Apple will no longer fix the $17,000 gold Apple Watch(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Apple will no longer fix the $17,000 gold Apple Watch
https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/2/23900158/apple-watch-edition-gold-2015-obsolete-unsupported-beyonce
162 コメント
I'd add one more purpose these watches served: Jony Ive really wanted to make something out of gold. He also really wanted to make a gear linkage and that's why the monitor stands were as complicated as they were. So they served the purpose of keeping him happy I guess.
From what I've read, Ive was the one that wanted to push the watch as a super luxury item. Designers like to cater to that segment of the market but it's not as profitable as the mass market. At least when referring to Apple products. Ive left Apple so there's no one to push to service the upper segment. I suspect they sold very few $17000 watches so it makes sense to just give it up and deal with the few people that will make a fuss. Even if they have to refund a few sales, it will be way cheaper than maintaining a group of techs and SWEs to deal with those watches.
I also suspect that given enough time those are the watches that will become collectors' items and will sell for multiple times their original cost so it's not a total loss for the buyers.
I also suspect that given enough time those are the watches that will become collectors' items and will sell for multiple times their original cost so it's not a total loss for the buyers.
> Designers like to cater to that segment of the market but it's not as profitable as the mass market.
Yeah, like with high fashion, Chanel's runway show is there to make sure people come to buy the perfume, the only high margin thing they sell. It never made a ton of sense with Apple because they're like Warhol's thing about Coke: there is no luxury Coca-Cola; everyone gets the same product because it's the best. Similarly, there's no better phone or smartwatch than the highest end made by the mass market companies.
Yeah, like with high fashion, Chanel's runway show is there to make sure people come to buy the perfume, the only high margin thing they sell. It never made a ton of sense with Apple because they're like Warhol's thing about Coke: there is no luxury Coca-Cola; everyone gets the same product because it's the best. Similarly, there's no better phone or smartwatch than the highest end made by the mass market companies.
[deleted]
They do, generally at least before selling it to prove it works, as a working firearm has more value than one than doesn't.
I collect antique firearms. It has not been my experience that sellers generally test-fire an item before selling it. More common is a disclaimer that if you want to shoot the thing, you should have it inspected by a qualified gunsmith familiar with the particular model.
No, they don't. Unfired weapons fetch a premium. For true antiques every time you fire it is another opportunity for it to break. These are not weapons that are valued for "working".
Firing an antique firearm decreases the value. It is now used.
Really depends on the gun to some degree. There’s collectibles that are worth more left alone, especially old stuff pre modern ammunition. But lots of old but not that old stuff its more or less expected you’ll fire it to test it works on receipt.
"old but not that old" is essentially saying it's not an antique.
There are plenty of guns running around that are over 100 years old that are surely an antique by anyone's definition, but are safe and reasonable to show with modern ammo. Pretty much any gun of that age, unless it was some kind of commemorative thing from the start, is going to have plenty of rounds through it already.
For example - an M1903 is an antique by any definition, and you'd be hard pressed to buy one today that's unfired.
For example - an M1903 is an antique by any definition, and you'd be hard pressed to buy one today that's unfired.
If I buy a WWI-era pistol, they’ll fire it before I fork over the cash? Surely not, right?
Only if they are claiming it still works and are asking for more money due to that. And still, only if you care enough to verify it works as they claim.
It depends, but the general rule is that the older it is, the less people want to see it in active use. At some point it's about preservation over anything, but there's also the safety concern! A firearm is a very dangerous thing in failure mode, so at some point a firearm is both too historically valuable, and too damned dangerous to fire.
Source: Forgotten Weapons and Royal Armory youtube channels
Source: Forgotten Weapons and Royal Armory youtube channels
Why not? There are people out there that manufacture their own ammunition. This wouldn’t surprise me at all.
the GP's example of WWI is actually sufficiently modern that you could very well just be firing normal center fire .45 which is readily available https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP
What about a 17th century dueling pistol?
I think in this case anyone would be wise to fire a modern reproduction rather than the original article. After all anyone with the money to collect that sort of artifact can certainly afford a replica to play with.
