It is anything BUT reasonable given the pie-in-the-sky price; it should be more like 300 minutes for any serious buyer - and people still call US trolls...amazing.
It could be that the price is reasonable, that is if it's weight in gold plus $100 equals $10000.
How can you possibly know that without knowing the weight of the gold components in both the case, as well as the gold in the bands?
I wasn't talking about the bands. I had some caculations based on the weight of the edition vs the weight of the equivalent sport (these are given on Apple's web site), taking into account the watering down of the gold by 50% by volume with ceramic. Looks like I was too generous.
Quote:
How much actual gold will be in the Apple Watch Edition? For the models on Apple’s current Edition page, the answer is about half an ounce (current value $640).
I wasn't talking about the bands. I had some caculations based on the weight of the edition vs the weight of the equivalent sport (these are given on Apple's web site), taking into account the watering down of the gold by 50% by volume with ceramic. Looks like I was too generous.
1) I do believe the gold in the bands should be included in any calculation since it does affect the price.
2) Interesting. I hadn't thought to measure the mass against the other watches. Theoretically I guess we could compare ?Watch Sport, ?Watch and ?Watch Edition with the white bands, in the 38mm and 42mm sizes to get an exact number regarding the difference in mass. But wouldn't we still need an exact measurement of the primary metal from one group to determine the weight for the next?
3) As for the Forbes article, the URL title made me shake my head because it's obviously foolish to think gold as part of a product will ever get the full value of gold as an unused precious metal. I'm glad to see the author included, "Update:[…] My original headline was intended rhetorically, not literally," which I'm assuming is because he received negative feedback. Overall the article was worth reading, even if it didn't offer me any new information. Thank you.
Did you know that all generalities are false (except the one I just made!)? So why do y'all keep making so many stupid ones?
These "rich peeeepul" and "po' peeeepul" simply don't exist, save in your perverse imagination.
What WILL exist is the ?Watch. And it WILL have profound effects on this entire ballgame we call "computing."
It's the most personal product Apple has produced, according to Sir Jony. Now that's a very telling statement, if you look at it in the sense that the ?Watch is a new form factor for a computing device. Forget all the competition's junk crap. They're just toys and gimmicks, including whatever TAG Huer/Google might ever come up with.
With an ?Watch on a person's wrist, a huge majority of reasons to pull one's iPhone out of one's pocket or purse will no longer be there. This will have many implications for daily life routines, enhanced convenience, new functions never thought of before, etc., etc.
It's yet another paradigm shift and shift in form factor away from the already convenient and ubiquitous smart phone and to a smaller, more personal, and more accessible "watch." "Watch" is as much a term of convenience as "phone" was for the iPhone. But the ?Watch will be far more than a mere watch, and will of course keep progressing as new technology and new capabilities are incorporated in future editions.
All this yammering is so silly. Simply wait and see for yourselves. Or not.
I agree with your last sentence and feel free to stop yammering. As for the rest.
1) of course poor people and rich people exist.
2) this discussion is on the ?watch edition and not the ?watch in general so the rest of your marketing speak isn't relevant to either my point or the thread.
I think this is more a general guideline and not something they're going to make apparent to the customer. Much like Genius Bar appointments have an allotted amount of time, I have never had one cut short due to time constraints,
I think this is right.
However, the BIGGEST problem I have with this with respect to the Apple "experience", is that going to the Genius bar is usually a last resort effort, and one I'm not looking forward to. In my mind, contacting Apple to make an appointment does not have good associations, regardless of the outcome. It's still a concerted effort that takes time out of my day and forces me to adhere to a schedule.
That said, this is a typically "Apple" solution to a problem I don't see any other obvious solution for. I've rarely been to a jewelry counter where someone wasn't quickly available to wait on me. But jewelry stores, rarely if ever have product launch events that drive people to their stores in these expected numbers (even if people don't intend to buy a watch, the media has hyped it such that curiosity seekers will be out in force). It's seemingly a unique problem solely to Apple. Over time, I suspect the need to make an appointment to look at a watch will go away. Nevertheless, it changes the typical experience for the typical Apple Store visitor, who without an appointment, may be turned away having only gotten a dissapointing glimpse of the watch through a glass display case. It's not the kind of experience that motivates someone to make a purchase.
However, I would like to know who Apple's "select retail partners" are. The biggest problem I see with the ?Watch is that people who don't live near an Apple Store are going to be at a disadvantage otherwise. And how would that work exactly? An ?Watch counter in Macy's? And earlier I asked about restocking fees ... for those who don't live near an Apple Store or "select retailer", mail order seems a logical option, but not if you get it and have to return it 4 times for style, size, or watch bands.
