[HaloZero]

So I'm curious don't these same arguments apply to the Apple Watch screen? I guess the tradeoff is people are more likely to smash a watch face?

[nilsimsa]

Watches are strapped to the wrist most of the time so less likely to fall.

[ceejayoz]

More likely to be smacked carelessly into things as you move around, though.

[_pmf_]

The cheap 349 USD versions will not have sapphire glass, just the premium watches. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Watch#Collection_comparis...

So be prepared to spend 1000+ USD if you want sapphire glass. Apple's days of pandering to peasants are over, it seems.

[nicholassmith]

Apple has always, always had price delineation across the range. They've also probably sat down and looked at expected use-cases for their Watch product range, the Sport doesn't receive a Sapphire display which could be price motivated as well but as the above article says the Sapphire is likely to be more effected by drops or impacts. If you're engaged in a sport there's a higher chance of catching the screen than if you're just wandering around, which makes sense to be have a screen that's more impact resistant.

[rsynnott]

> Apple has always, always had price delineation across the range.

They're likely to be considerably starker with this range than anything they've ever made before.

[nicholassmith]

That still doesn't justify 'Apple's days of pandering to peasants are over' though. There's going to be a low end, a mid-range and an ultra-high end. I personally think the Watch & Support will be reasonably close in price, and the Edition will be incredibly expensive due to materials cost.

[mudil]

Maybe you should read the whole article, as it discusses why watches are different.

[rsynnott]

The low-end watch won't have a sapphire screen. To an extent, the reason the expensive ones will may simply be that having sapphire screens is a thing you do in the >$1000 watch industry; it's expected.