...And modern replicas tend to be safer when you pull the trigger.
...And modern replicas tend to be safer when you pull the trigger.
Well, if you count making a new stock and barrel to mount the original 17th century clockwork gubbins to, may I present:
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=40...
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=40...
That would depend.
As a buyer, you would need to decide for yourself whether you want a guaranteed working firearm or not.
And in many cases, the owner will test fire the firearm before putting it on auction anyway.
Old Martini Henri rifles, dueling pistols, even muskets in some cases.
As a buyer, you would need to decide for yourself whether you want a guaranteed working firearm or not.
And in many cases, the owner will test fire the firearm before putting it on auction anyway.
Old Martini Henri rifles, dueling pistols, even muskets in some cases.
Why not?
"It was never clear who the $10,000 to $17,000 18-karat gold Apple Watch was for, beyond celebrities and the ultrarich"
Ummm I think it was for celebrities and the ultrarich.
Ummm I think it was for celebrities and the ultrarich.
The obvious purpose of everything is clear up to a point, beyond which it is unclear.
It's not clear whom crutches are for beyond those with broken legs or atrophied muscles.
It's not clear what an eraser is for beyond removing pencil traces from a paper, or any purpose benefiting from a small block of rubber/elastomer.
...
It's not clear whom crutches are for beyond those with broken legs or atrophied muscles.
It's not clear what an eraser is for beyond removing pencil traces from a paper, or any purpose benefiting from a small block of rubber/elastomer.
...
And if it stops working, not something they'll care too much about.
It is a bit wild that Apple refuses to support this further. At that price you can buy things like Rolexes that will last your entire life.
Apple refused to support it 8 years ago when the Series 2 came out and there was no way to upgrade it.
It’s not a special watch. It’s a Series 0 with $16k of gold.
We don’t even know if anyone ever bought a single one (as opposed to being given one by Apple/an Apple exec).
It’s not a special watch. It’s a Series 0 with $16k of gold.
We don’t even know if anyone ever bought a single one (as opposed to being given one by Apple/an Apple exec).
> It’s not a special watch. It’s a Series 0 with $16k of gold.
In 2015, gold was approximately $1250 per oz.
Perhaps someone who has a gold Rolex can correct me, but it seems unlikely that there is more than 3/4 lb (362 grams) of gold in it, even counting the band. That would probably be very tiring to wear.
In 2015, gold was approximately $1250 per oz.
Perhaps someone who has a gold Rolex can correct me, but it seems unlikely that there is more than 3/4 lb (362 grams) of gold in it, even counting the band. That would probably be very tiring to wear.
Precious metal Rolexes can cost north of $30k
55g (1.940068 oz) of gold, worth approximately $2,425 at spot price in 2015:
https://support.apple.com/kb/SP737?locale=en_US
I doubt this ever mattered, especially to folks like Karl Lagerfeld, who never even set his up (or appears to have charged it).
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/karl-lagerfeld-audemars-pi...
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/karl-lagerfeld-audemars-pi...
If I was worth what he is I’d be buying expensive gadgets on a whim every 15 minutes. Then just buy a new house when the current one fills up with said gadgets.
Well, then I guess we should be happy inequalities prevent one more person from wasting a tremendous amount of rare materials and energy.
I was joking but yes, the waste is sickening. You just gotta laugh at some point. Or at least I gotta laugh at some point.
[deleted]
> then just buy a new house when the current one fills up
I heard about somebody who has actually done that... but their main interest was porn.
I heard about somebody who has actually done that... but their main interest was porn.
That's mentioned in the article.
Imagine, a technology that a company can tell you is obsolete. Is that even a technology? The wheel isn't obsolete. The coal powered steam engine is, but that's not because someone says so, that's because it's just naturally no longer useful, other things have since been invented that are more useful for it's same purpose. Why not buy technology that's no longer useful to you when you decide that?
It's a harsh word, but it's a specific term of art for Apple: Apple no longer provides any warranty or replacement parts for it.
They could call it Category A, B, C, and D for all it actually matters.