I wasn't talking about the bands. I had some caculations based on the weight of the edition vs the weight of the equivalent sport (these are given on Apple's web site), taking into account the watering down of the gold by 50% by volume with ceramic. Looks like I was too generous.
I love Apple IIs/Macs and have only used them for 25 years now - I also like my iPhone/iPad a lot, as they are the best phones/tablets in the world - finally, I have converted more than 25 people to Macs (and counting)...probably a LOT more than some of the people here, and all that without even caring to own a single Apple share.
That doesn't mean I need to agree with everything Apple does, and particularly not under Cook's uninspired watch (no pun intended).
comparing a computer on your wrist to 400 year old tech on your wrist? LOL.
Guess what? My LiveStrong bracelet NEVER needs a battery charge! LOL
Not exactly, my solar watch uses very current technology and is charged forever.
When Apple can do that (and have a nice price and design), I'm interested.
I wasn't talking about the bands. I had some caculations based on the weight of the edition vs the weight of the equivalent sport (these are given on Apple's web site), taking into account the watering down of the gold by 50% by volume with ceramic. Looks like I was too generous.
If what you say is true weight-wise, that is even more shocking and absurd than initially perceived - I would expect at least 80% of the gold edition price to be, well, based on the international value of gold.
So no, I cannot believe the gold edition has only 800 bucks worth of gold.
comparing a computer on your wrist to 400 year old tech on your wrist? LOL.
Guess what? My LiveStrong bracelet NEVER needs a battery charge! LOL
It's the 400 year old tech which holds it's value, precisely because it is 400 year old. The price is for the materials, the brand, the design, and the status.
Whether the ?Watch edition competes at that level is to be seen. I am sure the lesser priced ?Watches will do fine, however. Particularly in a few generations, although I am going to get a sport just to see whats up.
Over time I think Apple will dominate middle level
Not exactly, my solar watch uses very current technology and is charged forever.
When Apple can do that (and have a nice price and design), I'm interested.
that is absurd - the power requirements of your "solar watch" arent near enough to drive a computer on your wrist. and make no mistake, thats exactly what the AW is. apple already said later this year the APIs will be further unlocked to allow on-device app execution for third-party apps (native apps already do this).
Did you know that all generalities are false (except the one I just made!)? So why do y'all keep making so many stupid ones?
These "rich peeeepul" and "po' peeeepul" simply don't exist, save in your perverse imagination.
What WILL exist is the ?Watch. And it WILL have profound effects on this entire ballgame we call "computing."
It's the most personal product Apple has produced, according to Sir Jony. Now that's a very telling statement, if you look at it in the sense that the ?Watch is a new form factor for a computing device. Forget all the competition's junk crap. They're just toys and gimmicks, including whatever TAG Huer/Google might ever come up with.
With an ?Watch on a person's wrist, a huge majority of reasons to pull one's iPhone out of one's pocket or purse will no longer be there. This will have many implications for daily life routines, enhanced convenience, new functions never thought of before, etc., etc.
It's yet another paradigm shift and shift in form factor away from the already convenient and ubiquitous smart phone and to a smaller, more personal, and more accessible "watch." "Watch" is as much a term of convenience as "phone" was for the iPhone. But the ?Watch will be far more than a mere watch, and will of course keep progressing as new technology and new capabilities are incorporated in future editions.
All this yammering is so silly. Simply wait and see for yourselves. Or not.
A computer as a watch exists almost as long as the digital computer, so nothing new here.
Listening to a person from within a company about the quality (etc) of its products isn't a very clever thing to do.
First introducing a problem and then 'solving' it by even more gear isn't very clever.
To be accepted as a viable solution, the AWatch should of course be completely autonomous.
To me the watch has a high inspector gadget level and seems a solution in want (or in watch) of a problem.
that is absurd - the power requirements of your "solar watch" arent near enough to drive a computer on your wrist. and make no mistake, thats exactly what the AW is. apple already said later this year the APIs will be further unlocked to allow on-device app execution for third-party apps (native apps already do this).
I'm thinking a little bit forward (mind you, not that much), in the meantime other watch solutions are perfect for me.
I still can't get over the fact that their $10,000 watch comes with the cheapest strap in their collection. That's ABSURD. It's obvious they want you to buy the $17k edition or not at all. If I pay 10k for a watch I do not want to walk about with a rubber strap around my wrist, bad bad play on Apples part.
