Oh, you're being too harsh. While I am not a Swift fan by any stretch, it's not a bad marketing tool to get some younger people interested in Apple Music (which, at least amongst my two teen kids and their circle of friends, is a complete unknown). Couldn't hurt with media attention either.
Swift is loved by a surprisingly wide demo. She's the Apple of Music :-).
If they invited Kayne and Swift to swing together (there were rumors of a collaboration), that would be a PR coup.
She's also been the top selling artist of the last 9 years if you count singles and albums together.
Only way they do this is if they cancel the 18k gold watch. They will not sell a solid 18k gold watch for $10k and a gold plated or anodized watch for less than $1k. No way on earth.
They won't make 2 watches that look identical and have identical internals and have a price difference of $9k between them.
They could make a gold one like the iPhone and Macbook matte gold instead of shiny:
[VIDEO]
I think they should forget the solid gold though. They gave them away to celebrities but the revenue they made doesn't suggest many people bought them. $1b revenue in 2 months means 2.8m $350 units or 1.8m $550 units or 100k $10k units or 59k $17k units. If you assume the total units are over 2 million then:
2.5m $350 + 300k $550 + 500 $10k = still just over $1b, if you raise the numbers for either of the $550 or $10k model, the revenue is just going higher than reported.
This is 89% cheapest model, 11% steel and about 0.02% solid gold. Jony Ive seems to like gold as a material but $10k is far too much to sell direct to consumers and $2.5m per month revenue can't be covering the expense of making and handling them. It's not exclusive enough a design for people who have that kind of disposable income. If they want to offer models like this they should just have a separate online store where they do this with any product like the business and education store. Just have a service where you can order a solid gold iPhone, laptop, watch, whatever. The people who buy things made of solid gold buy them as investments in gold to diversify their assets so the price should also not be significantly higher than the price of the gold content. They can get rid of the added store security.
I don't think gold plating is a good option because it's too thin. They wouldn't want to have seams so the shape of the Watch body doesn't make it easy to make thinner split parts out of gold to then cover over a metal frame. The melting point of stainless steel is higher than gold so perhaps there's a way to coat a stainless steel chassis with molten gold layers and then smooth and polish it up. They could alternatively split the inner chassis so they'd make the outside shape of the watch from solid gold and carve it but very thin like 1/4 the thickness. The inner chassis would then be inserted in parts and it can be secured in a way that presses hard against the outer shell. It might be able to dent but not very easily and any gaps in the internal chassis can be located vertically across the Watch bands. It would still be more expensive with about $500 of gold vs $2k and they can mark this up to somewhere around $2k. Given the huge number of entry models sold, I think it makes sense to have a matte gold option there.
Do they come out with the subdued versions of gold on a new Watch similar to the gold on iPhone? Then they can simultaneously debut a subdued rose gold Watch to go along with a rumored subdued rose gold iPhone? Then those purchasing can at least match their gold iPad, iPhone, and ? Watch and possibly their rose gold iPhone and rose gold ? Watch.
Agree. Make Watch sheen look like iPhone finish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
No way they make a less expensive gold watch.
Only way they do this is if they cancel the 18k gold watch. They will not sell a solid 18k gold watch for $10k and a gold plated or anodized watch for less than $1k. No way on earth.
They won't make 2 watches that look identical and have identical internals and have a price difference of $9k between them.
Why not? Apple don't make them look a like. Current 18k gold watch is shiny and has strong glossy sheen of real gold which doesn't match well with the iPhone color. I won't be surprised if Apple release matte finish gold color Sport (not gold plated) to match with gold iPhone. They current has Sport in silver and gray which closely match with iPhone color and finish; why not gold color in matte finish? If you don't see the difference between these 2 colors, you probably need new eye prescription.
This phone looks very pink. I hope 9to5Mac is right and it is rose gold like Apple Watch which would be more copper than pink.
lighting may make the color look more or less pink. I doubt that Apple will make rose gold phone because it's too close to gold color, but we never know. The current space grey color looks really close to silver on iPhone, so the screen bezels are only factors to distinguish them. So, they may make it a little pink as seen in the picture with black bezel while also release Apple Watch Sport in the same color and finish.
