I think if it sells for $5000 you could sell it for $15,000 in 20 years if its unopened. At most you would probably need to replace the battery if the collector wants to acutally use it.
You should be able to earn a better rate of return than that just by putting your money in a mutual fund for 20 years. If you bought actual decent stocks (like AAPL) you could expect far more.
I make no pretentious about my expertise in the fashion world. I know what I like and what I dont. I also know Vogue promotes the cutting edge of style and fashion which often change radically from season to season. Their well paid advertisement praising the watch today, may not survive even into the Fall. Apples usual trend of creating a product that remains unchanged in the marketplace for two or three years without changing its design cues is not going to fly in the fashion world. Add to that that Vogue reports on the trends on the bleeding edge of fashion, often endorse designs you would most likely find not to your liking. The fact you happen to agree with Paris Vogue on their current assessment of the ?Watch is no gurantee of anything in the fashion world.
I don't think the ?Watch is particularly attractive or stylish. However, I think it looks pretty good for what it purports to do. If Paris Vogue thinks that's the cutting edge of fashion, then that supports my opinion of their model wearing "mom" jeans. If that's the height of fashion at the moment -- I think I'll pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
You tell me. Did the original iPhone run Apps, and why?
I think I made the mistake of assuming that there might be something even halfway smart in your posts that I might have been missing.
I was quite mistaken, apparently. My apologies. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I find it amusing that people stopped wearing watches because they had a phone in their pocket and that the company that sold us millions of smart phones is now going to replace that watch that we stopped wearing because of the phone that they sold us. It's shiny, I want it.
The phone's replace the watches time function and that's why this went away. But, if this introduces some new functionality, the watch and phone can have complementary, mostly non overlapping functions. They can both exist. That's one of the issues that exist with Android Wear; making it too much like a small phone.
For something I'd say not. There are consensus opinions that say, velvet paintings are ugly :-), though plenty of Elvis ones got made.... So, some people bought them.
First edition iPhones are already high-priced collectors items. that's what happens with limited supplies of first edition products. Even the TAM and Steve Job's beloved Cube fetch top dollar on the collectors market. Both of which were commercial failures. And it hasn't been anything like a generation for those produc.
People have stopped wearing watches? How do you then explain that 1.2B watches were sold last year (as melgross posted -- and cited -- the other day)?
I stopped wearing mine only because I can't wear both it and my Jawbone on the same wrist. But I greatly miss wearing one, so the ability to regain a watch while keeping the fitness tracking capabilities is sublime.
There are not many stocks like AAPL. AAPL is not a decent stock. It is one of the most amazing stocks of all time. Good luck finding those type of stocks consistently.
Getting a 200% return in 10 years is very good.
The last 10 years the S&P500 is only up 70% and that's with a massive BULL run the last 5 years. If you go from 2000-2010 your return is basically ZERO.
You just switched from 20 years (in your initial Apple Watch as investment post) down to 10 years now. That's a huge difference. The stock markets all look much better with any 20 year spread than with some of the recent 10 year spreads. I only own about 14 stocks, but MMM with dividend reinvestment is up almost 200% in 7 years and that's with purchase right before the crash. ABT and KRFT (when counting their spun off companies) and dividend reinvestment are also closing in on that. And those are all DOW quality stocks not small cap lucky guesses.
Does the watch have a normal lithium rechargeable battery? If so, It might be a problem in terms of investment value as lithium rechargeables start to degrade from the minute they are manufactured.
I think if it sells for $5000 you could sell it for $15,000 in 20 years if its unopened. At most you would probably need to replace the battery if the collector wants to acutally use it.
Just a thought, but perhaps you would be better off with $5,000 of AAPL or some other stock. In 20 years you ought to be able to make a better return on investment some other way. Perhaps just by buying gold.
Watches tend to work for very long time. Electronics tend to fail in a few years.
I wish Apple will have some "core replacement" programs that can swap out old electronics with new ones, and preserve the watch perfectly. I think they can engineer such a solution from day one, and I look forward to seeing or hearing it reported by someone ... :p
The majority of watches sold fail pretty quickly as well, honestly.
I'd take 8-10% annual return on any investment any day.
Additionally unlike stocks the Watch will always be worth something because of the Gold content.
I agree Stocks/funds/bonds should make up the bulk of investments but this Watch thing might be a good supplemental investment now that the stock market is at all time highs. And of course if you are just an Apple fan, added bonus.
The Apple Watch tripling in value (from a presumed $5000 to $15,000) in 20 years would only be a 5.65% compounded rate of return. That's definitely not bad and the gold will always be worth something, but with stocks you can generally get in the range of 8-10% compounded return.
I make no pretentious about my expertise in the fashion world. I know what I like and what I dont. I also know Vogue promotes the cutting edge of style and fashion which often change radically from season to season. Their well paid advertisement praising the watch today, may not survive even into the Fall. Apples usual trend of creating a product that remains unchanged in the marketplace for two or three years without changing its design cues is not going to fly in the fashion world. Add to that that Vogue reports on the trends on the bleeding edge of fashion, often endorse designs you would most likely find not to your liking. The fact you happen to agree with Paris Vogue on their current assessment of the ?Watch is no gurantee of anything in the fashion world.
