It’s your last chance to guess what Apple Watch will cost ahead of today’s ‘Spring Forward’ event where CEO Tim Cook and company are expected to fill us in on pricing, availability, and hopefully preorders.
We know Apple Watch will start at $349, likely for the Sport model, but what we’re really interested in is the starting price for the most expensive model(s): the 18k gold Apple Watch Edition and the stainless steel Apple Watch with stainless steel band (pictured above).
Polls for both of these are below, but feel free to tell us your predictions for pricing on the entire lineup in the comments. Our own roundup of what we expect to see announced today is here.
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
Too much based on raw materials cost . . . .
IF Apple pulls it off – Priceless.
Priceless indeed. What I’m excited to see most around the $700 price range again is Apple’s share price.
LOL!
That would be bananas since it would be equivalent to a $4900 stock price pre-split. Apple’s market cap would be $3.7 Trillion lol!
Unless they do a massive stock buyback.
Well, it’s using a material that costs about $900 an ounce, which is an expensive and a large part of the cost of the unit. How many ounces are used in the finished product? 1, 2, 3? Apple has to maintain certain profit margins and some of these watches will be sold through the resellers at a discount, unless they limit the Gold model to only Apple Stores at full MSRP. I have no idea how much gold they start out with before they end up with the finished product and how much gold is lost during the mfg process that isn’t reclaimed and remelted down for another device. They have to consider the total cost to mfg including loss of Gold.
it will cost more than I will spend on a watch.
but I don’t see any need for a FitBit type thing, and thanks to my iPhone, I also stopped wearing watches.
I stopped wearing watches because I have to get a new band for mine and i hate spending $100 on a decent watch band that looks good for the watch that I own. Call me cheap, I just don’t like spending $100 on a freaking watch band. The thing is like a stick of gum, and they want $100 for the thing. It’s stuff like that pisses me off. I’ve been trying to get a watch band discounted on-line, but the problem is that it requires a strange width that’s not as common as other sizes and what I’ve found so far is either too expensive or cheap looking and to get an authentic watch band like i originally had is too hard to get since no one carries it. It’s a very rare model Movado watch they don’t make anymore and it came with a watch band I haven’t seen anyone carry, so I went with a more generic watch band that’s now falling apart. yada, yada, yada, I hate spending $100 on a watch band. I’m just that way………
I’m going on-record with:
Sport 38/42mm – $349 / $399 +
Stainless 38/42mm – $499 / $549 +
Additional bands: Elastomer $49, Leather $99, Milanese $149, Link $199
There are other bands in between ofc. I’m not speculating on ‘Edition’ edition (stupid name) pricing. I accept that’ll be in the thousands.
I expect Apple won’t deviate from its broad sales approach except w gold variant. If I’m (far) wrong it’ll be a massive departure for Apple, and I think a mistake in terms of sticky marketing. Apple makes more money than ferrari by finding a fine balance between inflated margin and end-user value. I think gratuitous pricing in the luxury bracket will defeat the purpose.
Tout the device as a car key, and a payment device, then price it out of everyone’s reach? I don’t think so. I think Gruber is smoking crack.
There you go, I’m on record, and prepared to suck eggs if I’m wrong.
Thinking of the name Edition, couldn’t they tag the year’s name in front of it, hence being 2014 edition, and next year 2015 edition? Could be a possibility?
That would apply to all of them, so it would end up being the 2015 edition Edition, or the Edition, 2015 edition. LOL… It’s just a ridiculous name. There’s a word missing. Edition makes no sense used in this way.
@Milorad It seems like you’re just determined to find fault in everything to do with it. How exactly is “edition” a bad name?
Kmnnj you need to make new friends. I don’t really care what you think of me personally. I’ve wanted an apple watch since 2010 — but that doesn’t mean I failed English class.
