It has a date — sort of. And it has a price — mostly. But less than three months before its release, the Apple Watch is still enigmatic in ways that the similarly pre-announced iPhone and iPad were not. Apple still hasn’t said more than one thing (“starting at $349”) about how the 34 different Watch models will be priced, and despite hiring a new team of sales executives from the fashion and watch worlds, no major changes are obvious at the Apple Stores where the watches will be sold.
What’s going to happen between now and April? 9to5Mac’s editorial team has been actively discussing the possibilities, and we’re ready to share our thinking with you today. Read on…
Pricing
All that’s known for certain is that Apple Watch pricing will start at $349. It is assumed — and very likely true — that the aluminum and plastic Apple Watch Sport will be offered at that price, while the standard Apple Watch and Apple Watch Edition collections will sell for more. What could impact prices?
Watch and Band Sizes. Apple will sell each Apple Watch in 38mm and 42mm sizes. The smaller version will definitely have a smaller screen and most likely a smaller battery — either 200mAh or 300mAh, as suggested by the photo above, submitted by a tipster — so if any Apple Watch is guaranteed to sell for $349, it’s the smallest one with the least expensive materials: the 38mm Apple Watch Sport. Apple could follow iPhone 6/6 Plus precedent and price the larger watches differently from the smaller ones, or it could keep both sizes at the same price point. Although each Watch will include one band, Apple could also have different prices for small- and large-sized wristbands when sold individually as add-on accessories: separate sizes exist, as shown below.
Equal prices are probably a better idea since the size differences are small, primarily gender-related, and likely to create unnecessary price confusion across so many models. And based on pricing for other smartwatches, Apple would be bucking industry trends by charging higher prices for people with larger wrists. However, in the fashion world, significantly smaller watches sometimes sell for lower prices. We’ll have to see which direction Apple decides to take here.
Materials. It is again assumed — and again very likely true — that the stainless steel Apple Watch will sell at a premium over the aluminum Apple Watch Sport, while the gold Apple Watch Edition will be significantly more expensive. Our editors think that the Sport will be $349 when bundled with any colored plastic band, while the steel Watch will range from $449 to $549 or perhaps $599 depending on the included band you choose. If the prices are higher than this, Apple’s going to have an even tougher time selling Apple Watches than some analysts are already predicting.
The gold Edition model is the subject of the most internal debate, with guesses ranging from $999 to $4,999 depending on whether Apple hopes to sell a lot or very few of them. One hint that the price will exceed $999 is the Apple Watch’s digital crown: note that it’s always silver on the Sport, two-toned with black on the standard Apple Watch, and offered in four (mostly) band-matching colors for Edition. Apple could easily have gone with all-gold or gold with a black center, but instead, there are multiple band-specific parts. Additionally, every band (even the plastic one) has special gold parts to match the Edition watch. It’s obvious that very little is being done simply with Edition.
Bands are also likely to stagger prices. Apple is selling four steel Watches with plastic bands, eight steel Watches with leather bands, and six steel Watches with metal bands. It didn’t go cheap on the designs: the leather bands all have fancy metal accents, and the metal bands include magnetic clasps or user-removable links. These details suggest Apple will price the leather and metal bands at premiums over generic alternatives, and charge more for Watches bundled with them (compared with the plastic bands). Given Apple’s history, a price range of $29 to $99 or $129 for bands wouldn’t be surprising.
Storage Capacity. Apple has confirmed that Apple Watches will have some storage space, and 9to5Mac has confirmed that photos, music, and apps can all be on the device. Apple might eventually sell different capacity versions of the Watch (say, 4GB, 8GB, and 16GB), but it’s unlikely to do this on day one within a given collection. That said, it could certainly sell Sport at a lower capacity than the steel Apple Watch, while the keepsake Edition is offered at a higher capacity, but don’t expect three capacities of Sport at different price points at the beginning.
Sales Experience
Changes are already underfoot at Apple’s retail stores to adjust the sales experience somewhat for Apple Watch customers. Citing “new products and new customers on the horizon,” Apple is re-introducing Apple logo polo shirts for its employees. We have also learned from multiple sources that Apple is reducing the number of third-party accessories in stores, likely to make room for Apple Watch displays.
But even if Apple changes employee uniforms and makes space in its existing stores, the sheer number of customers and (frequently) limited square footage means that the Watch shopping experience won’t be like visiting a Colette boutique in Paris — at least, at most Apple Stores. It’s more likely that Apple will sell $349 to $599 Apple Watches pretty much like it has sold iPods, iPhones, and iPads at that price level.
What about gold Edition Watches, which are being pitched as fashion world-caliber luxury products? On one hand, they probably won’t sell for more than high-end Mac Pros, and Apple doesn’t treat those computers any differently than low-end Mac Minis or midrange iMacs. On the other hand, Apple hasn’t been hiring new executives and retail staff from the fashion and luxury worlds just for giggles. Apple is already the world’s most profitable retailer, so it arguably doesn’t need help making Tiffany- or Harrods-level money in its existing stores. If Apple’s not preparing to open standalone boutiques for its high-end wearables, it’s probably working on building a semi-exclusive network of third-party vendors to sell the Apple Watch.