They could make a gold one like the iPhone and Macbook matte gold instead of shiny:
I think there's no question that there will be an annodized aluminum gold watch to match the iPhones, et al. And if rose gold is added as an option, there will be a watch to match. But that's trivial for Apple ... It's just a coating. The fact that one of the least profitable divisions at Apple can offer multi-colored iPods in every model is proof enough of this.
I do like your idea of a solid gold case-works factory so customers can order factory built super-luxury devices. A literal gold-mine!
But the one thing your gold-plate criticism leaves out is product life. I personally think the 1st gen ?Watch will have no issues performing just as it is over the next 5 years, before some new technology is introduced that forces it into obsolescence. It's essentially a dumb terminal offloading almost everything to the iPhone, so what's there to make it incompatible, unless Apple introduces something radical that changes the way the iPhone can communicate with the watch? But 5 years is a drop in the bucket for a gold-filled or plated watch. It would take a lot of abuse to even start showing signs of wearing thin in that time. My first watch I bought myself as a teenager in high school was a $100 Seiko, 14k gold-plated Quartz watch. I wore that watch daily through college and into my professional career. It was a workhorse that I got over ten years out of. And at the end, aside from some scuffs, it looked almost as good as the day I bought it, gold plating intact. Considering the ?Watch is not likely to have nearly that length of useful life, and given that Apple tends to have a standard of craftsmanship well above everyone else, I would expect even an Apple gold-plate to hold up well past the useful life of the watch.
The fact is, there's a huge group of middle-class customers who simply won't wear silver jewelry or accessories. I'd say half of all the people I know never wear silver anything. Most of that group are women, but I know a few men, who don't either. For them, the only "nice" option is the stainless Watch, or Space Black coating. While that may work fine for most men, I'd say it's a less appealing option for women. Now Apple could stick to the high road of only working with "solid gold", and the current marketing strategy, but doing so is really leaving a sizable amount of money on the table.
While not the main thrust of the article, will Apple need to alter the stated price of the various phone versions since the carriers are doing away with subsidies? ?
They have to eliminate the $199/299/399 price list. Now you pay for example $29/39/49 per month lease in addition to your monthly service plans. Not to mention, if you do flip or sell the iPhone. It will cost you even more at the end of these plans. So outright purchase should be $749/$849/$949/$1199
Comments
Carbon Fiber Sport at $299, give me that.
Why not $19.95? I mean we all know there’s only $7.99 worth of parts in it, right?
Oh, you're being too harsh. While I am not a Swift fan by any stretch, it's not a bad marketing tool to get some younger people interested in Apple Music (which, at least amongst my two teen kids and their circle of friends, is a complete unknown). Couldn't hurt with media attention either.
Swift is loved by a surprisingly wide demo. She's the Apple of Music :-).
If they invited Kayne and Swift to swing together (there were rumors of a collaboration), that would be a PR coup.
She's also been the top selling artist of the last 9 years if you count singles and albums together.
They could make a gold one like the iPhone and Macbook matte gold instead of shiny:
[VIDEO]
I think they should forget the solid gold though. They gave them away to celebrities but the revenue they made doesn't suggest many people bought them. $1b revenue in 2 months means 2.8m $350 units or 1.8m $550 units or 100k $10k units or 59k $17k units. If you assume the total units are over 2 million then:
2.5m $350 + 300k $550 + 500 $10k = still just over $1b, if you raise the numbers for either of the $550 or $10k model, the revenue is just going higher than reported.
This is 89% cheapest model, 11% steel and about 0.02% solid gold. Jony Ive seems to like gold as a material but $10k is far too much to sell direct to consumers and $2.5m per month revenue can't be covering the expense of making and handling them. It's not exclusive enough a design for people who have that kind of disposable income. If they want to offer models like this they should just have a separate online store where they do this with any product like the business and education store. Just have a service where you can order a solid gold iPhone, laptop, watch, whatever. The people who buy things made of solid gold buy them as investments in gold to diversify their assets so the price should also not be significantly higher than the price of the gold content. They can get rid of the added store security.
