Rich people have a funny way about being cheap for certain things.
I would imagine their teenage children would be the ones buying and flaunting off their brand new gold Apple Watches every year.
I'm not saying smart money will be buying the gold model in droves, but there is certainly a big enough market of people that can and will buy new gold Apple watches every year simply to show it off.
Not to sound offensive but I think the gold model will do well in Dubai and China, as well as, in Southern California and Manhattan.
If an "expert jeweler" thinks that it would cost about $600 to make just the gold watch body, then that's about 2/3 of an ounce of gold. One ounce of 18 k gold goes for about $925 right now.
We all know that many Apple products hold their value pretty well, but that will apply even more so to this watch!
And what if the price of gold doubles ten years after you bought the watch?
I'll take a stab at answering your last question... ...starting with the math for the value if gold doesn't double:
First the cost of the watch and tech piece of the equation (about $350 give or take), is gone - i.e., the guts and tech are e-waste without a case. So, if not being sold as a "working classic (i.e., obsolete) Apple Watch" just scrap metal that has to be recycled....
Second, gold jewelery is sold at retail, and bought back from consumers at some fraction of wholesale (the metal's market value after re-refining).
Third, the percentage of wholesale varies greatly from buyer to buyer. Someone with knowledge of the gold market and access to ethical buyers can get between 80-90% of the "scrap value"... ...those who are less knowledgeable or fortunate are often offered up to 70%, but as low as 50% (or less from slime).
85% of the current market for $600 worth of 18K gold is appx. $504. 70% yields $415.
So, if the watch sells for $1200 today (which seems reasonable for 2/3 of an ounce of 18K and the watch bits - at the margin Apple usually targets) - then a seller would be getting something like 30-40% of their money back.
And even if gold doubles (and if it does in the expected useful lifetime of this watch, we're going to be having other sizable economic problems, e.g., inflation), no, the seller of the metal would not get all their (likely devalued) money back. I.e., in this scenario they'd be getting 60-80% back.
(My bona fides here are that I ran a jewelery store and bought gold from the public. I paid 88%, and so worked on a 12% gross profit, because it wasn't my main business, just a little extra on my jewelery sales. And it helped my rep as a fair businessman because people had often compared a few offers before or after checking mine which were usually considerably better than those in my area.)
The last case, i.e., gold doubles and the watch is sold as a working piece and it's still usefully compatible with a current phone at the time, is harder to estimate as the new watches would be going for well over $2000 at that weight of gold, so a resale market COULD emerge (again, tho' the tech's lifetime is quite shelf-limited) to put a gold Apple Watch within reach.
However, since the device is likely (like Mac notebooks, iPods, iPhones and iPads) to be markedly miniaturized over time, it would likely contain, say, half the weight in gold at that time, and so, still be retailing for $1200 (depending on the degree of currency inflation associated with a crazy gold market), so that would NOT create an "aftermarket" for older, obsoleting watches bought when gold was cheaper.
My customers used to ask me to reassure them that buying gold jewelery was an investment. And I (honestly) assured them it was an investment.... ...a bad one they were highly likely to lose money on, but an investment of sorts, yes. I.e., I urged them to enjoy the aesthetic value of the jewelery while seeing the future scrap value only as a small bonus down the road that they wouldn't get with many other consumer purchases which tend to go to zero.
It is not a traditional luxury watch. The only things in common between Apple Watch and traditional Watch are they both go on your wrist and tell time. You might as well call the iPhone a pocket watch since it tells time and goes in your pocket. Batteries can be replaced and the fact that it is built from durable material will make it last for long time. Maybe not generations but definitely more than two years.. even more than 10 years if you ask me. There are still 1st generation iPhones around and it's been seven years since Apple released it.
The thing most people keep referring to are traditional watches. Just remember teenagers these days don't wear watch.
By your logic Apple missed the boat by not offering a gold-plated iPhone in 2007 for $1500. I could be wrong, but the gold option seems like a real misstep, focusing on fashion instead of mass-market appeal. Up to this point, Apple products have been beautiful and well-crafted, and differentiated by the technology inside, not the outside material. Maybe this new strategy will work, but there's no denying this is a significant departure for Apple.