I don't think the ?Watch is particularly attractive or stylish. However, I think it looks pretty good for what it purports to do. If Paris Vogue thinks that's the cutting edge of fashion, then that supports my opinion of their model wearing "mom" jeans. If that's the height of fashion at the moment -- I think I'll pass.
You don't know much about watches, do you? If you look at high end watches, you'll find that quite a lot would be considered ugly by the average persons standards. The Apple Watch is actually quite nice. It has a bit of an Art Deco look to it, and the lines flow very well.
I think I made the mistake of assuming that there might be something even halfway smart in your posts that I might have been missing.
I was quite mistaken, apparently. My apologies. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Agree. His posts are just taking pot shots, not trying to add anything of value. Trying to claim that Apple makes mistakes because the first iPhone didn't support apps is along the same lines as saying Windows 1.0 was a failure because it didn't have al the features of Windows 95.
Yeah sure, I'll try: so, do you think you accepted his premise when you said, "people stopped... because..."?
The subset of people that did stop?
Yes I accept that's why. Once someone owns a phone they would be much more likely to drift off the habit (if they'd ever started) of wearing a watch. I still do because of work, often my hands are contaminated and gloved so having a wrist display is a safety issue versus handling my phone.
Given: "
People stopped wearing watches because the function was duplicated with their phones* while the phones did a lot more in addition, similarly the Apple device will extend functionality and not be a return to just having the time displayed on your wrist.
There may be some of that where people already wearing a simple timepiece replace it with an Apple device, but the issue is all the others who'll use it for the other functions, with the time display as a modest extra."
While I did not accept and attempted to counter the underlying premise that the Apple device is more or less (my interpretation) a return to the previous state as I judge the Apple device offers additional functionality as it expands the phone experience and doesn't simply replicate the timepiece function.
*So clearly the people who had phones not the entire set of watch wearers. I've no issue with a lot of watches still being sold: the planet has 7,227,171,200** occupants as of Noon EST, so there's room for variation.
You don't know much about watches, do you? If you look at high end watches, you'll find that quite a lot would be considered ugly by the average persons standards. The Apple Watch is actually quite nice. It has a bit of an Art Deco look to it, and the lines flow very well.
Indeed, if they can clear the copyright issues I'd like an option to have the Cartier Tank face be my default time display...
The Apple Watch is actually quite nice. It has a bit of an Art Deco look to it, and the lines flow very well.
Jony Ive and his design team got themselves a very good baseline for the future. The ? watch will gradually evolve into its own archetype, just like the iPhone and iPad. It is what Apple design is known for, their relentless pursuit to unclutter the product experience.
I find it amusing that people stopped wearing watches because they had a phone in their pocket and that the company that sold us millions of smart phones is now going to replace that watch that we stopped wearing because of the phone that they sold us. It's shiny, I want it.
..and that's the genius of Apple. The only company that can revolutionize the phone, and then do it again with the Watch. They will be the ones to make smartwatches completely mainstream, as they did with smartphones.
Comments
You should be able to earn a better rate of return than that just by putting your money in a mutual fund for 20 years. If you bought actual decent stocks (like AAPL) you could expect far more.
I make no pretentious about my expertise in the fashion world. I know what I like and what I dont. I also know Vogue promotes the cutting edge of style and fashion which often change radically from season to season. Their well paid advertisement praising the watch today, may not survive even into the Fall. Apples usual trend of creating a product that remains unchanged in the marketplace for two or three years without changing its design cues is not going to fly in the fashion world. Add to that that Vogue reports on the trends on the bleeding edge of fashion, often endorse designs you would most likely find not to your liking. The fact you happen to agree with Paris Vogue on their current assessment of the ?Watch is no gurantee of anything in the fashion world.
I don't think the ?Watch is particularly attractive or stylish. However, I think it looks pretty good for what it purports to do. If Paris Vogue thinks that's the cutting edge of fashion, then that supports my opinion of their model wearing "mom" jeans. If that's the height of fashion at the moment -- I think I'll pass.
You tell me. Did the original iPhone run Apps, and why?
I think I made the mistake of assuming that there might be something even halfway smart in your posts that I might have been missing.
I was quite mistaken, apparently. My apologies.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I find it amusing that people stopped wearing watches because they had a phone in their pocket and that the company that sold us millions of smart phones is now going to replace that watch that we stopped wearing because of the phone that they sold us. It's shiny, I want it.
The phone's replace the watches time function and that's why this went away. But, if this introduces some new functionality, the watch and phone can have complementary, mostly non overlapping functions. They can both exist. That's one of the issues that exist with Android Wear; making it too much like a small phone.
I find it amusing that people stopped wearing watches because ....
People stopped wearing watches because ....
