Skip to main content

Apple execs discuss $400 price point for wearable with the media, what do you think?

Re/code via sources unknown says today that Apple has been considering the $400 price point for its wearable, expected to be announced on September 9th and available for sale in 2015.

Apple executives have discussed charging around $400 for the company’s new wearable device. Pricing has yet to be finalized for the forthcoming product, which is expected to begin shipping next year.  Sources say consumers should expect a range of prices for different models including lower priced versions.

The price positioning is reminiscent of Apple’s latest product launch, the iPad, in which price points of $1,000 were batted around before Steve Jobs took the stage and conjured up the jaw-dropping $499 starting price point.

But without knowing about the wearable product, how can we judge the price point…

As a price comparison, Samsung, LG and soon Motorola and others will be out on the market with devices in the $200+ range. Fitness bands typically run in the $100 range.  Apple obviously brings a premium hardware and experience to the table.

We’ll be covering Apple’s September 9th Flint Center announcement and all of the last minute details that come out.

Smartwatch landscap

 

 

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. My god. I will never pay 400$ for a smartwatch. I think 200 is enough.

  2. hinezy - 10 years ago

    $400 is a little steep! I was hoping for a $300 price tag! At $400 it’ll be a hard sell on my wife!

  3. OneOkami (@OneOkami) - 10 years ago

    I don’t wear a watch right now and I don’t feel the desire to. $400 would be a very tough sell to me unless this device absolutely floors me with its functionality. I’d likely rather put that money towards upgrading rather upgrade my phone, tablet and Mac.

  4. Joseph DiPierno - 10 years ago

    I can see a diehard fan or a tech user paying that, but the standard social user won’t. They would see a Retina iPad mini for a cheaper price and be confused.

  5. Sam Pineas (@SamPineas) - 10 years ago

    It’ll be a tough sell to most people at that point. In the age of the $200 premier smartphone (iPhone) it’s going to be hard to justify spending double the amount on a watch/fitness tracker, especially since (presumably) it will need to be connected to an iPhone most of the time for data and heavy processing.

    • jorge1170x - 10 years ago

      You forgot to say $200 SUBSIDED premier (*cough*) smartphone. You do know that you end up paying much more than that subsidy is worth in monthly charges, don’t you? Most people are aware of the scam these days so it is a falsehood for anyone to call any flagship device bought from a provider a “$200 phone”.

  6. Joshua Clark - 10 years ago

    I think they should be humble about this and do maybe 250-350.

    • jorge1170x - 10 years ago

      Apple is probably the least humble of all tech corporations…$29 lightning adapters anyone? It is a profit-generating machine for the shareholders ONLY, and there’s really nothing wrong with that – so long as there are dummies with extra cash willing to pay the steep prices, they can/will continue to fleece them, because it’s what a corporation exists to do. The power is in the consumer’s hands to not buy.

  7. JAFO - 10 years ago

    I paid more than $500 for my current analog watch and it does less. However I do think $400 is a bit steep. I’m thinking $299 would be a good price.

  8. Marciano Galarza - 10 years ago

    $400.00 is a bit too steep….. Come on Apple!

  9. rogifan - 10 years ago

    How can anyone discuss a price point when we have no idea what it is they are announcing? “A range of prices for different models” means to me we will see multiple devices so perhaps the more expensive model will be more like jewelry using high end materials/craftsmanship and the cheaper models will be more utilitarian like the fuel band or fitbit.

  10. encogneato - 10 years ago

    $400 Isn’t unreasonable depending on the product of course.

    I’ve paid much more than that for a dumb watch, but I admittedly have a…thing…for watches. The real trick is there is no way I’m paying $400 for the exact same watch 150 million other people will be wearing.

    The Withings Activité is by far the most compelling “smart” watch I’ve seen thus far. I’ll consider one once I see what Apple’s move is. It’s price is listed as $390 on their mobile site and <$500 on their desktop site which doesn't inspire confidence that they've got their shit together though.

  11. Ilko Sarafski - 10 years ago

    Sounds reasonable. But actually really depends on the possibilties of the device… Some 9 days to go… :)

  12. Kyle Dickinson - 10 years ago

    This thing better have a sapphire case on it! I carried a g shock for military work and at a premium price I want something that can take a beating.