Kmnnj Ljmcimimvimvi: the word Edition typically requires additional words to further describe something. For instance, you can add things like 1st Edition, Collector’s Edition, Limited Edition, etc. etc. Just using the word “Edition” by itself is a little vague of a word. For instance they use Sport for the Aluminum and Sport can be used by itself and it’s pretty self explanatory. But the word Edition doesn’t mean anything by itself. At least that’s my perspective on why it’s badly named. I think they could have used the Gold Edition might have been better since the model is made from Gold and that gives the person a sense of luxury.
I agree with your pricing.
Woah, we were WAAAAAY off on the Edition pricing, lol. To be fair, I didn’t think it would be a “limited edition” but just a 3rd high end category. Oh well.
I didn’t post edition pricing.
Looks like what? Looks like you were DEAD wrong. Now. Do you get it?
And where was your prediction, you sack of drool?
I wasn’t way off on the watch price – way off on the band price though. As it turns out I was closer than Gruber… so I’ll feel pretty good about that, while you cry some more.
$350 for the cheapest “sport version”, $450 for the cheapest “metal” version with sapphire
$100 for a bump to steel and Sapphire? Not likely to happen. That’s just not comparable to other watches nor other watch brands.
Why not? It might actually cost more than $100 because they are using stainless steel and a sapphire crystal. Stainless steel is far more expensive than Aluminum, but it’s more costly to work with in terms of mfg a case like this.
By reading the marketing hype, they mention that it takes 9 hours to make that Stainless Steel Link Bracelet and it’s finished by hand. That’s NOT a cheap watch band, but any stretch of anyone’s imagination.
Here’s the verbiage. The more I read it, the more expensive it seems to get in my mind.. ;-)
LINK BRACELET
Crafted from the same 316L stainless steel alloy as the case, the Link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. In part that’s because they aren’t simply a uniform size, but subtly increase in width as they approach the case. Once assembled, the links are brushed by hand to ensure that the texture follows the contours of the design. The custom butterfly closure folds neatly within the bracelet. And several links feature a simple release button, so you can add and remove links without any special tools. Available in stainless steel and space black stainless steel.
Rich, you misread my post. I was commenting that a $100 price bump is FAR too low for Stainless and Sapphire.
Wow. There is no way the steel watch WITH the steel bracelet, is going to be under $700 (as apparently the vast majority of people think).
No way it won’t be. Hardly anyone would pay $700+ for that. I think people are confused if they think the main watch will be that outrageously expensive. If it were $700+ then 90% at least would buy the sport model just due to price. Expect the stainless steel to be about $499.
I kind of agree with what you are saying, but my take on it is that Apple IS actually about to both screw us over and also make a big mistake on pricing. It seems the most likely outcome of today to me at this point.
I’m hoping to be proven wrong about the price, because I agree with you that it would be a big mistake to price it at that level, but I have the feeling that Apple is basically blind on this. They have a history of this kind of “rich guy from California” blindness, so my guess this morning is that they will probably make this mistake.
Talking about Apple “making mistakes” is of course sacrilege, but I believe they have been making quite a few lately, especially in this very area of “under designed” goods for “over the top” money. I think they’ve sort of “fallen for their own reviews” in a way. Kind of like a pop star who’s success goes to their head.
I don’t know, the Link Bracelet seems like it’s going to be expensive. I wouldn’t be surprised if the freaking Link Bracelet was $200 by itself.
LINK BRACELET
Crafted from the same 316L stainless steel alloy as the case, the Link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. In part that’s because they aren’t simply a uniform size, but subtly increase in width as they approach the case. Once assembled, the links are brushed by hand to ensure that the texture follows the contours of the design. The custom butterfly closure folds neatly within the bracelet. And several links feature a simple release button, so you can add and remove links without any special tools. Available in stainless steel and space black stainless steel.
The common watch has already had its price announced and it’s $350. Everything else is a PREMIUM.
Gazoo Bee, I don’t think you have priced expensive watches. The Stainless Steel model is not going to be cheap. Here’s a link to the 2012 USA Rolex Price list. Check out the prices Rolex charges for a Milanese Loop band or a Link Bracelet and when you are finished picking your jaw off the floor, you’ll know why Apple’s pricing will be expensive for their Stainless Steel and Gold versions and watch bands. These are NOT cheap crap watches and watch band.
I think most people have the mentality of what a smartwatch should be priced at, they think in terms of those old cheap Casio calculator watches, Apple isn’t going after the cheap smart watch market, they are going after the luxury smart watch market, which they are essentially creating.
Gazoo Bee, I don’t think you have priced expensive watches. The Stainless Steel model is not going to be cheap. Here’s a link to the 2012 USA Rolex Price list. Check out the prices Rolex charges for a Milanese Loop band or a Link Bracelet and when you are finished picking your jaw off the floor, you’ll know why Apple’s pricing will be expensive for their Stainless Steel and Gold versions and watch bands. These are NOT cheap crap watches and watch band. http://www.minus4plus6.com/pdf/Rolex_Price_List_June-1-2012.pdf
I think most people have the mentality of what a smartwatch should be priced at, they think in terms of those old cheap Casio calculator watches, Apple isn’t going after the cheap smart watch market, they are going after the luxury smart watch market, which they are essentially creating.
If they price the Milanese Loop band for less than $200, that’ll surprise me. Rolex charges a LOT of money for their Milanese Loop band.
Maybe the extreme pricing is simply to put everyone at ease when they are higher than normal smart watches but not absurdly over-priced…exception being the Gold one. and the 9-hour-to-make watch band
I think it would be smart to accept a low profit margin on this accessory in an effort to speed adoption. Too many people are already thinking the Apple Watch is expensive and unnecessary in their daily lives.
I think there has to be two tiers from a branding perspective. Top tier and bottom tier. The top tier has to add value to the bottom. So selling a few thousand gold Apple watches at $5k a piece will add a whole lot of perceived value to the bottom tier. The bottom tier will be bought by teenagers who want to emulate Kim Kardashian wearing a top tier one in an instagram photo. The middle though I think can be more fluid. People in the middle are older and have disposable income. They don’t mind shelling out on a gadget. So $479 body with up to $200 strap would seem very reasonable to them.
I think it’s most important that they got the sport version right. People won’t wear an Apple Watch unless teens are wearing them.
Where is the “Who cares because I would never spend that much on a secondary notification screen”. LOL. Sorry but I’m not in the on 1% Apple is going after with this marketing.
agreed.
What if you are a person who wants to wear a watch anyway? $349 or $499 for a nice watch is nothing. And with all the extra features becomes a bargain. You’re looking at it wrong. My beautiful Hamilton quartz watch cost $350 online (MSRP $500) and it only tells time and date.
And if you don’t like wearing a watch… then why bother even commenting? The Apple Watch is already not for you as a given.
The gold one can be whatever they like. Frankly I think Gruber is off his face but we’ll see.
The stainless steel one though needs to be below $600. Definitely. It’s not made out of precious materials.
It doesn’t seem like you guys are looking at the pricing of other quality watches but are instead focused on IT.
It should be plainly apparent from Apple’s hires over the past two years that this will not be another IT product roll-out.
I’m not saying any version of the watch will cost any specific figure, as I’ve been around Apple long enough to expect the unexpected. However, that’s also the key. You should not expect them to follow tradition – that’s never been an Apple thing.
Correct, focused on IT, because this thing is not something you can hand down to your grandchildren. Next year, it’s an out of date CPU and a shit battery. That’s all it is.
Tech has no longevity. It needs to be priced accordingly. There is no sentimental value here. No child will EVER be given their grandfather’s gold Apple watch, 40 years from now.
No I’m absolutely in the same mindset as you are, trust me, but it’s a simple matter of branding. Saint Laurent maintains ridiculously high margins by blocking the lower end out. As does Rolex and Cartier. Apple is embracing middle class teenagers as well as millionaire celebrities with this product.
