Moto 360

How much would you pay for the Moto 360?

To say that folks are eagerly awaiting the Moto 360 ... well, that's probably the understatement of the summer. But it's backed up by our most recent weekly poll, which at the time of this writing shows 63 percent of the nearly 10,000 respondents indeed are waiting on the first round Android Wear smartwatch.

And that spurs the following question: What are you willing to pay for it?

We don't yet know what the Moto 360 price will be. There's reason to think that perhaps it might be lower than expected, given what Motorola has managed to do with its smartphones in the past year. Stylish, functional and affordable isn't the pipe dream we once thought. Will that translate over to a smartwatch? It's possible. (But we wouldn't bet the farm on it.)

Another theory, though, is that the Moto 360 will eclipse the cost of the Samsung Gear Live ($199) and LG G Watch ($229). And there's good reason for that. The round display means there will be more waste in cutting the panels. And if nothing else, it just looks a hell of a lot cooler.

And, so, we ask: What would you pay for the Moto 360?

For more, check out our hands-on with the Moto 360 from Google I/O.


Reader comments

Moto 360 price: What's the sweet spot?


First vote! I think between 250 and 300 is fair. They may jack up the price just because it is the nicest, most stylish smart watch being released, and I'm pretty sure they know that!

Brought to you by the Nexus M8

The most I would be willing to spend is $250 (because I can't afford more than that). But I wouldn't be surprised if it sold for $300. It's probably worth that much if not more.

If Motorola what's to sell a bunch I'd bet $299. Anything more would have to wait for the price to drop.

I'd have to say, that people willing to pay that much cause a thing worth of 50 bucks to be sold at 300.
This is nothing more as herd instinct :/ see: bitten fruit ;)

yea like what constitutes "fair"?
at any rate, it would be beneficial to vote in the lowest category for data metrics
IF motorola compounds this poll into others theyve hosted (android central would hopefully get some compensation for hosting the survey of their users) voting lower would at least change the demographic to show that consumers wouldnt be willing to pay a heftier price tag - Marketing - just dont tell them you'd pay more if you would, they'll sell it to ya for that when they would have for less - and its not a charity

They need to release it already.. It's becoming stale already.. Too much build up equates to instant failure.. If it's not released this month, it's going to disappear into the land of nobody cares..

Nexus 4 - CM10.1.3

I'll still be caring. I'm sure their plan is to sell it to more people than just we who read these sites, and to those people there is not "too much build up." We are imposing this build up on ourselves. That being said, YES I do want it sooner than later.

I'm sure you're right, there will be no negative consequences for waiting too long to release a much hyped up product. I mean just look at the Bionic, it came out months late and it still blew away sales numbers right?

You can also think of all the "early adopters" of the G Watch and Gear Live as beta testers for android wear. So whenever moto 360 is out the OS will already overcome its release bugs and will be more polished. So consumers will feel like new = better.

Of course. Why rush to buy a product that when released, doesn't have a good selection of apps and development and is getting software updates and bug fixes right out of the box. On a pure Android Wear front, the experience on release day on a Moto 360 will be far greater than that of the LG or Samsung, because of TIME. No pun intended.

Again, you are acting as if tech sites are a gauge for the general populous. They are NOT. Most of the general populous doesn't even know what a Moto 360 is, or if they have heard about it, it was briefly, in passing, they are not reading and watching about it every hour of every day like you. The Bionic's failure had NOTHING to do with hype posted about on tech sites. The Bionic failed because it really wasn't a good phone. It also was manufactured by a company that did not give it good support. Not to mention it was a device available on one carrier, a carrier that had better options available, and even they realized that. Additionally, the Moto 360 is NOT coming out LATE. Late for what? A release date was NEVER announced. From the beginning it was always stated it would be released LATE SUMMER. Last I checked, summer ends September 22, 2014. It is currently July 15, 2014, so, how you calculate July 15th to be "late" compared to September 22nd is beyond me. The Bionic, however, WAS late, as it was shown and announced, then pulled, plagued with problems even before release, completely redesigned, delayed, delayed, and delayed again, then finally released as a completely different phone than was originally shown, and yet, it still had problems. Poor analogy.

where did I say anything about the 360 being late? so as for how I calculated July 15th to be either the end of summer or late is an easy one, I simply didn't. the reason it is beyond you is because you're now responding to stuff that wasn't even said...

the important part here to note, you even caught on to. one of the biggest contributing factors to the Bionic's failure is that there WERE better options available. the main reason for this is because of how late it was. if it would have been released at the beginning of the year when it was originally planned to be, it wouldn't have had much competition other than the thunderbolt, but instead they waited too long and released it at the same time as other major players in the game.

timing can be a pretty big deal.
waiting too long to release it could be a problem.
if I was motorola, I would make sure to learn from any of my past mistakes.

that analogy works just fine for that.