It is not a traditional luxury watch. The only things in common between Apple Watch and traditional Watch are they both go on your wrist and tell time. You might as well call the iPhone a pocket watch since it tells time and goes in your pocket. Batteries can be replaced and the fact that it is built from durable material will make it last for long time. Maybe not generations but definitely more than two years.. even more than 10 years if you ask me. There are still 1st generation iPhones around and it's been seven years since Apple released it.
The thing most people keep referring to are traditional watches. Just remember teenagers these days don't wear watch.
By your logic Apple missed the boat by not offering a gold-plated iPhone in 2007 for $1500. I could be wrong, but the gold option seems like a real misstep, focusing on fashion instead of mass-market appeal. Up to this point, Apple products have been beautiful and well-crafted, and differentiated by the technology inside, not the outside material. Maybe this new strategy will work, but there's no denying this is a significant departure for Apple.
They have the aluminum and stainless steel models for mass-market appeal.
It's great that they added a gold model for the Watch since watches are more fashion focused items than phones anyway.
First the cost of the watch and tech piece of the equation (about $350 give or take), is gone - i.e., the guts and tech are e-waste without a case. So, if not being sold as a "working classic (i.e., obsolete) Apple Watch" just scrap metal that has to be recycled....
Your expertise on the gold and jewelry market is much appreciated, and I agree with you about the investment value of gold.
This is the part of your post I don't agree with. The "guts and tech" are not $350. They're selling complete watches with case, internals, crystal, display, battery, and strap for $350. The guts are the smallest part of that, and they actually showed the "S1" module—it's what we used to call 50 years ago a hybrid integrated circuit—everything on one substrate. The whole thing will swap out just as easily as the battery, and while you're having the battery replaced in your $1200 gold ?Watch, you can have the guts replaced, too. It won't cost anything like the price of a whole new low-end watch, and you'll have the current updated tech inside.
Admittedly this is not how Apple works now, but this is the first product they've ever made that the case is the overwhelming majority of the value.
That sounds like a lot to me (having never paid more than $40 for a watch myself) but I was surprised to find there is a whole community of people out there that are perfectly willing to pay a LOT of money for a "watch". And then there are these extreme cases: http://coolmaterial.com/roundup/expensive-watches/
Yeah but they are generally mechanical watch collectors and enthusiasts. They buy watches for their mechanical intricacy, detail and design. People like that are not going to be interested in an Apple Watch. It's a completely different target audience. Furthermore those watches when properly maintained can last for generations while the Apple Watch is all computer hardware and thus gets outdated.
It's the software. That interface is way too busy and complex, both in the number of ways to manipulate it and in the size of the icons and the text. It needs to be much simpler. The knob is a kludge that needs to go. It reminds me of those little levers you used to get on smartphones pre-iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O
People back then (2007) were lusting for a widescreen iPod.
Apple surprised them by doing the unthinkable. They offered:
A phone, a widescreen iPod and an internet communicator.
A phone, an iPod and an internet communicator.
A phone, an iPod and ... you get it ?
Its touch based interface was revolutionary as well. Just like the clickwheel was for the original iPod.
What do we have now?
A watch that looks like a mini tablet strapped on your wrist. Shame as its interface could have been revolutionary if it were to be Siri controlled only. The digital crown is a fad. It tries too hard to look like a watch. The original iPhone didn't have a rotary dial either, did it? The iPhone was the Future. One could feel it. I didn't have that feeling with the iWatch. Apple has got a lot of work to do.
Am I the only one who thinks the interface shown was simply a place-holder interface that resembles the current iOS platform. With a device not even shipping for at least 3+ months, that is a lot of time for the copy cats to hack together a very similar looking interface in that time. I think the interface shipping on the final product will be considerably different.
I dunno. I find it hard to believe that there's anything in the Apple Watch worth copying. Its a fail all round. Very disappointing. If the design is the best that Jony and his "dream team" can come up with, then they need to be shown the door. Fast. Looks like "made in Korea".
I dunno. I find it hard to believe that there's anything in the Apple Watch worth copying. Its a fail all round. Very disappointing. If the design is the best that Jony and his "dream team" can come up with, then they need to be shown the door. Fast. Looks like "made in Korea".
Hey, and think about this: is there any reason the Apple Watch or iPhone6 couldn't include functionality to *accept* Apple pay?