We expect that every version of the Apple Watch will technically be available to pick up at any brick-and-mortar Apple Store, though it would not be surprising for the gold Edition to have some distinctive sales process — a brief ship-to-store delay before in-store pickup, a special customization/fitting/personal tutorial session, or perhaps an in-store gift-wrapping/fancy bagging option — to make the Edition buying experience a little twee. Depending on how Edition watches are boxed, there may be a need to swap one color of the digital crown to match a customer’s second band (see above); maybe not. But the lower Edition’s price is, the less likely a special selling process becomes, and the more surprising all of Apple’s fashion/watch industry hiring would be.
Upgrade Policy
Apple doesn’t talk about unannounced products and rarely discusses discontinued ones. So how will it address the reality that the first-generation Apple Watch — including the expensive gold Edition — will quickly be followed by improved versions with different designs? Most luxury watches are designed to be worn for years; by contrast, the Apple Watch is inescapably a technology product with a limited lifespan, regardless of how it’s marketed. Just like iPhones, many early Apple Watch adopters will likely want a new model after a year or two, particularly if the first-generation version has significant battery life issues, or if later versions add useful sensors and other features.
It’s possible, actually likely, that Apple will leave customers to figure out their own upgrade strategies, even for the gold Edition. Although some people have speculated that the Edition’s 18K gold body will have some melt-down value, it’s hard to imagine anyone with enough money to buy an Apple Watch Edition taking one to be traded for cash at a gold-buying shop.
Some of our editors think Apple will find another path to keep first-generation gold watches in circulation. It could alternate each year between shapes or features, keeping the first-generation model distinctive even when second- and third-generation models debut. Another possibility is offering seasonal variations in either watch colors or bands; white gold, platinum, and other materials could be introduced. Apple could also deliberately limit the supply of Editions to keep them elusive and relatively hard to trade. It’s hard to imagine Apple following that path — it exists to produce mass-market technology products, not obscure collectibles — but perhaps its priorities are changing.
What Do You Think?
We think that it’s important for Apple to clarify the Apple Watch’s pricing, selling experience, and upgrade path, and over the next few months, there will certainly be answers — hopefully ones that will inspire millions of people to take the plunge rather than waiting for a future model. The choices Apple is making now will either lead to a successful launch with subsequent growth akin to the iPhone and iPad, or “hobby” status, like the Apple TV.
Now it’s your chance to speculate. How will Apple price all of the Apple Watch versions and bands? Will it change its sales strategy or keep it the same for all Apple Watch models? How will it address upgrades, if at all? Share your thoughts in the comments section below — we’d love to know what you think.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
I’ve always thought that Apple would release a watch that allowed for the band to be changed out. Each body design looks as though you could slide the bands out from the sides. There may be a small sliding detent latch on the backside of the bands that locks them in place, or they may just go for strong neodymium magnets. The entry point for the watches is high, and Apple loves charging a lot for product accessories. I would be very surprised if I didn’t see the watch hit the market for $349 with other bands being available from $49.99 to $99.99 for metal varieties.
Thats exactly what its designed to do if I remember the promo video correctly.
No way those intricate, hand-finished metal bands will be under $100. Especially the thin ladies mesh one.
From what i have seen on Apples website the bands latch into place and you disconnect them using a button on the back of the watch. Im sure that you will only be able to use the Apple bands but what i would like to see Apple do it make an accessory that allows you to attach 3rd party bands. It would be its own little band connection accessory that you screw/put the pin though to connect the band to the accessory and then you slide the accessory into the watch. Im sure than accessory would like expensive but im sure that people would buy them.
I don’t see anything that would stop third parties from making bands to fit the Watch. Apple would be foolish to try and stop this even if they could.
Think about the gold watch for instance. Lots and lots of folks will want to buy that for the bragging value, and a great deal of them would want a *gold* expansion bracelet with it, not the steel one that Apple makes. I would bet money there is some third party working on a gold link bracelet for Watch as we speak.
Seriously, what are you doing here talking about the watches when you clearly haven’t seen anything about them??
Great thinking here. A few thoughts of my own:
SIZING + PRICING
I think they have no choice but to charge the same prices for the different sizes due solely to the fact that for most, it’s really as simple as being gender- or body size-specific and you don’t often see retailers charging different prices for sizes S – XL. I think they’ll get a ton of flack if they do charge higher prices for the slightly larger version and to your point, it adds another layer of complexity to the SKUs.
It would be fantastic if they did go with $499 for the steel and sapphire version though I’m a little afraid that you’re right when you mention the $599 price point. I guess we’ll know more soon enough.
UPGRADES
As nice as it would be to introduce an upgrade program, they’re fully aware of the extremely healthy resale market for one, two, or even three year-old iPhones and I think they’ll lean on that for watches just the same. These will hold their value as well as iPhones and I don’t foresee having an issue getting at least 50% of what I pay for this back if I sell it on eBay in a year. I’m sure too that sites like Gazelle will be all over that offering similarly compelling options just before a new model is announced.