If that lame response makes you feel better, so be it. I've already said what I had to say on this matter. And I said it quite well.


Not looking to buy an Android wear watch or any smart watch really so went low at $150 to $200.

Posted via Android Central App

I would pay $80.00 for it as is, and $100.00 to $120.00 if they get rid of that unusable black area at the bottom of the screen, and replace it with usable screen real estate.

Posted via Android Central App

I might, once the fire sale prices kick in, or after it gets bundled together with another product, like a new smartphone on contract. Any amount more would be a heck of a lot of money for a watch that can't be used in direct sunlight.

Posted via Android Central App

How do you know it can't be used in direct sunlight? Has this been confirmed yet?
We know the LG Watch can't but my Samsung does it quite well.
Not trying to argue, I'm really asking.

Posted via Android Central App

Ah yes...the old "That manufacturer's did it so every other manufacturer ever will always do the exact same thing" logic.

I was more going for the "all full colour displays I've seen, including AMOLED, kind of suck in direct sunlight" logic.

maybe moto have refined the technology but making assumptions based on hope is a good way to be disappointed, if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak.

But yeah...


Posted via Android Central App

Unless moto pulls another price waterfall lol i will never buy a moto device bc they price their devices so low later lol

Posted via NEXUS 5

The bottom is black for all the screen drivers. Its not like they stuck it on there because they wanted to "take up space." It still looks better than the G watch and Gear live. Those watches have bezels all the way around. The 360 still takes the cake.

Brought to you by the Nexus M8

It does.... I wish there was a way to get rid of it, but it is better then having a bezel all the way around the watch. Maybe on the next hardware version, they'll be able to get rid of it!

Brought to you by the Nexus M8

No, you're not likely to change someone's aesthetic opinion by pointing out the reason for a design decision. He's not necessarily a troll just because he doesn't like the design. The bottom doesn't bug me all that much, but preferring a distributed bezel to a chunk out of the bottom is a perfectly valid opinion.

Posted via Android Central App

"Usable"? What exactly would you use this tiny space for? Do you even realize that LG screen fits inside 360 screen?

This. So many people are complaining about that tiny little bezel, but on a round screen it's useless anyways. The only thing that really go there is maybe a "6" on the watch face. You aren't going to put any notification text there. It would just be "background space" (white space for a notification, green space if you're looking at something with a green background, etc). It's just the nature of viewing information on a round screen, and actually one of the reasons I didn't wait for the 360. How is scrolling through an longer text or email going to work on this thing? Will it have to re-wrap the text with each line, to accommodate for the round screen? Or will the sides of each line be cut off, except for the line in the middle of the screen?

This is Motorola, they can't/won't charge close to the moto X and cant/won't charge too low. I see a rough continuation of their current price structure, a good 20%+ cheaper than some of the competition. Plus the awesome design will be a great move for them and really set themselves in the Android market.
Posted via Android Central App

They can't remove the black bar. It's where all the drivers go, you know, where they would usually go in the giant bezels of the Live and G Watch.

Posted via Android Central App

Since it's from Motorola it'll be 299....then 199 if you buy in the next 10 minutes. Then 279...wait, now it's only 199 if you get a code and go to college. Now its 250, but if you buy one in the next 3 weeks it's only 199.

Ok...forget it. It's just 199. Unless you wait 2 more weeks...then its 189.

Just hope they don't do it the oneplus way lololol

Posted from my Nexus 7 2013 running Android L or Samsung galaxy S5

Anything less than $200 is simply unrealistic. The device would need to be made of poor materials and have terrible battery life and performance. The only people who would buy it would be the 30% who prefer that price, and 90% of THOSE people would return it or rage about at how pitiful it is. Most people forget, you get what you pay for.

I got my HTC One M7 for $99.00 on contract (close to when it first came out). $200.00+ for a smartwatch, I think not.

Posted via Android Central App

Carriers can subsidize the price of a phone. Something, like a watch, you can't subsidize....

Brought to you by the Nexus M8

I just shuddered at the thought of how my G Watch would look with a verizon logo across the top (and the obligatory 4GLTE across the bottom).

