Apple Watch edition gold red buckle

The Apple Watch will start at $349 for the basic Sport edition with its anodized aluminum case and come in Spring 2015.

But what about the more expensive stainless steel version — and especially the luxurious gold edition which features a case crafted from 18-karat gold that “our metallurgists have developed to be up to twice as hard as standard gold“?

While the Cupertino firm has yet to reveal pricing for these Apple Watches, a new rumor shared by French blog iGen.fr [Google Translate] pegs the asking prices of the stainless steel model with a polished or black side at $500.

And if you have a hole burning in your pocket that demands to be filled with cash, you’ll definitely want to avoid the pricey gold edition.

According to iGen’s sources, the flagship Apple Watch Edition in yellow or pink gold will sell for between $4,000 and $5,000, or ten times the price of its stainless steel counterpart.

The source also confusingly said that a rumored Valentine’s Day launch is still a possibility despite Apple’s retail boss Angela Ahrendts recently announcing a Spring 2015 availability (implying anywhere between March 20 and June 20, 2015).

http://youtu.be/y-waTi8BPdk

Greg Joswiak, vice president of iPhone, iPod and iOS product marketing, predicted during his segment at the recent Recode mobile conference that the Apple smartwatch is going to be “huge” when it arrives.

“It got off to a pretty good start, as far as the reception we’ve gotten from it as a revolutionary computing device, because that’s what it is,” he said. But it’s also “health, fitness, fashion all embraced it — even without a round face,” Joswiak added.

When interviewer Walt Mossberg pressed Joswiak on pricing and asserted the watch could cost thousands of dollars at the high-end, the executive argued that the pricey gold edition is for rich folks who want a really nice watch.

“I’m not saying that’s the price, but you don’t have to buy the Rose Gold model of it,” he explained. “I mean part of that is to make sure that there were options for people, because fashion is a big part of this.”

Joswiak underscored that the more affordable Apple Watch and Apple Watch Sport will target the mainstream market and price-minded buyers.

For a large chunk of consumers, buying a wearable before the Apple Watch “just isn’t an option,” according to the Washington Post article today outlining how Apple’ wrist-worn device is killing wearable technology as a gift this Christmas.

[iGen.fr]

  • iBanks

    I’ll take two at the $500 price range. One for me and the misses.

    • Yep definitely better than that rumored price of $1200..

    • The Afroman

      Same. The wife has never wanted a gadget more than the Apple Watch

      • iPhoner

        Same here

  • pauleebe

    Brb going to take out a loan for an iWatch

    • ericesque

      As if the vast majority of people buying gadgets in the US aren’t already putting them on credit cards…

      • pauleebe

        You do realize that unless you pay for your iPhone out of pocket upon purchase (full retail), you are technically financing it?

      • Bugs Bunnay

        completely true. other people laugh at me because I bought it full price, but then I laugh at them because not only did they finance it they pay more than retail at the end of their slave contract.

      • Buzz { Light:Year; }

        ^^^

      • ericesque

        Yes.

  • Rowan09

    I never even looked at the gold one so I care less. I’ll wait for version 2 since they said it will be a lot better somehow. I finally saw the Moto Android Wear and it’s ugly to me and looks like a toy. My Pebble actually looks better than the Android Wear Moto watch.

  • Yaclexx

    A $350+ sport watch that can not be in the water?!
    I guess swimmers are out luck
    JMO.

    • Maxim∑

      it says water resistant, we don’t know the depth but Ive says in his video that the watch is sealed

      • Yaclexx

        Exactly, Water resistant means that it can survive a rain or sweat, it has to be waterproof to go under water.
        For me a sport watch should be able to be under water

      • The touchscreen wouldn’t even work when it’s wet. Have you ever tried using your iPhone in the rain? It’s damn near impossible.

      • Couldn’t it still be controlled with the digital crown?

      • @dongiuj

        Sorry, I may have missed this but when they say “digital crown” it’s actually physical so where does the digital come into it? Again, sorry if this is a stupid question that everyone may seem to know.

