Apple Watch has nothing new and we still need to buy it with a band

[Astuces iOS]

At this point, a lot of people have an Apple Watch and may wanna upgrade… but in some cases it’s not a revolution… GUYS why you are forced to buy an Apple Watch with a band if you already have some… Here is why this should be an option :

- 1. You actually save money, 50$ for normal models…

- 2. Actually better for the environment… look if you already have 2-3 or more… No need of more…

I think apple should really do this…

 

[Howard2k]

The band is likely a high margin item so offering it in that fashion is dilutive to profitability.

 

[dumastudetto]

Removing it would probably save Apple about $2 on cost of the most popular models. Forcing people to pick a band during the ordering process is an opportunity cost to upsell people on more expensive options.

 

[Astuces iOS]

Removing it would probably save Apple about $2 on cost of the most popular models. Forcing people to pick a band during the ordering process is an opportunity cost to upsell people on more expensive options.

I mean you have both options, you keep the curent one and offer an option without !

 

[dumastudetto]

I mean you have both options, you keep the curent one and offer an option without !

Yes, but there's no money to be saved on the default bands. So you'll be choosing to pay the same price with or without a band.

Typically there's a new band available every year with your new Apple Watch to add to your collection. So it's not a total waste.... unless you never switch bands?

I suppose what Apple could do is offer a band-less sale with a commitment to donate say $4 or $5 to relevant causes. They can then offset the charitable donation against tax, on top of the amount they've saved from you going for the band-less option.

 

[Astuces iOS]

Yes, but there's no money to be saved on the default bands. So you'll be choosing to pay the same price with or without a band.

Typically there's a new band available every year with your new Apple Watch to add to your collection. So it's not a total waste.... unless you never switch bands?

I suppose what Apple could do is offer a band-less sale with a commitment to donate say $4 or $5 to relevant causes. They can then offset the charitable donation against tax, on top of the amount they've saved from you going for the band-less option.

When they sell an Apple Watch, did you notice it’s a box with two boxes inside? The one of the watch only and the band.

 

[Adelphos33]

It's kind of an annoyance that has been brought up. You can always try to the sell the band if you don't need it. I view it the other way - if I want a new band and a new charger, it can make sense to upgrade as you can get a fresh watch as well. The issue for me is all my watches work well with strong battery capacity (ranging from 94% to 100%)

 

[dumastudetto]

When they sell an Apple Watch, did you notice it’s a box with two boxes inside? The one of the watch only and the band.

That doesn't change the economics. The cheapest bands costs practically nothing to manufacture. You thinking Apple could reduce the price by $50 if they sold you a watch without a band just isn't realistic.

 

[Jackbequickly]

I mean you have both options, you keep the curent one and offer an option without !

How much less do you think Apple would see just the watch with no band?

 

[BigBlur]

Gosh, here I thought I was basically getting the band for free.

As others have said, it costs Apple about $2 to include the band. Ain't no way Apple is going to remove the band and drop the price by $50.

If you don't need the band it comes with, sell it. If you'd rather have a different band/color than the standard one it comes with, then order through Apple and customize your bundle.

 

[Astuces iOS]

That doesn't change the economics. The cheapest bands costs practically nothing to manufacture. You thinking Apple could reduce the price by $50 if they sold you a watch without a band just isn't realistic.

Well, maybe… since the band cost 50$ without watch…

 

[Howard2k]

Well, maybe… since the band cost 50$ without watch…

I think that's the part you're missing.

The band might sell for $50, but the cost is probably $2-$5. Let's pretend it's $5.

If Apple was to reduce the selling price of the watch (without band) by $50, then they're losing $45 of profit. If they reduce the selling price of the watch (without band) by $5, then they're devaluing the market price of the watch.

For those reasons, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Astuces iOS]

I think that's the part you're missing.

The band might sell for $50, but the cost is probably $2-$5. Let's pretend it's $5.

If Apple was to reduce the selling price of the watch (without band) by $50, then they're losing $45 of profit. If they reduce the selling price of the watch (without band) by $5, then they're devaluing the market price of the watch.

For those reasons, it doesn't make sense.

That's sick... it means they make a lot of profit when you buy a band...

 

[Howard2k]

That's sick... it means they make a lot of profit when you buy a band...

It's not sick, it's capitalism. Apple is not a charity, nor a socialist driven enterprise. They're required to make as much money as they can and pass that to shareholders via share growth and dividends.

 

[Arctic Moose]

That's sick... it means they make a lot of profit when you buy a band...

Apple makes a lot of money regardless of what you purchase. If you don’t like it, there are many less profitable companies you can choose to buy from instead.

(Although as an Apple shareholder I would personally much prefer you give your money to Apple. 🙏)

 

[mansplains]

That's sick... it means they make a lot of profit when you buy a band...

This is the entire point of a business, selling something for more than it costs you