Windmills do not work that way!
Specifically, the system works by generating a cryptographic key from your credit card ID, some sort of personal ID, and your public key. That new key is sent to the bank. Future transactions mix that new key with time and location information to produce a token that can only be decrypted by that new key. At the bank.
That's why any of the companies are even interested. It all still goes to them. All Apple gets is a transaction fee, which is the same as any other POS vendor.
Specifically, the system works by generating a cryptographic key from your credit card ID, some sort of personal ID, and your public key. That new key is sent to the bank. Future transactions mix that new key with time and location information to produce a token that can only be decrypted by that new key. At the bank.
That's why any of the companies are even interested. It all still goes to them. All Apple gets is a transaction fee, which is the same as any other POS vendor.
None of that precludes Apple from adding the ability to accept payments. In fact, I would be shocked if neither Apple nor Square added the ability to accept NFC payments (including Apple Pay.)
I dunno. I find it hard to believe that there's anything in the Apple Watch worth copying. Its a fail all round. Very disappointing. If the design is the best that Jony and his "dream team" can come up with, then they need to be shown the door. Fast. Looks like "made in Korea".
Not to me. I can't wait to get one. Actually, I know I'll buy 2 - one for me, one for my wife. It looks well thought out, and very useful.
Specifically, the system works by generating a cryptographic key from your credit card ID, some sort of personal ID, and your public key. That new key is sent to the bank. Future transactions mix that new key with time and location information to produce a token that can only be decrypted by that new key. At the bank.
That's why any of the companies are even interested. It all still goes to them. All Apple gets is a transaction fee, which is the same as any other POS vendor.
Well....ok. I guess I still don't understand, and have no idea what a windmill means. Ultimately money I receive has to go to a bank. Is there any technical reason a bank can't deploy an app to allow NFC payments to be received via iPhone/Apple Watch? Would some sort of terminal or dongle be needed?
Your expertise on the gold and jewelry market is much appreciated, and I agree with you about the investment value of gold.
This is the part of your post I don't agree with. The "guts and tech" are not $350. They're selling complete watches with case, internals, crystal, display, battery, and strap for $350. The guts are the smallest part of that, and they actually showed the "S1" module—it's what we used to call 50 years ago a hybrid integrated circuit—everything on one substrate. The whole thing will swap out just as easily as the battery, and while you're having the battery replaced in your $1200 gold ?Watch, you can have the guts replaced, too. It won't cost anything like the price of a whole new low-end watch, and you'll have the current updated tech inside.
Admittedly this is not how Apple works now, but this is the first product they've ever made that the case is the overwhelming majority of the value.
I could have put that better, thanks... ...In assigning a value to the innards of a scrapped-for-gold-value Apple watch, what I meant was that in pulling the electronics and all non-precious metal parts out of the case, everything that made it an iDevice - i.e., the (by the likely time of sale) 2 or more year old electronics, design, software (OS and apps), Apple ecosystem, etc. - for which the bare entry-level price was $350 will have been discounted to zero resale value by the buyer. And most those parts will likely soon be on a boat on the way to Mumbai... ...or wherever e waste in the country of the seller is going. (I say most as there could be value in recovering the crystals and maybe other parts for the repair market.)
So the only thing the gold buyer's paying for is scrap metal for recycle. Scrap gold is fungible... ...the gold in the jewelry (or other gold-containing products you buy may all be fresh-mined or it may contain gold that's been part of 20 other things over a long period of time.
In your other scenario, someone who wants to keep their original model as a piece of jewelery and functional iDevice, you raise an interesting question I hadn't thought of. Battery replacement is certainly feasible, but as the tech evolves, the form factor is 100% likely to change in all three dimensions over time (and in particular to shrink in volume), so I'm personally doubtful there would be an elegant/simple way to install the updated electronics from say, an Apple Watch 3 to fit and work seamlessly.
And the only people likely to want to make an "in-case generational upgrade" would be the owners of the gold ones - which, I imagine won't even reach and certainly won't be more than 1% of the models sold. Also, I'd guess most of the people who buy the $1200 watches - which is actually entry level in the true luxury watch world - would simply take the scrap value and buy the latest model rather than undertake a custom upgrade.
