Apple Watch

[Arkady]

Anyone see yesterday's Apple Watch announcement? The high end watch will go for $17,000! That blew my mind. I understand the Apple strategy.... they want to capture both the "money is no object" crowd who are looking for a status symbol, and the masses who will go for a plastic band and aluminum case with a relatively reasonable $350 price tag. So, they came up with a way to sell the same product to different people with a clear cosmetic difference showing price.

I'll be interested to see how that goes for them. Sometimes companies avoid putting out really low-end products because it'll hurt their brand (if BMW put out a $15,000 car, in the US, it would probably hurt their standing with those who buy BMWs as a status symbol, even if there were higher-end models that were clearly identified as such.) But in this case, Apple might be hurt the other way: the high-end model could cause the product to seem like a snobby bauble of the elite, even though there are more affordable models for the masses.

 

[Spamature]

Anyone see yesterday's Apple Watch announcement? The high end watch will go for $17,000! That blew my mind. I understand the Apple strategy.... they want to capture both the "money is no object" crowd who are looking for a status symbol, and the masses who will go for a plastic band and aluminum case with a relatively reasonable $350 price tag. So, they came up with a way to sell the same product to different people with a clear cosmetic difference showing price.

I'll be interested to see how that goes for them. Sometimes companies avoid putting out really low-end products because it'll hurt their brand (if BMW put out a $15,000 car, in the US, it would probably hurt their standing with those who buy BMWs as a status symbol, even if there were higher-end models that were clearly identified as such.) But in this case, Apple might be hurt the other way: the high-end model could cause the product to seem like a snobby bauble of the elite, even though there are more affordable models for the masses.

I never understood Apple mania. Samsung already makes a better watch that actually works as a phone on its own.

http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-watch-specs-versus-moto-360-lg-g-watch-r-samsung-gear-s/

 

[Arkady]

Anyone see yesterday's Apple Watch announcement? The high end watch will go for $17,000! That blew my mind. I understand the Apple strategy.... they want to capture both the "money is no object" crowd who are looking for a status symbol, and the masses who will go for a plastic band and aluminum case with a relatively reasonable $350 price tag. So, they came up with a way to sell the same product to different people with a clear cosmetic difference showing price.

I'll be interested to see how that goes for them. Sometimes companies avoid putting out really low-end products because it'll hurt their brand (if BMW put out a $15,000 car, in the US, it would probably hurt their standing with those who buy BMWs as a status symbol, even if there were higher-end models that were clearly identified as such.) But in this case, Apple might be hurt the other way: the high-end model could cause the product to seem like a snobby bauble of the elite, even though there are more affordable models for the masses.

Just a guess here:

I'm betting Apple won't sell many higher-end watches. The problem they face is that electronics don't tend to age well. It's not like buying a Rolex and it still looks like a fancy status symbol 30 years later, so that you can think of it like an investment -- something you'll hand down to your kid some day. Instead, most electronics that look super fancy when you buy them look like junk a few years later, even if they've physically aged just fine. That first-generation iPod looks like a brick and has far fewer capabilities than the vastly smaller iPod nano of today. A laptop from 20 years ago looks awful today and can't run pretty much any software.

So, who is going to want to spent $17,000 on a hunk of gold watch that's going to look like a trashy brick and be a technological joke within a few years? I think you'd probably get more people willing to consider the purchase if Apple made it modular, with the idea that it would be easy, in a few years, to pop out the $500 computer inside of it, throw that in the trash, and pop in a new $500 state-of-the-art computer, without losing the $16,500 investment in the solid gold case and designer wristband.

