Mobile menu toggle

Why the $10,000 gold Apple Watch really winds me up

By

Photo:
The super-expensive gold Apple Watch Edition is enough to get your knickers in a twist. Photo: Leander Kahney/Cult of Mac

When Steve jobs co-founded Apple, his vision was to democratize technology.

At the time, computers were for governments and rich corporations. Jobs wanted everyone to have their own computer — a crazy idea back in the ’70s. The slogan for the original Macintosh was “the computer for the rest of us.”

For the next 30 years, Jobs worked hard to realize that mission. Although Apple has never made the cheapest computers, in general, the trend has been cheaper and more accessible, from the Mac to the iPhone. For most people, Apple’s products are largely affordable.

This is why the gold Apple Watch Edition — which starts at $10,000 — bugs me. It’s not a watch for the rest of us. It’s a watch for everyone but us. It’s a watch for the one percent.

Both Jobs and Apple’s design chief Jony Ive came from modest backgrounds. Jobs’ father was a blue-collar machinist and Ive’s dad was a lower-middle-class educator. They both attended state schools and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.

But as they got older and richer, they started to indulge in the pleasures of the nouveau riche. Jobs flew around in a private jet and built himself a luxury yacht. Ive purchased a mansion on San Francisco’s Billionaires’ Row. He also flies private — in Jobs’ old jet. He used to drive himself to work but now he has a chauffeur.

Even though both projected an everyman image with their jeans and T-shirts, they’ve long lived the lifestyle of the rich and famous.

I know this makes me sound like a class warrior — and yeah, I definitely have a streak — but I was more impressed with the young Steve Jobs’ perspective on money. His relationship to wealth and possessions was complex and ever-evolving, but when he was first minted a millionaire, he was keenly aware of money’s corrupting power. As he told his biographer Walter Isaacson:

“I watched people at Apple who made a lot of money and felt they had to live differently. Some of them bought a Rolls-Royce and various houses, each with a house manager and then someone to manage the house managers. Their wives got plastic surgery and turned into these bizarre people. This was not how I wanted to live. It’s crazy. I made a promise to myself that I’m not going to let this money ruin my life.”

Whatever Jobs did in his private life was largely his business, but his company remained mostly true to its idealist roots. Apple’s ethos of building products for everyone, of “one size fits all,” is beautifully summarized in this quote from Andy Warhol:

“What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.”

Apple was mostly true to this model. When Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, his first collaboration with Ive was the iMac — a colorful, curvy computer designed to bring the then-booming Internet to the masses. It couldn’t have been more democratic: easy, fun and made of plastic. You could get it in different colors, but the idea of building a gold one would have been crazy. Apple’s products were never the cheapest but they were — and are — within reach of most people. The iPhone or iPad you own is exactly the same as the iPhone or iPad the president owns.

The gold Apple Watch Edition is a 180-degree U-turn from this ethos. It works exactly the same as the entry-level aluminum Sport watch; it’s differentiated solely by the fact that it’s a lot more expensive.

In the past, you could spend more money on Apple products, but the extra cash would buy increased functionality. You’d get more RAM or a bigger hard drive. In fact, tricked-out Mac Pros can go for more than $15,000. But with the gold watch, you get nothing but $10,000 bragging rights.

That’s the whole idea. It is expensive to make sure that most people can’t afford it — it ruthlessly weeds out the vast majority of customers. There’s no denying it: It’s rich and elitist.

That’s why the gold watch really bugs me. It’s antithetical to Apple’s founding vision of democratized technology. It’s made of gold to make sure you and I won’t buy it, even if we could afford it.

There’s a revealing paragraph in the recent profile of Ive in The New Yorker, which hints at an internal debate about this issue behind Apple’s walls:

It wasn’t clear how the company would display such things in stores; there were also concerns about creating a divide between wealthy and less wealthy customers. (As [former Apple head of engineering Bob] Mansfield said, “Apple wants to build products for everybody.”) But Ive won the argument, and in 2013 the company announced the high-level appointments of Angela Ahrendts, the former C.E.O. of Burberry, and Paul Deneve, the former C.E.O. of the Yves Saint Laurent Group. Patrick Pruniaux, from TAG Heuer, a part of the L.V.M.H. luxury conglomerate, was hired last year.

The piece quotes Ive’s old business partner, Clive Grinyer, who said he has “always wanted to do luxury.” As a designer, Ive has clearly mastered making products in their millions. Making almost hand-crafted products in extremely limited runs likely presents a new challenge. And from a business standpoint, it’s likely that Apple wanted to take on the entire watch industry at once, from the low-end Casio market to Rolex and Omega.

I know this sounds pat and curmudgeonly, but this is indicative of a company that has become too rich and has too many resources at its disposal. It would never happen in the iMac era. Back then Apple was scrambling. It wanted to sell as many computers as possible, so it made them for the masses. They were well-designed and well-made, and they were for everyone. It’s the very definition of mass market. The Apple of old would have made a line of aluminum Sport watches, one of which was gold colored, like the latest iPhones and iPads.

Give me a watch in shiny, gold-colored aluminum. Then I’ll buy one.

  • Subscribe to the Newsletter

    Our daily roundup of Apple news, reviews and how-tos. Plus the best Apple tweets, fun polls and inspiring Steve Jobs bons mots. Our readers say: "Love what you do" -- Christi Cardenas. "Absolutely love the content!" -- Harshita Arora. "Genuinely one of the highlights of my inbox" -- Lee Barnett.

145 responses to “Why the $10,000 gold Apple Watch really winds me up”

  1. Tim Baker says:

    The thing that I find ironic about the Apple Watch “Edition” is that by trying to appeal to the “upper class” they in fact have created a product that is more like a scarlet letter. You know that the people that wear the gold edition watch are going to be the Kim Kardashians of the world, and the fact that it works exactly the same as the Sport model, has in effect turned the 10K version into the “Douche Bag” model. If you’re spending that much money just to show you have it, you’re going to be looked at not in envy, but in disgust.

