Ron Amadeo
Why is the Pixel Watch so expensive? The device’s $350 and $400 price tag is a big deal, especially considering Google’s first-generation smartwatches are slow compared to others and use older parts. The company charges more for less, and the Pixel Watch is great hardware, but the $250 Apple Watch SE and Compared to faster offerings with better parts, such as the $280 Galaxy Watch 5, the price is hard to convince.
A report from Counterpoint Research details the bill of materials (BoM) for Google’s Pixel Watch, concluding that it costs $123 to build the $400 LTE version of the device. Companies always have to build big profit margins on their products to cover R&D, labor, and other costs and justify their efforts, but a $123 bill of materials doesn’t really make Google feel like It shows that we are charging more than our competitors instead of facing our supply chain.
For comparison, you can see Counterpoint Research’s latest Apple Watch bill of materials estimates for the Apple Watch Series 6 in 2021. The Series 6 has a suggested retail price of $400, the same as this LTE Pixel Watch, but the material was higher than the Pixel Watch: $136. says it offers more watches for less money. Apple is famous for having the highest profit margins in the industry, but comparing these estimates, the Apple Watch has a profit margin of 66% and Google has a profit margin of 69%.
That doesn’t even include Google’s watch band bundle, which is the hidden cost of the Pixel Watch. Samsung and Apple let you buy the watch itself and then choose which watch band to pair with it, so you only pay for the watch band you want to wear. Google forced everyone to buy the bottom rubber watch band with the Pixel Watch (a $50 accessory). If you want a better style band, there will be an extra charge.Worse, the watch has three Watch band halves to cover large and small wrists – choose the size you need and discard the extra half. It seems that Google wanted to reduce smartwatch inventory management. As a result, customers have to pay extra for unwanted watchband components, creating unnecessary electronic waste.
counterpoint research
The report also gives a breakdown of where Google is spending its $123, not far behind the Apple Watch breakdown. Samsung has a big headline as he’s one of the big component winners in the Pixel Watch breakdown. The Pixel Watch is powered by Samsung’s Exynos 9110 SoC and Samsung modem, both of which are manufactured at the Samsung Foundry, so Samsung accounted for his 20% of the total BoM cost. The 9110 is his four-year-old chip, and Samsung’s own watch offers the newer, faster, and more power-efficient Exynos W920 of his at a lower price.
In second place was BOE, a popular display maker in China, who won 14% of the BoM according to this estimate. BOE supplies 1.2-inch OLED displays and is now the main competitor in Samsung’s display division. A common criticism of the Pixel Watch is the large screen bezel. This could have been fixed with a better display supplier.
The Pixel Watch is too expensive, but that’s at least a fixable problem. A 2nd generation watch (I hope Google makes a 2nd generation watch) should be priced with specs that match the competition. Google should only allow people to buy watch bands that they want to reduce hidden costs and e-waste. The company also needs to get its rebooted Wear OS ecosystem in good shape, which it’s making progress on a daily basis. We are also still waiting for these metal bands to launch this spring.