I think the replacement lifespan on these will be something closer to that of iPads or desktops. Around 5 years. More so than other electronics, I think consumers will be very annoyed if accessories from one generation of iWatch don’t fit the next generation. Even if the watch body gets thinner, I think consumers will expect bands and other pieces to work with the 2nd gen iWatch. If they don’t, consumers are likely to realize the whole iWatch/wearable experience is just too expensive to keep up with. They’ll just take their phone out of their pocket and save $400.
Agreed. I’m planning on buying the steel/sapphire along with two or three bands. It all depends on final information of course, but I fully expect to be able to use those bands on gen 2 and maybe even 3 if I do upgrade. The system they’ve developed for attaching bands is pretty sweet and I don’t see that changing for at least a gen or two…hopefully you’re right that it’s more of a four or five year deal (think 30-pin connector on the iPhone).
I don’t think apple would label any of their products as gender-specific. It will be interesting to see if they price the difference face sizes equally to avoid this distinction.
I think Apple will happily offer a Recycling Program for the Watch as they do the iPhone. That is, they buy back old Watches and give consumers an Apple Gift Card. Old iPhones are worth up to $225. Which is about 1/3 of the original retail. So, we could see Apple buying Watches for $129 to $299 – then refurbishing, repackaging and reselling through their refurbished segment worldwide. Hopefully – for Apple – more popular in countries like India where $349 for a Watch is a hard sell amongst the masses.
I do think that Apple will keep interoperability of accessories between generations as long as it can, however, like Lightning – they will jump ship if that functionality is holding back the design.
Apple will never label the Watches as Male or Female. They’ve already been hard pressed to ensure they refer to them as 38mm and 42mm.
I don’t believe there will be an upgrade program. The design of the S1 chip is for water-resistance, not for planned upgrades.
I think the difference in manufacturing cost for the aluminum WATCH SPORT and stainless steel WATCH is negligible. I think the band choice is what will differentiate the two collections in price. For example, an WATCH SPORT w/ fluoroelastomer band might cost $349 while the WATCH with leather loop band might cost $399 or $429; the band being the sole reason for the $50-80 upcharge.
Swatch has used band material as a way to categorize the products and price points for their Swatch Skins. Whether or not one costs more to produce than another, it’s a good way for consumers to rationalize the price increase within the product line.
I don’t think they will sell a watch without a band because that would be selling a useless product, so I’m thinking the $350 is for the Sport model as you say, including the band, and that the steel model will also include the same plastic band for about $450 all in one box. Given that the aluminium and steel watches are essentially identical except for materials, it seems wrong to charge more than a $100 extra for steel over aluminium and sapphire over glass. Maybe $150. I won’t speculate on the price gold ones as they are basically for idiots IMO.
All the other bands will be sold separately and the steel ones will be at *least* a hundred IMO, if not multiple hundreds of dollars more. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the basic steel expansion bracelet is an extra $200. The steel mesh bracelet could easily be $300-$400.
Even those silly leather bracelets are going to be close to $100. If a crap accessory like an Apple iPhone dock cost $80 (and hardly works), and an iPad cover (basically a 100% machine made hunk of rubber with some magnets inside), is $100, there is no way even the basic leather strap is going to be anything short of $60-$80.
The leather ones with the magnets that look like they escaped from “Space: 1999” will probably be more than that.
You are indicating that the price difference between the steel and aluminum models will be $100 with the same band included? That doesn’t seem right; as I explained above, I don’t think stainless steel is a premium enough material to warrant a $100 price increase over aluminum.
Brand-wise, it would be smart to pair the steel/sapphire model with the black leather band or the steel link band. It further justifies the price increase (a lot of which is tied to the sapphire) and better differentiates it from the entry level model. Pairing it with the sport band just doesn’t fit.
All that said, I don’t know how they’re going to package the watch and bands so it’ll be interesting to see. On the site at the moment, they have three primary pairings (aluminum + sport band, steel + steel band, and gold + leather buckle) so I imagine they’ll be something similar as anchors. Any way you slice it, someone’s going to have fun managing all those SKUs!
What iPad cover is $100? Unless you’re not referring to USD…
Sorry, I guess I wasn’t that clear.
@Brett Seifert: Steel vs. aluminium requires a moderate increase in price, the sapphire part costs significantly more on top of that. I think $100-$150 more for the steel one (body) for those reasons.
@Dss33: I agree about the black leather band actually, but in any case, some kind of “it’s really cheap” band, and *not* the steel link bracelet seems likely for the base steel watch.
@rofigan: Your right, I misremembered that. But still … the iPad (mini or full-sized) covers are about $60 in Canada and once you’ve added tax, shipping, handling etc….
My main point is that Apple accessories are always very highly priced for what you get and usually in the $50-$100 range. People expecting to pay $450 for the watch and an extra $50 for a link bracelet will be disappointed IMO.