    • mLamont says:

      Why such a harsh opinion about those that want functionality and style all in one.

      Do you feel the same about anyone that buys a $500 Suunto, $1000 Movado, $4,000 Omega, $12,000 Omega or $25,000 Patek Philippe? (These only tell time and maybe date – better battery life or no battery if mechanical.) At what point does a person become a douche bag because they like nice things? Are the craftsmen and engineers who make these products douche bags too for making them?

      I don’t get the thinking of anyone that thinks so negatively of others. Is it their money, how it was amassed?

      • Martynet says:

        Well if you buy $500 Suunto, $1000 Movado, $4,000 Omega, $12,000 Omega or $25,000 Patek Philippe, you by something that works now and will also work for many years… But the apple watch will stop working after 2-3 years, probably. I would love to buy steel iWatch for example (and I seriously considered it), but I know that I will want to buy next model too… And that’s why I’ll buy the aluminium version. The steel case and bracelet will last forever, but what’s the point, when the most important part of it dies…too soon. It would make more sense if apple offered some kind of program that you return your old watch for recycle and get new model with huge discount…. BUT, you will never build this special relationship with it, like you would with other expensive watches after 10-20 years… You will not be able to pass them on.

      • mLamont says:

        Analog watches absolutely work after 2-3 years but they also require expensive maintenance. Apple’s products often last well beyond 2-3 years. Sure, technology will advance and may make the 2015 Apple Watch obsolete. But who’s to say you won’t be able to swap out the innards for something better when it comes along.

        The Apple Watch has not had one sale yet and you’ve predicted it’s life span.

        I understand the skepticism but come on. Let the product get out there. Let the strategy emerge. If you don’t like it, sell your Apple shares or call for Tim’s resignation.

      • Martynet says:

        I’m not skeptic I think… I’m just trying to find sense for steel and gold watches. I’m sure Apple would mention that they can swap innards if they were sure about it… But they didn’t. The next model will probably have slightly different design because of new sensors, water proof casing etc etc…

      • Allewsive says:

        So you are the guy who wants to keep his Civic forever, as it gets you from A to B for many years. See, I love my Civic, but I really want an Accord, and maybe some day I would love to drive an Acura NSX…. they all are vehicles to get me from A to B, but I am a “Douche Bag” for wanting something more and better. If the whole world strived to want something better, we wouldn’t have lazy people who complain about rich people. Haters gonna hate.

      • Michael Smith says:

        The car analogy doesn’t hold water, there major mechanical differences between a civic, accord, and acura, not just the color of its paint job.
        The Apple Gold Edition is not a better watch in any way, its just made of a different material. Even high end luxury watches fetch a premium for a lot more reasons than the casing material. Like hand craftsmanship and finer details on the internals.

      • Allewsive says:

        I still think it holds. Ask the question: “Why buy a car?” Simply why!? … Does one car get me somewhere better than the other car? The answer is no… Every car gets you from A to B or it would not be a car. So why do Bentleys exist? Why do people buy them? Why are there multiple trim levels on most every car? How bout this? If you drive a Civic LX and I drive the top EX model, I spent an extra approx. $5000 for luxury features in most cases. This is where the Apple Watch has “trim” levels. You either want the basics, or you want the basics with a little extra… Doesn’t make someone any more or less a person for getting any different version.

        PS – we all know cars can be safer and faster than others… Does not change the main function of travel from A to B though.

      • Michael Smith says:

        A car is not just an engine and wheels that gets you from point A to point B. The difference in options alone on the same model car can be drastic. More powerful engine, convenience options like power door locks and windows, more comfortable seats, better stereo. Though after a point, the law of diminishing returns applies, at some point you are just paying for the brand and exclusivity.
        What I am saying is that if you are color blind and I handed you a gold Apple watch and the Sport watch, you could not tell the difference in any way. They both work the same, one is not better functionally than the other.
        The gold watch’s perceived value is an illusion and a clever one at that because the amount of actual 18k gold is minuscule, they even made a video explaining how they made the gold harder by fluffing up its matrix with ceramic, meaning less actual gold by volume. It is not SOLID 18k gold, not even close.

      • Allewsive says:

        The “purpose” of a car is to get you from point A to B…. what is the other purpose for which they were made originally? And technically, color blind people vary on their condition and while some can only see in sets of brightness, others can see color but at a lesser differentiation than those that are not color blind. The percentage to back your argument that gold looks the same as steel are very low, although I do get your point. Sure, if you take an Apple Watch Steel and have it plated gold, then who is gonna really know until it is inspected carefully? The point is that people buy expensive shit because they want to for some reason or another. Why buy a diamond ring? Diamonds for years have caused war and world issues, yet a lot of people consider spending great deals on a diamond to give it to the one they love for bonding. Is that diamond worth the thousands you bought it for? Did the diamond industry just get you to pay 500% markup on a diamond they have a great number of sitting in their stock? The world is made of items you will never pay “cost” for…. it doesn’t make sense that someone is more dumb for buying something they want over someone else who spends their money on what they want.

      • Michael Smith says:

        You are absolutely right. There are plenty of things I own that someone of even lesser means would think is frivolous, the smart phone being one of them.
        I think my issue with the gold watch is that there is nothing tangible to justify the price and it seems like an awful lot of money to pay for bragging rights.
        I wonder, for the cost of the gold version alone you could probably afford to buy every color of the sport and stainless and all the available straps for them, send one out for gold plating and still have money left over to buy a couple of the sport watches as gifts for friends.

      • quitcherbichinn says:

        It holds validity, Michael. There is no mechanical difference between a Civic and a TSX or an Accord and a TL and the list goes on. Honda, Toyota, Nissan…they all have luxury brands that sell the SAME vehicles in a different wrapper but charge by far more for the luxury brand. Chevy does it, Ford does it…the car analogy is 100% spot on!

