Changing tactics, Apple promotes Watch as a luxury item

“Apple has scrapped its usual routine for releasing products with its new device, the Apple Watch,” Brian X. Chen reports for The New York Times. “The company is instead taking a page from the playbook of another industry: luxury goods makers.”

“The company is selling the Apple Watch, which goes on sale on Friday, in just nine countries and exclusively through its own channels, not through third-party retailers like Best Buy,” Chen reports. “In contrast, Apple unveiled new iPhones in September in more than 30 countries and in numerous retail outlets.”

“All of this echoes the tactics of luxury goods makers like Burberry and Hermès. Giving consumers an early peek before they buy things is a familiar strategy in the fashion industry — as, increasingly, is tempting early adopters with the bonus of circumventing the shop,” Chen reports. “When Burberry shows new lines of clothing and handbags on the runway, the company lets customers order select items immediately after the show for delivery even before the products arrive in stores.”

Chen reports, “The strategy is a deliberate move by Timothy D. Cook, chief executive of Apple, and Angela Ahrendts, the company’s retail chief and a former chief executive of Burberry, to lay the groundwork for a successful introduction of the watch.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Yeah, but:

This watch has no sex appeal. It’s too feminine and looks too much like the smartwatches already on the market. To be totally honest, it looks like it was designed by a student in their first trimester. – Jean-Claude Biver, TAG Heuer CEO


    1. perhaps Apple is making a pun with the Apple Watch launch, having the watch NOT launch on time draws attention to its primary function as a time piece… genius.

  1. Is it deliberate or is it because supply is limited so they have limited the ways in which it is available to purchase? It could be either of them, or a bit of both. Just a wild assumption based on limited evidence.

          1. silverhawk1:

            Have you ever considered that not everything you see and hear is from a paid employee from an Apple competitor? It’s getting a bit old to read you constantly shadowboxing here trying to attack anyone who you ASSUME is writing a criticism of Apple for pay rather than based on personal experience. We readers are intelligent enough to figure out who is credible and who isn’t, we don’t need your constant attacks on all perceived Apple threats. Thanks.

  2. The article makes it sound like Apple offering this watch only through their own channels and a few select retailers (and handful of countries) is something new. Sure the iPhone 6 was available through many different retailers and countries. But, does anyone remember the launch of the iPhone? Exactly the same strategy- Offered only through Apple and one retailer initially – AT&T.

    The watch is a Gen 1 product. Of course Apple will limit how its rollout is handled. Other retailers and other countries will follow. By Apple Watch 3, you’ll be picking one up at Walmart. 😉

    1. In short, you’re saying that the NYT or at least, this writer, has no concept of the history of what they’re reporting on, and so produces an inaccurate result.


      I wonder if the rest of their news division is susceptible to the same flaw. I mean, just because they get something obvious and basic wrong in an area we know something about, that doesn’t mean we can’t trust them in foreign policy, domestic policy, tax law, polls, or anything else, right?

  3. MDN’s take. Remember thats representative of a group of traditional producers who mistake visual complexity even bling for class. Sadly less is more is not something you see visually on the watch front, I think the essence of class in this market is about to change.

Reader Feedback

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