India and Thailand in particular have quite a thing for gold. I am very curious as to how the Edition will be received in Asia if the nature of Apple Gold becomes widely appreciated - which I suspect it will.
Dude you have issues. I'm not going to read all of that angry vomit. Chill out, and a good day to you.
It's that sort of laws mindedness that led to your initial comment.
He's right. That post that provoked him to say that you had issues was possibly the worst post of yours that I've read on Apple Insider.
There's also the need to take into account their patented process which states it allows them create 18K gold "with as little gold as possible". So it could actually be slightly less. Ha!
I took that into account I think. To be able to call the gold 18K 75% of it has to be actual gold by weight. Apple Gold has ceramic particles that are low mass compared to gold and the more usual alloy metals like silver and copper so only abot 50% of the volume of the Edition case is actually gold.
Asia is a very gold conscious region. India and Thailand in particular have quite a thing for gold. I am very curious as to how the Edition will be received in Asia if the nature of Apple Gold becomes widely appreciated - which I suspect it will.
Interesting.
So Apple are lying when they call it gold? This could be bad news.
The idea of having an exclusive edition for the wealthy runs contrary to Apple's goals of inclusion and diversity and it's not likely to make them a lot of revenue because of the limited production run so why bother?
A) There is no known functional difference in the models. There is actually no upsell unlike in Apple's computer product lines.
B) It is not a goal of Apple to maximize inclusion and diversity or they would make lower tier products like netbooks in addition to $1200 ultrabooks.
C) Almost all of Apple product owners are "wealthy" in comparison to the average global income. The average income of adult Mac owners is $98,560. 33% of iPhone owners in the US make over $100K. Even the "poor" segment of iPhone users make far more than most people in the world.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/06/26/why-the-apple-demographic-is-so-important-to-orbitz-and-retailers/
http://fortune.com/2014/02/21/apple-took-65-of-u-s-phone-buyers-making-100000-a-year/
I think this is by design. The watch cases are all identical. If a apple offered a mid-priced gold watch, or even a gold anodized Sport watch, it might detract from the prestige of the Edition. When someone sees a gold-tone watch on your wrist, they won't know whether you spent over $10K for it, or not. In 6 months this will be less of an issue.
There's also a large number of people out there who won't wear silver jewelry, and for whom buying the ?Watch won't be an option strictly from a fashion coordinating perspective. Likewise, Apple could have opened up the watch to any device that would support it like an iPad or iPod Touch (or even a Mac), for people who don't have iPhones. And they could have made it more water-resistant, for swimmers, and boaters, and other occupations where the watch could be submerged. All of these "limitations" then have the effect of limiting the potential pool of early adopters so the roll out can be more manageable ... And until this article I was only thinking about getting the software working well in the wild, but hadn't given any thought to the complicated logistics of demonstrating it to customers.
So I think there will be a mid-priced gold-tone option by Christmas, at least in the sport, if not the stainless, possibly depending on how well the Edition sells.
Rich is indeed relative. However wealth is a power distribution. The real rich (the super rich) are the only possible market for a $17k item that is obsolete next year. The top 1-2 %.
A millionaire would be careful on that. Someone earning $100k and paying tax, mortgage or rent -- he's not getting one unless he's stashed away some wealth and has no significant future outgoings.
Lots of people here saying "you are not the market for this" when the pricing is criticised. That's true of most here ( although it's an ad hominem) but it could well be true of everybody. We just don't know if the super rich will buy this because it doesn't follow the model of normal jewellery and hold its value. The expensive model doesn't work better than cheaper models so it's not like a car. The design is largely the same so it's not like the top model of Hermes bag vs the lower end. It's just the material.
There is in fact no market which is like this.
Rich is indeed relative. However wealth is a power distribution. The real rich (the super rich) are the only possible market for a $17k item that is obsolete next year. The top 1-2 %.
A millionaire would be careful on that. Someone earning $100k and paying tax, mortgage or rent -- he's not getting one unless he's stashed away some wealth and has no significant future outgoings.
Lots of people here saying "you are not the market for this" when the pricing is criticised. That's true of most here ( although it's an ad hominem) but it could well be true of everybody. We just don't know if the super rich will buy this because it doesn't follow the model of normal jewellery and hold its value. The expensive model doesn't work better than cheaper models so it's not like a car. The design is largely the same.
There is in fact no market which is like this.
Agreed.
We just don't know if the super rich will buy this because it doesn't follow the model of normal jewellery and hold its value....
There is in fact no market which is like this.
I would agree. However, the closest market it falls into is the "collectable" market. As long as it's a sufficiently limited edition, I see there being enough 1 & 2 percenters who are also Apple fans to easily sell out this Edition very quickly.
And I wonder what Apple's policy is going to be on it -- Two per customer? Because you know someone is going to try and corner the market on it and scalp them for even more than $17K.
Then in the Fall they'll release their $2500 "gold-infused" watch for the general public.
If true, that is simply scandalous - in fact, I am not aware of ANY Apple device comprising such a criminal profit margin - not even the IIfx or the 20th Anniversary Mac did that. So no; I still cannot believe the gold one contains only 1k worth of gold.
Good points, Marvin. However, I must emphasize the absurdity of that price even if gold weight calculations are correct and fluctuations are taken into account. Indeed, price comes from two main factors: cost of production AND scarcity (artificial or natural) which are then tempered (upwards or downwards) by demand.
But in this case we see a device being launched without any stated limited production numbers nor clear gold weight values. So it's hard to jump into that flawed logic without even knowing how "unique" the gold edition will be.
And don't even get me started with battery life and overall longevity, of course.
Interesting.
So Apple are lying when they call it gold? This could be bad news.
No, they aren't lying. So long as the definition of 18K is that 75% of the mass is pure gold, and Apple gold fits that definition, they are telling the truth.
Okay. I was just going by your post, which seemed to surmise that Apple were stretching the truth by using less than 75% gold.