      • Michael Smith says:

        I have no idea how you came up with that conclusion. There is a huge difference between all cars, even those in the same class.
        Shapes, sizes, capabilities, comfort, fuel efficiency, the list goes on and on. The mechanical differences can be a small as having an extra cup holder installed.
        There is no difference mechanical difference between the gold watch and the sport other than materials the casing is made of and an obscene markup.

      • quitcherbichinn says:

        Don’t get one if you don’t want one. End of story.

      • BoltmanLives says:

        Listen up people good advice

      • aardman says:

        Omega offers the same basic watch designs in stainless steel, stainless steel with solid gold accents, and solid gold. With a price ladder that reflects more than just the cost of materials.

      • Michael Smith says:

        I think the markup for the luxury gold watches over its stainless versions are usually in the 50-100% range. Markup on the Apple watch on the other hand is more than 10 times that.

      • boomer17 says:

        yes it is a better watch –18k gold

      • Michael Smith says:

        What makes gold a better watch then say aluminum or stainless steel?
        Is it because it costs more? or because its gold it is worth more? Because I think it has already been established that the amount of valuable gold in the watch has little bearing on the exorbitant cost of the watch. Even with the case of luxury watches in the same price range you can expect to see a lot more improvements in design and workmanship from one level to another and the markup is not nearly as insane as the Apple watch is.
        quitcherbichinn made a great point, don’t get one if you don’t want one, but that doesn’t mean I and others wont ridicule those people stupid enough to actually buy one because they think gold is something more special than a color.

      • tjwolf says:

        @Martynet, The fact is that the most “perishable” component of he Apple Watch – the battery – *is* replaceable. So there is absolutely no known reason ehy the Apple Watch couldn’t last just as long as any other expensive watch. If you have facts to support your view [that an Apple Watch will need replacing in 2-3 years] please list them – otherwise your negative view sounds more like a bias than anything else.

        Yes, there will be another Apple Watch model in the future – one that might have more sensors, better battery life, etc. But that’s irrelevant! If the watch you’re buying today does what you want for many years to come, in a package you find desirable, what do you care about future versions?

        So we’re back to mLamonts question about what is so wrong about people wanting both style and functionality?

      • Michael Smith says:

        As to the question of style and functionality, the Sport watch has exactly the same style and functionality as the Gold Edition.
        If by style you mean color and by function you mean the ability to impress your friends at how frivolous you can be with your money, then you might have a point.
        I have not read anything so far confirming that the battery will be replaceable, it does make sense but Apple of late has not being making much sense to the average consumer.

      • Michael Smith says:

        The Gold is just obscene, I’m trying to make sense of the stainless option. The $250 Moto 360 is made of stainless not aluminum so why the Apple price gouging on stainless? If anything the Aluminum should be the premium model as it has the additional feature of being lighter in weight.

      • tjwolf says:

        You keep thinking that Apple has an obligation to only charge a markup *you* deem reasonable. My wife once gave me a designer wallet (Prada) as a gift. The damn thing cost $200! I bet the leather didn’t amount to more than $1. Add another $1 for the labor to stitch it together. Is Prada price gouging by charging 100 times what it cost them? In the luxury space, it’s simply charging what the market will bear.

        You can’t compare the cost of a stainless steel Moto 360 to the Apple Watch. One has the Apple logo – and the other one does not. I have no idea whether the stainless steel in the Apple Watch is any purer/better than the steel in the Moto 360 – but because I trust the Apple brand (because of my prior experience with its products), I believe it is and am willing to pay a premium.

        [in actuality, I’ll be getting the Sport and, if I am happy with its functionality, will gift myself a Milanese loop band for x-mas :-)

      • aardman says:

        The sensors are mounted on the back cover. Apple can easily design the new sensors to fit the exact same back cover dimensions. They can also design the new set of internals, screen, digital crown and button to match the geometry of the existing case. That’s how Apple will offer full upgradeability if they want to offer it, if the market demands it.

      • aardman says:

        Until Apple says so, we don’t know squat about what Apple will do on the upgradeability front.

        On one hand, Apple has never offered hardware upgrades on older models.

        On the other hand, Apple’s approach in developing a smart watch has been completely different from anything they’ve ever done before. They did a deep dive into the history, traditions and practices of the Swiss watchmaking industry. They exhibited tremendous respect for what they learned and no doubt is putting some of it in practice based on their hires from said industry.

        So does this mean will they also adopt the tradition of product longevity? None of us knows. Maybe they don’t know yet either, maybe they’re waiting to see how the market for Edition unfolds. Will the Edition’s customers be the type that demand longevity (and hence upgradeability) or will they get bored with their smart watches and want a new one after three years?

      • Stefan Fischer says:

        My thought.

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        The thing here is one in mass produced in China (Apple Watch) and one in handcrafted.
        “These only tell time and maybe date”. Boy! You have no idea what these can do, nor their durability. These can even outlive your great-grandchildren!

      • mLamont says:

        You do understand that I’m talking about traditional analog watches. And yes, some can do more than tell time and date. I used to own an Omega X-33 that also had a digital timer, chrono, mission time and alarm – the best alarm on any watch I’ve ever heard.

        The Apple Watch can certainly do more – that’s why it’s called a smartwatch.

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        I know. Though, I mistyped some “is” as “in”.
        Although, the Apple Watch can do more. It is not on the same level as these handcrafted masterpieces, as much as Apple would like people to believe, and is not worth the $10,000+ for the Edition.

      • Allewsive says:

        Worth is perception… worth it to you? no… worth it to me? no… worth it to the guy that buys it? yes…… who loses?

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        The person who buys it, because they got duped.

      • Allewsive says:

        Duped how?

      • Allewsive says:

        If you find a rare artifact, and someone appraises it at $2 million, is it worth $2 million?