Still, speculating away, Apple may really have a longer term vision of catering to the true 1%. If they do and the Edition models take off... ...then the next step could be going head to head with Movado, Patek Philippe, Tag Heuer, Bvlgari, Rolex, etc... ...so in that case, it's easy enough to envision platinum cases, diamond encrusted models and other exotic designs (with other special Apple features) which would put them in the $12,000 or $120,000 range ruled by the ultra-luxury watchmakers some day.
(Which could have been part of what Ives' remark about the "Swiss makers" quaking in their boots - or however he put it - was alluding to? I guess "time will tell" haha...)
And that would put them in a market that's traditionally created heirlooms, and that conceivably could lead them to offer custom upgrades of old models to keep them compatible with the evolving Apple ecosystem even though it would require special engineering and custom parts for a tiny base.
Interesting. And at least fun to "wool gather" about...
Well....ok. I guess I still don't understand, and have no idea what a windmill means. Ultimately money I receive has to go to a bank. Is there any technical reason a bank can't deploy an app to allow NFC payments to be received via iPhone/Apple Watch? Would some sort of terminal or dongle be needed?
The windmill line was a reference to a Futurama episode. It might have been funny if the guy who said it was right about what he was saying...
And no, there's no reason someone can't come up with a way to accept NFC payments on an iPhone assuming Apple makes the NFC APIs available to developers (or develops the feature themselves).
Can't wait to get my hands on one! Thanks Blackbook for the price estimates, you can't be far off the mark, but I'm with mb0037: "Don't care. Take my money."
I've owned one of almost every variety of Apple, Mac, MacBook, iPod, iPhone, iPad and Apple TV (not every model - I'm not rich!). Often friends and colleagues have questioned my judgement, but I've had a lot of fun at home and been super productive at work. Until recently I wore a silver iPod Nano 6 with a Hex Vision Metal (stainless steel, link) Watch Band, but had to stop because the clip on the band broke. The Nano 6 is still going strong!
Now I get to choose an Apple Watch. The 42 mm sport watch will replace my Nano 6 and my Garmin Forerunner 305 (which also just gave up the ghost), but a 38mm Edition will nicely replace my dress watch, but will be too special for running and the gym. Perhaps I'll settle for a stainless steel model? I guess I'll know once I get my hands on the range.
I have a digital Casio. Still looks really cool after 20 years and keeps perfect time. Thanks but a watch for anything else than telling you what time it is, is a waste. ISIS will all have them though.
The windmill line was a reference to a Futurama episode. It might have been funny if the guy who said it was right about what he was saying...
And no, there's no reason someone can't come up with a way to accept NFC payments on an iPhone assuming Apple makes the NFC APIs available to developers (or develops the feature themselves).
Thanks. I don't get the Discovery Channel, so I don't see all those tech shows, I didn't get the reference.
My wife runs a small business, and uses Square. Be nice to offer this too.
Comments
Rich people have a funny way about being cheap for certain things.
I would imagine their teenage children would be the ones buying and flaunting off their brand new gold Apple Watches every year.
I'm not saying smart money will be buying the gold model in droves, but there is certainly a big enough market of people that can and will buy new gold Apple watches every year simply to show it off.
Not to sound offensive but I think the gold model will do well in Dubai and China, as well as, in Southern California and Manhattan.
So Arabs, Chinese, and Jews? ????
So Arabs, Chinese, and Jews? ????
Add rappers into the mix as well.
I expect to see Nicki Minaj, Lil Wayne, Dr Dre, and others from the "Beats" side all rocking gold Apple Watches in music videos and photoshoots.
Many of those types won't care if they have to buy a new one 12 months after spending $2k on one.
If an "expert jeweler" thinks that it would cost about $600 to make just the gold watch body, then that's about 2/3 of an ounce of gold. One ounce of 18 k gold goes for about $925 right now.
We all know that many Apple products hold their value pretty well, but that will apply even more so to this watch!
And what if the price of gold doubles ten years after you bought the watch?
I'll take a stab at answering your last question... ...starting with the math for the value if gold doesn't double:
First the cost of the watch and tech piece of the equation (about $350 give or take), is gone - i.e., the guts and tech are e-waste without a case. So, if not being sold as a "working classic (i.e., obsolete) Apple Watch" just scrap metal that has to be recycled....