 

[Arkady]

I never understood Apple mania. Samsung already makes a better watch that actually works as a phone on its own.

http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-watch-specs-versus-moto-360-lg-g-watch-r-samsung-gear-s/

I'm not familiar with their watch, but I can understand why people like Apple, generally. When I use competing products, I'm sometimes envious of certain features Apple doesn't yet have, or lower price points, but I'm never tempted to switch, just because the design is almost never as thoughtful and well integrated. The user interface is usually crap, for starters. Plus, one of the worst cases of buyer's remorse I ever had was when I bought a Toshiba laptop, rather than the slightly more expensive Apple laptop. On paper, the Toshiba had better stats, but it crashed all the time, the parts were poorly manufactured so that the screen ended up scratched and detached from the rest of the computer, the keys stuck and malfunctioned, the wifi would randomly stop working for no apparent reason, the battery life soon dropped to unusable levels, and I had to clear out crapware and spyware on a regular basis. I'd never had anything like that bad an experience with a computer, and after I went back to Apple, I never did again.

 

[Spamature]

Just a guess here:

I'm betting Apple won't sell many higher-end watches. The problem they face is that electronics don't tend to age well. It's not like buying a Rolex and it still looks like a fancy status symbol 30 years later, so that you can think of it like an investment -- something you'll hand down to your kid some day. Instead, most electronics that look super fancy when you buy them look like junk a few years later, even if they've physically aged just fine. That first-generation iPod looks like a brick and has far fewer capabilities than the vastly smaller iPod nano of today. A laptop from 20 years ago looks awful today and can't pretty much any software.

So, who is going to want to spent $17,000 on a hunk of gold watch that's going to look like a trashy brick and be a technological joke within a few years? I think you'd probably get more people willing to consider the purchase if Apple made it modular, with the idea that it would be easy, in a few years, to pop out the $500 computer inside of it, throw that in the trash, and pop in a new $500 state-of-the-art computer, without losing the $16,500 investment in the solid gold case and designer wristband.

I'm pretty sure the $17k versions are meant to be celebrity wrist advertisements.

 

[Arkady]

I'm pretty sure the $17k versions are meant to be celebrity wrist advertisements.

Probably. You'd really need to be ueber rich for it to make sense -- the kind of rich where you can buy a $17,000 piece of jewelry you'll wear for two years then never wear again. For multi-millionaires, that may not be a problem. But even your typical "lower upper class" type, who buys 5-series BMWs and doesn't think twice about shelling out $1500 for a driver that'll take maybe half a stroke off his golf game isn't going to be laying out $17,000 bucks for a piece of wearable electronics that'll feel hopelessly technologically obsolete in a few years.

I suppose, in theory, a few years down the road, when the electronic guts of the watch are a joke, the person could still sell the gold. But I'm betting there's a huge markup between the incremental price of the high-end watch and the extra value of the gold in it. Like, maybe, you pay $9,000 extra to get the gold watch than the stainless steel one that's electronically identical, and you'd get $2,000 if you sold the gold.

 

[resident_evil]

Anyone see yesterday's Apple Watch announcement? The high end watch will go for $17,000! That blew my mind. I understand the Apple strategy.... they want to capture both the "money is no object" crowd who are looking for a status symbol, and the masses who will go for a plastic band and aluminum case with a relatively reasonable $350 price tag. So, they came up with a way to sell the same product to different people with a clear cosmetic difference showing price.

I'll be interested to see how that goes for them. Sometimes companies avoid putting out really low-end products because it'll hurt their brand (if BMW put out a $15,000 car, in the US, it would probably hurt their standing with those who buy BMWs as a status symbol, even if there were higher-end models that were clearly identified as such.) But in this case, Apple might be hurt the other way: the high-end model could cause the product to seem like a snobby bauble of the elite, even though there are more affordable models for the masses.

People buy iPhones and then pay very good money to bling them up. Apple is simply cutting out the middle man. But then there is more choice/individuality in blinging up an iphone than an iwatch I'd imagine.

 

[Arkady]

People buy iPhones and then pay very good money to bling them up. Apple is simply cutting out the middle man. But then there is more choice/individuality in blinging up an iphone than an iwatch I'd imagine.