My phones free on contact! That must mean this watch is the UNBELEIVABLE price of feck all.

Posted via Android Central App

You realize you pay $20-25 per month for two years (hidden in your monthly bill) when you purchase the phone "on contract"... On top of the $99.

Posted via Android Central App

This is also the company that made an amazing smartphone at a very affordable price point. Now the 360 will obviously be a premium device, but I think it will be a little cheaper than we expect. Emphasis on little lol,.

Posted via Android Central App

Asus is claiming that they're going to release a sub $200 Android Wear watch.
Yes, I know its just talk right now and nobody has seen it. But they claim that it's coming.

Ya I would hate not to be able to hold my watch up to my face in public and have everyone hear my call

Posted from my Nexus 7 2013 running Android L or Samsung galaxy S5

What a dumb comment.. i wouldn't do that if people were around, would i? Its for while driving or when you are alone. So stfu

Posted via NEXUS 5

I like how someone responds to your sarcastic comment with sarcasm, and you get pissed...This is why the "/s" is important...chill out brometheus

I"ve done it on my Gear. It isn't bad.
This was for quick conversations with the wife though that usually last all of 10 seconds or so: "where are you?" "I'm at the store." "Are you almost done?" "Yep, checking out now." "Okay see you soon.".
Surprisingly it rarely even causes a raised eyebrow.
While at home or driving I pretty much exclusively use the watch when getting calls.

About $30.The current devices are so big you might as well wear a hockey puck on your wrist. Maybe in 2 or 3 years they'll be thin enough to consider.

True that.

Everyone must want what fashion marketing says they must want. Until sales slow down, and fashion marketing then says everyone must want what they were told previously was undesirable and replace it.

How foolish of someone to prefer something which fashion marketing has deemed "out"... temporarily.

If the price on this watch was $50, I might like to see one as a Christmas gift (if more than $50, I could find other things I'd prefer to have on my wish list).

If I were to spend my own money on this? I'd be willing to spend $25.

Sounds like you'd be appaulled at what many of us spend on a real watch. Not sure you can even get a decent knockoff that'll turn weird colors for $50. Guy behind me lost nearly $5k throughout the month betting and losing on World Cup matches. Now THAT'S wasting your money.

How is the round display more waste? if it was a square watch, you would still need that same square piece of display.

Materials. Take a rectangular cake, and try cutting the slices as complete circles. There's going to be cake leftover that was inbetween. This is like that except with the displays. It's more of a waste, because what's left over is usually in odd shapes from the circle cutouts that you can't use for anything else.

You are still using the same amount of "cake" for the same amount of usable "pieces", which was my point.

I get what you're saying, I'm just rough at explaining specifics.

I'm going to keep using cake, because it sounds really good right now.

You're using the same total amount of cake, the whole cake, both times, but cutting square pieces you could potentially have every inch of the cake be a piece. If you cut circles, you'll end up with the same number of pieces, but not all of the cake will be a "piece." So in this case when someone says it's a waste, they mean that even though the same amount of cake is used, less of it is going towards the pieces themselves, and more is just leftover. There's different ways to interpret this, so it's tricky to explain, but maybe that's better. Probably not.

You're correct in line with wasted material and therefore increased cost to manufacture a circular display versus a square/rectangular dispay. The arguement was over "wasted" space or screen real estate on a circular display. Since the G's display can fit inside of the 360's display it can only provide more info, not less. We'll just have to wait and see how they go about doing that though.

If you take LG watch and overlay it on top of 360, you will see that LG screen fits inside 360. So 360 actually has more screen.

I simply found a side-by-side pictures and overlayed them. It also makes sense SW-wise.... All Google had to do was expand neighboring colors to fill the circle. The "card" interface is unchanged.

But you were still technically correct- this isn't a "waste" issue, it's that the watch is bigger.

And given that you can stagger the circles on the sheet of display material, you can minimize some of the waste that way as well.

Bad analogy, good pointing out of bad analogy!

Plus unlike cake, glass, metal and (some) plastic CAN be melted down and reused.

Not to mention... cake remnants are NOT a problem, they're a bonus!

Posted via Android Central App

The quote from the article is: "-more waste in cutting the panels." Cutting from a large circle to create smaller displays as opposed to a large square would give less displays from a similar sized material, and if you're suggesting creating the material in the needed size and circle shape to begin with, then there isn't any cutting being done. The analogy is done in context of how the original quote put the situation and in a way that explains how, theoretically, creating circle displays can have more waste than an equivalent square display. And I'm hungry. They can be reused, but that doesn't mean that's what's necessarily done afterward.