People have stopped wearing watches? How do you then explain that 1.2B watches were sold last year (as melgross posted -- and cited -- the other day)?
Taste is subjective.
For something I'd say not. There are consensus opinions that say, velvet paintings are ugly :-), though plenty of Elvis ones got made.... So, some people bought them.
Ever heard of ROLEX?
For someone who admits they don't know NOTHING about fashion you should spew alot about fashion.
Seriously dude. Just stop.
Every time someone slams the design I can't help but think of what is arguably THE classic watch design: The Cartier Tank. "Just" a rectangle....
Picked up my Cube last year, still need a TAM.
I stopped wearing mine only because I can't wear both it and my Jawbone on the same wrist. But I greatly miss wearing one, so the ability to regain a watch while keeping the fitness tracking capabilities is sublime.
People have stopped wearing watches? How do you then explain that 1.2B watches were sold last year (as melgross posted -- and cited -- the other day)?
I was addressing the argument put up by the poster I responded to.
Want to try?
You just switched from 20 years (in your initial Apple Watch as investment post) down to 10 years now. That's a huge difference. The stock markets all look much better with any 20 year spread than with some of the recent 10 year spreads. I only own about 14 stocks, but MMM with dividend reinvestment is up almost 200% in 7 years and that's with purchase right before the crash. ABT and KRFT (when counting their spun off companies) and dividend reinvestment are also closing in on that. And those are all DOW quality stocks not small cap lucky guesses.
I was addressing the argument put up by the poster I responded to.
Want to try?
Yeah sure, I'll try: so, do you think you accepted his premise when you said, "people stopped... because..."?
it will be a collectors item.
A collector will not use the watch.
I think if it sells for $5000 you could sell it for $15,000 in 20 years if its unopened. At most you would probably need to replace the battery if the collector wants to acutally use it.
Just a thought, but perhaps you would be better off with $5,000 of AAPL or some other stock. In 20 years you ought to be able to make a better return on investment some other way. Perhaps just by buying gold.
The majority of watches sold fail pretty quickly as well, honestly.
The Apple Watch tripling in value (from a presumed $5000 to $15,000) in 20 years would only be a 5.65% compounded rate of return. That's definitely not bad and the gold will always be worth something, but with stocks you can generally get in the range of 8-10% compounded return.
You don't know much about watches, do you? If you look at high end watches, you'll find that quite a lot would be considered ugly by the average persons standards. The Apple Watch is actually quite nice. It has a bit of an Art Deco look to it, and the lines flow very well.
I think I made the mistake of assuming that there might be something even halfway smart in your posts that I might have been missing.
I was quite mistaken, apparently. My apologies.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Agree. His posts are just taking pot shots, not trying to add anything of value. Trying to claim that Apple makes mistakes because the first iPhone didn't support apps is along the same lines as saying Windows 1.0 was a failure because it didn't have al the features of Windows 95.
Yeah sure, I'll try: so, do you think you accepted his premise when you said, "people stopped... because..."?
The subset of people that did stop?
Yes I accept that's why. Once someone owns a phone they would be much more likely to drift off the habit (if they'd ever started) of wearing a watch. I still do because of work, often my hands are contaminated and gloved so having a wrist display is a safety issue versus handling my phone.
Given: "
People stopped wearing watches because the function was duplicated with their phones* while the phones did a lot more in addition, similarly the Apple device will extend functionality and not be a return to just having the time displayed on your wrist.
There may be some of that where people already wearing a simple timepiece replace it with an Apple device, but the issue is all the others who'll use it for the other functions, with the time display as a modest extra."
While I did not accept and attempted to counter the underlying premise that the Apple device is more or less (my interpretation) a return to the previous state as I judge the Apple device offers additional functionality as it expands the phone experience and doesn't simply replicate the timepiece function.
*So clearly the people who had phones not the entire set of watch wearers. I've no issue with a lot of watches still being sold: the planet has 7,227,171,200** occupants as of Noon EST, so there's room for variation.
** http://www.census.gov/popclock/
You don't know much about watches, do you? If you look at high end watches, you'll find that quite a lot would be considered ugly by the average persons standards. The Apple Watch is actually quite nice. It has a bit of an Art Deco look to it, and the lines flow very well.
Indeed, if they can clear the copyright issues I'd like an option to have the Cartier Tank face be my default time display...
The Apple Watch is actually quite nice. It has a bit of an Art Deco look to it, and the lines flow very well.
Jony Ive and his design team got themselves a very good baseline for the future. The ? watch will gradually evolve into its own archetype, just like the iPhone and iPad. It is what Apple design is known for, their relentless pursuit to unclutter the product experience.
I find it amusing that people stopped wearing watches because they had a phone in their pocket and that the company that sold us millions of smart phones is now going to replace that watch that we stopped wearing because of the phone that they sold us. It's shiny, I want it.
..and that's the genius of Apple. The only company that can revolutionize the phone, and then do it again with the Watch. They will be the ones to make smartwatches completely mainstream, as they did with smartphones.