        The easy answer is that it is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. And for them to be willing to pay for it, they will in some way see value.

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        Well, if the they paid 50x the normal for the same thing, when there is an abundance of same item for much less. They got duped.

      • Allewsive says:

        But they also now own 18k gold, and sapphire…. everyone is forgetting that this shit is still jewelry, Apple or not! lol… so you do not like the gold or the price… my question is why do you care if someone else does?

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        The watch won’t even pass as a >$10,000 jewelry.
        I don’t care what people do with their money. I’m saying the action is stupid.

      • Allewsive says:

        Won’t pass as high-end jewelry why? Tell me, what makes an item high-end jewelry?

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        Not a curved gold box with a curved sapphire (which is not even natural sapphire) on top, and leather bands.

      • Allewsive says:

        That doesn’t answer the question of what defines an item as High-end jewelry

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        Seriously?
        1. Natural materials (not synthesized by people)
        2. Attention to detail
        3. Creativity of Design
        …etc
        The usual.
        Go to a jewellery shop and ask them. They can provide more insight.

      • Allewsive says:

        My best friend’s father owns a jewelry store and is a jeweler, has been since I was born. I grew up learning about all of that, I have even been lucky enough to make some cool items with him and my friend… synthetic diamonds and synthesized alloys are used in a lot of high-end jewelry today so that clearly is not an arguing point.

        Attention to detail? you mean that thing that Apple is known for more so than almost any other tech company in the world? The creativity of making mechanisms for the straps to release so easy and effortlessly? The beauty of Apple Pay’s authentication on skin contact? Shit, their stainless steel bands even let you take links out without a tool… Where have the watch innovaters been?

        Seriously?
        Do the research.

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        Then you should know how trivial those are.
        Tech- and jewellery-wise.

      • Allewsive says:

        The best part here, is that instead of everyone talking about Android Wear, Apple has set loose a vortex of coverage on their own product via the media, social networks, and users just like you and I. Everyone is so busy talking about “this crazy pricey watch” that by the end of it all, more people will know that the Apple Watch exists. Out of your price range? Wellll a lot of people tend to want what they cannot immediately have. Its a bitch, but Apple has it’s business down to an art, and man are they good.

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        Now, you just went off topic.

      • mLamont says:

        I understand that. It’s a questionable strategy on Apple’s part. Here’s my thinking – just because you can afford a $10,000+ handcrafted time piece does not mean you don’t care about technology and fitness tracking.

        Will someone that can afford a $10,000+ watch more likely buy as an alternative timepiece a $500 smartwatch and fitness tracker or will they more likely spend the $5,000 one? Would they have spent $10,000 for a watch in the first place if all they cared about was telling time?

        Apple may be going after an untapped market or they will kill the Apple Edition due to lack of sales. It’s not going to hurt or help Apple either way.

        The Swatch Group makes it’s money from the volume selling brands such as Swatch, Tissot, Calvin Klein and Hamilton. Omega is still pretty exclusive. Some of the brands share parts. They are simply capturing more of the market with brands that appeal to the economically conscious and high end buyers.

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        I get where you are coming from.
        It really depends on the person and their reasons for buying one.
        If I was going to buy a watch for $10,000. It’ll be much more than for a fashion statement.

      • tjwolf says:

        Where exactly is the Apple Watch Edition made? I don’t believe that was revealed anywhere. While I’m pretty sure you’re right about the $349 version being assembled there, I wonder whether an assembly line worker from Foxconn will be handling 18k gold watch frames (it is rumored that Apple stores now have safes for them – probably to prevent employee thefts more than customer theft).

        As an aside, I think there are lots of expensive watches that aren’t completely hand crafted. Maybe nothing in the >$20k range, but definitely in the $10-20k range Apple is selling into.

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        No, it’s cheaper to create the frame mechanically, since it has the same form, and does not require as much attention to detail as analogue watches.

      • tjwolf says:

        You misunderstood my statement. The frame – whether it’s a Rolex or an Apple Watch – is probably poured. The cutting and finishing is where the Apple Watch frame probably differs from other luxury brands – Apple’s watch is done by robots. But in any event, it’s not what I meant when I mentioned Foxconn workers handling 18k gold frames. I was referring to assembly: I doubt that there will be a Foxconn assembly line where workers, getting paid $20/day (or whatever it is), might “lose” a few of the $800 frames they’re handling.

        [I picked $800 because I read somewhere that this is about the worth of the raw gold in an Apple Edition – don’t know if that information was accurate.]

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        Ok. I get you now.

    • NowAlive says:

      True but there will be many, many Kim Kardashians.

    • pjs_boston says:

      Or maybe, you really love finely crafted items made of precious metal and you can afford one.

    • Nick says:

      Easy to call someone a “Douche Bag” who succeeded in life and can afford to buy whatever he wants. Loving how the Edition has brought out all of the envy weasels.

  2. Dave Krug says:

    What’s the over/under on number of days until a service to “Edition-ify” your sport watch with gold paint and a faux band enters the market?

  3. Joseph says:

    I think we have to understand that the watch is being sold as a luxury time keeper. Luxury being the key word. People do spend thousands on a watch and it is one of those things that incorporates class. Top watch makers around the world have watches ranging up to the Apple Watch Edition’s standard and price while having watches even cheaper that the sport. I think apple still sticks to their original values but this was a chance to show where they stand in this reinvented industry.

    • Tim Baker says:

      The difference with Rolex, Omega and other “luxury” watch manufacturers is that their timepieces retain (or go up) in value. Show me one person that will want to pay as much (or more) than $10,000 in 2020 when the 5th version of the Apple Watch is in market and is as far advanced to the initial model as the iPhone 4S was to the original iPhone?

      • markstickley says:

        Actually I think that the original Edition will sell in few enough numbers that it will become collectible. And because it’s made of gold it actually has some worth even when the technology is obsolete unlike the aluminium version which will probably end up in landfill.

