I just saw a pricing for Apple Watch that has been revealed today.
The pricing that I find it bizarre is Apple Watch Edition, which seems to be a little bit ridiculous, even for a premium watch.
In Australia, the Apple Watch Edition prices range from 14k - 24k (that's in dollars, not karats - fyi, I think all of them are 18 karats)
What do you guys think about it?
Link for pricing: http://store.apple.com/au/buy-watch/apple-watch-edition
the thing is a gold rolex etc can last a life time
this apple watch has maybe 3-4 years before battery dies or IoS is no longer supported
what do you do then?
wear a gold brick on ur wrist?
hopefully they have a good trade in, or the ability to replace parts program (doubtful, this is how apple makes money)
This is exactly the mentality people have. Obviously the functional parts are going to be struggling after a few years, and the technology will be outdated long before that. Nobody has an answer for that yet, but we assume Apple has something planned for the long term relevancy of these watches.
If they didn't delve into the high end market with watches, they're just making more Samsung / Pebble watches, which have thus far been both poorly received and not very pleasant to use.
I doubt apple will care, more churn in products = more profits!
If you bought your pebble as a watch more than as a gadget then I don't see how you can't be satisfied. I love mine!
@djones145: lol you didn't buy enough AppleCare for then to care enough about you to do that for you.
"we assume Apple has something planned for the long term relevancy of these watches."
yes the-
Apple consumer frenzy rip-off and infringe on personal privacy iWatch 2 !!!
hmm… may be a bit wordy.
What do you do when the hardware/software is out of date? Well Apple will probably sell you an upgraded internal module that can be installed for more than the cost of the watch itself.
A bit like printers and proprietary ink cartridges perhaps?
If you don't pay for the upgrade you can probably take it to a scrap gold/metal dealer.
it's not going to last more than 1 to 2 years…. you are dreaming to get 3-4 years from a fruit!
People don't seem to understand the target audience for this. This is targeted for the wealthy who would only wear their $10,000 Louis Vuitton handbag a few times before chucking it away. Why would they want to be seen with last season's clothing?? Everyone here always argue with the same mentality of an average consumer. This watch ISN'T targeted for the peasants.
hmm.. this is true.. quite a biased view being posted in ozbargain forums
Those wealthy people are not going to buy an Apple Watch. The fashionistas that Apple's desperately trying to court through Parisian boutiques either don't care for it, are cautiously indifferent (Vogue), or derisive (GQ/Esquire). Even the people who are buying $10K LV bags don't want something that is virtually identical to a $US 350 version that peasants own, just because it's covered in 18K gold. Anna Wintour doesn't cruise around in a gold-plated Corolla. The people who'll buy the gold Apple Watch must be a combination of 1) very rich, 2) have no taste, and 3) don't give a sh*t… think Soulja Boy or Kim Jong-Un.
This article puts it more politely than me.
Buying a limited edition Apple Watch Edition isn’t like buying a Rolex Cellini or a Patek Phillipe Calatrava — two of the watches Apple is competing against — it’s like buying an 18-karat gold iPhone. Yeah, it’s solid gold, but it’s still an iPhone. Millions of people have it. You can’t go a day without running into one. And that’s not great when you’re dropping well over $10,000 on a supposedly exclusive watch.
Apple is leveraging its reputation as a legendary technology company to sell a 18-karat gold watch, but it may not be enough. Even high-end fashion brands like Louis Vuitton and Burberry haven’t garnered favor with their attempts to make watches, and they came in with a deep fashion pedigree.
Most people spend thousands on watches for one of three reasons: they either collect watches, want to acquire an heirloom to pass down, or they want to make a fashion statement. Outside of collectors, the Apple Watch Edition doesn’t check any of those boxes, and hasn’t provided a fourth reason.
@Strand0410: The 'targeted audience' are for affluent people who are interested in getting a smart watch. It's like people who buy $8000 Vertu android phones. They don't care that there's $50 android phones around. And also its like a BMW. They sell 30k cars up to 300k cars. Do people who buy their top of the line cars care that BMW sells other cars cheap enough for the commoners? No. Compared to other tech brands Apple is the BMW of the Automotive industry. They sell their lowest tier model at a slight premium but affordable for the masses, but their most expensive is still highly desirable for the rich. For them an Apple watch is like for us spending $10 on a calculator watch. If you have to check you're bank balance before you buy the gold Apple watch, this isn't targeted for you.
