“Investors attending the Apple Watch event have been fixated on this question: Could the Apple Watch really compete with an heirloom-quality Rolex or a Patek Philippe’s delicate grandmaster chime?” Dawn Chmielewski writes for Re/code.
“The question’s moot,” Chmielewski writes. “That’s not the market Apple is after. The Cupertino-based electronics giant didn’t get to be a $712 billion company by designing products for the 1 percent. It appears to be aiming the Apple Watch at the fat middle of the market, where some 5.5 million watches are sold at prices ranging from $150 to $1,000 and which accounted for $1.7 billion in revenue last year in the U.S. alone, according to market research firm NPD.”
Chmielewski writes, “That’s a space occupied by such brands as Movado and Fossil — two companies whose stock price has dipped over the last year, suggesting investors may think they’re vulnerable.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: They’re not just vulnerable, they’re about to be BlackBerried.
Apple is brilliant. These gorgeous 18-karat gold Apple Watch Editions will begin showing up on the wrists of celebrities, famous athletes, and captains of industry very soon. And they will influence the rest of the world to lust after Apple Watch, too. And, here’s more Apple brilliance, unlike a $51,500 Piaget watch, your average Joe and Jane… will actually be able to partake in the same exact user experience with the Apple Watch and Apple Watch Sport. — SteveJack, MacDailyNews, March 9, 2015
As we wrote on March 12th:
All of these articles about how poor you are for being incensed over Apple Watch Edition’s price or how big of a douchebag you have to be to buy one are doing Apple Watch’s marketing, product positioning, and market segmentation for Apple gratis.You’re welcome, Apple.
Related article:
SteveJack: Incensed over the $17,000 Apple Watch Edition? You must be poor – March 9, 2015
I love Blackberry as a verb.
Blackberry is now past tense.
That’s a good joke!
I love Blackberry as a 3.14.
Can you say “product placement?” The gold Apple Watch is intended to create visibility by being worn in public by celebrities who get them free from Apple. The gullible American press will devour that! There is no need, and possibly no intention, to sell one to an actual purchaser.
Oh, please! Really? of course, I get it. You were joking! 🙂
Offering an Apple Watch >$1000 price point is really a no brainer. If it works, then HUGE profit margins follow, it not, then no big loss.
But yes, the watch makers between $200 – $1000 will get absolutely eviscerated.
Apple is not reinventing the watch, Apple is reinventing computing. Apple is selling a wrist computer that takes the space formerly reserved for use on a person’s wrist for a watch. Calling it a watch gives a person a frame of reference and feeling of familiarity.
Tethering the iPhone and Apple watch synergistically makes each function better where the sum of the two together is greater than either individually, i.e., 1+1>2.
Apple is selling to it’s own customers that already love and enjoy Apple products. Established customers will spread the word about the experience provided by the Apple watch + iPhone combination.
The word-of-mouth about the AW + iPhone experience will be reason enough to cause some people to switch to iPhone, with the intent to later purchase an Apple Watch
Pundits and analysts are attempting to compare a watch, to a wrist worn computer, i.e., Apples to Rolexes. The AWE 18 carat gold watch is in a class by itself, as a wrist worn computer, with a time related functions and applications. 🙂
Then why does Apple call it a watch?You are a five star moron.
They also call the iPhone a phone, and it’s not that. Instead of calling him a moron, take some time to think about what he’s saying. If Apple didn’t call it a watch would you agree?
Uh yes, it is a phone. So that makes you a ten star moron
Got up on the wrong side of the bed huh?
same reason they called it a phone,
and by the way, 1.5 stars are reserved for morons…..
Sorry, Mr. Dude, it looks like you’ve been out-starred!
This comment sums it up. It’s no more of a watch than the iPhone is a phone. One is portable computer that can also make phone calls, the other is a wearable computer that can also act like a watch.
No one buys an expensive Watch that will be outdated in 2 years. That’s the thing missing from these false comparisons. This is a piece of tech, not plain jewelry. The mid range prices are too high.
All Apple watches have rechargeable batteries that last about three years and can have their batteries replaced. The watch will remain useful long after the cpu has been outdated, and software can no longer be updated. An example, a first generation iPad can still run all iOS 5 apps. The screen didn’t just suddenly black-out.
A Rolex on the other hand is stuck forever with all the functions it originally had, and can never be updated with new functions. 😀
A Rolex lasts for generations and can be handed down. An Apple Watch will be outdated within 5 years. No amount of “upgradeability” will keep it form running slow or unable to run the latest and greatest software.
You need to get it out of your head that it’s a watch. Comparing it to a Rolex makes no sense. It’s a different product for a different purpose.
If your only knock against it is that it’s it’s not an heirloom then you have no argument at all. Many many expensive things are not heirlooms and are not handed down to the grandchildren.
The people buying the Edition will be the same people who spend many tens of thousands of dollars a year on their wardrobe. They won’t be wearing those clothes in two years, you can count on that.
? That’s just my point though. All the articles defending Apple’s pricing compare the Watch to high end jewelry. This article even mentions Movado and Fossil. Did you read it? The point is Apple has priced the Watch in the category of higher end jewelry, and unlike a Movada watch, it has a very limited life span.
All the debate here on MDN will soon be moot. Starting 24 April, people will be voting with their wallets. We’ll see how many they sell by year’s end. 😀
PS: please don’t feed the trolls! If you leave them alone, they’ll go back under the bridge.
Two items being priced the same does not make them the same thing.
The vast majority of higher fashion purchases are very short term, especially for women’s fashion. If you can get the word “watch” out your head you’ll stop categorizing it as something that is required to be used for years and years.
If not the 1%, just who is Apple aiming for with the $10-17K version then? The bum on the corner. jeez.
If you think Apple is expecting most of the revenue from the Apple Watch line is going to be from the Edition, well, you’re not paying attention very well at all.