Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by agscala 4295 days ago
The watch looks very nice indeed but starting at $350 is ominously steep especially since it requires an iPhone
4 comments

Watches aren't subsidized and there are thousands of dumb watches that people pay well over $350 for already.
The 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_gea...

[2] https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=lg_g_watch_...

[3] https://getpebble.com/steel

None of those are dumb watches.
I'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.

The Pebble is $250. Adding another $100 to the Apple Watch is not that big of a stretch.
The 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.
The Pebble Steel is already priced for Apple's target demographic. Adding 70% more cost to that is a bit of a stretch.
Those "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.
Most "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.
Android gear can't sell for $50 now.
The first Samsung Gear watch was only announced a year ago (Sep. 2013), and you can get it for <$150 new. Pretty sure it will be well under $50 for that model in 4 years.
I think the Swiss watchmakers would be more concerned about the label "dumb watch" than any threat to their sales.
Maybe, 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.
A $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).

Actually 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>Smart watches won't hold up for 5 years

This will be interesting to watch (sorry!) over the coming years.

This 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.
With 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.

That 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.

iPad? 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.

Have you seen the price of higher end (fashion) watches? Even relatively "plain" ones without gold/jewels are not cheap.
But 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.

This 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.
In the world of watches, $350 is dirt cheap
They'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.