5 ms·
Well the Apple Watch doesn't cost 2-4 months wage for most US workers. At $500, even for someone on minimum wage it's not even 1 month wage after taxes. You hav
by ebbv 11y ago
Well the Apple Watch doesn't cost 2-4 months wage for most US workers. At $500, even for someone on minimum wage it's not even 1 month wage after taxes. You have to get a pretty fancy one before it starts getting expensive.
Wealthy people DO use really expensive watches to show off, and the Apple Watch Edition serves that purpose. But for most watch buyers in the US, their watch is more of a fashion statement than a wealth statement. It's saying "Look at my great taste and sense of style." That's part of what the iPhone and MacBooks do in the US, and that's the goal of the Apple Watch here as well.
I think overall, though, the Apple Watch is failing at that goal in the US. Most people I know think it's only slightly less dorky and useless than Google Glass.
- sremani 11y ago$10,000 - $17,000 is easily someones 4 month wage. So AppleWatch high-end is definitely something that is, look I am rich device.
- ebbv 11y agoYes, the Edition is. And I said exactly that in my comment if you bothered to read it before responding.
- skywhopper 11y agoAs are all gold watches. Apple's challenge in creating the Apple Watch is that a lot of their best customers already have fancy show-offy watches they prefer to wear, and for Apple to crack that market, they have to produce a version of Apple Watch for people who won't go out in public wearing a watch that costs less than $10,000. Yes, it's ugly, but even $17,000 is relatively cheap in the world of watches for the top 1%.
- Hobotron1 11y ago> At $500, even for someone on minimum wage it's not even 1 month wage after taxes. If you ignore rent, utilities, food, that unexpected medical emergency, this months car repairs because you can't get to work without it, and you can't afford to save up to get a nicer car that doesn't always break down because of these constant repairs...
- ebbv 11y agoDude. Come on. Reading comprehension. We were talking about cost vs. total monthly wages. Not about whether it's affordable for people on minimum wage. Obviously nothing is affordable on minimum wage.
- Hobotron1 11y agoDude. Bro. Come on. That's a retarded metric to use. Go sit on a dick and and walk into traffic.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dionidium 11y agoAt $500, even for someone on minimum wage it's not even 1 month wage after taxes. You have to get a pretty fancy one before it starts getting expensive. This betrays a misunderstanding of how disposable income works. For monthly wages below some n (where is n is determined by the cost of living in your city), a person's disposable income is effectively $0. In other words, someone making $1200/month doesn't have twice as much disposable income as somebody making $0/month. They both have zero disposable income.
- ebbv 11y agoDude. I'm not saying they have disposable income. We were just comparing the price vs. average person's monthly income. C'mon. Reading comprehension.
- dionidium 11y agoWhat could "before it starts getting expensive" possibly mean other than how I interpreted it?
- ebbv 11y agoFor a watch, $500 is not that expensive. $10,000 definitely is. Somewhere in-between there probably is too. There's a lot of not expensive things that people on minimum wage can't afford because it's not a living wage.