Cheapest I have seen for a while. Just enter the code WB10 at the checkout to get the $10 discount.
That was my first thought too, but then again my Moto 360 was $320 on launch and I didn't even hesitate.
You can probably thank Apple for that. If the Urbane cost less than an iWatch, some people would see it as inferior. So flagship watches will now roughly match iWatches in price, at least at launch.
The cheapest Apple Watch is nearly $100 dearer than the Urbane listed here - and is $200 dearer than the G Watch R which would be the more natural competition for the cheapest Apple Watch Sport.
The official price for the Apple Watch Sport is US$349. The LG Watch Urbane is US$350.
Here, the Apple Watch Sport is $499. The LG Watch Urbane is $459 from the Play Store.
Grey market is always cheaper of course, but consider this - if Apple priced their cheapest model at ~$350 like the LG Watch R when it first came out, would you expect LG to still price their Urbane at $459? The internals are pretty much identical to the original Watch R after all.
@eug:
The Urbane still costs significantly less than the Apple Watch in Australia. Show me where the Apple Watch has been discounted to anywhere near where the Urbane is now, grey import or not. Let's remember though that the Sport watch is not even really a direct competitor for the 'premium' Urbane, the closest would be the midrange Apple Watch starting from AU$799.
The G Watch R is $299 on the Google Store, some $200 cheaper than the Apple Watch Sport. These two would be considered more direct competitors.
If Apple's Sport watch was priced at AU$350, LG would probably still have the Urbane priced around where it is now, with the GWR still AU$50 cheaper that the Sport Watch.
The Urbane still costs significantly less than the Apple Watch in Australia
A 9% price difference doesn't sound very significant to me.
Show me where the Apple Watch has been discounted to anywhere near where the Urbane is now, grey import or not.
I think you're totally missing my point.
Let's remember though that the Sport watch is not even really a direct competitor for the 'premium' Urbane, the closest would be the midrange Apple Watch starting from AU$799.
I don't think you can comapre the Urbane with the midrange Apple Watch, which has a sapphire face and ceramic back.
The Urbane is Gorilla Glass and has a plastic back - hardly what you'd call "premium".
The G Watch R is $299 on the Google Store, some $200 cheaper than the Apple Watch Sport. These two would be considered more direct competitors.
You're comparing a watch that came out last year with what's arguably the "hottest" wearable launch ever in history.
@eug:
$50 is significant, no matter how you cut it - and that's before you even look at the grey market.
I don't think you can compare the Urbane with the midrange Apple Watch, which has a sapphire face and ceramic back.
They are still both the 'premium' offerings in their range, much like how the Galaxy S series of phones competes with the iPhone. Even though the S6 has less premium materials than the iPhone, they still compete directly.
@interfreak: Huh? iPhone is the cheaper phone in terms of manufacturing cost as far as I know.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/analysis-iphone-6-plus-cos…
http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/mobile-tabs/sams…
$50 is significant, no matter how you cut it - and that's before you even look at the grey market.
OK that's just something that's subjective then. $50 is significant if we're talking $49 to $99. But at $449 to $499, I wouldn't consider that significant.
If one phone cost $1099 and another phone cost $1049, would you consider that a significant price difference?
They are still both the 'premium' offerings in their range, much like how the Galaxy S series of phones competes with the iPhone. Even though the S6 has less premium materials than the iPhone, they still compete directly.
The only difference between last year's LG R and this year's Urbane is the design of the casing. Everything else is identical. Same processor, same RAM, same screen, same everything.
It's like saying the Galaxy S5 in a slightly different case is comparable to the iPhone 6, while the Galaxy S6 is comparable to the 6S.
@eug:
Doesn't change how they are positioned in the market. the GWR is LG's entry smart watch, the Urbane it's premium offering.
@interfreak: OK, so just to confirm - you're of the opinion that the Urbane's official $459 price, which is $100 more than the GWR when it was first released, is completely justified because LG calls it premium, even though the specs and materials used are completely identical?
You say $50 is significant, which is fair enough. The GWR is $299 and this Urbane (without local warranty) is $408 - that's a difference of $109.
Just to confirm again - you're of the opinion that the differences between the GWR and Urbane is (doubly) significant - enough to justify the $109 price difference?