      • Digital crown is just a name it isn’t digital 😉

      • It also has the pressure sensitivity, remember?

      • nyangejr

        Apple watch 2

      • Buzz { Light:Year; }

        If it’s waterproof I would definitely consider the sports edition

  • Omar Ruiz

    I want the stainless steel space gray one!

  • Cody

    It doesn’t matter. It will be way too overpriced anyway.

    • Agreed! 250.00 would have been the perfect price point, 350.00 is to high for what you get.

      • Rowan09

        The Moto 360 is $300 so the Apple Watch wouldn’t be less than it when it does more.

      • Cody

        Add taxes to that.

      • It doesn’t do up to what the Microsoft Band does for $250, so…

      • Rowan09

        Don’t even know what that is. I really don’t like commenting on products I never used or owned so I’ll hold judgement on this Apple Watch thing next year.

      • Bugs Bunnay

        you should remember that this is apple. there would be something wrong if they ever sell anything at such a low price point.

  • Stefano ‘Graziani’ Polo

    Am I the only one or does anyone else thinks that Apple is pricing themselves out of this market? $350 for their basic smart watch is ridiculous. More specifically because their phones start at $200. Even though that price comes with a two year contract, it doesn’t matter. We all need our phones for the next two years….

    I remember when the iPhone first came out in 2007, they were priced at $400 and they didn’t get the sales they were looking for. In turn, I believe they made an adjusted agreement with At&t and cut the price down to drive sales up.

    I hope that happens again with this watch where they’re forced to lower their prices. I’d rather go for a lesser functioning Pebble at $200 than spend the extra $150 or even more on their iWatch

    • Vince Reedy

      Only way that happens is if nobody buys them.

    • quitcherbichinn

      The price of the original iPhone was not $400. I got mine 6/29/07 (launch day) and it cost $699. There was no subsidizing. You paid full price AND had to sign a 2 year contract. Later on they dropped the price by adding subsidizing…but that just raised the cost of plans. In the end the same amount was spent, it was just over the 2 years instead of all up front.

      The cost of the iPhone isn’t $200. I hated this argument when I worked in telecommunications. “Why do I have to pay $600 for a replacement phone that I broke when the phone cost me $50?” People can’t comprehend that the company takes the hit in the front and the customer slowly pays that off over the term of the contract.

      The cost of the Watch will be what the market can bear. If they don’t sell then the price will drop. Remember though…everyone thought the iPad Mini was overpriced but when the 2nd one came out, the price went UP and they still sold MILLIONS of them. The 3rd version just came out and the price didn’t drop (for the new model) so that says the market can bear it.

      • Stefano ‘Graziani’ Polo

        now that I remember, you’re correct on the original cost of the iPhone. However the current cost of the iPhone is $200 + 2 year contract + whatever they jacked up in plans, if anything. Still a great deal for us that makes sense over 2 years of a service we will always need.

        I agree about the iPad mini comparison however to an extent. This is a watch! It’s not a device than can replace your laptop or be a medium between a phone and a laptop. It’s a watch that’s priced nearly to an iPad. It’s just way over-priced.

      • quitcherbichinn

        I don’t necessarily disagree that it is overpriced. I think $349 is an acceptable price point but I think $500 is too expensive and $1,500 – $5,000 is just obscene. However there are people that will buy them and I’m sure they will sell quite well…and ultimately that’s what capitalism is all about. Those who want it and can afford it will buy it and those who can’t will either not buy it or will buy the less expensive version. Just like cars…not everyone can afford the fully loaded model and that’s why they offer a base model. Options offered for everyone…nothing wrong with that. Though I know that as much of an Apple whore as I may be, there is NO way I would EVER spend $1,500 for a watch. I WILL be in line for a $349 Watch though. =)

    • Rowan09

      No not at all. The Moto 360 is $300 and does less and the Galaxy Gear was $300+ as well, so they are right in line. I have a Pebble and I love it, but it’s a basic smart watch with no sensors, so it shouldn’t be $200 if you ask me.

  • Vince Reedy

    I would assume by the track record on refresh cycle for mobile devices that it’s one year. Who wants to replace a watch every year or even 2 years?