I’m expecting $500-ish for the watch and another $150-$200 for the steel bracelet, which with taxes, the extra “simply because you live in Canada”tax, shipping, & AppleCare will be as close to $1000 as makes no never mind.
I question the conventional wisdom that Apple will quickly and significantly upgrade the Apple Watch at the level of say the iPhone. It may very well have a much longer upgrade cycle, mirroring that of the Apple TV.
One reason is that there isn’t that much to evolve in the Apple Watch. Typically with consumer electronics, 1st generation to 2nd generations and subsequent ones are made in large part by the consolidation of components which reduce cost, reduce space and make the device run faster, cooler and with less power.
However, the Apple Watch already has a highly optimized S1 processor and relatively few application specific components that aren’t integrated.
And it’s not like we’re going to see other major feature improvements coming soon… no “bigger screen size”, no “transition to Retina”, etc… And while new components could add new features, those components have to be placed in a space not likely to open up much by advances in other components. So adding GPS for example, while an obviously desirable addition, that GPS component (and antenna) needs to fit inside the watch.
We have yet to see fully what the S1 will actually be… 14-20nm? But it’s certainly not starting at a point like where Apple was with the components in the original iPhone, and there’s also the lack of efficiency of scale, meaning that since the S1 is so small, advances in it yield smaller volume savings (even a 50% savings of tiny is, well… tiny).
Certainly Apple has amazingly brilliant people working on all of this, but they can only push things so hard so fast, and that may mean upgrades for the Apple Watch that are much further spread out as compared to the iPhone, and that just happens to work nicely with what consumers may be expecting when it othwerwise comes to what they expect with watches.
Leaving aside screen size and shape discussions, battery life improvements, additional sensors, and physical size improvements are just a few things that could (and arguably really should) evolve in second- and third-generation models.
Since this isn’t a big powerhouse device, RAM is PROBABLY not going to be an issue, but they might add more storage on future models, different case design, battery, faster processor. I’m not sure if they can really much in the way of sensor technology internally. I think for sensors, they’ll be external, either worn sensors or a small add-on similar to what http://www.breathometer.com is doing with their breath sensors that are small enough to fit on a keychain. I know there are sensors that are stick on the wrist type that companies are playing around with along with the breath sensors mentioned above. I just don’t think Apple will need to upgrade these things all that often other than maybe case design.
You can’t just say “size” and “battery”; of course those are goals, but it’s not like taking a consumer electronic device that has several large components and shrinking them down into dedicated application specific integrated circuits and then moving them on to one SoC. The S1 already is this, which is my point, it’s already highly optimized, and 2nd generation isn’t likely to be a significant leap forward as quickly as if it was a consolidation of separate components onto a single SoC.
Exactly.
I think a some of this is incorrect or perhaps just not edited correctly. It implies at first that the watch and the (metal) bands will be sold “as one” at fairly low prices, then later on it implies that the bands will be sold separately at prices that are higher than the first example. In neither example does it seem to price the metal bands at what I would expect which is many hundreds of dollars each. We are talking custom, hand-made, jewelry here.
Also, the idea that the watch will be changing significantly in design, that there will be “improved versions” and “different designs” is really quite unlikely. The watch has clearly been designed to be upgradeable, and it’s highly unlikely that Apple will either send people to third party upgrade sites or expect people to buy a different watch every year as they do with iPhones and iPads.
The watch is designed to be opened from the front. Inside the watch are three layers; the screen, the battery and speaker/vibrator, and the CPU layer behind that. The CPU is of a single piece, and so is most of the rest of it. The shape or the size of the watch is clearly not up for change. It can’t really get any smaller and still be a useful watch, and there is no way it will ever be bigger, because no one wants that.
The only changes to the watch over time will be it will get thinner as the technology inside gets more efficient, and it will gain features and sensors that only require “new guts,” which is easily done even on what will then be the “old” models. The idea that there will be rounder, thinner, fancier or other significant changes in the watch design is patently ludicrous.
The only thing that is going to change is the inside, and it’s clear as day that the insides have all been specially designed to be completely upgradeable.
I agree with most of this. The S1 seems designed to not only be sealed against water, but to be easily swapped out.
I also suspect that with the back being a different material (ceramic), it too is designed to be replaced. Perhaps there will be multiple tiers of upgrades: processor, battery, and also the back (for when there are new sensors).
I think the way for them to go regarding upgrades is for the aluminum models to not be upgradeable. Like an iPod, you buy it, you use it until you want a new one, and then you buy the new one. I think the stainless model will be significantly higher in price than the aluminum, and the gold will likely be at a price point most of us here would classify as “insane” because we generally optimize for different things than fine jewelry buyers. (The idea that the gold watch might be “as high as” $1200 dollars [a popular opinion soon after it was announced] is ludicrous. As I write this, the price of an ounce of gold is OVER $1200.) And if the prices of the two upper-tier watches is as high as I think they’ll be, I think the stainless could have paid upgrades and the gold could have free upgrades; this might make the initial prices more palatable.
