[kreutz]

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

[Zikes]

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

[Igglyboo]

None of those are dumb watches.

[Zikes]

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.

[kreutz]

The Pebble is $250. Adding another $100 to the Apple Watch is not that big of a stretch.

[bryanlarsen]

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.

[Zikes]

The Pebble Steel is already priced for Apple's target demographic. Adding 70% more cost to that is a bit of a stretch.

[darkstar999]

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.

[Zikes]

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.

[happyscrappy]

Android gear can't sell for $50 now.

[zevyoura]

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.

[exodust]

I think the Swiss watchmakers would be more concerned about the label "dumb watch" than any threat to their sales.

[thetrb]

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.

[koyote]

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).

[eloisant]

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.

[masklinn]

> 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.

[masklinn]

> 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.

[sosborn]

>Smart watches won't hold up for 5 years

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