As someone in marketing, I see this as a price anchoring strategy. For other versions of the Watch, present or future, they can price the watch in the mid thousands and subconsciously it will seem "affordable" whether it is or isn't in actuality.
One of the execs at a client I work for bought a nice expensive Breitling. One evening at a function I innocently asked him what the value of such an expensive watch was. He told me that the value of it is that it can last generations. Watch straps can be replaced, but the time piece thing itself is there to last for as long as long.
So when I saw the price tag on this watch today, I wondered what would make it cost that much, anyone have insights?
I mean, the battery on the watch will at some point fail or need replacing. I get that the watch should be serviceable, but then; if the internals can be replaced, why price it so high? What's there to guarantee that 50 years down the line the thing will still be usable?
A high-end mechanical watch also functions as a store of value - most "blue chip" brand watches can be resold and a decent part of the cost recouped (or, in rare cases, a profit made).
Consumer tech is generally the opposite, where the resale value rapidly declines to zero as technology rapidly improves.
A $17k Apple Watch is far, far more expensive than a $17k Breitling or Rolex when considering total cost of ownership and how much it'll be worth in 5 years.
The apple store only offers a two year guarantee, three if you pay extra for apple care. And since this thing requires a paired phone, even if the hardware is usable after that, there is no saying the software will be compatible with new iphones.
It's pretty clear this watch is meant to be disposable.
Yes, I agree there that we can conclude it's meant to be disposable. So are the wealthy elite then paying for the "Apple brand"? I ask this seeing that there's not that much gold on the watch itself to justify the price from a commodity perspective.
I thought so too, but if the only difference between the 17000$ version and the 500$ version is the case, the only thing you're paying for is the opportunity to tell others you can afford to drop 17 grand every couple of years. It's probably a pretty lucrative market.
To be honest, I can't see myself ever spending $10k even on an ordinary luxury watch, if I was in position to do so. Much less so with an electronic one that will most likely be obsolete in a year.
I agree, but the tech-savvy market slice isn't the target one. Don't doubt the mass appeal of shiny golden objects. These are jewelry first and foremost. The watches will end up impressioned on exponentially more eyeballs, I'd wager via celebrity appearances on TV, gossip sites, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, etc., than the number of purchases of the actual watch. They will further cement Apple products as the status symbols that they've become. Even if only 10,000 are sold... at least 100,000,000 people will see them, and a good portion of them will clamor for the lower end one. $349 sounds like a heck of a deal when X celebrity is wearing the $10,000 one.
Steve Jobs would never have done this shit. He designed like he believed there was a way in that moment to do something absolutely right. After he left Apple the first time they started doing this too.