And again with the life time argument of a Rolex etc. If these people can spend 10k without hesitating on a watch they won't be caring about resale value, or if it becomes obsolete in a few years. People don't seem to get that for these people its chump change for them. Enough with the average consumer mentality when dealing with the rich!
A good example is my friend who used to work at a very high end restaurant. Occasionally groups of people would come and they would, no joke order $1000 steaks etc. At the end they would argue who gets the 'honour' to pay for the bill. They're just in a whole different world to us.
Do people who buy their top of the line cars care that BMW sells other cars cheap enough for the commoners? No.
That's a bad comparison, because performance, engineering, interior comfort, add-ons, and post-purchase support all improve the higher up you go in BMW's portfolio. A more fitting scenario is comparing an entry-level BMW vs the exact same model but gold plated and a sticker price that's 30-50x as large, and expecting people to buy it because… gold.
I'm not saying it won't sell, I'm saying that 1%'ers won't buy… but 0.01%'ers might. The fashionistas buying LV or Patek Philippe aren't buying this because there's no cool cachet; it's virtually the same thing all the plebs have. The ones who will buy it are the handful of filthy rich who bathe in cristal and bought the "I AM RICH" app, because it's a curiosity. Unfortunately, those aren't the ones Apple's trying to woo through Parisian pop-up shops and crashing NY Fashion Week. Apple wants trend-setters and cool kids buying it, what they'll get is Sheikhs, rappers and the Rich Kids of Tehran.
I don't think Apple care if people buy this or not.
They made a ridiculous price tag so their name could be mentioned in the same sentence as Rolex and Patek. Their aim is for people to subconsciously compare it to renown Swiss watches. You guys are already doing all the work for them, unfortunately!
@chir0nex: Yeah, I don't think they're expecting anyone to buy these. The point of the $14K watch is to get people to talk about the Apple Watch. And it's working.
They'll send out a gold watch to various major Apple stores around the world and put them in a display case so they can draw in people to the stores for a look-see. At the end of the life cycle of the 1st gen watch, they'll return the watches and melt down the gold and use it for the 2nd gen gold watch and repeat the process all over again.
It's just marketing.
@chir0nex: No doubt, but they want to be perceived as a real competitor to those b rands, not a joke. Thus far, hardly anyone who spends thousands of dollars on watches is taking it particularly seriously The only thing that somewhat justifies the gold Apple Watch's inclusion in that conversation is the price tag, that's it, but not a single unit has been sold yet so right now, it's just a boardroom fantasy.
-
The Battery is replaceable
People spend thousands of dollars on a nice watch for its craftsmanship and detail. The the 12K Apple Watch has neither of these things. It's a commodity made by the same minimum wage Chinese hands as the regular $350 watch, with the same internals which will lose battery cycles, get slower, and less capable with time. Maybe some billionaire sheikhs and Russian oligarchs might buy this thing because… why not. But I can't see either tech people or watch people buying it.
As for this speculation that they're going to offer a service to upgrade the internals annually (for a fee, of course), I'm doubtful. Is Apple really going to back their design for future watches into a corner, just in the first generation?
I guess the marketing people have gotten to you….
one thing apple does well is marketing and brand power
have a look at those high end watches and the build quality and mechanics and you'll understand
Apple has gone to great lengths in terms of craftmanship and detail
It's just a smartwatch; one of the better ones out there, but ultimately a mass-produced, commoditised gadget soldered together with the least amount of human input. Millions of them are rolling off a Foxconn assembly line. There's no complicated movement, no craftsmanship, the $14,000 version only differs in the fact that it's screwed into a gold case. You're never going to give this thing to your kid in 10 years, let alone 50. Even the famed industrial design of Jony Ive is missing. Also, you should probably stop reading the brochure.
It's just a smartwatch; one of the better ones out there
We don't even know yet if that's the case. Could flop in more than one way, and the odds are stacked against it (since almost all smartwatches, even the better ones, still have their problems).
