Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On the Pricing of Apple Watch

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#61

Post by moeedm »

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…

For starters, it's not called "iWatch".

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#62

Post by Steko »

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.

I think this angle might be overstated. Are heirloom purchases really what drives the $60 billion luxury watch industry? Or it it people like my boss and his boss -- "watch guys" who buy at least one high end watch a year? Or the very rich?

Does Apple really need to target all the same people the current luxury market does? Or can the product be successful by targeting the many people who don't even wear watches?

When the iPhone debuted many people focused on the features it lacked compared to the competition but by and large it sold to people who had never used smartphones and didn't think of those features as dealbreakers. Yes people were going there (to smartphones) eventually anyway but we might say the same thing about wearables/watches.

Instead of saying "hey the Apple watch doesn't do these things just like other watches" what we should be saying is, that's obvious to anyone including Apple, why did they make that decision? Perhaps the current watch companies are the ones that have failed by fighting over a market that's 1% of what it could be and then puffing their chest up like RIM before the storm.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#63

Post by moeedm »

Shivetya wrote: post #22
jljljl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

which would be highly unlikely because when has Apple ever done that for its current consumer items? The iPod, iPad, and iPhone, have all been user pays the cost to replace when a new model drops. I think some people are just trying to justify an expensive purchase they have already decided to buy. If it was a wholly stand alone device I might under stand its pricing but as it stands now I do not. If the article pric…

Stop thinking of the Apple Watch as a technology product. It's not called iWatch for a reason. It's called Apple Watch and if you think you're going to take it to the Genius Bar to get it looked at, you're dead wrong.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#64

Post by js4all »

This speculation is insane. An Apple watch is no mechanical masterpiece like luxury watches in this price region. No watch lover will pay such prices for cheap Chinese electronics. If Apple pulls that stunt, the are geniuses in marketing.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#65

Post by terrywilcox »

radley wrote: post #28
eof wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

basically everything in traditional business atire is just demonstration of wealth if you really dig into it. what about the other ten thousand solid/plated gold watches? rolex watches containing gold are probably all over wrists of people you would be happy to do business with. don't get me wrong.. 5k for an iwatch is ridiculous

I have no problem with expensive goods, even gold watches. It's the part of "slap some gold on my Apple device" that is counter-intuitive. There's no way Steve Jobs thought "what we're really missing is a gold version". It's not zen. It's gaudy. The few extremely-successful people I've met that have impressed me have been very low key. Can you imagine PG wearing a gold iWatch???

There's a word for judging people by what they wear or how they look...

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#66

Post by aetherson »

sneak wrote: post #57
nicpottier wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Apple watch will tell time far better than a Rolex for decades to come. CPU and memory and Moore's Law can't change that.

Well, sure. But it's also way uglier than a Rolex, and it needs to be charged nightly.

I don't regard "OMG it needs to be charged nightly" as a big problem ordinarily, but if your point is that the smartwatch degrades gracefully into a normal watch, then it's relevant the ways that it's inferior to a normal watch.

More to the point, presumably anyone who shells out for a smartwatch wants, you know, an actual smartwatch.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#67

Post by bornabox »

gjoeworm wrote: post #2

I think his $5k estimate is much stronger than his $20k estimate. An Apple Editions is not a Patek Phillippe. There is a dramatically different replacement cycle which means that any attempt to cut and paste lux strategies is going to either fail entirely, or narrow the market so thoroughly as to be indistinguishable from failure.

You do realize, that a nice luxury watch costs easily 20k, 30, 50k or even 100k. It's a whole other category. 20K definitely doesn't sound totaly out of the ballpark for a 18K Watch with 18K Gold bracelet.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#68

Post by aetherson »

ghshephard wrote: post #46
puranjay wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, and Steve Jobs dismissed tablets in 2003 ("people want keyboards") and dismissed smaller tablets in 2010 ("the 10-inch screen size is the minimum size required to create great tablet apps") and dismissed putting a screen on an iPod in 2004 ("It's the music, stupid"), and dismissed larger-than 3.5" screened phones in 2010 ("Nobody's going to buy that.")

Ive has to say that rectangles are clearly the superior form factor. It's his job. That doesn't mean that two years from now Apple won't have a round watch. It doesn't mean that they will, either.

EDIT: Also, uh, what if someone comes up with a really good use for smart-watches that isn't lists-related? "Dealing with lists" is not selling me on the need to buy another multi-hundred dollar gadget.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#69

Post by bornabox »

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.

The whole heirloom argument doesn't ring right. I mean, sure, this happens and is part of the market. But I'd wager it's a small part. There are many watch-guys and rich people who buy 20, 30K watches because they can and like them. Not because they might give them to their kids in 30 years.

Re: On the Pricing of Apple Watch

#70

Post by gjoeworm »

twoodfin wrote: post #3
gjoeworm wrote: post #2

I think his $5k estimate is much stronger than his $20k estimate. An Apple Editions is not a Patek Phillippe. There is a dramatically different replacement cycle which means that any attempt to cut and paste lux strategies is going to either fail entirely, or narrow the market so thoroughly as to be indistinguishable from failure.

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…

That's absolutely right. I'm assuming that these will have extremely limited upgradability.
Post reply on HN