4 ms·

Apple Watch was very much marketed as a fashion accessory first. That didn’t work. Au contraire, that was _vital_ to shifting the public discussion. Right at t

Apple Watch was very much marketed as a fashion accessory first. That didn’t work. Au contraire, that was _vital_ to shifting the public discussion. Right at the beginning, public sentiment was "what? >$400 for a watch? are you crazy?" To stifle that thinking, Apple brilliantly went for the fashion accessory approach and announced the absurdly high-end Watch Edition at >$10,000 ... suddenly discussion went from "$400 is too much" to "$10,000 is absurd, but I can do $400." Once the Overton Window for watches was shifted away from "vs $5 cheap watch" to ">$400 is reasonable", then Apple could shift the discussion to "...and look at all these other things you get besides time!" They couldn't get to "...and health" until they got to "...reasonable price." Having achieved both, people buy an Apple Watch for all occasions, because ... well ... it's what sensible tech-connected people do.

toasterlovin 7y ago
You're giving Apple way too much credit on Apple Watch. They had no clue what they were doing with it. One of their original tentpole features was that it was the most accurate timepiece ever. They also thought that people were going to send each other heartbeats. They were clueless, in other words, other than that they knew there was something there.
- WA 7y ago
  I think you’re right. Especially since they just started to focus more on the health aspects of the Watch with series 4. They figured that this is apparently important to many Watch buyers, but it took them three series to truly understand this.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
At ten grand for a watch your competing with Rolex which doesn't become obsolete in a few years
- ctdonath 7y ago
  No, Apple wasn't "competing with Rolex" on price. Ten grand was to defuse the "OMG, $400 for a watch?" response to "well, you COULD get a stupid $10,000 version, but at $400 it's great." It also made the Rolex look lame ("it only tells time"), legitimizing getting an Apple Watch (far cheaper at that) instead. Offering a handful of $10,000 Watch Edition probably segued into $1B in profits from associating the product line with high fashion. Nobody is ashamed to wear an Apple Watch with a 5-digit suit.

toasterlovin 7y ago

You're giving Apple way too much credit on Apple Watch. They had no clue what they were doing with it. One of their original tentpole features was that it was the most accurate timepiece ever. They also thought that people were going to send each other heartbeats. They were clueless, in other words, other than that they knew there was something there.

WA 7y ago
I think you’re right. Especially since they just started to focus more on the health aspects of the Watch with series 4. They figured that this is apparently important to many Watch buyers, but it took them three series to truly understand this.

C1sc0cat 7y ago

At ten grand for a watch your competing with Rolex which doesn't become obsolete in a few years

ctdonath 7y ago
No, Apple wasn't "competing with Rolex" on price. Ten grand was to defuse the "OMG, $400 for a watch?" response to "well, you COULD get a stupid $10,000 version, but at $400 it's great." It also made the Rolex look lame ("it only tells time"), legitimizing getting an Apple Watch (far cheaper at that) instead. Offering a handful of $10,000 Watch Edition probably segued into $1B in profits from associating the product line with high fashion. Nobody is ashamed to wear an Apple Watch with a 5-digit suit.