      • jmob says:

        If you can drop 10k on a watch, you’re not going to care about depreciation. These watches are for the obscenely rich. 10k for them is like 50 cents to us. They will just get a new one every year. If you think of it in terms of poor people, they look at us and can’t believe we spend all that money on macs and iPhones.

      • aardman says:

        “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” – F. Scott Fitzgerald.

      • The Edition is for people who won’t sweat paying 10-17K for something that won’t go up in value. Look at luxury cars. They also depreciate. If you can afford it and want it, why not?

      • Majipoor says:

        There are two different set of people buying luxury Swiss watches: the watch lovers and the really rich people. The first category is not the target for Apple Watch Edition: the second is. And those really rich people do not care about resale value.

        I see everywhere people claiming (rightfully) that watch lovers will not buy the Apple Watch Edition. But it does not matter : there are enough wealthy people who will buy it without even thinking about the price. The same people who buy Vuitton bags and such.

      • aardman says:

        Yup. There are women who buy $25,000 designer dresses that they will wear for the annual symphony gala and never ever wear again.

      • pjs_boston says:

        An original iPhone just sold for $20K on eBay. There’s collectible value in certain Apple products.

  4. Anthony Velazquez says:

    Very well written article. Although I would have to somewhat disagree. I think it would have been worth being upset about if the 10K+ watch had many features the others didn’t.

    • Exactly. In this case you’re paying for aesthetics and the cost of gold. Not better features.

      • Majipoor says:

        deleted

      • chrisleydon says:

        The gold in that watch is not worth $10,000. With other watches that cost in a similar price range and up, you’re paying for a unique device made by a skilled watch maker in a limited run. You pay for the person’s time and skill and expertise. With the Apple Watch you’re paying for an off the factory line in China mass produced depreciative bracelet. I’m struggling to even call it a watch with the lack of being able to tell the time for at least 24 hours.

      • pjs_boston says:

        Actually, When the Apple Watch battery gets low it goes into a special “watch only” low power mode that lasts for many days.

      • chrisleydon says:

        Fantastic! So it can still tell the time (not terribly accurately and of course Apple have a GREAT history when it comes to daylight savings) for a few extra hours or days that it might take me to wonder on down to a store and pick up a new charging cable that will inevitably go missing? Great deal!

      • pjs_boston says:

        Just correcting inaccurate facts in your rant.

        I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that you don’t even own an iPhone. Am I right?

      • chrisleydon says:

        Half right. I own two.

      • pjs_boston says:

        Okay, then why are you ragging so hard on the Apple Watch? It looks like a pretty decent companion to the iPhone.

  5. St Troy says:

    Envy much?

  6. Will Taylor says:

    I’m sorry, but this article is an exercise in dummassery. I get it; you cringe at the idea of the Edition being about nothing but excess and status, but your assertions are COMPLETELY wrong for 1 simple reason: the Editon isn’t the only one. There IS a watch that’s $350 and it IS EXACTLY the same in regards to specs as the $10k version.

    Sounds like your just trying to make the story fit your narrative. Poor “reporting.”

    • Wei Yang says:

      Yeah, this article lost me on the first sentence. Yeah, SJ may have wanted something for the people not in corporations, but walled gardens, proprietary software and hardware, etc. – the goal wasn’t to democratize technology at all.

      This article is about as legit as bitching about the RED edition of the Mac Pro not being made for everyone.

    • Kevin Kuo says:

      Surprise! Surprise! Those were the prices of computers back then!

      • Will Taylor says:

        The price of the Apple Lisa is widely regarded as the primary reason for it being a commercial failure.

        In 1990, computers could be bought for less than $2,000, so calling the Mc IIfx (code named “Stealth, Blackbird, F-16, F-19, et al) comparable doesn’t really hold water.

        The Mac Portable was released around the same time (early 90’s), but was also similarly expensive, although less so and more justifiably b/c of its portability.

        Finally, the 10th Anniversary Mac (TAM), was also widely regarded to be overpriced, and it’s price tag was cut numerous times. Its initial price of $7,500 was outrageous compared to average desktop PC price of ~$1,500.

        …so not exactly….

      • Kevin Kuo says:

        Agreed.

  7. stooovie says:

    I’m not sure I can agree. Even the crazy 10k Edition Watch does exactly the same things and works exactly the same as the 350$ Sport one. To me, it’s the same as the Coke metaphor.

    • Daddy says:

      The gold watch differentiates the classes. Yes, the sport and the edition have the same functions but the edition tells everyone that you have “a lot” of discretionary cash.

      Consider the automotive world where a cheap Hyundai and a Mercedes S65 AMG essentially have the same function; get you from point A to point B. Yeah, the S65 has more bells and whistles, but what impresses people the most is that the person who owns that car has “a lot” of money. Again, that’s also what the edition watch does.

      I agree with the author, this is a departure of Apple’s original mission.

  8. disqus_tNgQnYnZ30 says:

    well im going to trade my house for an apple watch edition and a handful of magic beans and in the meantime ill be living behind the dumpster at my local wally world….

  9. jmob says:

    I’m afraid I must agree with you. When I first heard about the gold watch, it made me uncomfortable because it felt like the beginning of the great divide. Sure enough, it’s happened. While I find the gold watch mildly offensive, it’s certainly their right to make such a product. By doing so however, they run the risk of damaging the feeling of community. There is now a defacto divide between us and them. Even the mid tier steel watch (the one I’m getting) seems wildly overpriced with the bands. But what do I know? I don’t know anything about luxury watches.

    • MindGrind says:

      if you are uncomfortable and offended by a watch then you have bigger issues

    • aardman says:

      I am as liberal as liberal gets in the US but I don’t buy this class envy driven b.s.

      I don’t deny there is a growing divide but it is not caused by a device that can be purchased with exactly the same set of functions at prices ranging from $350 to $17,000.