There's a lot of subjective terminology here which is making it hard for us to agree or disagree. (Although I do believe saying there is no craftsmanship in the Apple Watch is wrong - some of the links of the watch bands are brushed by hand to ensure the contours are consistent, and a single band takes 9 hours to machine cut due to the precision required for a perfect fit. This is from the brochure.) But I digress.
Luxury $14,000 versions aside, do you guys think the Apple Watch will be a flop or sell well?
I believe that in general the Apple Watch will become one of the most culturally important products of our generation, perhaps even a defining moment in technology, and be very, very popular.
What do you guys think?
@Jesmond: When I see people buying a brand watch, I personally see people investing in a product that has been hand manufactured by someone (or group of people) who've spent their life making watches. I personally think people pay for the skills of watch makers. I do not deny that Apple Watch would be a well made product, but that's it. Apple Watch is not a product of skills of watch makers who've spent their lifetime making watches; it's an electronic device that will probably last 2 years max. Though this is just my opinion on Edition.
As far as I see, Apple hasn't been bring any innovations to the table (of course, this is just my opinion). I was hoping to see something amazing with iPhone 6, for example. All I see is a larger iPhone. I was hoping to see something ground breaking with Apple Watch, all I see is yet another smartwatch that doesn't make me feel like I need it. Though be fair, Apple always had its strenght in software and user experience. I am simply not seeing any innovations that Apple was famous for in recent products.
That being said, even if it is a mediocre product, Apple will always be very popular because they are Apple. They have built their fanbase fairly well and people with prior experiences with iOS tend to stay because they've gotten used to it. Be fair, Apple products do work well and I do not disagree that Apple is one of the best companies in terms of electronic devices (Even though I think there is a premium to be paid and the competitors are getting better while Apple have stayed relateively same). All those Apple farmers will consider getting an Apple Watch, because that's where Apple's strength lies. Every products by Apple work in a way that allow users to have a great experience and I'd assume that it would be the case for the new Apple Watch as well. As for me, it's not selling itself to me. It looks like yet another smart watch that fails to sell itself to me. Though this is just my opinion, I might be biased on it.
@Jesmond: I suspect the watch will sell… okay, but just okay. If even tech pundits are gasping at the price of the mid-range steel model, will ordinary people jump in at $AU 800? Or even the $AU 500 'Sport'edition? I doubt it.
I believe that in general the Apple Watch will become one of the most culturally important products of our generation, perhaps even a defining moment in technology
There's a belief floating around that the Apple Watch is the next iPhone, or that it'll succeed because iPhone owners will buy them, but it takes so many leaps of faith to reach that conclusion. iPhones are sold piece-meal over 24 months, with the cost obscured by the service fee. If they were sold outright, people would balk at the $1000+ price tag. Do you think these same people who have iPhones now by virtue of 2 year contracts, are rushing off to buy a smartwatch outright for half the price of the iPhone? Or the people who buy Timexes and Swatches? No. Teenagers won't be able to afford one, nor are baristas going to blow 2 months of rent on one. It's going to be a small minority of people who have the disposable income to blow $500 (realistically, $800+ if it's a statement) on an unknown quantity. The Watch's RRP is completely tone deaf to me.
<Someone who owns an iPhone 6, iPad Air 2, and rMBP 13"
@djones145: I stopped reading further when Apple chastised Rubber for "Fluoroelastomer" … marketing at its best i tell you.
@Jesmond: I think you sound fair. It is likely that bands are polished by hand so lets not jump to conclusions and say applewatch is simple, a machine produced watch without any craftmanship..
This is the other side of the argument and should not be negged so that people can see it for their own better judgement.
The problem is that these are tech pieces with limited lifespans. Classic jewellery can last for a lifetime. Tech turnover is 1-3 years and then your 20k watch becomes an expensive paperweight.
At 55-69gms for the case its quite a light watch, doubt it would serve as a good paperweight either
Actually you get better timekeeping when you pay over 200. In order to get a loss of under 5sec a month you need to pay over 200 for sure.
my gshock disagrees with you.. sorry :(
Seem's most models (every one I tested [~10]) are +-15 Sec a month, care to link yours?
Internet access doesn't cost $200. If it even has wifi, that'd be enough to get a time sync. If it has a sim card, it can get carrier time sync too.