    • Manuel Molina

      Agree. They have to offer a very good experience at 350 without some type of 2 year cycle change. The fact of the matter is, I switch my phone two years because things do change with software and hardware. Will I do the same with a watch? I can’t see myself doing that at all. I can’t see many getting new Apple watches every year or so either.

    • suzy

      Rumor is the chip is replaceable. This means the watch could be upgraded at a more affordable price point.

  • Tim

    I will take 2 in gold, just to say i have 2 gold iWatches

    • Manuel Molina

      Best of luck to you out in those streets, bro. Dudes kill for iPhones, so I can’t picture what they would do for two gold Apple watches.

    • Gary le

      You mean “2 APPLE watches” lol

  • TwinSon

    While I enjoy my RMBP and 6+, I find it hard to spend that much for a watch. I’ll probably just stay in my lane and stick with my Casio G-Shocks.

  • nyangejr

    Money hard to find, how am I buying that?

    • Bugs Bunnay

      can’t do it the legal way? do it the illegal way. of course you should know the pros and cons of doing it the illegal way.

  • askep3

    Dang this really does fit in with the premium, so the choice is either an iPad or a steel Apple watch lol

  • askep3

    Isn’t this a bit too much for a device that will be “old” in less than three years

    • Not really when you think about devices that cost even more and get old within just one year.

      • @dongiuj

        Yeah, I think “smart devices” in generally are all considered old in 6 months these days. That’s why I’m thinking to hold out until the 6S instead of upgrading in February (when my contract is up). But that might just be my opinion. Still a lot of cash for what it is in my eyes, obviously not to other people though.

  • Singularity19

    Dropping 500 bucks on a watch that you know is going to be significantly improved within 1 or 2 years ( because you know the iWatch 2 is coming). That’s a hard one to justify for anyone, no matter how rich you are

  • 5ingularity

    Dropping 500 bucks on a watch that you know is going to be significantly improved within 1 or 2 years ( because you know the iWatch 2 is coming). That’s a hard one to justify for anyone, no matter how rich you are.

  • therealjjohnson

    You gotta get all the way the F up outta here with that 5K watch crap

  • Ethan Humphrey

    I wouldnt even WANT a gold one. I might change my mind when I see it in person but i wouldnt be able to afford it. Ill stick to the apple watch (not sport) if i cant scrap enough money up to get one

  • Jad Boukai

    That pricing for a standard sport watch is way too much

    However, the pricing for the stainless steel one is actually not far off. Granted it still is quite high, as there are nicer designed luxury stainless steel watches for about $150 less than that. $350 would actually a decent price for a nice watch for us regulars, but $400 – $500 is stepping slightly out of bounds

    I don’t know what to say about the Gold one, but really? It’s not worth it because I personally don’t like the design still, and the functionality is not worth all that money. The functionality is something, and I’m sure people will actually use the device and most of its features, but not worth that much.

    The design factor of the watch still doesn’t appeal to me, so that’s why I believe it shouldn’t be that high. In all honesty, I understand this is a smart watch and it’s primary selling point is the functionality of the watch, but design is the next biggest thing.

    In order of importance for me, it would go:
    Functionality – 60%
    Design – 40%

    At least, that’s my opinion

  • Serge Bodin

    This is only going to be appealing to the hipsters and the rich

  • @dongiuj

    Stopped the video due to eye-sore and jony ive’s voice

  • Raz

    I remember when analysts claimed the iPad would cost $1000. In the end it was half that. I wouldn’t be surprised if apple did the same thing here, especially for the gold edition versions.
    $500 for the stainless steel seems right since the sport starts at $350.

  • Antzboogie

    Overpriced. $299 would have been better and a plastic one like the Gear Neo 2 would have been awesome not everyone likes Stainless Steel.

  • Gary le

    APPLE wants to sell high quality premium products at a premium price. If you want cheaper products with cheap price look elsewhere, if you want premium oroducts from Apple with a cheap price look elsewhere, and premium products with a premium price tag look for Apple products. Thats the bottom line.