  13. Ario (@ArioYazdan) - 10 years ago

    this is way too much for an accessory! $250 max reasonable price

    • jrox16 - 10 years ago

      Depends what it is. A $1300 Tag or $6000 Rolex which both only tell time and date can also be called “accessories” to ones overall outfit, or just plain old jewelry. I think this will be a very polarizing device if premium and expensive. People who don’t wear watches now, probably won’t go for this. People who do but for mainly utility will consider it. People who wear expensive watches might get it as a novelty (they typically have more disposable income anyway).

  14. o0smoothies0o - 10 years ago

    Completely understandable if it has numerous biosensors. If it’s just aimed as an iPhone accessory instead of a stand alone product though, $400 would be far too high.

  15. It’d have to look as nice as watches in the same price range. Features, to me, are only worth $100-$150 dollars.

  16. earz6280 - 10 years ago

    The only way the IWatch would work is if FaceTime would be involved and if it had a super loud speaker to hear those calls. I love Apple and always buy the newest releases, but to me, the iWatch is nothing more than a way to not take your phone out of your pocket to check the time. I can’t see myself holding up my wrist to my ear to take a phone call. Oh wait I have a Bluetooth earpiece. Oh great, an iphone, iWatch and an IEar. I’ll look like a darn cyborg!

    • jorge1170x - 10 years ago

      Once you get used to seeing your incoming texts written out (and calls notified) on your wrist YOU CAN NEVER GO BACK trust me! (I have the most meager of pebbles and it is indispensable to me now)

  17. patstar5 - 10 years ago

    I am hoping for a $150 or less android wear watch. Knowing apple, I won’t be surprise if there watch is $400

  18. Jesi (@jesipr) - 10 years ago

    What do I think? I’m getting a Pebble if the iWatch comes at that price.

  19. Call me cheap but I don’t consider the $499 starting price of an iPad to be “jaw-dropping.” But regarding wearables, like the author said, making a judgment on price without knowing anything about it would be premature.

    • encogneato - 10 years ago

      It’s not now, but it was at the time. All the pre-event press and rumormongering was pointing to $1000 starting price.

      Apple was also able to leverage their economies of scale and it took quite some time before someone else was able to make anything competitively spec’d and competitively prices.

      • taoprophet420 - 10 years ago

        The rumor was for a luxury model most likely partnered or released from a luxury fashion house.

  20. $400?!

    iDontthinkso!

  21. robertsm76 - 10 years ago

    $400 isn’t to high. There will be different versions with different price points so if $400 is to high by a cheaper version.
    I wouldn’t be to shocked if some health insurance companies subsidies these a little. I believe that was even hinted at a few weeks ago.

  22. Michael Racz (@M_Racz) - 10 years ago

    nobody wants wearables…end of story. They are sure not going to pay $400 for one either. I am an Apple fan but this will be another iphone 5c flop. My generation (“Millennials”) do not like smart-watches…we just do not get them. Our phones do it all we do not want another device.

    • jorge1170x - 10 years ago

      I thought the same thing until I bought a cheap pebble…now I can’t imagine not having it.

  23. tamuuli - 10 years ago

    Wow. I would absolutely not pay 400 for a gadget. I understand its hard to comment before knowing details but i can safely say that at that price point i would rather just buy a used ipad or new android phone (alka i would not).

    • tamuuli - 10 years ago

      I would consider paying 250 and even then i would only consider it. Keep in mind, could afford buying gadgets.

  24. taoprophet420 - 10 years ago

    Depends if the $400 is for a FDA approved version of the iWatch. If it has a glucometer and other. Edicts grade sensors then $400 ain’t to much to ask.

    It’s rumored to come in 2 different screen sizes and assume they will be at least a couple of different versions user different materials for the case and straps. My guess Apple will have $249 version with less sensors and more of iPhone accessory and a $400 version with more sensors and higher grade bands and cases.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple releases a cheaper model this year to give them more time to protect assembely for the higher end model Samsung has at least 6 models of smartwatches and think Apple will have at least 2. One being more of health and lifestyle device and other fitness and iPhone accessory.

