So they've mucked around with some different ingredients,

It's not rocket science. It definitely is however an extremely glossy brochure which your devoted faithful would expect

 

I bet the mark up is no less than their other goods!

 

....but unlike so many I can assure you I have not spent my life sitting on my backside and bellyaching about it to any poor **** who will listen!

Really !?

Just the last couple years on here , seems unlikely !

Ps I don't think its completely possible to feel what racism is like unless you've personally been on the end of it

 

Yeah, anyone can knock up a similar watch in their garage, are you in a stupid competition with Jon?

 

You're forgetting the sapphire crystal and the way they bang on about that. Christ, my *fake* Rolex has a sapphire crystal

However, I should shut up now as I'll probably buy one anyway

 

Lol, theres stupid and then there's completely gullible

Good on yer Jack - Its your money , no one elses

 

Hate to be the one to tell you this but your fake watch more than likely has fake sapphire crystal. Hope you didn't pay too much.

 

Here's a few questions though Jack. The blurb claims up to twice as hard as "standard" gold by engineering a new alloy.

So, what is their baseline as "standard" gold?

Who's to say that other watch manufacturers don't also have an 18 carat alloy that's twice as hard as standard gold?

Other watchmakers also claim to have their own manufacturer specific alloys for their 18 carat watches. They all have to be 75% pure gold to claim 18 carat, the rest of the 25% being where the differences sit.

Its also called 18 Karat. No hallmark. So when the £13k watch fails, like all electronics ultimately do, what value will its 18 Karat (with a "K") non hallmarked case have?

So whilst I'm neutral in this discussion, there actually is a huge amount of marketing spiel here from Apple.

They've done practically nothing mid and high end watch manufacturers haven't been doing for years.

 

Even if that were true I'm 50 so that's another 30 years of adult life unaccounted for, yes I was even an adult before the Internet came along

I agree, but do you have to..... oh what's the point... you will just make another stupid snide remark as it's all you do on here these days!

 

£40. And if its fake sapphire, its equally as scratch resistant as the sapphire crystals on all my "genuine" watches

Jack, you can get a sapphire crystal on a £50 watch. You can buy sapphire crystals for buttons these days.

 

By the way, I'm not knocking the Apple watch, and as I've said I'll probably buy one, but not because it has "special" aluminium, or "special" steel, or a "special" crystal (becasue, lets be honest, it has none of those things) and certainly not because of who makes it, but because I have a thing about watches and I like the design and the concept.

 

All good but I do believe that if it was only a few quid more than glass Apple would have used it on all watches, I'm no expert but suspect there are grades and that a lower grade sapphire although costing less is not as good as a higher priced glass. Thickness maybe?

 

If you think someone of a different ethnicity to you telling you to STFU in response to the bile you post on an internet forum is racist, well then you and I have a very different idea as to what constitutes racism. You have no idea, like I said, I think you should just simply STFU.

 

IF it's not spiel, please do tell everyone what it is then. You've clearly fallen for it hook, line, sinker, battered, deep fried and served with chips and ketchup.

 

What what is? Apple are proud of what they've achieved and have created some very nice pages explaining what they did, your twisted mind sees this as somehow evil, get a life man, if you don't want it fair enough, we don't care.

 

More likely to be marketing based.

If they all had sapphire, no scope to increase the price on the higher grade watches for the upgraded crystal

 

That's a simple one to trot out and highly unlikely. The gold and steel would be enough if the glass was only a few quid cheaper. From what I can find sapphire glass is ten times more expensive, which is quite a lot. Also worth nothing that although more scratch resistant Sapphire is more prone to cracking than glass and it needs to be thicker leading to decreased battery life due to screen brightness.

 

And lets not forget that if it was just Marketing then all watches would use Sapphire glass.

 

I may have oversimplified Jack.

Yes, sapphire is more expensive, but its still comparatively cheap to produce for this application.

Its no different to say a car manufacturer charging £1,500 more for "premium" leather, when the reality is that the cost to the manufacturer is very little. Having different grades allows a higher markup, so Apple can charge proportionately more for the steel and sapphire models than the difference in base material costs.

You get what you as the consumer considers a premium product over the cheaper base versions and so are willing to pay more than you might otherwise be. There will usually be a better margin in the higher priced products so they want to sell more of them than, in this case, the sports version - that's what I meant by marketing led.

 

Well as it turns out, their 18ct Apple gold (patent pending I kid you not!) is not the same as regular 18ct gold in that you get less gold in the same volume. This is because Apple gold is mixed with lighter ceramics:

http://leancrew.com/all-this/

Probably why you won't find a hallmark on it, but still won't stop Apple charging thousands for it. Use less gold, add more filler equals more profit!! Jony Ives doesn't tell you that part in his slo-mo mouth full of toffee commentary in his gold Apple Watch video.

 

As you say this is the same for any manufacturer of anything, Apple are doing nothing special by charging more for something that costs more. Would a Stainless steel case be enough to make me pay an extra £100, maybe not, Stainless Steel and Crystal display, still no in my case but I'm sure it will sway some but it's hardly a marketing trick as suggested by some on this thread.

 

How many do you think they'll have to sell to cover R&D? They went to great lengths to create the perfect Gold for use in a watch case, that's not cheap.

 

Who says its the *perfect* gold for use in a watch case?

What they've made is iGold. Nothing more, nothing less. If its mixed with ceramics it may well prove to be more scratch resistant, but if it lacks the weight due to being less dense, those in the market for a £13k watch may (edit probably will) feel short changed.

 

£150 more for the steel and sapphire models (excluding the VAT) £180 more with the VAT.

 

I doubt they set out to produce not so perfect gold for their watch.

 

You buy a £13,000 Rolex 7 years on and it will still be worth circa £9,000, what will the £13k Apple watch be worth with its un supported iOS 10 or what ever and failing battery that will hold a 1 hour charge ?

 

Not a lot I wouldn't think, I also don't think anyone's going to buy one as an investment , they'll buy it because it's useful and they have loads of money.

It's great that you're comparing the Apple Watch to a Rolex though, previous attempts by other makers have been compared to a Casio or Swatch.

 

How many 13k casios are there out there

 

Here's a $6,000 example, there are more expensive one's out there I know that but maybe look for yourself.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f17/mrg...-a-378418.html

 

Pretty sure this one is 10,000 http://www.shoppinginjapan.net/mrg-8000g-1ajf but it's sold out.