Will you pay $4000 or more for the 18-karat gold Apple Watch Edition?

“Apple’s upcoming gold smartwatch could set you back $4,000 to $5,000, when it goes on sale next spring,” Patrick Seitz reports for Investor’s Business Daily. “That’s according to French website iGen… [which] cited what it called a trusted source for information on pricing for the Apple Watch.”

“The aluminum model will be priced starting at $349 and the stainless steel model will start at $500, iGen said,” Seitz reports. “Some price estimates for the gold Apple Watch have gone as high as $10,000.”

“The iGen report said Apple is targeting a Valentine’s Day launch for the Apple Watch,” Seitz reports. “Apple’s head of retail, Angela Ahrendts, earlier this week said the launch would be ‘in the spring.’ Valentine’s Day is Saturday, Feb. 14. Spring officially starts March 20.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: If the innards are upgradable, maybe.

Related articles:
Pricing for stainless steel Apple Watch and 18-karat gold Apple Watch Edition leaked – November 5, 2014
Analysts on why Apple Watch is delayed until spring: Supply constraints, sales strategies – November 4, 2014
Leaked internal video reveals Apple Watch will not be available until spring – November 3, 2014


    1. I could afford to buy one, but I am not a member of the target audience, either. Besides, there are many other uses that I have for $4000 – kids college expenses, for example.

      I am a practical person with simple tastes. I don’t own a Rolex Submariner, either. I have no doubt that it is a fabulous device with impeccable workmanship. I would admire it greatly for those virtues. But I would not spend that much money when a Seiko or Timex will do the job for me. Utility and value are more important to me.

      I may buy an Apple Watch, eventually. If I do, I will probably go for the stainless steel model as the best compromise (for me) between durability, appearance, and cost.

      1. I’m probably the target audience. My wife has already professed her love for the gold one. I have a nice starter collection of timepieces (Movados, Tag Heuer, Rolex, Tissot. I will definitely be adding the AppleWatch. Both for me and for the Mrs. A gold timepiece needs to be able to stand the test of time. I’m not opposed to the money. But, will I be upgrading my Applewatch like my iPhone? If that’s the case, stainless steel will do just fine.

      2. I do have a Submariner. Think about the economics: I bought it used for $2,500. I have to get it serviced every couple of years for about $600. But assuming it will last another thirty years, that means it will cost, on average, $383 per year. Now think about a $4K Watch. Charitably, in five years it will look quite obsolete, will be completely incompatible with any new apps, won’t run the latest Watch OS, will be incompatible with accessories like nightstand charger/stereos and nice bands, and will generally be something to give to Goodwill or sell on Craigslist for about $400. That means that, on average, it will cost $720 per year. (And if you’re like me you’ll replace it in two years, so make that $1200 per year.)

        On the other hand, a $500 Watch would cost about $200 per year. That means I can finally get rid of the damn Rolex, which is at the shop for weeks every couple of years, save 183 per year, and play cool Watch games and monitor my Nest remotely, and on and on. I can’t wait for that one.

        Also, I wouldn’t wear a solid gold watch. Maybe if I join a Mexican drug cartel or the Mafia that might be a fashion statement, but it would look ridiculous on somebody who doesn’t unbutton his top few buttons and wear a gold chain.

    1. …and then glue a $350 Apple Watch to the used Rolex so that you could actually use it with your iOS devices?

      The utility of the gold Apple Watch will likely be identical to that of the aluminum or SS ones. The difference in cost (whatever it ends up being) is not due simply to its gold content. Otherwise the used Rolex would not cost $4000, either.

      1. Much of it has to do with the content of the metal, and yes there is a market of it being premium like Tiffany.
        You can buy a rolex in stainless steel used for $500-1000 bucks.

        I am saying that if Apples18k gold model was that pricey it would way over priced and not worth it because of the upgrades year over year, so if ou were willing to spend $4k and wanted to protect some of your investment you might as well buy a rolex used so when you decide to sell it you aren’t raped in the end.
        Electronics are the worst when it comes to resale.
        In the end, a gold apple iWatch 5yrs down the road will only be worth the scrap rate of the gold.

  1. Ummm…..nope. Especially if I have to recharge it every night! Another thing to plug in! Wouldn’t be so bad if it was true wireless charging like Schiller has talked about in the past then you could just lay it down on your night stand and it charge. Still too much for me to pay for a watch! $100 or maybe $200 is the most I would ever go.