Yes. I'd guess that a lot of people like the look of the gold watch, but don't want to shell out over $10k to have solid gold. They'd be perfectly content with a layer of gold plating. Apple probably knows this and has avoided offering a gold-plated option, in order to keep the status-symbol quality of the gold watch. It'll be interesting to see if some after-market solution steps in to retrofit a stainless steel watch to look gold for a few hundred bucks. It shouldn't be hard to electroplate it in gold, but I'd bet you'd void your warranty.

 

[marvin martian]

Apple knows it's customers very well. If they have created sufficient hype to get stupid people to wait in line for five days outside an Apple store for the privilege of paying $600 for a phone that costs the company less than $20 to produce, they should have little trouble convincing other stupid people to vastly overpay for a golden gadget.

 

[Dawg]

low end watch cost about what some tennis shoes cost.............
who's buying those or killing others for those_____________

maybe Hillary will get Slick the $18,000 watch so he can Twitter, since Slick doesn't email..

 

[connieb]

Apple knows it's customers very well. If they have created sufficient hype to get stupid people to wait in line for five days outside an Apple store for the privilege of paying $600 for a phone that costs the company less than $20 to produce, they should have little trouble convincing other stupid people to vastly overpay for a golden gadget.

Exactly Marvin. I know plenty of people who lament being behind on their bills, not being able to "afford" things like insurance, or proper food. But, damn if they don't sport the gadgets. And, the high end ones at that.

I got an Iphone when my blackberry went kaplooey last summer. I was suckered into it. Its fine, it has some neat features my old crackberry did not one thing I do LOVE is its ability to be its own wifi hotspot. BUT - i seriously don't get the bucks and the hype. I have had to restart it every now again because it wigs out which is no different than my old blackberry. Its clunky, its expensive so I worry about losing it. Eh.. we have become a society addicted to spending money and material items. Its not good for us, its not good for our economic health.

 

[Spamature]

I'm not familiar with their watch, but I can understand why people like Apple, generally. When I use competing products, I'm sometimes envious of certain features Apple doesn't yet have, or lower price points, but I'm never tempted to switch, just because the design is almost never as thoughtful and well integrated. The user interface is usually crap, for starters. Plus, one of the worst cases of buyer's remorse I ever had was when I bought a Toshiba laptop, rather than the slightly more expensive Apple laptop. On paper, the Toshiba had better stats, but it crashed all the time, the parts were poorly manufactured so that the screen ended up scratched and detached from the rest of the computer, the keys stuck and malfunctioned, the wifi would randomly stop working for no apparent reason, the battery life soon dropped to unusable levels, and I had to clear out crapware and spyware on a regular basis. I'd never had anything like that bad an experience with a computer, and after I went back to Apple, I never did again.

The walled garden vs the wilds. Reliability vs versatility is the trade off.

 

[as seen on tv]

Chinese couterfeiters are alredy displaying lookalike models for under $50. For real.

 

[Arkady]

The walled garden vs the wilds. Reliability vs versatility is the trade off.

Yep. In some situations, I prefer "the wilds" approach -- for example, I like to have a computer I can get into and add my own hardware, as well as customize the interface, etc. But when it comes to personal electronics like MP3 players, smartphones, tablets, etc., what I'm looking for is an intuitive, attractive, consistent interface and bulletproof reliability. I don't want to have to think about them much. If my laptop is rendered quirky or unreliable by some tinkering, I don't mind tinkering to fix it, but I just want my phone to work effortlessly and consistently without any fuss on my part.

 

[Arkady]

Chinese couterfeiters are alredy displaying lookalike models for under $50. For real.

When my wife heard the price tag on her preferred model ($17k), she was really disappointed. She wouldn't be interested in a counterfeit piece of electronic hardware, but if there were a way to reface the metal case to look gold, and slap on an counterfeit band, for a few hundred bucks, she'd jump at it. This is the one she likes: