5 ms·
The watch looks very nice indeed but starting at $350 is ominously steep especially since it requires an iPhone
by agscala 12y ago
The watch looks very nice indeed but starting at $350 is ominously steep especially since it requires an iPhone
- kreutz 12y agoWatches aren't subsidized and there are thousands of dumb watches that people pay well over $350 for already.
- Zikes 12y agoThe top three right now are: * Samsung Gear - $199 [1] * LG G Watch - $179 [2] * Pebble Steel - $249 [3] [1] https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=samsung_gear_live_black https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=samsung_gea... [2] https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=lg_g_watch_black https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=lg_g_watch_... [3] https://getpebble.com/steel https://getpebble.com/steel
- Igglyboo 12y agoNone of those are dumb watches.
- Zikes 12y agoI'm not sure if I missed "dumb" or it was edited in shortly afterward, but either way that's comparing apples and oranges. Compared to the existing precedent of smart watch prices, Apple's watch is $100 more expensive than the next highest priced model. This is, of course, what Apple does with all of their hardware, but whether it's unsurprising or not it's still a factual and relevant point to make.
- kreutz 12y agoThe Pebble is $250. Adding another $100 to the Apple Watch is not that big of a stretch.
- Zikes 12y agoThe Pebble Steel is already priced for Apple's target demographic. Adding 70% more cost to that is a bit of a stretch.
- bryanlarsen 12y agoThe basic Pebble is $150. The premium Pebble Steel is $250. The Apple Watch starts at $350; you can bet that the premium models will be well north of that.
- darkstar999 12y agoThose "dumb" watches will still work in 5 years. Hell, they will still be nice in 100 years. Smart watches won't hold up for 5 years.
- thetrb 12y agoMaybe, but I doubt people buy a $500 watch just because it will still be nice in 100 years. That might be the case for $10000 watches.
- masklinn 12y ago> Maybe, but I doubt people buy a $500 watch just because it will still be nice in 100 years. They're generally intended to last a lifetime, however long that is, and possibly be left to heirs.
- koyote 12y agoA $500 watch will certainly still have much use 10+ years from purchase. It might have minor scratches but that's it. A smart watch will probably not even power on 5 years from purchase (due to bad battery); or be able to pair with your phone (new phone OS might not be backwards compatible).
- masklinn 12y ago> It might have minor scratches but that's it. And chances are that's just the glass face, which takes minutes (and a few bucks) to replace.
- eloisant 12y agoActually any watch over a few hundred will have a sapphire glass, so even after 10 years it's unlikely it has scratches. The body may have some minor scratches, but I think it only adds to the charm.
- Zikes 12y agoMost "dumb" watches that cost over $350 will retain the majority of their value well past those 5 years, too. Apple's first generation watch will be ~$50 in 5 years.
- xienze 12y agoThis is why you don't buy v1 of Apple products. Guaranteed that the next version will be at least $50 cheaper... which still makes it too expensive.
- MBCook 12y agoWith the notable exception of the first iPhone not having a subsidy price for a month or two Apple products don't tend to drop in price much year to year. They've had the $199/$299/$399 price structure for the newest iPhones for more than 6 years.
- xienze 12y agoThat might've been true a long time ago but we've seen price drops for iPods, iMacs, Macbook Air, Macbook Pro, iPad 2 at its EOL, etc. over the years. I'm calling a $50 price drop for version 2 after this thing doesn't quite hit sales numbers.
- josefresco 12y agoiPad? First gen was awesome, and they kept the price the same even to this day. Price generally doesn't go down with Apple devices, but they'll gladly sell you an older gen device for a discount.
- stock_toaster 12y agoHave you seen the price of higher end (fashion) watches? Even relatively "plain" ones without gold/jewels are not cheap.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y agoBut this product isn't ostentatious enough or pretty enough for the fashion market, and it's way too expensive for the functional geek watch market. $199 might fly. $350 is too damn high.
- MrScruff 12y agoThis is true fashion oriented technology in the same vein as Beats headphones. If it becomes a fashion statement to wear it, people will buy one at $350. Probably not many HN readers though.
- rwhitman 12y agoIn the world of watches, $350 is dirt cheap
- Kequc 12y agoThey're different objects. You can buy $350 watches that are 10 years old in pawn shops, the v1 Apple watch is going to be obsolete in 2 years.