@eug:
OK, so just to confirm - you're of the opinion that the Urbane's official $459 price, which is $100 more than the GWR when it was first released, is completely justified because LG calls it premium
Whether I think it's justified or not is irrelevant. That 's how LG market them.
Just to confirm again - you're of the opinion that the differences between the GWR and Urbane is (doubly) significant - enough to justify the $109 price difference?
Whether I think the price difference is justified or not is irrelevant. That 's how LG market them.
@interfreak: OK, so you're of the opinion that if a company markets their product as a premium item, it's definitely premium without a doubt.
You're totally entitled to your opinion, as I am to my opinion that LG raised their prices to position themselves next to the Apple watch.
@eug: \
OK, so you're of the opinion that if a company markets their product as a premium item, it's definitely premium without a doubt.
That's for the market to decide. LG obviously think that this is the case.
You're totally entitled to your opinion, as I am to my opinion that LG raised their prices to position themselves next to the Apple watch.
Possibly, but they are probably more concerned about other Android Wear devices.
Possibly, but they are probably more concerned about other Android Wear devices.
Well it's now the most expensive Android Wear watch available, still with last year's internals. If they improved the build quality and updated the specs, I would consider upgrading my GWR. But they just changed the case and increased the price, which was quite disappointing. I sure hope the new Moto 360 is more exciting.
@eug:
I'm personally interested in the Huawei Watch, though I am concerned that its smaller battery powering a higher resolution display (compared to the GWR) will give it compromised battery life.
I'd also consider the Moto 360 v2 which will hopefully be announced at the Google I/O tomorrow, but only if it has an OLED display and a 'full face'.
I think the GWR is a steal at AU$299 for the reasons you mention - its internals are pretty much identical to the Urbane and it will get WiFi support later this year. In fact I will probably buy one on Monday, dependant on what happens at Google I/O.
@interfreak: > I'd also consider the Moto 360 v2 which will hopefully be announced at the Google I/O tomorrow, but only if it has an OLED display and a 'full face'.
Yes! It'd better use an OLED screen. I've also got the 360 and find the GWR's always-on screen a lot more convenient. The battery life on the GWR is much better too, so hopefully Moto can squeeze in a larger battery.
I don't mind the flat tyre look at all. It'd be better if they got rid of it of course.
I think the price for LG Watch Urbane was released before Apple released their smartwatch?
These smart watches are good around the $200 mark. Why would this be any better than my Samsung Gear Live bought for $180 and can be had for less still.
They appeal to totally different people. Someone looking at the Urbane would not be looking at the Gear Live.
It would be better to compare the Urbane to the LG G Watch R, which has the same internals but can be had for $299 delivered from the Google store.
Cool digital watch. A pity about the wanky name. Sounds like a metrosexual perfume, except for the "W150" part :)
Does it have a 1980s Casio skin?
I don't know about you guys, but for this price, I'd rather buy a standalone smartwatch…
Samsung Gear S is $400+P&H at mobileciti…
What's so good about smartwatches? Still not sold on one that can't be used without a phone…
I don't know about you guys, but for this price, I'd rather buy a standalone smartwatch…
Have you played with one yet? It's pretty large. Might not fit everyone's wrists nicely.
What's so good about smartwatches? Still not sold on one that can't be used without a phone…
It's definitely not something for everyone. I find it extremely useful for checking notifications like WhatsApp messages, emails, texts, and for easily starting apps like Strava. My phone can be in the living room while I'm preparing something in the kitchen with messy hands. If a call comes in, I can glance at my watch and see who's calling. I can activate the phone's handsfree mode from the watch, or see if that text that came in needs a quick reply.
My phone is virtually always on silent mode too, as I can feel the vibration when a notification comes in. The vibration could be much stronger though.
I'm not sold on a watch that doubles as a phone just yet, as interacting with it would be a pain. Imagine typing a message when you're out and about. Sure you could talk to your watch, but that'll look silly and everybody around you will know what you're sending. But I can certainly see how it can be useful to people who don't plan to send long messages or have a need to interact with it too much.
Fair enough, was just curious. I personally find a standalone smartwatch more useful as I won't have to have a phone in my pocket all the time.
Hot damn didnt realise these were that expensive.