  25. Maybe these “sources unknown” that leaked the tentative price are within Apple, in line with the article a few days ago about how they sometimes perform controlled leaks of info to gauge customer opinions? Conspiracies! Anyway, $400 is way too much. $600 was too much for an iPhone back in ’06, too. I’ll gladly wait a few years until it comes down to $300 which seems like a sweet spot in terms of what I think most people would want to pay for what’s essentially considered an accessory device.

    • rogifan - 10 years ago

      $400 is too much for what? How can you say it’s too much when you don’t even know what IT is?

      • PMZanetti - 10 years ago

        Because it doesn’t matter WHAT it is. I have a vague idea of what it will be, and no way would I ever spend more than $200 on something like that.

  26. macmaniman - 10 years ago

    i say price aggressively and go for volume, 299$

  27. Ryan Zulkoski - 10 years ago

    If the watch can function without a phone, has GPS (for Nike+ Running), has a SIM card (for emergency calls, texts, streaming music), and can handle at least a little bit of moisture (think rain but not submersion), I would gladly pay $400 or more.

    If it’s like most of the companion smart-watches out there then anything over $300 is a bit steep, even for a fanboy. (Full disclosure: I am one.)

  28. Chet Cutick (@chetcutick) - 10 years ago

    It all depends on what it does. Polar makes fitness watches/monitors that cost close to $500 for some models. At the other end, for about $100 you can get a Fitbit, Jawbone Up, etc. that will keep track of several items as well.

    If all the rumors about an iWatch are true, it may do what all of those do and more. If it can keep track of heart rate without a chest strap, that would be worth a premium. Even so, I don’t know if I would spend $400 for it to replace my Polar FT80 (which was about $200 when I got it.)

    The other thing, I like wearing a regular watch. I would hope that one model of what ever Apple presents is just a wrist band, and not a watch replacement.

  29. Simon Potts (@simoncbp) - 10 years ago

    If like other wearable tech, Apple’s product also relies upon a phone (i.e. iPhone) to do the main processing/storage/connectivity – then any higher price point will be a painful pill for many to swallow, especially if the wearable needs an iPhone 6… A double whammy to the wallet

  30. xbepax4224 - 10 years ago

    well, theres definitely going to be some sort of wearable technology coming from apple because of the health app. Apple doesn’t make apps specifically for third party products. Expect something

  31. May They Live (@umaycme) - 10 years ago

    It depends on what it does I suppose. I own a Garmin 610 that I paid $400 for, so its not really that high of a price, if it does what I want it to do.

  32. Bruno Fernandes (@Linkb8) - 10 years ago

    Models from 200 to about 500 sounds about right. But it’s imperative to have at least one model at a maximum price of $199. Maybe an ultra-premium model at $1000. This high-end model shouldn’t compete with “smart watches” but with any other premium time piece in that price range.

  33. Jared Jones - 10 years ago

    If the iWatch can read blood sugar as it’s been hinted at, than I will gladly pay $400. I’ve been a type 1 diabetic since age 11 and this would be a life changing device. If however it’s just a smart watch/fitness tracker than $400 is way too steep. $199 to $299 is the magic price point to really have a large number of people buy into the product.

    • Bruno Fernandes (@Linkb8) - 10 years ago

      I agree about the blood sugar monitoring, but then that’s a very specialized kind of product that some people will gladly pay a huge premium for. Apple doesn’t sell products to a niche market, they’re strictly mass market. On the high end f price points admittedly, but products with mass appeal nonetheless.

      The thing with a “watch” is they have to go against market forces that have all but decimated the watch industry. Phones were already displacing watches long before the iPhone came around, so Apple needed only to make the case against other phones. With a wearable category, competition against the industry is irrelevant, they have to first convince people to actual wear something on their wrist – if that’s what they’re doing at all.

      Imagine for instance that they were going to release a new Smart Fedora Hat. Might be an easy sell in the 1950’s and 1960’s, but how much work will it be to convert a population into re-adopting hats today?

      It’s an extreme example, but purposeful. They have a significant uphill battle with wearable tech, but I have no doubts they’ll come out ahead and clear on top of everyone else. No one else who has release any kind of smart watch has any hope in hell with existing products if Apple is entering this market. Samsing, Motorola, LG, whomever, might as eel cancel their current and upcoming products right now and save some money – they’re all going to tank.