Second, gold jewelery is sold at retail, and bought back from consumers at some fraction of wholesale (the metal's market value after re-refining).
Third, the percentage of wholesale varies greatly from buyer to buyer. Someone with knowledge of the gold market and access to ethical buyers can get between 80-90% of the "scrap value"... ...those who are less knowledgeable or fortunate are often offered up to 70%, but as low as 50% (or less from slime).
85% of the current market for $600 worth of 18K gold is appx. $504. 70% yields $415.
So, if the watch sells for $1200 today (which seems reasonable for 2/3 of an ounce of 18K and the watch bits - at the margin Apple usually targets) - then a seller would be getting something like 30-40% of their money back.
And even if gold doubles (and if it does in the expected useful lifetime of this watch, we're going to be having other sizable economic problems, e.g., inflation), no, the seller of the metal would not get all their (likely devalued) money back. I.e., in this scenario they'd be getting 60-80% back.
(My bona fides here are that I ran a jewelery store and bought gold from the public. I paid 88%, and so worked on a 12% gross profit, because it wasn't my main business, just a little extra on my jewelery sales. And it helped my rep as a fair businessman because people had often compared a few offers before or after checking mine which were usually considerably better than those in my area.)
The last case, i.e., gold doubles and the watch is sold as a working piece and it's still usefully compatible with a current phone at the time, is harder to estimate as the new watches would be going for well over $2000 at that weight of gold, so a resale market COULD emerge (again, tho' the tech's lifetime is quite shelf-limited) to put a gold Apple Watch within reach.
However, since the device is likely (like Mac notebooks, iPods, iPhones and iPads) to be markedly miniaturized over time, it would likely contain, say, half the weight in gold at that time, and so, still be retailing for $1200 (depending on the degree of currency inflation associated with a crazy gold market), so that would NOT create an "aftermarket" for older, obsoleting watches bought when gold was cheaper.
My customers used to ask me to reassure them that buying gold jewelery was an investment. And I (honestly) assured them it was an investment.... ...a bad one they were highly likely to lose money on, but an investment of sorts, yes. I.e., I urged them to enjoy the aesthetic value of the jewelery while seeing the future scrap value only as a small bonus down the road that they wouldn't get with many other consumer purchases which tend to go to zero.
It is not a traditional luxury watch. The only things in common between Apple Watch and traditional Watch are they both go on your wrist and tell time. You might as well call the iPhone a pocket watch since it tells time and goes in your pocket. Batteries can be replaced and the fact that it is built from durable material will make it last for long time. Maybe not generations but definitely more than two years.. even more than 10 years if you ask me. There are still 1st generation iPhones around and it's been seven years since Apple released it.
The thing most people keep referring to are traditional watches. Just remember teenagers these days don't wear watch.
By your logic Apple missed the boat by not offering a gold-plated iPhone in 2007 for $1500. I could be wrong, but the gold option seems like a real misstep, focusing on fashion instead of mass-market appeal. Up to this point, Apple products have been beautiful and well-crafted, and differentiated by the technology inside, not the outside material. Maybe this new strategy will work, but there's no denying this is a significant departure for Apple.It is not a traditional luxury watch. The only things in common between Apple Watch and traditional Watch are they both go on your wrist and tell time. You might as well call the iPhone a pocket watch since it tells time and goes in your pocket. Batteries can be replaced and the fact that it is built from durable material will make it last for long time. Maybe not generations but definitely more than two years.. even more than 10 years if you ask me. There are still 1st generation iPhones around and it's been seven years since Apple released it.
The thing most people keep referring to are traditional watches. Just remember teenagers these days don't wear watch.
By your logic Apple missed the boat by not offering a gold-plated iPhone in 2007 for $1500. I could be wrong, but the gold option seems like a real misstep, focusing on fashion instead of mass-market appeal. Up to this point, Apple products have been beautiful and well-crafted, and differentiated by the technology inside, not the outside material. Maybe this new strategy will work, but there's no denying this is a significant departure for Apple.
They have the aluminum and stainless steel models for mass-market appeal.
It's great that they added a gold model for the Watch since watches are more fashion focused items than phones anyway.
Your expertise on the gold and jewelry market is much appreciated, and I agree with you about the investment value of gold.