John Gruber went into a great deal of detail about most of this about a week after the announcement. I initially rebelled against the high-price idea, but by the middle of the piece he had convinced me. It’s a great read and worth your time if you’re interested in the watch.
http://daringfireball.net/2014/09/apple_watch
I remember that article. :-)
I didn’t quite remember that he had about the same price on the steel watch as I’ve been saying here ($1000). Perhaps I unconsciously stole the idea from him.
I believe its a mistake to assume that the Watch will be upgradable. The design of the S1 chip is for water-resistance, not for planned upgrades.
As much time that they are taking to get this watch to market, I don’t see the design changing for years. I could see them offering the WATCH Edition some sort of a lifetime (of that design) internal upgrade, where you could send it in for the new innards. That would make that price point more attractive. Maybe the same will exist for all models, but at a cost rather than included.
Like the original iPhone?
I think the main issue with ALL smartwatches is going to be the battery and turnover. We all got used to having to replace our phones ever few years because of how much better these devices get every few years, heck even every year at times. Cameras have improved tremendously, performance as well in order to run smooth with ever increasing and bloating operating systems, etc… So fine, we are used to it, these companies suckered us into this never ending cycle of “take my money!” every year or two, and battery doesn’t become a huge issue since you’ll most likely trade up before the battery is wasted. At this point, Samsung fans will be all like “yeah that’s why we have replaceable batteries, boom!”. Yeah, right, as if the reason for that is so you can continue to use your Galaxy S2. LOL
Anyway, so now with smartwatches, are the masses of gadget consumers ready to do this AGAIN? Yet another device we now have to replace every 2-3 years because the battery is shit at that point, or sooner? I don’t think this will be the same thing as phones because I don’t see the need for ever improving cameras on watches, or never ending feature bloat requiring faster and faster processors, etc… That is, until batteries can advance to the point where they can be so small as to fit inside an Apple Watch sized frame, and power a full cellular and GPS and Wifi and BlueTooth device for a full day, effectively eliminating your phone entirely if you wish. No until that happens, which is likely still a long way off, I don’t know yet what would be the huge differentiator between Apple Watch 1 and Apple Watch 3 or Moto 360 1 or Moto 360 3, etc… besides battery life that is. So they can continue to stretch single charge battery life, but eventually, after 2 years or so of charging daily or every two days, that little battery will be done. This means upgrading/replacing to the next model. That will then be the same thing all over again as we have to do with our phones, and I’m just not sure most people will go for that. People are used to owning 1 or 2 watches for many many years. Aficionados own multiple watches, but those folks buy expensive Swiss watches and I’m not sure they care about smartwatches. They are also a small group comparatively.
In conclusion, I think the main challenge that all the brands of smartwatches are going to have, is to convince consumers to buy a new smartwatch every couple years, on top of the smartphone they are already upgrading.
There are some very good points made here but Apple have always worked on the premise that ‘You don’t know what you want until we make it’. They have a way of making something that you never needed or particularly wanted into something you can no longer do without. My whole world is on my iPad – a device that (before I had one) I could not see the point of.
Apple will sell this without any problem. There are many early adopters who can afford to shell out $350 just to see what the fuss is all about. There are still others who can’t afford it but still will.
As I stated far below, it would really be something for Apple to announce bi-annual Apple Watch upgrades? Wouldn’t it be a jaw-dropping showstopper: after Tim and crew review the finer points, Tim finishes saying, “Apple is committed to your enjoyment of the AppleWatch experience; it’s a magic that should last a lifetime, or at least two years; we know you’ll love this years’ AppleWatch, and we know you’ll love it even more when you know there isn’t going to be another one until 2017!”
It’s not unreasonable, but it is impossible. But I’d love it if that’s what happened. People would appreciate their purchase more, and for a longer period of time before wondering what they might be missing out on by not buying the next one coming down the hatch in 365 days or less!
I see zero problem with getting folks to drop $300-$500 every couple of years. Battery exhaustion never stopped consumers from buying new iPods. Apple has never had trouble selling devices with non-removable batteries, despite objections from a highly vocal minority.
They wouldn’t just be buying smartwatches “on top” of smartphone upgrades. When one consumer product becomes fashionable, it picks up the slack for some other product that becomes unfashionable, like digicams, MP3 players, and portable gaming systems.
I’ll wait until version 2.
Apple could make the Watch and Watch Edition so the internals (chips, sensors, possibly screen) could be upgradable. For the expensive Edition version it would extend the value of the watch over multiple years.
no one will buy it, apple is doomed
Yeah right. Like they don’t buy the iPhone, iPod, iPad MacBook…………….
Apple has been attending g to fashion shows to sell watches at jewelry retailers. Apple Watch and bands will be sold in jewelry stores.
I honestly see them upgrading the apple watch depending on how sales go for the first generation. The killer feature this is missing is FaceTime. I cant imagine them not adding a front facing camera sometime soon maybe 18 months tops from the gen1 release.