I still can't get over the fact that their $10,000 watch comes with the cheapest strap in their collection. That's ABSURD. It's obvious they want you to buy the $17k edition or not at all. If I pay 10k for a watch I do not want to walk about with a rubber strap around my wrist, bad bad play on Apples part.
1) That strap contains solid 18-kt gold so it's surely not even close to being the cheapest.
2) If you don't want a plastic strap then don't get the plastic strap, but I'm guessing you're not the intended market for ?Watch Edition.
1) That strap contains solid 18-kt gold so it's surely not even close to being the cheapest.
2) If you don't want a plastic strap then don't get the plastic strap, but I'm guessing you're not the intended market for ?Watch Edition.
1. It only proves my point further, they put gold in a PLASTIC strap. That's a horrible and greedy decision. It seriously costs $7,000 more get a leather strap with gold?
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.
1) I do believe the gold in the bands should be included in any calculation since it does affect the price.
2) Interesting. I hadn't thought to measure the mass against the other watches. Theoretically I guess we could compare ?Watch Sport, ?Watch and ?Watch Edition with the white bands, in the 38mm and 42mm sizes to get an exact number regarding the difference in mass. But wouldn't we still need an exact measurement of the primary metal from one group to determine the weight for the next?
3) As for the Forbes article, the URL title made me shake my head because it's obviously foolish to think gold as part of a product will ever get the full value of gold as an unused precious metal. I'm glad to see the author included, "Update:[…] My original headline was intended rhetorically, not literally," which I'm assuming is because he received negative feedback. Overall the article was worth reading, even if it didn't offer me any new information. Thank you.
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.
So it's an extreme ripoff (it is sold with a few dollar sports band!).
Also Apple doesn't state its weight in gold, that's incredible.
People who buy this are insane...
Not exactly, my solar watch uses very current technology and is charged forever.
When Apple can do that (and have a nice price and design), I'm interested.
A computer as a watch exists almost as long as the digital computer, so nothing new here.
Listening to a person from within a company about the quality (etc) of its products isn't a very clever thing to do.
First introducing a problem and then 'solving' it by even more gear isn't very clever.
To be accepted as a viable solution, the AWatch should of course be completely autonomous.
To me the watch has a high inspector gadget level and seems a solution in want (or in watch) of a problem.
Comments
It could be that the price is reasonable, that is if it's weight in gold plus $100 equals $10000.
It could be that the price is reasonable, that is if it's weight in gold plus $100 equals $10000.
The gold in it is worth about $840.
How can you possibly know that without knowing the weight of the gold components in both the case, as well as the gold in the bands?
How can you possibly know that without knowing the weight of the gold components in both the case, as well as the gold in the bands?
I wasn't talking about the bands. I had some caculations based on the weight of the edition vs the weight of the equivalent sport (these are given on Apple's web site), taking into account the watering down of the gold by 50% by volume with ceramic. Looks like I was too generous.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2015/03/08/apple-watch-edition-will-not-be-worth-its-weight-in-gold-but-could-start-at-2999/
1) I do believe the gold in the bands should be included in any calculation since it does affect the price.
2) Interesting. I hadn't thought to measure the mass against the other watches. Theoretically I guess we could compare ?Watch Sport, ?Watch and ?Watch Edition with the white bands, in the 38mm and 42mm sizes to get an exact number regarding the difference in mass. But wouldn't we still need an exact measurement of the primary metal from one group to determine the weight for the next?
3) As for the Forbes article, the URL title made me shake my head because it's obviously foolish to think gold as part of a product will ever get the full value of gold as an unused precious metal. I'm glad to see the author included, "Update:[…] My original headline was intended rhetorically, not literally," which I'm assuming is because he received negative feedback. Overall the article was worth reading, even if it didn't offer me any new information. Thank you.
I agree with your last sentence and feel free to stop yammering. As for the rest.
1) of course poor people and rich people exist.
2) this discussion is on the ?watch edition and not the ?watch in general so the rest of your marketing speak isn't relevant to either my point or the thread.
I think this is more a general guideline and not something they're going to make apparent to the customer. Much like Genius Bar appointments have an allotted amount of time, I have never had one cut short due to time constraints,
I think this is right.
However, the BIGGEST problem I have with this with respect to the Apple "experience", is that going to the Genius bar is usually a last resort effort, and one I'm not looking forward to. In my mind, contacting Apple to make an appointment does not have good associations, regardless of the outcome. It's still a concerted effort that takes time out of my day and forces me to adhere to a schedule.
