On the Pricing of Apple Watch • Hacker News Board

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#11

Post by aetherson » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 5:53 PM UTC

guan wrote: post #6

twoodfin wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's assuming there's no upgrade story to be told at the launch event. I agree it would be a little weird coming from the modern Apple, but I just can't see a marketing pitch that sells even a "merely" $5,000 device that's functionally equivalent to a $350 one and essentially guaranteed to be obsolete within 5 years. Obviously there's a market that can afford to treat such a luxury as disposable, but that doesn't s…

Or the watches will have significant trade-in value because they can ditch the electronics and melt down the gold.

Gold currently sells at $1200 per oz. Looks like smart watches are typically around 2oz in weight, though presumably a gold smart watch would be heavier. On the other hand, presumably also a large amount of the weight is non-gold. And you'd obviously pay a penalty for the cost of removing the non-gold bits and recycling the gold.

So, overall: The pure commodity value of the gold might significantly defray the cost of a hypothetical $5k aWatch, but not very much of the cost of a hypothetical $20k aWatch.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#12

Post by wodenokoto » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 5:54 PM UTC

I think it is interesting how Apple might bring and entire industry into the general public.

I mean, I knew you could get very, very expensive watches, but now this is suddenly that is brought in front of everybody.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#13

Post by radley » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

A $20k (or even $5k) gold Apple watch will be a litmus test for me - anyone I encounter will automatically be someone I wouldn't do business with. The idea of a gold Apple watch is akin to gold-plated cars / guns for drug dealers. The only value it adds it to show you have money.

The fact that Apple would even consider it only demonstrate the corrosion of values and vision to me.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#14

Post by txu » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 5:59 PM UTC

nicpottier wrote: post #7

CJefferson wrote: post #5

There is one massive different with usual watches. Expensive watches are often sold under the idea you will never have to buy another watch, and neither will your children, or your children's children. I will reasonably surprised if any new Apple Watch hasn't been made forcibly obsolete by Apple within 5 years or so, and shocked if it is still functional in 10. Furthermore (and more worrying perhaps for people paying…

Yes, exactly, this seems so obvious that I don't understand why Gruber is ignoring it. The iWatch will be obsolete in 24 months at most (less if you are the type who values status and want a "$20,000" watch as the next model will probably come out 12-18 months later) Maybe there are enough uber-rich people that are ok buying $20,000 watches every year, but that seems like a really, really small market. Then again, ma…

Also the first thing came to my mind. Keeping the bands intact makes sense. Given the size of the watch there won't be much gold used in the watch head anyway.

And this is purely fantasizing, maybe you can upgrade golden models by paying a comparatively small upgrade fee...return the old watch head and get a new one with upgraded electronic parts... :-D

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#15

Post by ghaff » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:01 PM UTC

nicpottier wrote: post #7

CJefferson wrote: post #5

There is one massive different with usual watches. Expensive watches are often sold under the idea you will never have to buy another watch, and neither will your children, or your children's children. I will reasonably surprised if any new Apple Watch hasn't been made forcibly obsolete by Apple within 5 years or so, and shocked if it is still functional in 10. Furthermore (and more worrying perhaps for people paying…

Yes, exactly, this seems so obvious that I don't understand why Gruber is ignoring it. The iWatch will be obsolete in 24 months at most (less if you are the type who values status and want a "$20,000" watch as the next model will probably come out 12-18 months later) Maybe there are enough uber-rich people that are ok buying $20,000 watches every year, but that seems like a really, really small market. Then again, ma…

I'm not sure Gruber is ignoring it as much as he's making a statement about the economics of precious metals. It's definitely a factor in the market for such things though. Apple could potentially offer some sort of trade-in for the metal I suppose but this does seem to be one of those cases (as in autos) where there's a mismatch between the lifecycle of electronics and the lifecycle of the thing the electronics are part of.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#16

Post by radley » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:03 PM UTC

CJefferson wrote: post #5

There is one massive different with usual watches. Expensive watches are often sold under the idea you will never have to buy another watch, and neither will your children, or your children's children. I will reasonably surprised if any new Apple Watch hasn't been made forcibly obsolete by Apple within 5 years or so, and shocked if it is still functional in 10. Furthermore (and more worrying perhaps for people paying…

The idea he presented previously is that you'd be able to go in to Apple and upgrade the tech innards of your fancy gold iWatch when new, faster, more awesome bits are released.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#17

Post by rndn » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:04 PM UTC

Eww, that just reminds me of the fact that some people are wealthy enough to spend 20K for some status symbol, a sum of money I would try to build awesome stuff with. At the same time, I realize that those who can't afford a MacBook might think in similar terms about me, so thank you Apple for making me feel bad and to remind us once again how fucked up everything is.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#18

Post by solutionyogi » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:04 PM UTC

radley wrote: post #13

A $20k (or even $5k) gold Apple watch will be a litmus test for me - anyone I encounter will automatically be someone I wouldn't do business with. The idea of a gold Apple watch is akin to gold-plated cars / guns for drug dealers. The only value it adds it to show you have money. The fact that Apple would even consider it only demonstrate the corrosion of values and vision to me.

Are you suggesting that you never do business with people who wear Rolex?

I don't know how that makes sense. I would never pay 5k for a watch but I do wear shoes which costs 1300$. That doesn't make me a bad person, just that I like to spend money on shoes. I can completely understand that someone may want to spend 5k on Apple Watch.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#19

Post by jljljl » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:08 PM UTC

CJefferson wrote: post #5

There is one massive different with usual watches. Expensive watches are often sold under the idea you will never have to buy another watch, and neither will your children, or your children's children. I will reasonably surprised if any new Apple Watch hasn't been made forcibly obsolete by Apple within 5 years or so, and shocked if it is still functional in 10. Furthermore (and more worrying perhaps for people paying…

There is speculation in some circles that Apple will offer a servicing program, in which the S1 could be removed and replaced with the next generation SoC for the Apple watches.

Also just me speculating here: For the high end watches, it might be reasonable for Apple to include some number of SoC upgrades as part of their package.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#20

Post by radley » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:08 PM UTC

solutionyogi wrote: post #18

radley wrote: post #13

A $20k (or even $5k) gold Apple watch will be a litmus test for me - anyone I encounter will automatically be someone I wouldn't do business with. The idea of a gold Apple watch is akin to gold-plated cars / guns for drug dealers. The only value it adds it to show you have money. The fact that Apple would even consider it only demonstrate the corrosion of values and vision to me.

Are you suggesting that you never do business with people who wear Rolex? I don't know how that makes sense. I would never pay 5k for a watch but I do wear shoes which costs 1300$. That doesn't make me a bad person, just that I like to spend money on shoes. I can completely understand that someone may want to spend 5k on Apple Watch.

Would you pay $5k-20k for a gold-plated version of those shoes?

Regarding Rolex (which I also feel are also overpriced antiques) they at least have a lasting value. They're often heirlooms passed down to children, partners, etc.

A 100 year old watch is awesome. A 200 year old Rolex will be amazing, but possible. But I just can't imagine Apple supporting a first-gen iWatch 50-200 years after release.