You can get an internet-enabled phone for less than $20 so I'm pretty sure you can get a watch for about the same.
What? A watch, not a phone. There are no internet enabled classic looking watches that I know of, yet alone for under $200 wven without paying for internet. Satellite synced watches go for ~$1500, and are always accurate to within a fraction of a second.
@algy: There are plenty of watches that can sync to a time server. Satellite is pointless and crazy expensive — may as well get a GPS watch. If you sync at least once a week (more likely once a day), it's still going to be one of the most accurate watches on the market, merely with quartz.
For the record, wifi or sim card do not require any active connection to get a time sync. The mere presence of a network allows a time sync. The same with GPS (which is a constellation of time-accurate satellites and can be bought for $50, btw). You don't need to pay anything for a connection.
We're talking about chips that cost less than $1 for manufacturers.
The thing is, the Apple Watch isn't a 'timepiece'…….
You would be hard pressed to find a gold watch for less, I'm assuming they are not just plating it. I think the real elephant in the room is the 18 hour battery life, unless they implement the wankwatch technology I have no desire to take it off every night to charge, I'd rather just top it off each morning.
utilise the 'wankwatch' technology each morning as you have more desire then, than every night?
Wouldn't you need to swap hands to make it a 'wankwatch?
your penis might fall off after 3 years once the battery stops holding charge too
Mate, they already have this wankwatch technology you're talking about… although it's actually for mechanical watches… It's call automatic, it "charges" with the "natural" movement of your arms. ;P
Thing is, a gold watch will last a lifetime, this would be hard-pressed to last 4 years without becoming seriously outdated…
Isn't everything Apple do overpriced anyway? (As he ducks out of the room and watches the carnage from afar)
Effectively all of them are overpriced, and they are trying snobbery to push up their profit margins into the stratosphere.
The guts seems to be exactly the same between models, it's just the case that's changing. However, from a fashion perspective it's …….. homely. The decision to go square was dumb if you are selling on the basis of looks - distinctly last but one generation.
Even the bottom of the list watch is overpriced for what it is (better looking smartwatches out there for lower prices) and the battery life basically makes it a toy (that battery WILL run out during the day).
Still, a fool and his money are soon parted …
im was going to get the normal apple watch.. now the prices are revealed ima go with the spor…
"Apple estimates the battery will last 18 hours, assuming you check the time 90 times, use apps for 45 minutes and work out for 30 minutes during that time."
errr using apps and working out is one of the main reasons for getting this watch…. if your limited in your ability to use it then wats the point….
So….if you workout for 1.5 hours, and use apps for 1.5 hours, it might not even last the day? It could quite realistically not last someone's long two way commute and a workout? Battery life is the absolute dealbreaker here, added to the fact they aren't exactly that stylish.
Not sure if any of his is going to be a big deal for the actual target market. Someone spending 10K+ on a watch clearly isn't buying it for the apps.
I get a feeling people will be looking more at the battery life, than the time..
Buy a #PatekPhilippe or donate the money to charity instead. Both are equally more rewarding.
borrowing this reply from a poster on gizmodo.. he said it better than I ever could..
$14k gets you
- Patek Phillipe Calatrava in white gold, which is an heirloom piece and the nicest watch I've seen for under $45k.
- a Vacheron Constantin Patrimony in white gold, which is a close runner up to the above (and many people rate VC as the world's best watchmaker)
- an IWC Pilot Vintage or a Portofino 8 Day in white gold if you want something stylish that says you know a little more about what you want
- A Hublot Classic Fusion in either Ti or gold if you want something a bit more masculine
- Ulysse Nardin Executive dual time, if you think you might be Vin Diesel but a nerdy accountant version
- Panerai Luminor 1950 Chrono if you are a douchebag that wears fluro spandex to Sterosonic
- A wide range of tacky gold rolexes if you are an Asian man in his 50s
- a Brietling Navitimer and a Chrono-matic
- Baume and Mercier Capeland S and a Classima Executives and enough change to buy a matching set for your partner
or you can have a digiwatch that bluetooths your iphone so you can play angrybirds.
Can't buy any gold watches from even mid-teirs for 14K except the Hublot.
Hell, can't even get a PAM311 for 14K and that's SS.
And get the Portofino if you want to look like an old man wearing a boring dress watch that wouldn't really be a proper dress watch anyway.
Get the Hublot if you're really try-hard and want something better than your Fossil wearing friends.
everything with apple is overprice (except the real apple fruit)
pointless thread.
Save your money and just watch the situation unfold like in this comic:
I've heard from people to wait around for the second generation Apple product and skip 1st gen products (I've heard people saying this for any electronics in that matter), unless it receives amazing reviews. I'd say if you are going to go for an Apple Watch, wait till 2nd gen at least.
Truer with Apple products than most. I pity the people who spent $2500 on the first MacBook Air because they were wowed by thinness. That thing was underpowered, had none of the ports people wanted, and lasted like 4 hours. The jump between the first and second iPads was almost as big.
I'm willing to wait for 3 or even 4 generations.
I will wait for my great grand kids to present me with the apple watch. BTW, my eldest child is still in primary.
I think the same can be said for most things. Skip being the early adopters.
I think Apple wants to change the mindset of how people use their watch and make it a necessity. Just as much as people change phones every two years, I think that's the aim with the Apple watch. Which may well be possible with the $499 & $749 range. But the $14,000.. I think that's just to target the big fish market. Most probably artists/rich people, because they would want one of those and thus making Apple watch a premium product.
This comes as a killer for even hard fanboys of Apple (Includes me). Don't want to comment about the $1000 plus priced models which i definitely feel is a joke. Atleast they could have come up with the Stainless steel and leather models for around $400 - $500 which would still be high,but get in some customers like me who want to use apple gadgets. This pricing is totally out of context for a new gadget which would expire in 3 or 4 years.
I believe that within 1 or 2 years, the whole smart watch playing field will change, and anyone forking out $500+ for a gen 1 watch will be left embarrassed and frustrated. 18 hour battery life will be laughable in 24 months time (I hope!).
I have a Pebble Steel, but do love Apple products. I'll be waiting for a future gen release, with at least a major battery improvement, or a major price drop…
They do have 400 - 500 ones as well as a sports one which is around 349 USD…
http://qz.com/358689/three-questions-apple-finally-answered-…
I agree with Jesmond. This isn't about hardware, it's about fashion. There's a key difference I think between a watch and all other hardware like laptops and monitors. Watches are fashion items. Fashion is a highly personal and subjective part of life. Once subjectivity comes in, objectivity loses relevance (ie. on pricing). The watch industry is highly focused on style way more than substance. Same with vintage or collectables… people pay ridiculous amounts for the sentimentality of owning, not because the items are actually worth that much in substance. Apple is pricing these watches knowing people will pay for the status symbol much more than the functionality. I am expecting that those who buy the Edition version to buy it so they can show off. Full stop.
I am expecting that those who buy the Edition version to buy it so they can show off. Full stop.
You're stating the obvious. Most Apple customers buy Apple products to show off, at least to some extent.
indeed
phone gold and watch is one thing, but gold coloured macbooks….
Gold is a status symbol in China, they're just playing to that
"Most Apple customers buy Apple products to show off"
Really? I think that's a load of outdated crap. Go show off your iphone, see how many people give a sh*t. That said if anyone spends over $10k on this watch they are insane.
I'm not saying they actually 'succeed' in showing off, but it could be a possible motive of a technologically-illiterate consumer buying an iDevice.
I agree that very few people still believe iDevices are superior, except for dedicated Apple fans and the ill-informed sheep.
@victorwilson: It could also be that tech-illiterate people (like my Mum and Dad) just find them easier to use…
Not so much to show off, but to make a statement - "I'm a Mapple person"…
What a load of rubbish. Fair enough if you don't like Apple products, but to claim that most people who buy them are only interested in showing off is lunacy.
I buy Apple because I love their products. The build quality, aesthetics, stability and software system all appeal to me. I couldn't care less about showing off.
Suuuuch a showoff.
Agree with FA.
I don't see how it warrants the price.
Correct me if I'm wrong but unlike vertu it provides none of the service and way less in terms of premium exotic materials (for the same price).