That said, this is a typically "Apple" solution to a problem I don't see any other obvious solution for. I've rarely been to a jewelry counter where someone wasn't quickly available to wait on me. But jewelry stores, rarely if ever have product launch events that drive people to their stores in these expected numbers (even if people don't intend to buy a watch, the media has hyped it such that curiosity seekers will be out in force). It's seemingly a unique problem solely to Apple. Over time, I suspect the need to make an appointment to look at a watch will go away. Nevertheless, it changes the typical experience for the typical Apple Store visitor, who without an appointment, may be turned away having only gotten a dissapointing glimpse of the watch through a glass display case. It's not the kind of experience that motivates someone to make a purchase.
However, I would like to know who Apple's "select retail partners" are. The biggest problem I see with the ?Watch is that people who don't live near an Apple Store are going to be at a disadvantage otherwise. And how would that work exactly? An ?Watch counter in Macy's? And earlier I asked about restocking fees ... for those who don't live near an Apple Store or "select retailer", mail order seems a logical option, but not if you get it and have to return it 4 times for style, size, or watch bands.
So it's an extreme ripoff (it is sold with a few dollar sports band!).
Also Apple doesn't state its weight in gold, that's incredible.
Hear hear, ha ha.
Not exactly, my solar watch uses very current technology and is charged forever.
When Apple can do that (and have a nice price and design), I'm interested.
If what you say is true weight-wise, that is even more shocking and absurd than initially perceived - I would expect at least 80% of the gold edition price to be, well, based on the international value of gold.
So no, I cannot believe the gold edition has only 800 bucks worth of gold.
comparing a computer on your wrist to 400 year old tech on your wrist? LOL.
Guess what? My LiveStrong bracelet NEVER needs a battery charge! LOL
It's the 400 year old tech which holds it's value, precisely because it is 400 year old. The price is for the materials, the brand, the design, and the status.
Whether the ?Watch edition competes at that level is to be seen. I am sure the lesser priced ?Watches will do fine, however. Particularly in a few generations, although I am going to get a sport just to see whats up.
Over time I think Apple will dominate middle level
Not exactly, my solar watch uses very current technology and is charged forever.
When Apple can do that (and have a nice price and design), I'm interested.
that is absurd - the power requirements of your "solar watch" arent near enough to drive a computer on your wrist. and make no mistake, thats exactly what the AW is. apple already said later this year the APIs will be further unlocked to allow on-device app execution for third-party apps (native apps already do this).
A computer as a watch exists almost as long as the digital computer, so nothing new here.
Listening to a person from within a company about the quality (etc) of its products isn't a very clever thing to do.
First introducing a problem and then 'solving' it by even more gear isn't very clever.
To be accepted as a viable solution, the AWatch should of course be completely autonomous.
To me the watch has a high inspector gadget level and seems a solution in want (or in watch) of a problem.
I'm thinking a little bit forward (mind you, not that much), in the meantime other watch solutions are perfect for me.
I still can't get over the fact that their $10,000 watch comes with the cheapest strap in their collection. That's ABSURD. It's obvious they want you to buy the $17k edition or not at all. If I pay 10k for a watch I do not want to walk about with a rubber strap around my wrist, bad bad play on Apples part.
1) That strap contains solid 18-kt gold so it's surely not even close to being the cheapest.
2) If you don't want a plastic strap then don't get the plastic strap, but I'm guessing you're not the intended market for ?Watch Edition.
1) That strap contains solid 18-kt gold so it's surely not even close to being the cheapest.
2) If you don't want a plastic strap then don't get the plastic strap, but I'm guessing you're not the intended market for ?Watch Edition.
1. It only proves my point further, they put gold in a PLASTIC strap. That's a horrible and greedy decision. It seriously costs $7,000 more get a leather strap with gold?
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.
1) I do believe the gold in the bands should be included in any calculation since it does affect the price.
2) Interesting. I hadn't thought to measure the mass against the other watches. Theoretically I guess we could compare ?Watch Sport, ?Watch and ?Watch Edition with the white bands, in the 38mm and 42mm sizes to get an exact number regarding the difference in mass. But wouldn't we still need an exact measurement of the primary metal from one group to determine the weight for the next?
3) As for the Forbes article, the URL title made me shake my head because it's obviously foolish to think gold as part of a product will ever get the full value of gold as an unused precious metal. I'm glad to see the author included, "Update:[…] My original headline was intended rhetorically, not literally," which I'm assuming is because he received negative feedback. Overall the article was worth reading, even if it didn't offer me any new information. Thank you.
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.
Reading your posts, and seeing your support for another fellow troll BR, you should call yourself knowitnothing, more apt in your case.