      • taoprophet420 - 10 years ago

        You have to remmber Steve Jobs had pancreatic cancer and had to constantly monitor his glucose. So I think Apple will put a glucometer in one version of the iWatch. Have been rumors they were seeking FDA approval.

  34. David Tan - 10 years ago

    $400!?!? My wrist will be chop by snatch thief in my country

  35. Nirav Joshi - 10 years ago

    depends on the features it carry. If it has full health sensors, state of the art design, ability to function as a standalone device, and of course full pairing functionality…i might as well pay the high end price. In any case if you buy a good luxury brand watch, you would end up paying something like this.

  36. LMAO! Apple never said they were working on a Smart Watch, they never said the word “iWatch” as a name suggestion and they never ever point out that they will be announcing such thing in this coming event…. And now you are talking about price!??? Whoa!

    • Bruno Fernandes (@Linkb8) - 10 years ago

      Apple never said they were releasing an phone at any time prior to the announcement in 2007, now a tablet prior to the announcement in 2010. Just saying.

      • Bruno Fernandes (@Linkb8) - 10 years ago

        9 to 5 – please add editing to the comment section. Auto correct makes it too easy to make typos and I’m not about to start proofreading now. ;)

  37. monkey2medic - 10 years ago

    2 important factors:

    1. Will this be a standalone product?
    2. Will this product mostly be an accessory to the iPhone?

    With a stand alone product capable of doing more than a standard watch, I would pay more. Heart rate, blood sugar, barometer, GPS, pedometer, and extended battery life. I would pay $350. Casio makes watches where the bezel of the screen recharges battery when sun hits it. Genius. Take notes Apple.

    Secondly, if I must have an iphone to use product and charge every 2 days, it would be a deal breaker for me. He iphone is powerful enough to do most of capablilities the iWatch may have with supplemental purchases. Why have a billion gadgets on my body when the phone can perform 80% of iWatch operations.

    Lastly, price is an issue, but if the product is superior and worth it, I’ll happily spend the money. That’s why many of us are Apple users. we enjoy a premium product that performs better than other products. We pay a little extra for superior products. I’m happy to do it

  38. 400.00 max might be right for the highest end specs. I’m thinking 199, 299, 399 if they have that many variations. Personally, I don’t think I would get one, but you never know. Health app has a lot of potential, but unless you’re into working out or have a medical need, I can’t see the justification. It would be like a 400.00 Apple TV in it’s current form. Nice companion product, but too much to justify. Hell, Apple might shock us (doubt it) and have a 99 variant.

    • o0smoothies0o - 10 years ago

      If it tracked glucose (i.e. blood sugar) non invasively, that’s not just good for diabetics, it’s good for every single living human being. 99% of people don’t understand it, don’t care, or are ignorant to it, but if you could constantly monitor your glucose you would be able to stop and reverse diabetes before it ever happens. You’d also be able to use that information to guide you into significant weight loss, and being healthier from choosing not to eat highly processed carbohydrate laden foods.

      It could help reverse the current epidemic of diabetes, and metabolic syndrome and it’s related diseases. It’s projected to continue and become more of a problem in the future. It’s sort of like climate change in that it needs to start being reversed immediately, in this case, from the reversal of abysmal nutrition.

      • You’re right. I’m not diabetic or anything but I would gladly use this watch to monitor my health all they long plus of course features like you see who’s calling, you see who wrote you a message etc. Then when I see something is wrong with me, I come to doctor and show him the stats on my iPhone and everything.

  39. Kiljoy616 (@Kiljoy616) - 10 years ago

    Sure the price is not bad if it does what it should and makes life easier. Not everyone will be able to justify it but then not everyone drives a 40 thousand dollar and above car. I doubt it will stay at the price once its been out for a time so I expect it to drop closer to 300 in time. Still if you can’t afford it no big deal I am sure there will be plenty of cheaper out in the market to please those who want this kind of accessory.

    • rettun1 - 10 years ago

      Though if you look at pricing of the iPad and iPhone following release, they didn’t really get cheaper. iPhone became 200 with a contract, but they still charged a similar amount for the full price of the phone.