“Assume”, “fear”, “worried”, “expect”, “think”, “could”, “possibility”: these words smack of little more than guessing, speculation and FUD. The article above is littered with assumptions, not facts. Until the true facts are known and verified about the Apple Watch, I view the time spent reading the above as little more than click-bait.
With all due respect to 9to5 Mac, your article is needless worrying. Would it not be better to wait until you know for certain how the final finished product will be and how much it will actually cost? Doing otherwise is a disservice to your readers. And when misquoted by other websites, many of which have an agenda to spread false rumors and FUD about Apple (such as your recent article making assumptions on the Apple Watch’s battery life and what it might mean in actual use), your work can do more harm than good.
I know your stock and trade is to publish the latest rumors and gossip. But without facts to back up your assertions and guesses, what value do you add?
Forgive me for being skeptical about what you wrote, but I’m skeptical. If it’s as much gloom-and-doom as you conclude above when the actual products ship and are properly tested, fine. But until then, let’s give Apple the benefit of the doubt instead of being Debbie Downers. I never expect Version 1.0 of anything to be perfect. That was true for the first iPhone, the first iPad and the first anything. But that does not mean that Apple is doomed or that its product will fail. History has frequently been kind.
Stop clubbing baby seals. Especially baby seals that haven’t been officially born.
This is an opinion piece, not a news article, which makes itself clear right from the start that it’s focus is speculation. If you missed that, it’s on you, not 9to5.
You obviously didn’t even read the piece. There’s nothing doom-and-gloom in here. But thanks for playing.
I did some basic math out to compare the prices between aluminum and stainless steel watch.
I assumed that apple will use 2in long 1.5 in width and .5 in height for its material. I work as a manufacturing engineer for aerospace parts, so i looked for the prices for stainless steel and aluminum, and it turns out the cost aluminum stock is going to be about $3.1 and $3.6 for the stainless steel.
Lets assume it take about double the price of the stock material, so about $6 for finishing the watches. So it cost about $10 for both stainless steel and aluminum.
Now the cost of the glass i am thinking about $10 for the sapphire and $5 for the ion-X.
Since the electronics remain pretty much the same its cost wouldn’t add a big difference in the cost.
In the end the cost difference between the stainless steel vs aluminum watch is going to be about $5, lets double that just to be safe. so about $10.
That being said i don’t think there will be huge difference in the cost of the stainless steel vs aluminum watch, i think the bands are really going to be the factor that effects the pricing, because manufacturing the stainless steel bands is a story of its own
I’ve been watching the Apple Watch with curious anticipation since it was just a rumour, and I have to say it hasn’t really hooked me yet to drop even $350 for the least expensive model. I’ve had a Pebble for about a year now, and I don’t go a day without it. I’ve considered switching to a Pebble Steel, but I upgraded to a nice black metal strap I grabbed on eBay for a couple of bucks, and it greatly improved the look of the basic Pebble IMO, so I’m not even in a big rush to grab something that will look a bit better with my usual shirt and tie at work. The main draw of my Pebble is the always-on screen, awesome battery life, and notifications. Apple Watch admittedly has a far superior screen, and more subtle notification buzzing (supposedly), but the battery life in the first gen is less than a day. I have a great set of apps and watch faces on my Pebble that I use on a regular basis to do things that help me on the go when I just don’t want to, or can’t, take my phone out. $100 for a Pebble and under $200 for the Steel is making the jump up to $400 a little tough to handle for a first gen product that won’t offer too many more real world advantages over the bit of tech I currently have on my wrist. Before anyone jumps on it, I’m used to paying the “Apple tax” for things, and have been a dedicated Mac user since the 90’s when my family got our Power Mac 6100, so Apple’s usual premium doesn’t bother me. I currently have a MacBook Pro Retina, iPhone 5s, iPad 3, two Apple TVs, and I use an iMac at work.
I think when it comes down to it, for me, the battery life is the real killer in making my decision. I had a defect in my first Pebble that caused the battery to drain quickly (they sent me a new one since), but I know how frustrating it is to have your watch die before the end of the day. My current Pebble last for days on a charge and I love not having to think about it. I would love to have an Apple Watch on my wrist this spring, but it seems far more likely that I’ll be waiting until gen 2 and see how things go from there.
I also have a Pebble, got mine from their initial Kickstarter campaign. I’ve since moved on to a Martian Notifier. The e-ink screen was having difficulties refreshing and it was getting to be a chore to try and read my texts. Plus it looked too much like a plastic toy watch.
I think the reason an apple watch will be leaps and bounds better than any smart watch out so far, especially like the Pebble and Notifier… (this is assuming you’re already all in on the apple ecosystem)… is Apple Pay. All those, like yourself, owners of an iPhone 5 or 5s can now have access to Apple Pay. I have a 6Plus and must say it’s a joy to use to pay for things. I’ve had my run ins with my credit card numbers being stolen and dealing with all the fall out… it’s not fun. Plus, once Apple opens up the NFC to developers who knows what other cool things we’ll be able to do. Open up doors, unlock my computer, etc with just a wave of my wrist.