Anything cake related at all is a bonus.

I missed that, you/they may be correct about the actual LCD/led panel.

Still a bad analogy though, waste cake is an oxymoron! :p

Posted via Android Central App

Metals can be delivered as "rods" for raw material... Or melted down and molded into the final shape. Even glass can be melted and poured into the desired shape. You don't have to start with a rectangle and cut circles out... Manufacturing is a little more advanced than an easy bake oven and cookie cutters.

Posted via Android Central App

I never said that's how you have to start. It's an example to how area is typically less effectively utilized with circle versus square in a simple situation easily discernible from the article. Nowhere did I make a comment on what any part of the actual manufacturing process is, how it can, or should operate.

"Manufacturing is more advanced than an easy bake oven and cookie cutters." Yes, that is true.

And producing lighted screen technology is nothing like a pouring a simple melted chunk of metal or glass into a mold to shape it.

You people just want to spend more money for tech... $300 for this is ridiculous. $149.99 is fair.

Posted via the Android Central App on my Nexus 5

it's fair i agree... but with the Gear Live at $199 and the LG G at $229... it won't be cheaper then both of them...the cheapest i see it being is around the $249 mark... and of course in Canada we will be paying higher prices as well as higher shipping costs ; <

It's not really an easy question to answer when we know next to nothing about the device. I assume it'll be roughly the same spec as the G watch and gear live, so roughly the same amount as the G watch and gear live.

Posted via Android Central App

Except it's not roughly the same design and materials as the G Watch and Gear Live. You do realize the internals were custom built for it. You do realize it's high quality, luxury materials. You do realize we actually don't know what the pecs are. It's also already been widely reported that the display is much better than those of the other two.

Actually yes, I do realise those things. That was my point! lol

We DON'T KNOW the final spec, we DON'T KNOW the final build quality, we DON'T KNOW the production materials, we DON'T KNOW what's in the box leather strap? Plastic? Steel? A platinum-rhodium alloy?

As for the fact it's round... Yeah... Wow! I personally won't pay more for that.

Posted via Android Central App

You don't seem to get what I'm saying. Your logic that "I assume it'll be roughly the same spec as the G watch and gear live, so roughly the same amount as the G watch and gear live," doesn't make sense, because as I stated, it DOES have higher end materials, that we actually DO know about, like Leather, and Stainless steel, and we DO know that alot more has gone into the engineering and design, including CUSTOM DESIGNED/MADE internals. Even if the specs were identical (which I doubt), how would a stylish leather or stainless steel strapped, smartwatch with custom built internals come to the same price as a "blah" square slate slapped on plastic? I mentioned nothing about "round" so not sure why you even brought that up.

I bought up the fact that it's round because the "CUSTOM DESIGNED/MADE internals" are only there to facilitate it being round. I appreciate this may have required more engineering man hours, but as I said it's not something I'm really willing to pay more for, if you are fine.

Have I missed something? As far as I know we've seen it mounted on leather and metal straps but moto haven't actually said it'll ship with either, both or neither.

And the device itself is most likely stainless, like the G watch, but they haven't said what it is. Same with the screen, people have suggested it's sapphire. But it could be gorilla glass, or plastic. The internal specs may be higher, they may not simply because wear doesn't need the hardware.

People assign value to things differently. For me, functionality comes way before form. And the question was "how much would you pay for the moto 360?" Not "how much so you think the moto 360 is worth/will sell for?"

The whole point is, like it or not, as far as we know we haven't seen a production model yet and have been given few details.

Posted via Android Central App

Yes, you have missed something. Moto has confirmed both leather and stainless steel materials. As for the custom internals, I never commented on "how much would you pay for the moto 360?" I was respondiing on your comment, " I assume it'll be roughly the same spec as the G watch and gear live, so roughly the same amount as the G watch and gear live," because I misunderstood what you were saying. I didn't realize you were saying you would pay roughly the price of those watches, I thought you were saying since they have the same specs you were assuming they would be the same price. My bad on that. We essentially were arguing two different things as my point was always it is a more expensive product. For me, form and function go hand in hand, and I would NEVER wear something around my wrist that I did not find appealing.