This is the part of your post I don't agree with. The "guts and tech" are not $350. They're selling complete watches with case, internals, crystal, display, battery, and strap for $350. The guts are the smallest part of that, and they actually showed the "S1" module—it's what we used to call 50 years ago a hybrid integrated circuit—everything on one substrate. The whole thing will swap out just as easily as the battery, and while you're having the battery replaced in your $1200 gold ?Watch, you can have the guts replaced, too. It won't cost anything like the price of a whole new low-end watch, and you'll have the current updated tech inside.
Admittedly this is not how Apple works now, but this is the first product they've ever made that the case is the overwhelming majority of the value.
It's the software. That interface is way too busy and complex, both in the number of ways to manipulate it and in the size of the icons and the text. It needs to be much simpler. The knob is a kludge that needs to go. It reminds me of those little levers you used to get on smartphones pre-iPhone.
People back then (2007) were lusting for a widescreen iPod.
Apple surprised them by doing the unthinkable. They offered:
A phone, a widescreen iPod and an internet communicator.
A phone, an iPod and an internet communicator.
A phone, an iPod and ... you get it ?
Its touch based interface was revolutionary as well. Just like the clickwheel was for the original iPod.
What do we have now?
A watch that looks like a mini tablet strapped on your wrist. Shame as its interface could have been revolutionary if it were to be Siri controlled only. The digital crown is a fad. It tries too hard to look like a watch. The original iPhone didn't have a rotary dial either, did it? The iPhone was the Future. One could feel it. I didn't have that feeling with the iWatch. Apple has got a lot of work to do.
Am I the only one who thinks the interface shown was simply a place-holder interface that resembles the current iOS platform. With a device not even shipping for at least 3+ months, that is a lot of time for the copy cats to hack together a very similar looking interface in that time. I think the interface shipping on the final product will be considerably different.
I dunno. I find it hard to believe that there's anything in the Apple Watch worth copying. Its a fail all round. Very disappointing. If the design is the best that Jony and his "dream team" can come up with, then they need to be shown the door. Fast. Looks like "made in Korea".
Why not just leave?
Hey, and think about this: is there any reason the Apple Watch or iPhone6 couldn't include functionality to *accept* Apple pay?
Windmills do not work that way!
Specifically, the system works by generating a cryptographic key from your credit card ID, some sort of personal ID, and your public key. That new key is sent to the bank. Future transactions mix that new key with time and location information to produce a token that can only be decrypted by that new key. At the bank.
That's why any of the companies are even interested. It all still goes to them. All Apple gets is a transaction fee, which is the same as any other POS vendor.
None of that precludes Apple from adding the ability to accept payments. In fact, I would be shocked if neither Apple nor Square added the ability to accept NFC payments (including Apple Pay.)
You must buy a new device every year which is why you missed it.
I dunno. I find it hard to believe that there's anything in the Apple Watch worth copying. Its a fail all round. Very disappointing. If the design is the best that Jony and his "dream team" can come up with, then they need to be shown the door. Fast. Looks like "made in Korea".
Not to me. I can't wait to get one. Actually, I know I'll buy 2 - one for me, one for my wife. It looks well thought out, and very useful.
Windmills do not work that way!
Specifically, the system works by generating a cryptographic key from your credit card ID, some sort of personal ID, and your public key. That new key is sent to the bank. Future transactions mix that new key with time and location information to produce a token that can only be decrypted by that new key. At the bank.
That's why any of the companies are even interested. It all still goes to them. All Apple gets is a transaction fee, which is the same as any other POS vendor.
Well....ok. I guess I still don't understand, and have no idea what a windmill means. Ultimately money I receive has to go to a bank. Is there any technical reason a bank can't deploy an app to allow NFC payments to be received via iPhone/Apple Watch? Would some sort of terminal or dongle be needed?
Your expertise on the gold and jewelry market is much appreciated, and I agree with you about the investment value of gold.
This is the part of your post I don't agree with. The "guts and tech" are not $350. They're selling complete watches with case, internals, crystal, display, battery, and strap for $350. The guts are the smallest part of that, and they actually showed the "S1" module—it's what we used to call 50 years ago a hybrid integrated circuit—everything on one substrate. The whole thing will swap out just as easily as the battery, and while you're having the battery replaced in your $1200 gold ?Watch, you can have the guts replaced, too. It won't cost anything like the price of a whole new low-end watch, and you'll have the current updated tech inside.