You’re all thinking of it as one brand but it’s not. It’s 3 brands. For 3 completely different types of people. Only one of them is a luxury brand. I’d look at in terms of clothing brands. Watch Sport is the teen store like Urban Outfitters, Swatch or Pacsun. Apple Watch is the higher end middle class store. So Hugo Boss or Brooks Brothers. Apple Watch Edition is the high end store. It’s Burberry, Louis Vuitton, Rolex, etc. So where you go from there is finding out how much each of those tiers charges for watches and accessories.
Hugo Boss charges between $450 and $1000 for a watch, depending on the materials. Generally though they stick to the lower end of that. Burberry has watches at $1000 and it has watches for $60,000 so the luxury end is a complete mystery. But assuming that Apple hasn’t completely changed the rules of marketing and tiered pricing, I think it’s pretty clear where they’re going with this. IT doesn’t come into it. It’s all about the product and the customer.
I’m replying to Milorad here: Nobody’s looking at it that way. The type of people Apple are aiming the gold one at isn’t the watch collector or anybody who’s going to cherish the product for years. It’s incredibly rich people who are going to buy the watch, post pictures of it on Instagram to their status obsessed followers and then lose it a couple of months later. That has a big effect on the perceived value from the lower end.
Kmnnj, not talking about the gold one. The gold one has inherent value in the gold itself, and will appeal to people who have money to burn, but even the gold one will not be considered an investment the way a gold Rolex is. No watch enthusiast is going to collect it, because it’s absolute rubbish next year.
The gold ones will be expensive, and bought by people who don’t care. That’s *entirely* different to the stainless steel version, which is made of kitchen knives.
@Milorad: You literally mentioned the gold one “No child will EVER be given their grandfather’s gold Apple watch, 40 years from now.” That was the very basis of you point. Who the hell would hand down any $500-$1000 stainless steel watch? I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I think you’re a geeky guy who’s having trouble comprehending how a company could present a new brand that has absolutely nothing to do with the culture of the valley.
Kmnnj, it wasn’t the BASIS of my point as you can see by my initial comment at the top where I list my price predictions. It was a side-note. Also get the hell off my case. Go make some other friends.
At any rate, my comments stand for themselves. Nobody will ever get an apple watch from their grandfather, gold or otherwise. These are disposable items.
Yes, they’re disposable. And that, as an Apple shareholder, is what Im counting on. If you’re complaining about this, then you’re not interested in Apple one way or the other.
Hand one down? No, buy another one next year and another one the year after that. You know what I’ll hand down to my grand kids? The millions I made from AAPL shares.
Very glad to see that the majority of expectations are for reasonable prices. I don’t expect Apple to try and price these similarly to premium traditional watches or luxury fashion accessories, even though that idea is getting a lot of discussion online. My full predictions are here:
http://dcompiled.com/dcompiled/2015/3/8/why-the-apple-watch-wont-be-as-expensive-as-youve-heard
I’m still going with my original prediction for yellow gold at $3,799 and rose gold at $4,299.
If the price points wind up in the territory that Gruber is predicting I think it’d be a bad move for Apple long term. To become a luxury brand is to cater to the 1% crowd and I’m so sick of hearing people say things like, “then you’re not the customer they’re catering to.” Income inequality is one of the greatest threats to the long term viability of the US economy/stability. To head off in this direction as one of America’s top and most beloved companies is to lose the Apple core (no pun intended) philosophy of the crossroads of liberal arts/technology. Instead they’d be starting to position themselves at the crossroads of tacky “bling” and the divide between the rich and huddled masses. The jewelry analogy may be correct, but it is rather gross as a mantle to pursue. But may be I’m just a quasi-marxist at heart.
I agree with you completely. It would be a mistake on many levels, not the least of which is from their own marketing point of view. At the prices I posted above, they’d already be making a higher markup on a steel watch than they do on an iPad, and that’s over and above the markup inherent in the Sport price.
Apple’s success is ubiquity. They are the richest company in the world because they put their units in people’s hands. They balance price and profits like champions, and gratuitous price gouging isn’t a part of that.