      That is why I am a little skeptical that the price of the wearable will drop over time, especially because this new device seems to have a LOT of advanced tech in it, it’ll need to be small and light, have a good battery, and they will be putting even more into it I’m future generations. So if the starting price is 400, I wouldn’t expect to see it drop past 350

      • encogneato - 10 years ago

        The original iPhone was launched at $499 and was only available ON CONTRACT in the US. I don’t know the full price Cingular/AT&T was paying for them but I’m certain it was more than a new unlocked phone is now. They currently sell $650, a $450 markup from the on contract price making $950 a reasonable guess at the price the carrier was paying in 2007.

      • acslater017 - 10 years ago

        The top-of-the-line large iPad has stayed at $499, but don’t forget we now have a “smaller but just as good” Mini w Retina at $399 and the old Mini at $299. And of course old iPhones drop by $100 every year. So there are different strategies to gradually reaching lower price point.

        Maybe one with a screen and one without that is more dependent on your iPhone? I’m sure there is room for differentiation.

  40. acslater017 - 10 years ago

    $400 is steep, but unsurprising for a first-generation device that will undoubtedly surpass everything currently on the market. I’m sure the high-end price will slowly come down, and lower-priced models offered.

    I’m curious if health insurance companies would be willing to subsidize you if you wear one consistently and send them your data. My company spends $3,000 a year on my insurance – what if I 1) my insurance rates were lowered for exercising regularly or lowering my blood pressure and/or 2) My health insurance subsidizes my iWatch purchase by X dollars?

    The health insurance companies could treat the purchase – and use – of the health device like quitting smoking. It would give them far more precise data than self-reporting surveys and nudge the user towards lower use of their emergency services.

  41. capdorf - 10 years ago

    I own various AppleProducts, I like them. I own a watch worth $100 that tells the time, if it was digital it would be worth much less. With the present bunch of Smart watches I can’t see that I have a need or want, for them.
    For me to buy an Apple watch, it would have to be something special for me to pay $200 and to pay more, would need to be miraculous. But I must admit that, being diabetic, a blood glucose reader would entice me to pay a little more, Though I don’t know how it would work, without access to my blood.

    • taoprophet420 - 10 years ago

      It use light sensors that analyze glucose molecules, the glucose molecule produces a signature that is translated into a glucose value.

  42. David Comidi - 10 years ago

    400 is too much

  43. I think that $400 is too much, I think anywhere form $200-$300 would be reasonable.

  44. Felipe Castillo (@fcs132) - 10 years ago

    $149 sounds like a great price :)

  45. chrisl84 - 10 years ago

    With no knowledge of what all it can do and how well it can do it how would anyone know if 400 is a fair price…

  46. borntofeel - 10 years ago

    400 is too much. i would love it at 300. Make it at 350 and people will still buy it though.

  47. Dave Nelson - 10 years ago

    I’ll buy a used iWatch 2 for $99 when iWatch 3 ships.

  48. benzben070 - 10 years ago

    $400 ????? how many are they planning to sell, only 500,000 ?

  49. Stetson - 10 years ago

    I think that the wearables are going to take the place of the iPod line in Apple’s product lineup. Everything from $50 to $300+. There will be different colors and styles that change every year or two for technology and fashion reasons, just like the iPods have over the years.

    • o0smoothies0o - 10 years ago

      They wouldn’t have enough storage to act as an iPod and it couldn’t possibly replace the iPod touch because that’s an inherently different product.

      • Stetson - 10 years ago

        I didn’t mean they would serve the technological purpose of being an iPod that holds and plays music. I meant that they would serve the business/product niche of having small fashionable electronic devices in the $50-$300 range.

        Back at the height of the iPod it would be a big deal every year when new iPod shuffles / nanos / minis / video were released in new colors and styles. I think the wearables might have a chance to be that sort of product for Apple.

      • Stetson - 10 years ago

        To further clarify I don’t think the iPods are going away at all, I’m just comparing a hypothetical wearable lineup to the iPod lineup back when iPods were a big deal.

  50. PMZanetti - 10 years ago

    If I understand this product correctly, $400 is too much. In the neighborhood of max $200.

    Who do they think will buy these things? Firstly, I don’t see this as a product women would buy. I just don’t. And that cuts out 50% of the market. Even more if you consider the men that might want to buy it, but fear the wrath of the woman in his life that does not sympathize with the need for the purchase…especially at $400.