Yeah, my original conment was regarding the question in this poll "how much would you pay for the moto 360?" My answer is about $200-$250 (though I'm British so I'll be paying pounds.) I actually expect it to come in at close to $350 and I wouldn't blame them for charging that.

If it comes with a steel band I would pay a little more as if I bought the G watch I'd get a steel band anyway.

Which brings us to form vs function. I agree form is a factor, I wouldn't wear a pink star shaped watch because it wouldn't suit me. But I'm not a "real" watch guy, and 99.9% of the time I'm in jeans and a short sleeved shirt not a three piece suit. So having something that's pretending to be an omega is irrelevant to me, in fact I'm thinking a rectangular form factor may better fit my style and to be honest in my opinion the band and face define the watch more than the watch itself.

Nice to know we were arguing over a misunderstanding. Internet, you've done it again lol

Posted via Android Central App

True. I even like square/rectangular watches too. I just don't think these 2 are great looking. Though the Samsung does look better. Even with a new band, the LG just fails to hit it out of the park to me. The problem is the face is lacking a frame. And on a design front, that just makes it look bad...or cheap/plain.

I think it would be a fair price if the screen would be visible out under the sun.

Posted via Android Central App

The real answer is that I'll probably pay whatever is deemed the price. That said, I think we can expect something between 250 and 280.

Posted via Android Central App

I haven't worn a watch in over a dozen years, I don't intend to start wearing one now.

Posted via Android Central App

I think that 199-249 is the sweet spot, but we are likely to see it at 299. But I think we are also likely to see a special bundle deal when it launches like "Buy a Moto X+1, get $100 off the moto 360"

Please let this happen.

I'm not willing to pay all that much, because I'm pretty sure it won't have anywhere near the battery life that I need from a smartwatch. That said, I'm really hoping for a bundle deal similar to what LG has done with the G3 and G Watch when the next Moto flagship device comes out. If I can get it for 50% off if I buy the X2 or whatever it is they call it, I might bite.

But to add to the guesswork, I'd be shocked if it came in under $299.

If you're reasoning for not buying Android Wearables is because it's too expensive since you got your phone for $100 after waiting "x" amount of days rather than the initial $200 price your logic is flawed. You didn't by an unsubsidized phone for that price. You agreed to a contract. Off contract pricing will is usually in the neighborhood of $550 to $650 for a decent phone so compare that to a $250 watch. The epitome of flawed logic....

250 max because you can get a capable smart phone that's does everything that the smart watches can't do for less money and a don't look like they glued a small piece of plastic over the screen driver and not really deliver a circular screen.

Personally I went for the G watch because its plain and simple and does what it says on the tin, moto 360 is going for premium android wear has a less than premium feel to it and would simply cheapen the 360.

Unless moto is working hard with Google to fix up android wear and get it out of its unresponsive clunky laggy state, your better off with a cheaper offering so you don't feel like you blew a wedge on some fancy accessorie(s) that's horrifically slow because of beta stage software.

Posted via Android Central App

Your last paragraph made me lol. I'm not saying Android Wear is super-polished or anything, but calling it unresponsive or laggy is just silly. I can send a text, set a reminder, etc on my watch in under 5 seconds... including the time to raise my wrist and say "ok google". No digging in pockets, no lockscreens, not even any touching of the device itself. From me doing nothing to a message being sent in under 5 seconds. If that's "horrifically slow", I'll gladly take more of it.

I'd pay up to 300 for it, for sure. I love it because it looks like an actual watch. It's something I would wear even if it was just a mechanical watch, it's just sexy.

I am hoping for $199, but I see it between $249 - $279. Motorola knows they have the second most highly anticipated smartwatch after Apple's iWatch. And as great as that sounds they need to price their watch in a place where it is more than the typical square smartwatch and yet still failry priced compared to an iWatch. If Motorola sells their smartwatch at the same price or lower than the Galaxy Live then people could think it is considered cheap, but if they price it too high than their competition including the iWatch then people could think it is overpriced and look at the competition to buy.

I'm thinking $249 for the plastic band, and $349 for the metal band.

And I'm down with $349 for the metal band....

Looks like vast majority will be disappointed. There's no way it's gonna cost anything below $280. Look at Samsung and LG prices and derive from there.
I have no problems giving more $ to a company that took great care of design and materials choice. They deserve to make money.... how else are they supposed to survive?

Can you put options for proper money in there, for those of you too dimwitted to know what proper money is, it would be £ (Stirling)

Posted via Android Central App

I'm English. America has the largest English speaking market, and this mainly an American site. Convert to £'s (Google can help you there) and quit bitching.