Admittedly this is not how Apple works now, but this is the first product they've ever made that the case is the overwhelming majority of the value.
I could have put that better, thanks... ...In assigning a value to the innards of a scrapped-for-gold-value Apple watch, what I meant was that in pulling the electronics and all non-precious metal parts out of the case, everything that made it an iDevice - i.e., the (by the likely time of sale) 2 or more year old electronics, design, software (OS and apps), Apple ecosystem, etc. - for which the bare entry-level price was $350 will have been discounted to zero resale value by the buyer. And most those parts will likely soon be on a boat on the way to Mumbai... ...or wherever e waste in the country of the seller is going. (I say most as there could be value in recovering the crystals and maybe other parts for the repair market.)
So the only thing the gold buyer's paying for is scrap metal for recycle. Scrap gold is fungible... ...the gold in the jewelry (or other gold-containing products you buy may all be fresh-mined or it may contain gold that's been part of 20 other things over a long period of time.
In your other scenario, someone who wants to keep their original model as a piece of jewelery and functional iDevice, you raise an interesting question I hadn't thought of. Battery replacement is certainly feasible, but as the tech evolves, the form factor is 100% likely to change in all three dimensions over time (and in particular to shrink in volume), so I'm personally doubtful there would be an elegant/simple way to install the updated electronics from say, an Apple Watch 3 to fit and work seamlessly.
And the only people likely to want to make an "in-case generational upgrade" would be the owners of the gold ones - which, I imagine won't even reach and certainly won't be more than 1% of the models sold. Also, I'd guess most of the people who buy the $1200 watches - which is actually entry level in the true luxury watch world - would simply take the scrap value and buy the latest model rather than undertake a custom upgrade.
Still, speculating away, Apple may really have a longer term vision of catering to the true 1%. If they do and the Edition models take off... ...then the next step could be going head to head with Movado, Patek Philippe, Tag Heuer, Bvlgari, Rolex, etc... ...so in that case, it's easy enough to envision platinum cases, diamond encrusted models and other exotic designs (with other special Apple features) which would put them in the $12,000 or $120,000 range ruled by the ultra-luxury watchmakers some day.
(Which could have been part of what Ives' remark about the "Swiss makers" quaking in their boots - or however he put it - was alluding to? I guess "time will tell" haha...)
And that would put them in a market that's traditionally created heirlooms, and that conceivably could lead them to offer custom upgrades of old models to keep them compatible with the evolving Apple ecosystem even though it would require special engineering and custom parts for a tiny base.
Interesting. And at least fun to "wool gather" about...
The windmill line was a reference to a Futurama episode. It might have been funny if the guy who said it was right about what he was saying...
And no, there's no reason someone can't come up with a way to accept NFC payments on an iPhone assuming Apple makes the NFC APIs available to developers (or develops the feature themselves).
I've owned one of almost every variety of Apple, Mac, MacBook, iPod, iPhone, iPad and Apple TV (not every model - I'm not rich!). Often friends and colleagues have questioned my judgement, but I've had a lot of fun at home and been super productive at work. Until recently I wore a silver iPod Nano 6 with a Hex Vision Metal (stainless steel, link) Watch Band, but had to stop because the clip on the band broke. The Nano 6 is still going strong!
Now I get to choose an Apple Watch. The 42 mm sport watch will replace my Nano 6 and my Garmin Forerunner 305 (which also just gave up the ghost), but a 38mm Edition will nicely replace my dress watch, but will be too special for running and the gym. Perhaps I'll settle for a stainless steel model? I guess I'll know once I get my hands on the range.
What a beautiful dilemma - the joy of Apple!
ISIS will all have them though.
The windmill line was a reference to a Futurama episode. It might have been funny if the guy who said it was right about what he was saying...
And no, there's no reason someone can't come up with a way to accept NFC payments on an iPhone assuming Apple makes the NFC APIs available to developers (or develops the feature themselves).
Thanks. I don't get the Discovery Channel, so I don't see all those tech shows, I didn't get the reference.
My wife runs a small business, and uses Square. Be nice to offer this too.