The Macalope loves the weeks leading up to a new Apple product launch when pundits are almost literally crawling over each other like zombies climbing a wall to be the next to proclaim how its totally doomed. In their defense, it's a lot harder to write this stuff with a straight face after these devices ship.
Is it a terrible burden to be clairvoyant? The Macalope imagines it must be.
Also whatever Green is. The Macalope doesn't know what it is but he imagines it must be really itchy.
The success of the cheaper versions of the watch will ultimately depend on how useful the device is, as well as the cult-like strength...
...of Apple's brand.
Sales of the device will depend on how useful it is. Way to go out on a ledge, Nostradamus.
Meanwhile, the very high-end versions are unlikely to move the needle for Apple, and could actually be an unmitigated disaster for the company.
Ah, now we're cooking with gas. Noxious, brain-cell killing gas.
Every Apple Watch, whether it costs $350 or $10,000, provides the exact same functionality. The innards are identical, and spending 30 times more than for the cheapest model gets the user exactly zero added features.
Exactly! And can you imagine the uproar if the $10,000 version had more features? "APPLE ELITISM BLAZZROZZLEFLOZZLE CAPS LOCK!" Instead we get "APPLE'S LUXURY WATCH IS STUPID." Aaaand we're also still getting "APPLE ELITISM BLAZZROZZLEFLOZZLE CAPS LOCK!" because Apple is even selling a $10,000 watch.
So, you know, the heck with everything.
For the same reason a $20,000 Rolex isn't just a Timex with some fancy materials thrown in...
Isn't it? They both have the same features, don't they? Time, date and... uh, just time and date, actually. So, two. They both have two features.
For a luxury item to be a status symbol, there can't be nearly identical versions that sell for prices that nearly anyone can afford.
That's probably news to Louis Vitton and every other company that manufactures expensive hand bags. Is it news to Green that you can buy hand bags at Target? Or that you can buy knock-off Louis Vitton bags that function exactly the same as real Louis Vitton bags. Yes, some luxury cars will have high-end features that economy cars don't, but pants are still pants. Materials and build quality not the same thing as functionality despite Green's attempt to conflate the two.
Look, Apple isn't exactly expecting Watch Edition revenue to replace iPhone revenue as a line item on its financials. It's not even breaking all of Watch revenue out as its own item. But, please, keep trying to make up imaginary problems.
Pundits are always coming down on Apple fans for being mindless zealots but at least we actually chide the company for real problems instead of making up problems no one cares about.
Its smartwatch strategy makes little sense, and I think the company is suffering from a bit of hubris.
If you're joining us mid-dumb here, what we've learned so far is that based on an unsourced rumor about how many Watch Editions Apple might be expecting to sell, the Edition is "dead on arrival" and possible an "unmitigated disaster" and Apple is suffering from "hubris".
A recent Wall Street Journal article suggested Apple expects to produce over 1 million gold watches per month by the second quarter of this year.
No one has any idea whether that's true or not but let's just pretend it is because these tables aren't going to flip themselves.
Apple's high-end gold watches are unlikely to generate enough revenue to have a meaningful impact on the company's top line.
Hey, we agree! You know what? Apple probably agrees, too, seeing how they specifically said the Edition would be available in limited quantities and only in select stores. At the March 9th event, they showed videos of the materials of the Sport and stainless Watch, but not the Edition. They just didn't focus on it.
No matter what the Wall Street Journal says, it's pretty clear Apple doesn't expect to sell that many Editions. This is why you shouldn't base bombastic arguments on hearsay.