      In fact I view it as a great equalizer that for 2% of the price, I can get the exact same functions and benefits that the the guy who paid $17K gets.

  10. Hildebrand says:

    Is this because they didn’t like your book?

    Apple is giving the same technology to a $349 buyer as to a $17,000 buyer. That’s democratizing technology. If Apple didn’t provide the luxury options, other companies would use standard Apple Watches to do so. I prefer Apple does it and meanwhile give luxury watch buyers the luxury / technology combo they like. The plane was for business, the ship for Job’s last days with his family. The new laptop is worth every dollar, unlike most plastic Windows laptops.

    If you can’t afford the $349 watch, I will buy you one, Leander.

  11. bjeong1381 says:

    This article is completely pointless and just complaining that they didn’t make a gold version available you wanted. Guess what? Deal with it and move on. If they had made the Edition be the only one then your complaints are warranted but since it isn’t you are just whining for the sake of whining. Get off your soapbox.

  12. By having a more expensive “luxury” version of the watch, they kill the argument that high-end timepiece makers could have made – that the Apple Watch was just an cheap watch and couldn’t compare with their offerings. They’ve completely shut the door on that argument.

    If you think about it, the Mac Pro is a similar offering. It has entry-level pricing but can be priced far more than its entry-level costs, if you upgrade everything. I have for fun, built dream machines online and see them go up to 10K.

    The most important point is a watch is jewelry. They offer 3 tiers for price points. It’s inclusive for almost everybody. I just don’t see the issue.

  13. fridaypay says:

    Yeah they have a $10k watch but they also have models more affordable for most who want one.

  14. appliance5000 says:

    “That’s why the gold watch really bugs me. It’s antithetical to Apple’s founding vision of democratized technology. It’s made of gold to make sure you and I won’t buy it, even if we could afford it.”

    Well, gold is a metal not a technology. I think the whole watch thing is an absurdity, but the game here, since you’re not really making anything people NEED – is creating an aura of luxury and WANT. Even if the don’t sell one gold version – it will have done its job.

    • divdisp says:

      Do you actually complain about every company that makes things that no one NEEDS? How do you have time for anything else?

      • appliance5000 says:

        It’s an observation – not a complaint. The first sentence is a quote from an article you may not have read.

  15. Macster says:

    Has everyone forgot about the TAM? (Twentieth Anniversary Mac), it came out the door at $10,000.00 and actually sold very well for that time…

  16. igorsky says:

    I’d like to poke my eyeballs out after reading this article.

  17. OhStopItYou! says:

    this article is a bit weird. the materials for apple watch edition are different, BUT the software itself is the same. The software experience is the same. Apple just created a gold version for those who could afford it. ( to be fair, I don’t see the issue with that)

  18. Sean McCabe says:

    I would like to think there’s close to $10000 worth of gold in that watch but I doubt it.

  19. Paul says:

    While there are some perfectly valid points, I don’t think I agree with the article’s position that Apple has somehow lost its way. Apple make premium products that have found their way into millions of lives; some of them average schmoes like me and a few of them quite well to do. I view the pricing range on the Watch as nothing more than Apple addressing the needs of all of their existing customer base.

    There’s a limit to what the market will bear in terms of price for a smartphone. But for an item like a watch, the existing market shows that there is a much larger price range that people are willing to pay based on perceived value/status/quality. So if I’m a member of the 1%, have already purchased an iPhone and am interested in picking up an Apple Watch, why shouldn’t there be an option for me?

    I wouldn’t expect there to be massive quantities of the $10K Apple Watch built & shipped. But the point is, some existing customers will want one and I don’t think it’s a reasonable position to expect that Apple should simply ignore that component of their market. As others have already pointed out, it’s not like the watch has features not found in the other price points.

  20. Sons of Ares says:

    Yeah, it’s elitism without the elites. And the same story with all baby boomers: you turned into a bunch of corporate hacks with a growing disdain for the lower classes.

  21. ze_rusty says:

    Apple is here for business.

    Now as they are in the watch business. They want to compete with everyone, from fossil to rolex. It’s just like every other business genre. Apple is using their simple and minimalistic image to win markets.

    And talking about the chillings jobs did in his private yatch. Did you never thought of having one (or something similar) when you rich enough?

  22. will says:

    I would agree if the gold watch was some kind of super-technology only available to the elite. It’s not. You get the exact same technology for $350. If you want to buy the tech plus the fashion, you pay a premium. I don’t see the big deal.

  23. mLamont says:

    The $10,000 watch has the same watch functionality as $350 – it’s just in a different case.

    The “masses” can get the $350 or no smartwatch at all.

    No one really needs a smart watch anyway. It’s an extension of the smartphone. If you want to tell time, you can buy a watch for less than $10.

    I’ll give Apple credit for making an assortment of watches with alternative cases and bands.

    Watches are more jewelry than function. I think the Apple Watch is a good mix of both. If you want to wear a watch, having a high end, quality time piece is nice.

  24. RabidPrimate says:

    This moment has been predicted previously, by Apple!

    “We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts.”

  25. swisslu says:

    I really like the apple watch. Also the gold edition is a beautiful piece of art. But a “Made in China”-Product for 17’000 Dollar? This is ridiculous.

    • aardman says:

      Have you seen what vases made in China have been auctioning for recently? If you think $17K is ridiculous, you will flip your mind.

      And even without the flippancy, there are automobiles, fighter planes, and ships made in China. They’re priced more than $17K too. You need to update your knowledge of current events. China is no longer the industrial backwater that you seem to think. Yeah, they’re not quite cutting edge but certainly not backwater.

      • swisslu says:

        Yes, but neither automobiles, planes or ships are built for the luxury industry. If I buy a Watch in this price category it has to be built at least in the US but not in this mass production country.