On top of that, fanbois aside, the market will punish them for asking $2000 for a watch that’s useless in a year or two. The luxury watch market doesn’t have finite expiration dates on their products.
Yes, they are wanting to position themselves as a fashion item, but that’s FLUFF which I don’t believe will be reflected in the Steel watch price. At least, I hope not, otherwise this will be apple’s first post-Jobs decline.
They begged him to come back to Apple before, when they ignored his lessons, but this time he’s gone for good. Remains to be seen what kind of mistakes they’re prepared to make.
Apple Watch Sport 38mm (with sport band) – $349
($50 extra for 42mm model)
Apple Watch 38mm (with sport band) – $499
Apple Watch 38mm (with class buckle) – $539
Apple Watch 38mm (with leather loop) – $539
Apple Watch 38mm (with modern buckle) – $559
Apple Watch 38mm (with milanese loop) – $599
Apple Watch 38mm (with link bracelet) – $649
($50 extra for 42mm model)
Additional Bands: Sport – $39, Class Buckle – $79, Leather Loop – $79, Modern Buckle – $99, Milanese Loop – $149, Link Bracelet – $199
Apple Watch Edition starting at $4999
I can now accurately predict that there will be a lot of disappointed people watching the keynote. I think the polls reflect what people WANT to pay, not what Apple will charge.
Sorry, there’s no way that the jump from plastic to stainless steel and glass to sapphire crystal will be only $100.
Look at Apple’s description of the stainless steel band alone:
“Crafted from the same 316L stainless steel alloy as the case, the Link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. In part that’s because they aren’t simply a uniform size, but subtly increase in width as they approach the case. Once assembled, the links are brushed by hand to ensure that the texture follows the contours of the design. The custom butterfly closure folds neatly within the bracelet. And several links feature a simple release button, so you can add and remove links without any special tools. Available in stainless steel and space black stainless steel.”
I easily expect some of the bands to cost hundreds of dollars alone.
If you don’t want to spend $1,000 on an Apple Watch (I fall in that category), you’ll be buying the Sport Edition and possibly adding a third-party band at a later date.
I agree, except that I think Apple is making a clear mistake here given that the watch’s are not actually interchangeable.
From the polls I’ve seen the single most popular model bar none is going to be the basic steel Apple Watch with the steel expansion bracelet. If this is the Watch you were thinking of buying (and for most folks it is), switching to the lightweight brushed aluminium model with a day glow plastic bracelet is not actually an option. They are completely different products with completely different looks. And according to Apple one of the major points of the product is this ability to appeal (or not appeal) to different users based on appearance and materials.
In other words, if the steel Apple Watch is too expensive, Apple just made it’s most popular model too pricey for the average person to consider. They are also mistaken if they think these lost customers will then just buy the sport model. I wouldn’t be caught dead wearing a sport model. Lots of folks feel similar and Apple is actually encouraging this kind of differentiation.
The bottom line is that if the base steel Apple Watch is too expensive, Apple has a sales problem. It’s their flagship model. It simply CAN’T be that expensive.
I agree to an extent. It’s pretty obvious like you said that the Apple Watch (Stainless Steel version) is the most popular version and if it’s priced too high, then consumers just wont take the plunge. The $349 starting price is already at the premium pricing bracket for smartwatches of today, seeing as the general price of decent smartwatches are $299 at the moment, so the $50 premium for Apple seems about right.
If the Stainless Steel version ends up being $800 with a sport band and then the bands are $200-$500 on top, then there is no reason for consumers going for the SS version unless they can afford $1000+, so they will either just stick with the Sport version for $349 or not bother.
One thing to note though, is that everyone and their dog are assuming that the “Starting at $349” refers to the Apple Watch Sport? Could this price be for the Stainless Steel version? Or could both the Apple Watch and Apple Watch Sport be roughly the same price? I doubt it, but just an idea.