    • encogneato - 10 years ago

      Think more along these lines than along Android Wear:

      http://www.withings.com/activite/en-US

    • cjt3007 - 10 years ago

      Women wear watches… why would you think only men wear watches?

      • Archie Garcia - 10 years ago

        Women wear watches. They don’t wear smartwatches. I’ve even asked many people that I know who are girls and they said they would not buy or wear a smart watch. Only those women who are pretty tech savy would probably have an interest in them.

      • André Hedegaard Petersen - 10 years ago

        @Archie,
        I think you’re wholly wrong on this.
        Women are not logical at all.
        When computers came out to be popular in the 80’s they didn’t partake in using them at all.
        Its only when computers became more incorporated in the world, did they finally take to them.
        And at that time it was just to play tetris and surf.
        Now in the modern age, look how many girls/women text/facebook and other time wasting nonsense on their phones?
        So of course a smart watch will appeal to them as well, especially if it compliments their make up handbags, shoes and other intangible, illogical stuff.
        Taking selfies on the iWatch is an absolute must for girls too. They’ll take to it. Just wait and see.

    • acslater017 - 10 years ago

      I think when you consider all the possibilities – health, fitness, mobile payments, home automation, navigation – men and women alike will enjoy it. And if you’re concerned about style, I’m pretty sure the Burberry, Nike and Yves Saint Laurent hires will make sure it’s stylish.

      • encogneato - 10 years ago

        Don’t forget Tag Heuer. They might know a thing or two about watch design.

  51. Barry Kushner - 10 years ago

    My Garmin Approach is 440$. Should Apple’s watch be cheaper?

  52. Edward (@archurban) - 10 years ago

    wow, freaking piece of watch for $499? nobody will buy it. it is too much expensive. the most important is that I don’t care. I used to get so much interesting on apple before. but it’s all gone since Steve is gone. apple is just another company for me.

  53. cjt3007 - 10 years ago

    My current watch was about $400-$500… And at its most basic level, is an analogue watch that also displays the current day of the month.

  54. archie0527 - 10 years ago

    No way. Even though the value of an iPhone 5 16gb is $400 I think, most of us would spend $200 contracts, and there is no way I’m paying for watch that costs more then the amount that I paid for my phone. I think $200 would be a very reasonable price for an iWatch that probably costs Apple not nearly the amount that it does to make the phone

  55. bellevueboy - 10 years ago

    Hmm really? 400$?few thoughts,
    1. Iwearable is unlikely to be a standalone product, it will need an iphone or iPad to work with. Needless to say it will work best with the latest models of either. Overall an expensive deal.

    2. Remember the first gen iphone launched at $600 another the price drop after 2 months?

    3. I m willing to pay that price if it’s totally cool like I can scan my finger on the screen authenticate myself and then my watch unlocks my house.

    • capdorf - 10 years ago

      To unlock your house, along with other possibilities, means that there is a lot of extra cost. So $400 is just the start.

    • bellevueboy - 10 years ago

      now that we have seen the product and price i m ok with it for few reasons,
      1. its less than $400 and less than my current Tissot.
      2. It works with my current iPhone 5s so,
      2.1 I don’t need to buy bigger phones which i don’t like
      2.2 I don’t need to spend min of $200+$400
      3. Payment with watch was exactly kind of application i was looking for,i don’t want to even take out my phone from my pocket.its just perfect.
      4. I think we are not even scratching the surface of possibilities that come with the apps on the watch. I heard a mention of a walkie talkie I see my wife and I use it.
      but there is one more thing;) ;) …they are just so damn cool.
      I

  56. Configcrazy - 10 years ago

    It’s too pricey !

  57. Ryan DeRocco - 10 years ago

    Yikes. I’ve been using an LG G3 and G-watch, actually waiting for the bigger screen iPhone so I can go back, because to be quite honest, I miss my Apple products like crazy. I also have a Pebble. I love Smartwatches, once you own one, they’re hard to live without.
    However, $400 for one is just crazy. I mean, come on guys, we’re Apple nerds. how many of us are going to be ok with going for the “cheap” version? We always want the best one possible, and that won’t change with the watch.