  26. MacBoi says:

    The Apple bug bit me in ’85. You can say I have accumulated an orchard. But the watch…meh.

  27. Hang_the_rich says:

    I’m a big Apple fan but the Edition watch is just elitist crap. If I had 10 grand or more to spend on a watch I would be buying something classy, and a gold blinged up version of a mass produced watch is hardly classy in my book.

    • aardman says:

      You attack Apple for selling ‘elitist crap’ then in the next sentence you reveal you don’t like it not because it’s elitist but because it’s not elitist enough by your standards.

      You should change your username to I_Wish_I_Were_Rich.

  28. aardman says:

    Your point, Mr. Kahney, would be valid if the gold AppleWatch offered functions that the other versions didn’t. But functionally they are exactly the same, so unless a person is particularly prone to class envy, the fact that somebody owns a solid gold version of his aluminum smart watch should really have no effect on the satisfaction he derives from the device.

    You can look at what Apple has done and be upset that Apple is teasing you with a device that you can’t realistically afford. Or you can lead a happier life and think “Boy, save for the expensive case, I’m getting the except same functionality and pleasure that those guys spending $10 thousand are getting. At 3.5% of their price!”

    Can you imagine that! Does Mercedes Benz sell a model with the same basic engine and drivetrain as the S500 at 3.5% of the S500’s price?

    In fact with a gold version, well isn’t an AppleWatch even more “a watch built for everyone”, including the 1%?

  29. MindGrind says:

    For crying out loud people its a watch, its not like Apple created a really expensive watch just to piss you off, they did it cause they wanted to, don’t like it, don’t buy it. Everyone sounds like they are taking it as a personal attack when most folks have no investment into Apple other than being a consumer, did you cry like this when Toyota put out 5 versions of the Prius?

  30. Doc_Sportello says:

    Great piece.

    Apple fashions itself as a different kind of company, one that can spawn a blog called Cult of Mac. Making a product for just the 1% feels off. If they take the profits and increase the wages of its Chinese workers (OK, workers for the companies which do the manufacturing for Apple) I’ll feel better.

    Angela Ahrendts ran Burberry, which famously restricted the use of its plaid when it became too popular with the wrong people (e.g., “chav” culture). I don’t want to see go down that road.

    Also — was Christy Turlington the first woman on stage at an Apple event?

    • aardman says:

      No. The past head of the Mac Software division of Microsoft was a woman and I remember her getting stage and speaking time in one of the Mac events.

  31. Harang says:

    I disagree. The only thing different about the 10K and $350 watches is luxury (i.e. the gold), and luxury has never been democratized. The technology, design, and quality are the same in both watches and are available to “the masses.” So I don’t think Apple is straying from the “technology for the masses” idea.

  32. The Gnome says:

    Seriously, this bugs people? What a huge dumb waste of blog space…

  33. pjs_boston says:

    I fundamentally disagree with the author. The different Apple Watch models are all about design and materials. The fact that all of the watches share a common design and common software says to me that everybody deserves the best design and the best software. It is very egalitarian in that way.

    Each of the three Watch levels is distinguished only by materials. Aluminum is the cheapest and easiest to make, so it is used to make the least expensive model. Stainless steel, while a readily available material, is costlier in terms of fabrication, thus it carries a price premium. Gold is expensive and rare, universally recognized as a luxury material, and is therefore reserved for the minority of us who care about and can afford such things.

    Which version you by is dictated buy three simple things: your budget, how much you care about materials, and how much you care about status. This is as it should be.

    If you want to hurls names at wealthy people who like precious materials, go ahead. They are subsidizing Apple’s bottom line and brand value. As an Apple shareholder, this works for me.

  34. tjwolf says:

    The Apple Watch is less elitist than any other Apple product – for the same reason you claim it to be more elitist: someone of modest means can afford the same level of functionality as a rich person!!! What other Apple product can you say this of?

    This has nothing to do with Apple doing a 180degree turn on making personal computing affordable. Either you got your knickers up in a twist for nothing – or you get paid by the word rather than the content.

  35. Tim says:

    This watch isn’t even out yet and it’s Apple’s most terrible product. It is bulky and ugly. And it’s bulky. Did I mention it’s bulky? It looks nothing like an Apple product. Compare it to the new Macbook. Is it just so it can have somewhat decent battery life?
    Despite how expensive the exterior looks, it does not match what the actual interface looks like. It’s running this cartoon-themed OS that clashes drastically with the style of the watch and band.
    This is the worst design Ive has ever created.

    • tjwolf says:

      Nothing but opinion. You may think of it that way – but only time will tell whether your taste matches the majority’s.

      • Tim says:

        So you think this watch looks like something that Apple would design? Do you also think that Ive wanted that camera on the back of the iPhone 6 to stick out?

      • tjwolf says:

        I don’t just think it’s something Apple would design – it *is* something Apple designed. Personally, I don’t think it is as attractive as some of the mock ups we’ve seen prior to the unveiling – but like the concept cars at trade shows, these mockups don’t have to deal with reality (e.g. where to put a sufficiently big battery; how to make sure the heart rate monitor actually touches the skin; etc.). I think the Apple Watch looks, hands down, better than any currently selling smart watch. Does it look good enough to attract true watch fans? Probably not. Will many of those folks who currently buy $30k Rolexes buy the Edition? I doubt it. But I think it will find plenty of buyers who think it looks good enough to put on their wrist if it buys them that extra convenience being advertised.

        I think the iPhone 6 sticking out was a ridiculous blunder. But it’s a small thing, apparently, since Apple shattered all sales records with that phone – by a wide margin.

  36. Zoinkzz says:

    All reasoning which certainly justifies the Gold Apple Watch can be found in a simple paraphrase, stated over and over by Jobs, I’ve, Cook, Mansfield, and even WOZ… “Apple wants to make products for everyone”.

    Everyone includes all classes, the 1% and the 99%.