Posted via Android Central App

$299 max for me personally, although I'd love to see this at $249. Free by winning AC's inevitable Moto 360 giveaway contest also works for me.

I wouldn't pay a dime for it, and wouldn't wear it, if it was FREE...didn't have that option in the poll...

Posted via Android Central App

I'll pay $250 for it without giving it a second thought, could go higher if a metal band is included, wouldn't go higher than $300 tho. At that point it'd be too much of a premium just to try Wear out, specially for a first gen device. Over $250 without a metal band would make me think twice...

Only on here, and this bunch are a strange lot and completely not representative of the general public.

If you think the general public gives a shiite about any smartwatch to date you're off your rocker, but the 360 has at least a CHANCE to change that (as will the iWatch, no doubt). I'm perfectly fine with it being a cool looking watch that I can change the faces on and still be proud wearing it in public (or at least not embarrassed lol). The fact that it can do other stuff is a bonus. I don't really give a shiite what it can do if it doesn't look good on my wrist (or I'd get something specifically for fitness/geocaching). We KNOW it looks good since it's out in the wild. So it checks off my, and many whom find watches a classy accessory, first and foremost checkbox.

I am getting it no matter the price but they will hit it out of the park if lower than Samsung and LGs watches. Otherwise $200-250 is a fair price. Only time will tell.

Ian. B

I might be willing to pay a slightly higher price ($300) if Moto allows for MotoMaker customization, including the color and type of band (leather/metal).

$249 is the regular retail price of the model that they're giving to the face design contest winner. They admitted as much in the contest rules, as required by several states' contest laws. They didn't specify if the contest winner was getting a metal band one, so my guess is the leather band version will be $249. If you want a metal band, my guess is that version will be somewhere between $249 - $299.

Anything over $299 and it won't sell except to the most die-hard fans.

I could totally see a MotoMaker package deal for a 360 & X+1 at $550.

I'm pretty sure that Moto already came out and said MSRP is $249. Personally, if they want it to be a huge success I think it should launch around $199 to $249. Preferably around the $199 price.

I'd pay $1000+ for a HIGH END smartwatch.

I want something that not everybody is going to be wearing. So that means more $$$.

Wouldn't pay that for this, but I would for the right one.

I wouldn't pay anything for that clunky tin can. Make it half as thick and maybe 2/3 the current size and I'd be all over it.

I think there will be a lot of disappointed people once the price is announced. Everyone is saying they are waiting but once the price is announced watch for all the "Motorola is frickin' nuts" posts.

I hope I'm wrong. Either way I'll buy one even if it's over $300. I like my LG G watch and I can't wait for the 360 to become my work watch.

Posted via Android Central App

It doesn't matter how much I'd be willing to pay. Fact is, the watch will cost $169-$179. Believe it. And Believe in the Shield.

$250-$300 is about right since it will probably be obsolete in less than a year if this genre takes off. It's really hard to answer definitively when there really hasn't been much said about what exactly it can do. Just a few brief teasers with message indications and cool faces. If this really has a slick integration with your phone and is practically useful instead of gimmicky, I think the price could be at the higher end.

Who is going to pay $300 for a watch that gets replaced in a year? For that kind of cash it'd better be made of decent materials.

Posted via Android Central App

Many thousands if not millions of people. As long as this thing turns on to display any watch face of my choosing 5yrs from now it will still serve the one purpose I care about most. Just a nice looking watch that's well built. Anything else is a bonus. Just changing the face and the bands could end up saving people like me a lot on "real" watches over that period of time. I never really need a new watch. I decide I need or want a new style of watch. Digital watch faces, different bands, and something like slickwraps allows me to completely change just about every aspect of the same watch (besides the obvious shape/materials of main watch).