On top of that, apple is an electronic/IT/software company all three of which goes obselete pretty fast. Luxury watches have managed to remove themselves from the "function race" in order to sell precision crafted, hand made and beautiful watches that don't tell them time very well (or do any other things).
Decent mechanical watches hold their value despite all sorts of technological improvements.
The only way I can see apple doing that for me is by marketing itself as a jewellery brand eschewing "performing better", using material that are more valuable that a mass produced silicon components and not releasing better performing newer version of the watches every couple of years. It could also restrict availability by having a lower manufacture volume together with its high price (I'm not sure if its doing that). Hand made by skilled craftmen with parts machined and finished to tight tolerances would help too (not enough information to decide at this point).
I think apple is marketing these watches to the noveau riche in china that acquire things based on how hard it is to acquire + how many people know how hard it is to acquire. The more obvious that it was acquired at great cost the more appealing.
Compare the reputation and the meaning of Greubel, Jaeger lecoultre or a. lange and sohne watches against Apple. Which would convey the message of expense among a crowd of noveau riche chinese despite the watches from the other 3 brands costing orders of magnitude more ? A closer comparison might be hublot (which is not much better known I think).
If I were one of them however, I would just buy a rolex for the same price (everybody knows rolex).
Most other well-heeled individuals would shun the apple watch for any of the more reputable and well known watch brands like omega.
It's an irony that I'm using my iPhone and Macbook to post this in OzBargain haha
I agree that Apple products have too much brand fees compared to other brands,
but at the same time, I personally like its design and the interface, it's just right for me (although some of my friends don't understand me :P)
However, when I saw the Apple Watch Edition, I just couldn't understand why it's so expensive! I reckon it's tooo much for a premium product..
Other vintage or collectable items increase in price over years, but would it be the case for this product?
Would there be any reason other than buying this just to "show off"?
No offence to people who's buying the "Edition" watches, just wanna know your opinion.
I honestly don't think showing off is even a reason.
A spoilt kid of a super rich family might buy one with his parent's credit card.
You could be a lot of wrist bling for that price and could do much better with just 2 hours of research.
A billionaire might get it just for the fun of an expensive electronic gadget that looks pretty. (I don't deny it looks nice).
I don't think it would be something powerful people would wear to meet other powerful people. They might talk about it or buy it out of curiosity but I don't think it will spend much time on their wrists.
I agree. I think it was judgemental of me to suggest people would buy it to show off. I guess I'm referring specifically to those who Instagram that their bed sheets are made out of paper bills. Those were the types of people in my mind.
On a more society angled perspective, and I'm just as guilty here, is how we have become such consumerist that items like the Watch Edition have come to exist - there's demand. Yet I think about how many kids a watch could have fed. Human advancement and innovation is good and reflects our human capacity, but it can be so self centred. We worry about how long till a battery dies but don't give the same thought (that invokes action) to those who have no money to save their lives. Society by definition is people caring for each other and man being equal in all basic needs. Consumerism has eroded that.
That could lead to a very complex self reflective chain of thoughts. Humans are just animals always looking out for ourselves. We want freedom but we also want order. We want our rights but we also want safety. We have only one planet, anything we have is at the expense of others. The concept of equality only exists because all humans have capability of violence, "equality" serves prevent the numbers of "unsatisfied" from reaching critical mass. There will be no such thing as true equality as long as freedom exists.
Consumerism just preys on an aspect of human nature that we need to have more than our "competitors". It is also fueled by inequality. As long as economies with cheap labour and resources exist, there will always be a supply to richer countries and by extension people who will profit from facilitating that supply. They will do whatever it takes to keep the flow going.
Its a great big circle in the end, there will always be justification for whatever. At the end of the day we are just Humans living of the earth.
Back to the point, Apple is just a company looking after its business. The watch is not a money losing prospect precisely because the watch is not worth the price. I think any one sporting this watch would take a severe blow to their reputation with people (rich or no) who put some decent thought into what kind of watch they wear. Yup its me being judgemental but for whatever purpose this watch might serve, I can get better jewellery, luxury watch, heart rate monitor, smart phone, gps and whatever misc. gadgets for the same price. Nobody should spend more than a week's net earnings from this.