    Moving on..

  37. Dannie K says:

    I swear, NO ONE seems to understand the whole point of the Watch Edition. Then again, the reason why it seems that way is because every comment that I am reading is from either a “TECH” blog or forum.

    I bet everyone that has a certain type of criticism on the Watch Edition has never even held a copy of a Vogue magazine… a magazine that Apple had spent over 2 million dollars for a 12-page advertising campaign. I repeat. Apple has spent millions for a 12 page ad campaign in a FASHION MAGAZINE.

    The edition is not about price. It is about style, prestige, fashion, luxury, and exclusivity… qualities that no tech journalists/enthusiast/etc. has any type of understanding/knowledge. $10,000 is nothing on a watch. Chump change. I’ve seen women drop that same amount of money (and even much more) on a handbag. And these handbags are NOT meant to be family heirlooms to be passed down from generation to generation. Fashion is always fleeting and changing. The same goes for tech, and the Watch Edition will go hand in hand. It is not meant to be held onto for very long. It is meant for now. A couple of years, a new design will follow, and people WILL spend the same amount for a new one. Why? Not because of the obsolete technology. Because the design is obsolete.

  38. Man With A Van says:

    Couldn’t agree more. I fell out of love with Apple yesterday.

  39. The technology is the same in all models. $350 gets you the technology, the rest is jewelry. If I could afford it, I’d wear the gold model, but only if Apple offered unlimited gut swaps as the technology changed. Nobody would wear broken Rolex just because it looks good and an out of date Apple Watch would be just that.

  40. Andy Pope says:

    Your very basic assumption about Apple and Steve Jobs’s target customer segments is wrong. Ever since Steve returned to Apple as CEO, he was always about high-end – not the mass market. All of Apple’s products are priced at a premium and are the most expensive in their category. For example, Apple didn’t engage in a direct price war with Samsung to retain market share across all low end mid-end market segments. When it comes to laptops, Apple’s Macbooks are almost double that of comparable PC’s, etc. They’d rather pursue the top 10% or even the top 1% of the market than the mass market, and that has been the case over the past decade. So get your fact straight.

  41. Aaron Olson says:

    Why so harsh? They offer a sport edition for those who want something cheaper. Gold for those who want something luxurious, do u have something against precious metals?

  42. BoltmanLives says:

    The edition costs Apple maybe $2-3K so thats 7-8K profit they seel a few and they make money with thier space eating 18K gold.

  43. Mark says:

    Leander doesn’t get it.

  44. gjvon says:

    Understood but a pretty biased approach. They simply took a risk to appeal to everyone, like you said. They have a $350 verswion so stating that they are making a 180 is really..REALLY….daunting…..

  45. Michael Smith says:

    Style wise the bands are accessories so all things being the same, which they are, it is only the material the casing is made out of that is different.
    I imagine shortly after release some 3rd party will start gold plating these watches so you can’t tell which is the “real” gold watch. That is going to severely dilute the brand making people who actually spend the money on the gold edition look even more foolish.

  46. Michael C says:

    1. it may appeal to the 1% but it is also insanely profitable. Apple is in the high margin business. seems consistent to me…

    2. Ive appreciates fine watches. fine watches are expensive and incredibly well designed (and insanely profitable, see #1). To make only aluminum and steel watches with good but not insane profit margins would be leaving money on the table. Apple Watch Edition seems perfectly logical if Apple is serious about targeting high end watches.

    Buy the Apple Watch Sport and envy the Apple Watch Edition. Laugh all the way to the bank for all the money you did not need to spend.

    btw, Apple Watch 2 is not too far away…

  47. AJLoca says:

    How about when they release Apple Watch II and your $10k is obsolete?

  48. GodoStoyke says:

    Leander, I understand your argument. But as someone pointed out “The US government is hugely in debt, while Apple has $178 bio. in cash in the bank. This is because the US government does not tax the rich, while Apple does.” I have no problem with the wealthy providing Apple with extra cash that will ensure we’ll be able to enjoy new Apple products for a long time to come.

  49. mimeartist says:

    I feel like people are coming at this from the wrong angle, the watch should be accessible for all, and if they only shipped the aluminium one then the people that have always had a precious metal / gold watch wouldn’t be interested, this allows them into the Apple fold. However unbelievable it may seem, some people just wouldn’t want to be seen with a watch with a rubber strap on it, their outlook on the world might be as narrow as yours; just different.

    Personally it doesn’t bother me what someone else can afford, but I kind of find it amusing that people would pay more for something that heavier on their wrist.

  50. Barzuma says:

    +1!
    Now I know why I got this sinking feeling when I saw the price for the Edition watch. I couldn’t understand why, but your article clarified it for me. Thank you.

    Is there anyway you can contact Apple and let them know?

  51. Nick says:

    The Apple Watch functionality, storage, etc. is available to everyone starting at $349, Apple isn’t a global charity whose mission is to distribute technology equally to everyone. I like the fact that I can buy better products for more money. Contrary to the sappy Warhol quote, I don’t want to be like the bum on the corner. I work hard every day precisely so that I’m not equal to the vast majority of sheep in this world.

  52. Daniel says:

    A watch is both a functional device and an ornament, since it’s something you wear.
    Certain materials like gold are very expensive but have a high ornamental value.
    Apple has always been concerned about making the best products possible, not about making cheap products available to anyone. You keep your egalitarian and class warfare ideas to yourself, they have nothing to do with Apple’s philosophy.

  53. BoltmanLives says:

    Same movement as $349 Watch its simply a big intelligence test isn’t it? You all could’t afford a $1000 iphone either so quit yer crying.

  54. herbaled says:

    You must really go nuts thinking about how much Jobs spend on his yacht.

  55. Stefan Fischer says:

    A regular 10.000 $ watch is a investment for years, often for decades. I wonder how Apple keeps the watch working 10 years from now.

Leave a Reply