Anyway, if the Stainless Steel version is a decent price, ie $499, then I am certainly interested in getting one and wouls also be interested in investing in another 2 bands over the next few years (leather & metal). There will be other like me, and I reckon most consumers that are interested in the Stainless Steel version would also want a few extra bands, so the investment of $499 every 3-4 years for an Apple Watch, becomes $700-$800 with the extra bands.
@David Gee: I’m actually hoping that the $349 is going to turn out to be for the steel model simply because I’ve always thought it inescapably deceptive that they use that “starting at $349” for the sport model, which is not actually the “base” model of the product.
The base model is the Apple Watch and the “Sport” is a cheap variant, while the “Edition” is the expensive variant. To then turn around and say “Apple Watch (the name of the base model), starts at $349” is quite disingenuous it seems to me. It’s not really fooling anyone per se, but it’s a total “cheat” to put it that way really.
As much as I completely lust after the Apple Watch, I don’t see me ever buying a Sport model instead if the watch is too expensive. It’s a completely different product to me. Something for fitness jocks who are already wearing a lot of day-glow nonsense. Even swapping the bands wouldn’t make the Sports model anything I could wear.
A small piece of sapphire like on the watch isn’t a huge leap. You can buy Swiss made quartz watches online with sapphire crystals for $350 for instance. In other words, if sapphire was so much more expensive, the starting price point for such a watch should start much higher.
Here are my predictions:
Apple Watch Sport 38 (silver & black) $349
Apple Watch Sport 42 (silver & black) $399
Apple Watch 38 (silver & black) $549
Apple Watch 42 (silver & black) $599
Apple Watch Edition 38 (gold & rose) $4999
Apple Watch Edition 42 (gold & rose) $5599
Sport Band $29
Classic Buckle $99
Leather Loop $99
Modern Buckle $149
Milanese Loop $199
Link Bracelet $199
Edition Sport Band $199
Edition Classic Buckle $299
Edition Modern Buckle $499
Low end Apple Watch starts at 349$….already been told
Middle tier Apple Watch starts at 549$ or 599$…..
Top end Apple Watch starts at 949$ or 999$….
Way too low – the gold in the Edition will cost that much based on raw materials alone.
No it’s not. If less than 0.5 oz ($900/oz of 18k) is used for the case, it’s right on there. If 1 oz (unlikely) is used, it’s close to $1500.
Everything over 800$ for the Apple Watch with link bracelet is overpriced and I think nearly nobody will buy it! It would be insane for a piece of 1. Gen technic. I hope for 500-700$! If the prices are as Gruber thought (1700) the Apple watch will be a total flop!
I’m going with my previous guess from another article on this site
Sport 38mm $349
42mm $399
Stainless 38mm $449
42mm $499
Gold 38mm $799
42mm $999
Rose gold 32mm $999
42mm $1199
$40 sport bands
$100+ other straps
Rose gold and yellow gold shouldn’t be different. Let’s say $1499 to start.
I would love to see Apple Watch Entry level at $249. It would EXPLODE at a surprise $249 and still make 40% profit with no competition. Stand alone great product but a better iPhone accessory. Same past Apple strategy as offering great software cheap because customers already bought the hardware- in this case an iPhone.
I’m hoping Apple surprises us today with how much they will charge. The smartwatch market is very young and the average price for an android smartwatch is around $250. AppleWatch is already $100 more on the cheapest model, and there will be limitations to what it can do, it doesn’t even have wifi or GPS built in, you have to have an iPhone for that to work. I want to get the stainless steel model but if it’s more than $500 I guess I’ll have to settle for the Sport one. I’m just hoping Apple tries to be smarter than Samsung right now with what they just did for the Galaxy S6 pricing.
$349/$449/$999-$1499.
4500 for the gold version.
750 for the steel version.
Wow, I was WAAAAAY off on the Edition, LOL. Then again, I wasn’t figuring it to be “limited edition” but more of a general model class.
Told you.
Apple Sport: $349 – $399
Apple Watch: $549 – $1,099
Apple Edition: $10,000 and up
Stainless Steel actual started less than I expected.