S­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­a­­­­­­­­­r­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ w­­­­­­­­­o­­­­­­­­­rk­­­­­­­­­in­­­­­­­­­g a­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ ho­­­­­­­­­m­­­­­­­­­e w­­­­­­­­­it­­­­­­­­­h G­­­­­­­­­oo­­­­­­­­­gl­­­­­­­­­e! It­­­­­­­­­’s by-­­­­­­­­­far­­­­­­­­­ the­­­­­­­­­ best­­­­­­­­­ j­­­­­­­­­ob­­­­­­­­­ I’v­­­­­­­­­e ha­­­­­­­­­d­­­­­­­­­. ­­­­­­­­­Last­­­­­­­­­ Thurs­­­­­­­­­day­­­­­­­­­ I­­­­­­­­­ go­­­­­­­­­t a ­­­­­­­­­bran­­­­­­­­­d­­­ n­­­­­­­­­ew ­­­­­­­­­BM­­­­­­­­­W ­­­­­­­­­since­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­getti­­­­­­­­­ng­­­­­­­­­ a­­­­­­­­­ che­­­­­­­­­ck­­­­­­­­­ for­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­$­­­­­­­­­6­­­­­­­­­474­­­­­­­­­ thi­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­ - ­­­­­­­­­4­­­­­­­­­ wee­­­­­­­­­ks p­­­­­­­­­ast­­­­­­­­­. I­­­­­­­­­ began­­­­­­­­­ this­­­­­­­­­ 8-months­­­­­­­­­ ago­­­­­­­­­ and­­­­­­­­­ immediately­­­­­­­­­ was­­­­­­­­ ­bringing­­­­­­­­­ home­­­­­­­­­ at­­­­­­­­­ least­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­$­­­­­­­­­7­­­­­­­­­7­­­­­­­­­ pe­­­­­­­­­r ho­­­­­­­­­ur­­­­­­­­­. I­­­­­­­­­ work­­­­­­­­­ through­­­­­­­­­ this­­­­­­ ­­ link­­­­­­­­­, g­­­­­­­­­o? t­­­­­­­­­o tech­­­­­­­­­ tab­­­­­­­­­ for­­­­­­­­­ work­­­­­­­­­ detail,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Most people are willing to pay $250 to $300 for the Moto 360. T-Mobile might sell the Moto 360. What that means is the watch can be put on the EIP (Equipment Installment Plan), which will begin on July 20th for accessories if the rumors are true. So if you have T-Mobile you could put $200 down and pay the rest in EIP if the watch is $399 (remaining balance $199 at $8.30 for 24 month which could be paid for before the time period).

Normal watches made with premium materials cost hundreds of dollars and the 360 does way more than a normal watch. How can people expect it to be so inexpensive? If the product does more, it costs more. That's how products work...unless they're Apple products

Posted via Android Central App

It is an extension to the notification area on your phone. Which isn't really 'way more'. The tradeoff for that is you get almost no battery life and can't see it in daylight.

My watch is better built and better looking than the current crop of smartwatches, and cost £25. And is still on its first battery after lasting 6 years so far.

Posted via Android Central App

It's better built and cost 25 sterling? So, you're accustomed to buying POS fake watches and think they're well built? There's goes any creditablity...

We have no idea how the battery will be other than it will be able to be charged easily (omg you have to charge it?!). We have no idea how the display will look in direct sunlight. The only thing we know is you think a cheap watch is a nice watch, you've owned said cheap watch for 6 years, and it is still on its first battery.

I think it should come in around the same price as the current offerings by Samsung and LG (depending on the size of the battery they have in the watch).
Yes it's round. Yes it looks nice. But it's still Android wear. So the specs are going to be right in line with the two other Android Wear watches.

I have been all over the map on this one, at first I said $150.00, then I said while I would like it to be inexpensive, it is more realistic to expect a price tag in the $250.00 - $300.00 range.

Now I am starting to think it will be more like $200.00 or somewhere around there.I honestly have no idea the price, but I do know this much I would have to touch it if we're priced in $200.00 - $300.00 while I might be tempted to make an impulse buy if it were cheaper.

Time will tell,

Posted via Android Central App

This WILL cost more than everyone expects and will sell a boatload. If it is 400, most here will still buy it. And I don't get it. It is thick, big, and has an ugly wart at the bottom. Sign me up for Gen2 or maybe 3. Not wanting to start buying a new phone AND watch every year.

Posted via Android Central App

Given that the functionality of all Wear watches is the same then I wouldn't pay more than I already did for my G Watch. The Moto looks like a tyre on your wrist and its not round round screen is stupid.

i just bough an lg g watch. basically i wanted the moto 360 but i'm so tired of waiting. i think if they dont release it soon there will be more people like me

Is it the form factor, or the implied higher aspirations which make this attractive?
Wear may have a serious impact. In two years we may all want one.
I hope Moto make it better rather than cheap.

Awesome AC.

Agreed. Let Samsung or LG make a crappy entry level watch. If not Moto, maybe Fossil or some other brand makes a premium watch that doesn't care about cost. That's really the only way to drive innovation.