    I don’t know if this is possible with Android, but pebble works on both systems. If Samsung or LG really want to get to Apple, why not create a Smartwatch that could work with iOS, and undercut them on price? If that Moto 360 worked on iOS, I would wear the crap out of that with my iPhone 6!

    • jorge1170x - 10 years ago

      I don’t think Apple will ever give their competition the necessary code to do it! I too have a pebble and can’t live without it after pooh-poohing it a lot myself. The Moto 360 was cool until I heard LG will be coming out with it’s own round face smartwatch that does not have the “flat-tire” look at the bottom.

  58. “Price aggressively and go for volume”
    299€ for Portugal

  59. Jay - 10 years ago

    A $400 watch would have to be absolutely amazing compared to the Moto 360 before I’d consider it … and that’s not very likely. Waiting for official announcements.

  60. Mark Dowling - 10 years ago

    Why is everyone concerned about what price they want to charge us. We don’t even know what it does yet. As the question again after Sept 9th.

  61. André Hedegaard Petersen - 10 years ago

    “jawdropping 499$ starting price point” ??!?!?!? Jawdropping?!?!?
    As if that was super cheap for the original iPad.

    • encogneato - 10 years ago

      It was if you remember. It took quite a while before anyone else could match Apple on specs & price.

  62. sardonick - 10 years ago

    No.

  63. abelq16 - 10 years ago

    Nobody would buy it if it was $400. That’s way too much for a smartwatch; it’s more than an iPhone on contract! I highly doubt they’ll price it that high, and if they do that would be a huge mistake.

  64. Dan (@danmdan) - 10 years ago

    $400+ = FAIL $299 or less = NOT FAIL !

    But beware this article my just be another of Apple’s unofficial “leaked” surveys.

  65. valterb - 10 years ago

    I’m a runner and I own a Garmin Forerunner 620. It’ a sort of smartwatch for us runners, but really far from what we expect from any isomething. Well it costs 429$ at amazon. So 400$ for an amazing ihourglass could be the price.

  66. Spring winding watch will top oxymoron techno!

  67. Ale (@AleVeniceCity) - 10 years ago

    Why should an adult person, with likely a nice watch already, go around with a smart watch in place of his/her Tissot, Casio, Rolex, etc. and charge its battery every single day (knowing the poor battery life of Apple products..)?
    I believe this kind of accessories are made for fitness or similar purposes, not for everyday’s life.
    I’m an Apple client since ages, but I can’t find the value in such an accessory.

  68. Archie Garcia - 10 years ago

    I mean that’s only $100 less then the freakin iPad! Even is this is the most advanced feature rich smart watch on the market when it comes out, there’s no way I’m payng $400, probably not even $300, for a smartwatch. Even if it does have my favorite company’s logo on it.

  69. I know Apple will over price this, you only need look at ANY cable they make to see this. I personally feel 200-250 would be reasonable, anymore than that and it’s just another device people will struggle to afford. Apple for once should think about it’s user base and not it’s bottom line. I expect to see this at $400/£400..

  70. missaligo - 10 years ago

    Well, you all say you will never pay $400 for this iWatch thing and you compare it with Samsung Gear which costs about $150… But there is one problem: Apple’s wearable definitely won’t be as dumb as samsungs watches and it will contains a lot of smart sensors and expensive hardware. It will have a great design and I’m sure after Sept 9th no one will question this price. :)

    //Btw: It was the same situation before first iPhone was introduced. Everyone (Steve Ballmer included) says “No one will buy mobile phone for this price.” And can you see today’s situation? :)

  71. $400 would be okay for the top-end model with all the bells and whistles. At least from what we’ve been made to expect the watch to carry and be made of.

    I would be happy seeing the iWatch range from 200 to 400, assuming it’s more than a fitness band with a watch. If the base model is a smartwatch without the health sensors, I’d put it no more than 250 (with 250 being a *high* price). Then the health-sensor-laden version could be from 50 to 150 higher, depending on what it carries.

    Apple, imo, should ask themselves this while differentiating prices:

    Is the price-VS-features difference such that it doesn’t make going for the higher model a no-brainer?