I don't think gold plating is a good option because it's too thin. They wouldn't want to have seams so the shape of the Watch body doesn't make it easy to make thinner split parts out of gold to then cover over a metal frame. The melting point of stainless steel is higher than gold so perhaps there's a way to coat a stainless steel chassis with molten gold layers and then smooth and polish it up. They could alternatively split the inner chassis so they'd make the outside shape of the watch from solid gold and carve it but very thin like 1/4 the thickness. The inner chassis would then be inserted in parts and it can be secured in a way that presses hard against the outer shell. It might be able to dent but not very easily and any gaps in the internal chassis can be located vertically across the Watch bands. It would still be more expensive with about $500 of gold vs $2k and they can mark this up to somewhere around $2k. Given the huge number of entry models sold, I think it makes sense to have a matte gold option there.
Do they come out with the subdued versions of gold on a new Watch similar to the gold on iPhone? Then they can simultaneously debut a subdued rose gold Watch to go along with a rumored subdued rose gold iPhone? Then those purchasing can at least match their gold iPad, iPhone, and ? Watch and possibly their rose gold iPhone and rose gold ? Watch.
Agree. Make Watch sheen look like iPhone finish.
No way they make a less expensive gold watch.
Only way they do this is if they cancel the 18k gold watch. They will not sell a solid 18k gold watch for $10k and a gold plated or anodized watch for less than $1k. No way on earth.
They won't make 2 watches that look identical and have identical internals and have a price difference of $9k between them.
Why not? Apple don't make them look a like. Current 18k gold watch is shiny and has strong glossy sheen of real gold which doesn't match well with the iPhone color. I won't be surprised if Apple release matte finish gold color Sport (not gold plated) to match with gold iPhone. They current has Sport in silver and gray which closely match with iPhone color and finish; why not gold color in matte finish? If you don't see the difference between these 2 colors, you probably need new eye prescription.
This phone looks very pink. I hope 9to5Mac is right and it is rose gold like Apple Watch which would be more copper than pink.
lighting may make the color look more or less pink. I doubt that Apple will make rose gold phone because it's too close to gold color, but we never know. The current space grey color looks really close to silver on iPhone, so the screen bezels are only factors to distinguish them. So, they may make it a little pink as seen in the picture with black bezel while also release Apple Watch Sport in the same color and finish.
I think there's no question that there will be an annodized aluminum gold watch to match the iPhones, et al. And if rose gold is added as an option, there will be a watch to match. But that's trivial for Apple ... It's just a coating. The fact that one of the least profitable divisions at Apple can offer multi-colored iPods in every model is proof enough of this.
I do like your idea of a solid gold case-works factory so customers can order factory built super-luxury devices. A literal gold-mine!
But the one thing your gold-plate criticism leaves out is product life. I personally think the 1st gen ?Watch will have no issues performing just as it is over the next 5 years, before some new technology is introduced that forces it into obsolescence. It's essentially a dumb terminal offloading almost everything to the iPhone, so what's there to make it incompatible, unless Apple introduces something radical that changes the way the iPhone can communicate with the watch? But 5 years is a drop in the bucket for a gold-filled or plated watch. It would take a lot of abuse to even start showing signs of wearing thin in that time. My first watch I bought myself as a teenager in high school was a $100 Seiko, 14k gold-plated Quartz watch. I wore that watch daily through college and into my professional career. It was a workhorse that I got over ten years out of. And at the end, aside from some scuffs, it looked almost as good as the day I bought it, gold plating intact. Considering the ?Watch is not likely to have nearly that length of useful life, and given that Apple tends to have a standard of craftsmanship well above everyone else, I would expect even an Apple gold-plate to hold up well past the useful life of the watch.
The fact is, there's a huge group of middle-class customers who simply won't wear silver jewelry or accessories. I'd say half of all the people I know never wear silver anything. Most of that group are women, but I know a few men, who don't either. For them, the only "nice" option is the stainless Watch, or Space Black coating. While that may work fine for most men, I'd say it's a less appealing option for women. Now Apple could stick to the high road of only working with "solid gold", and the current marketing strategy, but doing so is really leaving a sizable amount of money on the table.
While not the main thrust of the article, will Apple need to alter the stated price of the various phone versions since the carriers are doing away with subsidies? ?
They have to eliminate the $199/299/399 price list. Now you pay for example $29/39/49 per month lease in addition to your monthly service plans. Not to mention, if you do flip or sell the iPhone. It will cost you even more at the end of these plans. So outright purchase should be $749/$849/$949/$1199