        1. It uses your phone for some features, mostly related to telephone functions as (like the iPod touch) the watch has no cellular radio. It needs the phone to make or receive calls and texts (as an iPod touch would too). It also needs the phone to load apps due to the form factor of the watch. However, the watch does have internal storage for music, which it can play independent of the phone. It also runs its own apps independent of the iPhone, like an iPod touch. The apps are not running from the phone. The watch has a heart beat sensor and unique haptic feedback that the iPod touch lacks. The watch also has NFC for Apple Pay and since its on the wrist is arguably more convenient to use for payments then even an iPhone with NFC.

  2. No, but I would never buy a gold watch in the first place. I wouldn’t even buy a rolex for that price, even if I had the money to spare. I don’t think I’m Apple’s customer for this. $500 (or in that range) for the stainless steel one, that would be doable.

  3. No. At that sort of price you’re buying a watch more as jewellery than for what it does. This is not to say that what the Apple Watch does isn’t good, but it’s going to become obsolete within a few years. A traditional watch basically works for as long as you take care of it. at that price you’re going for the rich and the stupid really.

  4. Yellow Gold? Yes.

    Rose Gold? – I’ve debated this. There aren’t many bands you’d want to wear with rose gold. And then picking out the dress, hat, gloves, handbag, lip gloss to match…. It’s a limited use watch. But then, I’m a guy so I’d say NO in any case. But I tried to like it.

  5. The barometer and thermometer sensors on my Casio ProTrek cratered about 6 months ago. I’ve been holding off replacing it (assuming I’d spend ~$350) for the newest model. I’m waiting to see if there’s an appropriately/comparably priced iWatch. If so, I’ll opt for the iWatch. No way am I going to $500 – even though I consider my Apple purchases dividend reinvestment.

  6. To all those people who are complaining that the innards will be obsolete in a few years—seriously?

    Only a fool would believe that Apple would have not taken that into consideration. Patience, grasshopper!


    1. I am patiently waiting for Apple to update the innards of my MBP 17. However, I do believe I will need to buy a new one if they ever make another. Alas, I couldn’t wait. Updating the innards piecemeal hurts.

  7. No, even if the innards are upgradeable. I’m definitely buying an Apple Watch, but just as I buy a new iPhone every launch day, but don’t get it gold and diamond encrusted or were jewelry of any kind, I just don’t see the utility or value in a gold Apple Watch.

    But you know who does? Celebrities. They’re going to be buying the gold ones and making sure people see them with it.

    It takes aspirational to a whole new level.

    1. The “utility” in a gold “iWatch” is to be able to advertise it in the Financial Times’ weekend magazine How to Spend it. If I had the millions I’d get a simple Swiss work of art such as an Omega. See howtospendi.com.

  8. No way. Not even as an investment. I’d be scared to wear it. $500 for the stainless steel model is as high as I’d go and I can’t really decide until I find out how good or useful the AppleWatch is. I still don’t like the idea of only a day’s worth battery life but I think those bio-sensors could be worth having. Right now I’m only interested in the low-cost sports model which I would always be wearing in place of my Garmin Vivofit or Casio G-Shock Solar.

  9. The sig other wants the gold one and I want the steel one. When it was announced I figured the gold one would be $5 to $10k, easy, and the steel one would be about $1000.

    A watch like this may be technologically obsolete in a year, but that’s not the point for getting the gold first edition. It’ll be a collector’s item soon enough. I doubt it’ll lose much value, and it may appreciate like the Apple I.

    1. I forgot to add I almost bought a 100yr old gold pocket watch by Patek Phillippe for Tiffany, at auction over the weekend. Stopped bidding at $3000 when I remembered I needed to save some money for the AppleWatches I plan to get.

  10. Mdn nailed it….
    Innards are bound to improve and new sensors added!
    That is a problem if they are not upgradable !
    Few will pay the high price and not care what happens with next years version.

  11. Well at $4k i think yes there is a market for such a device. People on here moaning well in 3 years it will be obsolete!! Well for example if you buy a brand new Bentley now for £150,000 in 5 years it will be worth about £60.000 and in 8 years £29.000

  12. I simply want the best but practical too and $5k I can deal with but think I’ll settle for a more modest model ….. Count me in the $600ish area plus or minus ….

    But wife is another buyer, she wants the gold …. Which I will probably buy for her ….. But wait a minute, we need matching watches …..

    $10k gone!

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.