    That’s what they missed with the 5S-vs-5C, as I see it. The actual price difference was lower than the perceived price (value) difference. Then of course the pricing will depend on what market segments they’re after. We’ll see soon enough anyway…

  72. Johan Norberg (@njohan) - 10 years ago

    Well they did say the same thing about iPhone when it was first released, and now almost every advance smartphone has the same price tag as Apple. I really hope the manage to push the iWatch far forward in advance + good battery + that its weather recistens.

  73. Lars Pallesen - 10 years ago

    My guess: Apple is throwing around the $400 price point to push our expectations toward the pricey end of the spectrum. That way the iWatch will seem like a bargain when Apple announces the selling price of only $199. Same thing they did with the iPad, when they let rumors slip of a $1000 price point in advance, only to triumphantly announce a selling price of “only $499” – which was now seen as “surprisingly low”. In short; the strategy worked. And they’re betting the same strategy will work for the iWatch too. It’s gonna cost $199.

  74. I collect watches. And I have a lot of Apple products. So I will probably buy one at any price point.

  75. Dane Udenberg - 10 years ago

    Really, only $400? Not enough. They’ll have to pay me significantly more than that to go back to wearing a watch. :-)

  76. Roger J. Caldwell - 10 years ago

    Not interested at all. I stopped wearing a watch years ago. I always have my phone, tablet or other computing device with me, so a watch became a single purpose duplication that is extraneous. *IF* I ever decided that I wanted to carry a watch again, I would never consider one that was even $100.00 much less $400.00.

  77. jakexb - 10 years ago

    To me this sounds like price anchoring. Convince everyone it’s $400 then anything below that sounds like a deal.

  78. Gabriel Hutchinson - 10 years ago

    $300 – $400 seems reasonable to me. Assuming that it can do all we can hope it can.

  79. Devin Beaudoin - 10 years ago

    $400 will not go over well… although Apple customers are typically used to paying Apple Tax, $400 for a wearable just isn’t logical. With every competitor’s wearable between $70 – $300 (at the most), a $400 price point is ridiculous and will not sell.

  80. The AbandonedOK Team - 10 years ago

    Nope. I’d bet money on a $199-$299 entry price point. Non-subsidized though, but the highest apple will go will be $399. But I’m sticking with my $199 entry price. Rubber/plastic band. $299-$399, metal band.

    • The AbandonedOK Team - 10 years ago

      Sorry. Rubber/plastic band, $199-$299, metal band, $399

  81. Truffol (@Truffol) - 10 years ago

    As it won’t be a subsidized product like the iPhone…$400 makes pretty good sense. But it better be a darn nice watch – comparable in craftsmanship and materials to at least $300+ “regular” watches

  82. herb02135go - 10 years ago

    Four dollars or four-hundred

    • herb02135go - 10 years ago

      Either way it will flop.
      Watch makers are losing money for a reason.

      • o0smoothies0o - 10 years ago

        Wow you’re really not intelligent. Watch makers losing money has literally nothing to do with the potential for an iWatch. You are far too clueless to even imagine what this device will do. Just stupid people commenting on things they know nothing about.

  83. Overlord - 10 years ago

    iWatch with Touch ID on the sapphire screen…

  84. Kevin A (@kevinsky) - 10 years ago

    That’s a bit steep. I don’t think I’d go more than 200.
    My hope for an iWatch is actually an iPod Nano replacement. Replace the Nano line with something like the 2011 Nano, only nicer and slimmer, with a watch band option, and with all the expected smart watch functions to link with your phone. That way they can just call it an iPod and say “we’ve been making these for 15 years, now it has these smartwatch features too”

    • Kevin A (@kevinsky) - 10 years ago

      An additional bonus for this is that they’d sell a lot to people who’d happily buy an iPod Nano alongside their iPhone, but aren’t sold on buying a smart watch yet. It would be a stealth smart watch.

  85. Nacho Castejón - 10 years ago

    Discussing price points before we know about the thing is ridiculous. I think some current offerings about 200$ are expensive. If Apple comes up with a device that can continually measure pulse, blood pressure, perspiration, oxygen levels, sugar in blood and whatnot, and do it in a luxury enclosure you can wear without looking geek, it will be cheap for 1000$.

Author

Avatar for Seth Weintraub Seth Weintraub

Publisher and Editorial Director of the 9to5/Electrek sites.


Seth Weintraub's favorite gear