Granted, since I already have a 6Plus I’ll most likely wait for version 2 before getting an apple watch…; but I think watches like the Pebble shouldn’t even be in the same conversation. Just my 2 cents.
I read rumors about Apple showing this Sunday a Superbowl commercial, similar to ‘1984’ where everybody will be wearing an Apple Watch while watching like zombies a giant screen with Sir Jonathan Ive saying “We shall prevail!”
Apple will allow the watch internals; S1 board, the battery and sensors to be updated. The S2 and S3 boards would fit in the same space or smaller, with a higher density (possibly larger) battery and upgraded sensor replacements that fill the same ports.
No one will buy a high price gold watch unless it could be upgraded.
Apple selling a “Computer on a Chip” Indicates the possibility (I am guessing probability) that you will have the option to upgrade the computer without throwing out your entire watch face/bands. This would be especially appealing to those who can afford the very expensive Edition.
Sorry to break it to you guys but the stainless steel version will be $1100-1200. I got to play with one and that was the number that was thrown out.
Stainless steel is an incredibly cheap material. More than $499 for the stainless model is unrealistic thinking.
I don’t expect the stainless steel version to be more than $800, but the material cost is only one part of the equation. Stainless steel is denser and harder to tool than aluminum. With a sapphire crystal and a stainless steel case and band (especially the Space Black version, presumably anodized), I expect the 16GB version to be $799.
I agree with just about everything. I speculated on this as well a couple weeks ago and came to strikingly similar conclusions: http://www.birchtree.me/blog/on-apple-watch-pricing
As far as the storage capacity, I don’t see them giving us a whole lot. This first generation line. It seems like any storage will just be there as a local cache. You’re not going to be loading your iTunes library on there.
I’m 100% certain that Apple will sell as many as they can make for at least the first 8-12 months.
They won’t even have to try. The Apple Watch sells itself. Anyone who doesn’t want one themselves can write all kinds of silly opinion pieces about why Apple needs to try really hard to sell them…
Trust me. They don’t. They’ve already sold every single unit produced for 2015.
I don’t think that pricing its watch models is going to be a big issue for Apple, which has an uncanny knack for pricing that leads you to spend more than you planned. There will most likely be a significant number of initial customers who will pay handsomely to own a first generation Apple watch even if they don’t tap much of its functionality. But for this product to reach a broader, and lasting market, I think Apple will have to convince a lot more customers that the functionality/app availability justifies the price. A replaceable battery will be a must-have feature for most potential buyers. An upgradeable CPU will be a very strong selling point if Apple can pull that off. In the most expensive Apple watches, I think an upgrade path for the CPU will be a must also. If the case sizing is the same for both expensive and less expensive versions of the watch, you’d think any replacement of internals would be available to both. I don’t think most potential customers are going to want to toss a $400-$500 watch in a drawer every 2-3 years because the battery can’t be replaced. High end sport/health tracker watches now (Garmin, Polar, etc.) at least offer battery replacement.
I know one thing for sure, no matter what the pricing the internet will be buzzing about how expensive it is with a 1000 reasons its DOA
Of course as experience has taught us, they will be wrong…..very wrong.
The Apple crowd are a devoted bunch. Just yesterday I’ve read that many iPhone 6 buyers got both sizes because they could not make up their minds on which one to get. Tells me right there that the Apple watch will have no problems selling; initially. It’s the sales 6 months after release that will be important.
So my forecast is a complete sale out, huge demand for about 6 months, start seeing stock and sales will taper off. Same thing happened with the earlier iPads. But now you would be silly to line up for a iPad.
I’m currently using a LG watch with my Note 4 and love it but only because I got an extremely good deal on it during black Friday. No way would I pay over $100 for a smartwatch today.
What will make or brake the Apple Watch is also the upgrade cycle of HW. A Watch isn’t a smartphone. Upgrade the HW dramatically every 12 months and you will alienate lots and lots of customers. Apple should stick, for the Apple Watch, to, at least a 24 months cycle. And also the options, bands etc etc will be a huge source of revenue. As well as special editions of the watch (with MINOR internal upgrades and interesting cosmetic changes will be important). It is, in this regard, a very different market than the one Apple is working in.
Imagine: Christmas edition Apple Watch. Product (RED) Apple Watch. A new, limited edition, band for the Apple Watch.
These things will be much more important than a HW yearly refresh. You cannot expect people to replace an intimate device such as a Watch every year (for that price even less).
About the gold watch,
the name is giving the answer. Edition… like limited edition. I believe it will be very expensive, and maybe avaiable in a relatively limited amount even maybe only into some shops.
Why?
Because…. Louis Vuiton bags or perfume industry! If only “stars” and rich people can get it, it will have the same effect as for all other luxury products like LV. Everybody want to get a part of it, even it is only a perfume, a eyeglass or a small purse with the logo.
I just thought of a big problem with the Gold “Edition” watch.