@lolbbq: Yeah I get what you're saying, but my reference to equality is very conditional - to be equal in deserving basic human rights - access to food, water, shelter, freedom, education, etc. Anything beyond that is personal gain out of personal effort and each should enjoy the fruit of his labour. But I'm talking about how as a society we don't care that the neighbour next door is starving, literally to death, because we'd rather spend money on something new and quite often, unnecessary. I'm generalising massively here. If every consumer who bought something above his basic needs could also spare even a small percentage to help those in need, I think the world would look different. Yet we have a situation where the 1% owns the 99% of the world's resources. I understand that's how society has become, but I wonder if that's how society was always meant to be. By reducing to the most basic unit of society - which is the family - it makes me think that society's values should simply be an extension of the values we want embodied in our own families. Love, care, respect, encouragement, self-sacrifice (the essence of love).
Yeah it's all a bit deep. But it's sobering to think that on this pale blue dot in the Universe, we don't really look after ourselves as a human species very well, especially that we're the only ones we know to have life. We're going down the path of an individualist existence, to gain as much as we can before we return to nothing.
If you're going by billionaires, China has the 2nd most after the US and it's also Apple's largest iPhone market. With a track record there of indiscriminate luxury buying, it's a pretty well targeted watch…
Apple Watch has so many wanky names…. "Sport" "Collection" "Edition"… LOL
It sounds so stupid. It's a collection of watches… It's 1st edition… "sport"??
Not to mention you can't replace the battery - just because it's 'rechargeable' doesn't mean it'll be that way for ever… it'll die when the battery stops holding a charge.
Don't buy people - if you want a watch, get something that will last.
Apple are pretty good at implementing names into their products. Its like they actually created their own category. No one calls their iPhone a phone, they call it an iPhone. They don't call it an Apple Tablet, they call it an iPad.
And look what it has done to all those little kids out there.
same with ipotty
The naming scheme screams 'wánker'. For example, someone says "I've got the Apple Watch Collection", you might think they've got more than one watch. Then they show you that they only have one, then you'll be like " Oh… I thought you had the collection…"
If they have the Edition, you'd ask "what edition?".
Get what I mean? Just getting one of these things says a lot about that person…
The battery is replaceable
But this is from a manufacturer that has a history of limiting these based on the age of the product. So even if it is, then for how long before apple say the product is too old?
i generally have no issue with high end luxury watches and there isnt much negativity from this place about them
many of you have TAGs and Omegas and Rolexes… this is fine
I also dont have an issue with the $14k Apple Watch
you know that people will buy them and Apple are just trying to service a market
what I do have an issue is with this:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/brilliant-patent-details-apple-…
as i understand it, it cant be true? by mass it must have 75% gold
what have they done?
Just because there's a patent application doesn't mean that Apple necessarily applied that process to the Edition watch.
Apple applies for a lot of patents, many of which never see the light of day.
meh
surely pulling out this patent now makes things a bit suspect does it not?
apple cant even give you the gold you're entitled to
Looks like 75% gold by weight. So it'll weigh a lot less than a normal gold watch. I wonder what the percent for actual content is? 50% gold, 50% ceramics? Or less?
thats not how it works, 18k gold should be 75%, 14k gold is 50% by mass
as far as i know there is no such thing as a 100% gold watch as gold is too soft
i have no issue if it actually has 75% gold and 25% ceramics but as yet, no metalurgist or jeweller or someone really in the know has responded but really, people who would pay $14k for an apple watch wouldnt be that pedantic
real makers like rolex or omega or iwc etc would not cheat you like this
18k is 18k is 18k
@tonyjzx: It's a technicality. There's still 75% of gold by molecular mass. In the literal sense, there is exactly 75% gold.
It's just that the ceramics do not weigh as much even though there is more of them.
It is absolutely what that patent suggests.
The item will appear larger even though there is technically less of everything in it. Less gold than a traditional 18k.
I can predict this screwing up the jewellery market. What has the least density? You're going to see 20% gold + 80% something cheap being passed off as 18k. Bring your own scales!
People in the watch industry were being laughed at when they suggested the 18-karat Gold Apple Watch would sell for upwards of $10,000. I don't think they're overpriced and people are going to buy these things.
What is really boils down to is that any wristwatch over $200 is more jewellery than timepiece.