On the Pricing of Apple Watch • Hacker News Board

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#41

Post by radley » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:29 PM UTC

radley wrote: post #20

solutionyogi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Heh - I was assuming it would be hard to walk in solid gold shoes ;-)

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#42

Post by jannotti » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:29 PM UTC

ssharp wrote: post #29

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…

I was thinking about how long an Apple Watch could take to become obsolete, given how quickly electronics, and particularly mobile electronics, become obsolete. I kept coming back to the idea that these things could last quite some time, possibly a very long time. The watch shouldn't need to do substantial processing, only has a limited number of pixels to push and shouldn't rely on substantial processing like graphi…

That all sounds reasonable. But I have to believe it's completely wrong. Because it's the same sort of "reasonable" that says every level of technology is pretty much all you need. That is finally (decades later) pretty much true of desktop computers (but not displays). And it's getting there for laptops (excepting their displays and batteries). It's still years away for phones. And to think that the very first generation of of Apple watch is somehow going to get everything right to last for even one decade? I think that's preposterous.

The only way I can see them getting around this is by saying that for, say $500, we'll be able to take your watch in and swap out its guts entirely. It feels like that has to be true. (Yet, it also seems "chincy" to talk about popping things in and out. I guess we'll see.)

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#43

Post by moeedm » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:30 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…

You would take your watch to Apple and get it serviced. They'd buff it up, and swap out the S1 for an S2 and so on.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#44

Post by 7Z7 » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:30 PM UTC

puranjay wrote: post #26

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…

I'm absolutely amazed that Gruber and the smart folks who read him have missed this. My dad has a Rolex. It belonged to his dad. My eldest brother will likely inherit it one day. That Rolex is a family heirloom. It's style is timeless (sorry) and it isn't going to run out of RAM or processing power anytime soon.

He hasn't missed this. On several episodes of his podcast he and his guests have pondered whether the watch may have some standardised internal bay with upgradable innards, to keep it up to date year-to-year.

Or just trade it in for the newest model, as the gold will be the most valuable (and reusable) part.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#45

Post by shanusmagnus » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:31 PM UTC

radley wrote: post #16

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.

The way the processing module is designed as a little encapsulated nugget-thing suggests that maybe this upgrade idea is more feasible with the watch than it would be for other devices.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#46

Post by ghshephard » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:32 PM UTC

puranjay wrote: post #27

radley wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a bold bet on the form factor itself. What's the guarantee that Apple won't launch a round face watch in the 3rd iteration?

In the NewYorker Article, Jony made it clear that they considered a round face, but realized quite quickly that one of the principal functions of the watch was to deal with lists, which work much better on a rectangle.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#47

Post by unreal37 » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:32 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 other difference is that Rolex doesn't sell a $200 watch. I can't think of any legitimate luxury brand in the world that successfully sells to the common man and the uber rich.

There's no $20,000 Rolls Royce. There's no $100 Prada bag. There's no $50,000 Ferrari. Any brand that dips too low into the mass market loses its cachet among the top tier of the market (i.e. BMW and Coach as two examples)

Apple Watch will not sell for $10,000. Gruber is being Gruber.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#48

Post by chipotle_coyote » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:32 PM UTC

puranjay wrote: post #26

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…

I'm absolutely amazed that Gruber and the smart folks who read him have missed this. My dad has a Rolex. It belonged to his dad. My eldest brother will likely inherit it one day. That Rolex is a family heirloom. It's style is timeless (sorry) and it isn't going to run out of RAM or processing power anytime soon.

Gruber's talked about that before on his podcast, so he hasn't missed it -- but I think you're right that it'd be good to address in print. I know I'd be hesitant to fork over even a "mere" $1000 for the stainless steel one if the expectation was that it'd be obsolete in a few years.

I can't imagine, however, that this hasn't come up within Apple already; if you're really going to sell a $10K smartwatch, this will have been talked about in planning meetings. I can imagine ways to make it serviceable; my own guess is that there will be a trade-in program for the steel and gold watches.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#49

Post by moeedm » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:33 PM UTC

puranjay wrote: post #27

radley wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a bold bet on the form factor itself. What's the guarantee that Apple won't launch a round face watch in the 3rd iteration?

Jony Ive was pretty clear about why they didn't go for a round face in his interview with The New Yorker:

> Ive later tested watchbands by wearing them outside the studio with other watches. The shape of the body, meanwhile, barely changed: a rectangle with rounded corners. “When a huge part of the function is lists”—of names, or appointments—“a circle doesn’t make any sense,” Ive said.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#50

Post by publicfig » Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 6:35 PM UTC

tessierashpool wrote: post #38

when Jobs returned to Apple, he gave a big speech about how market share never mattered to BMW, and that Apple should become the BMW of personal computers. it did, and it went on to become much, much more. but its huge fame today is pushing the Mac away from being BMWs. all of which makes me desperately wish there was a Lamborghini or Ferarri of personal computers. most people might only need a computer to look at Fa…

The Mac Pro is pretty much exactly that though. If you need a more specialized machine, you'll probably need to consider building your own machine in the first place with your specific needs.