I'm not an Apple fan, but that model worked pretty well for them and the iPhone.

In America we've been focused on making things cheap instead of making things better for a very long time now. it's really not the best way to go about making things in my opinion.

Well I think 250 to 300 is fair which is what I think it will go for. I think the version with the metal band would probably be an additional 100 which is the one I want. So I am prepared to spend 350 to 400 max.

Wasn't there a contest where you could win a moto x, and it had the price listed? I would think that would be the price.


$250 is my max ONLY because at this point I think I'd prefer a Pebble Steel at its price point to have some real daylight visibility and battery life over a high, high dollar smart watch.

Posted via Android Central App

Is it possible to reply to a text message from the watch without actually using voice? ie. Using an android wear keyboard? Cos if it isn't possible then I can't justify paying 200-300 for it

Posted via Android Central App on my N5 with Android L

$199 would be sweet, but I'm betting it will be $249. And at $249, I'm more likely to wait on the reviews for viewing in sunlight. If it was $199, I would probably pre-order

Why would I pay half the price of a phone for this device that won't hold half the functionality of a phone and still needs to piggyback ride on a phone. Moto needs the base price to be no more than $250. They can get extra profit from aftermarket bands and various bezels if they would make that replaceable also. Making it attractive to the masses will be the hardest part. I'm really curious to see which Manufacturer will take wearables to the next level.

No. Maybe you see something I don't but that's quite alright. Pay what you like and I won't pay what I don't like.

You can pay whatever you like. For what it's worth, I won't pay more than $250 for this watch or any watch. But like I said, nice watches aren't cheap. This does a lot more than a regular watch. To expect it to be cheaper than a regular watch is crazy.

Yes, I'd like them to be some what on par in price with regular watches to gain mass support at the least. I mean the battery life alone doesn't warrant paying an arm and a leg for these things. Once A-Wear has been refined more and battery life extends significantly I'd be willing to donate said arm or leg for one. Right now, they need to get these things into consumers hands or watch it become just another fad among techies and nothing more.

That is absolutely true about battery life. I still probably wouldn't pay more than $250, only because that's what I can afford (and really, I probably shouldn't even be thinking about buying one).

Yeah, I'd be pretty annoyed if the thing was dead by 4pm. I'd love to see a watch like this last for days. I have no idea what kind of technology is out there to support this.

It would be hard to pay over 300 since most Nexus devices are in that price range. To buy a watch for the price of a phone, it would be hard to justify that.

Seriously? Have you ever looked at purchasing a really nice watch? I'm not talking about a TImex. A really nice watch costs at least $300. Most high end watches are over $1,000, and all they do is tell time.

I bet you it'll have sub par battery life because it is small. With that being said I wouldn't pay more than $199.
Posted via Android Central App

I think they could easily ask for the $250-$300 range as it is a very nice watch! However, I personally don't plan on getting an android wear watch until the size is much smaller (I have very small wrists) and the price is below $100.

What strikes me as funny is people expecting to pay $200 or less for a watch with this much technology in it. A regular watch, even a relatively cheap timex can cost upwards of $100 (case in point - Why would you expect a smartwatch with such high technology to cost only $100 more, or less?

I can name you a dozen analog watches that cost upwards of $300 that do nothing more than tell you what time it is. if you personally wouldn't pay for it, fine. But don't expect a company to sell a piece of technology like this for below market value.

Some of y'all need to get real.

I would pay around $150... Other than that I wouldn't buy it... Plus I don't even wear watches haha

Posted via Android Central App

I'm not paying over $149. If that means I have to wait a few years or get a Gen 3 product when Gen 4 or 5 is out then so be it. I'm not going to waste hundreds on a first generation product that will be outdated faster than I can figure out how to use it.

I think some people are forgetting what a normal, well-built watch goes for. In my opinion, you have to spend at least in the ballpark of $300 at a minimum to find a nice quality watch these days. While the Moto 360 may not have the name recognition of Citizen, Tag Heur, Rolex, etc., I think it's perfectly fair to charge $300 for a high-quality smartwatch that's meant to replace the one you currently wear. Of course it would be great if it were $249 or lower, but if I already wouldn't buy some hundred-dollar Fossil watch at Kohl's I wouldn't do the same in this case, either.

I don't mind paying between $1000 to $3000 but I do expect the same quality as my TAG's. A watch isn't meant to be changing each year, but to last more than a lifetime.