If it’s made out of a chunk of solid gold, manufacturing it at FoxCon in China where each watch-body is worth the equivalent of maybe 10 YEARS wages to the folks assembling them, might cause some problems. :-)
And what about shipments of these things? If the gold watch-bodies are made elsewhere and then shipped to FoxCon for assembly, then somewhere there is a truck worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to whomever can waylay it.
It should be interesting to see what Apple does there, but I wouldn’t be surprised to be reading a story this time next year about “The great Apple Watch Heist.” And perhaps a movie to follow.
This title made me giggle… so if the watch is overpriced or the sale associates at the Apple store do a bad job the watch won’t do well?
Yep, who would have though that paying too much for something or rude sales people would hurt the product sales? :)
Sadly the Watch is starting to look awfully expensive for me in the UK – alas the iPhone and now the Watch are now for me rather costly to carry around outside, or to loose or get damaged.
Great Article….Here are my thoughts on the sales experience (at least in NYC)
There is a new Apple Store under construction on NYC’s Madison Avenue @74th St. It’s neighbors are many high-end jewelry and watch boutiques. As I drove past it today, i can see they are making great headway in hitting the Spring 2015 opening. Apple could use this store exclusively as a Watch showroom for the launch, with the other stores having a smaller watch footprint.
Just a thought.
I was thinking that may be Apple could keep the shape and design of the watch the same for several generations to come. That is because the watch cannot go any thinner while having a digital crown on the side. Other than the thickness, I don’t see any shapes Apple will opt for other than the actual one.
With the form factor remaining the same, I was thinking that Apple might offer the service of upgrading the internals of the device for some reasonable amount. This might be even more easy to be done given that the whole watch system is just on one chip, now the S1.
Hence those who bought the gold or even steel version of the device won’t feel they wasted a huge amount of money when seeing the next gen watch being much more capable than their own.
Smart thought.
Look at the photos above. There’s plenty of room to reduce the thickness of the watch before it matches the thickness of the digital crown.
It seems there is some space below the digital crown and almost no space above. But then you can’t decrease the space below much because you will loose grip on the digital crown. Probably it is the reason why the crown is closer to the top than the bottom. You need room to handle the digital crown.
It is just my opinion, but I think the way the watch is designed, it is meant to stay the same for quite some time – at least until some new technology arrives that radically changes the way the device functions. What I have in mind is bendable devices that takes the shape of your arm.
Wouldn’t it be just wonderful if Apple decided to do upgrades on their new watch every two years instead of every year?
Of course, this won’t happen, but the anticipation for the next gen doesn’t come much longer after having bought the current one, and it’s just a sad trend producing mass to landfills and a loss of total satisfaction and enjoyment of the really great products we have in our hands (or, in this case, on our wrists).
Personally, I’d be delighted if Apple “changed the game” with these watches by creating bi-annual upgrades. People would be less concerned with what’s coming within the next 12 months and would be able to relax and think about other things. It’s not inconceivable to think of, but in this day and age it is, sadly, an unacceptable notion.
Although the wait, for some, would be excruciating (#firstworldproblems), each upgrade would be a huge leap forward–and something to enjoy for two full years (imagine that!)!
Thank you for your well thought input on upcoming Watch.
First, I am beyond excited to get the new Watch! It has always been a dream to wear ’s “iWatch” since the rumor began to came out from 2012.
Pricing: I think the pricing will be compared to 5C, 5S and 6/6 Plus with Watch Sports, Watch and, Watch Edition. (This is just my opinion) $349 will definitely be the smaller screen of Apple Watch Sports and Apple will probably have $50-$100 range to change the screen size.
Upgrades: I think the upgrade program has to exist for Apple to attract as many customers they could so I think they will use the upgrade program.
Materials: One word: Sapphire Crystal. This is a major deciding factor (at least for me) to choose Watch over Watch Sports. I am not going to deal with accidentally hitting something (a metal pole on a bus) and crack my screen. I want something that will not break until I grab a shotgun and decide to destroy my Watch. (Which will never happen). But, how much is Sapphire Crystal going to make a difference? I don’t know so, please someone help on this.)
Anyways, I will be in the line before it launches. All I can say is, this is going to be awesome. :)
Apple should lower the price to $200-300 making it more reasonable to upgrade in the future and increase the market.
So that practically every iPhone 6(or future models) owner wants to, and can buy the Apple Watch.
That way Apple can get more integrated in the life of many people and make it a have to have product.
I already see it as a product that can change the way we life, for example if you want to turn of the lights of your house while you are in your car you can.
You could basically control your whole house with just looking at your wrist.
Maybe its in a way a unnecessary luxary because you can just look at your phone and do all that.
But its just so simple by doing it with your wrist.
But the same could have been sad about Smartphones back in the day.
You could just go on your computer/laptop and do all that.
and call/text on a $30 phone.
But look where we are right now?
Everyone uses it.
Smartwatches have the same potential.
This watch will be a huge succes for the elderly. The health issue is greatly underrated. Healtcare will be influenced the way the music sales was influenced by lanching itunes and ipod. This watch will have a tremendus influence on the way we consume healthcare. Mark my words.