They could call it Category A, B, C, and D for all it actually matters.
I think the difference is that it's a product, not a technology. The wheel is a technology, the penny farthing a product - the penny farthing is obsolete, the wheel isn't.
The first wheel was a solid disc of wood. I don't see many of those running around anymore. Wheels, just like smart watches, are bits of technology that aren't obsolete, but specific iterations are.
Yeah, but it's obsolete because people who use wheels can get better ones and upgrade. That's not the same as a company telling you your hardware is now useless. These devices are services.
snide comment, tax law should be changed to require companies to count 'hardware as a service' as taxable assets.
The wheel as a general technology isn't obsolete, but a model year 4000BCE wheel certainly is.
In your analogy that would be like Apple declaring the Smartwatch category obsolete, which they have not done.
In your analogy that would be like Apple declaring the Smartwatch category obsolete, which they have not done.
No, it would be like if the manufacturer of a certain wheel flipped a switch and your wheel no longer worked.
You cans till right now use a model year 4000BCE wheel if you want to and if it suits your purpose. You decide when your property is no longer useful to you. That is not the case with the apple watch, or with a plethora of other devices out there. The device belongs to the company that made it, not to its supposed owner, if the owner has no say in when it becomes useless.
You cans till right now use a model year 4000BCE wheel if you want to and if it suits your purpose. You decide when your property is no longer useful to you. That is not the case with the apple watch, or with a plethora of other devices out there. The device belongs to the company that made it, not to its supposed owner, if the owner has no say in when it becomes useless.
> Is that even a technology?
Nope. It's a device. Presumably much of the technology in the now 'obsolete' Apple Watch is still in use in more recent models.
Nope. It's a device. Presumably much of the technology in the now 'obsolete' Apple Watch is still in use in more recent models.
Hmm. According to Civ 2, the products of The Wheel have been obsolete since we discovered the secret of Polytheism.
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Chariot_(Civ2)
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Chariot_(Civ2)
so... what did people expect? Also, people who buy 17,000$ Apple Watch have probably moved to a different model long time ago.
Is any of that OK? No. It's just not surprising.
Is any of that OK? No. It's just not surprising.
The kind of person that spends $17k on an Apple Watch probably stopped using it years ago and moved on to some $50k Rolex the next week.
>The kind of person that spends $17k on an Apple Watch
On any watch.
On any watch.
To an extent. Apple Watches don’t hold value like other brands.
There are some collectors that will buy timeless watches and expect their value to stay or go up.
There are some collectors that will buy timeless watches and expect their value to stay or go up.
Precisely this.
There have been specially expensive editions of the iphone before, and they were chucked on the bonfire of e-waste long before.
There have been specially expensive editions of the iphone before, and they were chucked on the bonfire of e-waste long before.
I remember once, eons ago, there was a gold plated 3.5 inch android phone that costed a few thousand euros. This was probably iPhone 4 era. It was a mediocre phone, specs wise. I struggled to understand who would ever buy this. Maybe as a prank ultra rich teens would pull on their friends?
There is a trick the fashion industries (jewellers, clothing manufacturers) pull: Convincing new wealth that they need to flex their wealth as much as possible otherwise people will think they're not wealthy.
They do this by presenting an aura of exclusivity to certain products, usually gating it by being expensive and hard to acquire. Trying to suggest to people that "if you buy this: it is a signal that you are wealthy! people will like you more!"
New wealth tends to fall for it, especially those that become wealthy quickly like lottery winners. This also disproportionately affects hip hop artists who become famous (or used to).
"Flexing wealth" is yet another way that people are trying to extort money from the gullible, but it's effective.
Because there are some signals of wealth that rich people could use to distinguish each other, but it's never flexing brands or bling.
They do this by presenting an aura of exclusivity to certain products, usually gating it by being expensive and hard to acquire. Trying to suggest to people that "if you buy this: it is a signal that you are wealthy! people will like you more!"
New wealth tends to fall for it, especially those that become wealthy quickly like lottery winners. This also disproportionately affects hip hop artists who become famous (or used to).
"Flexing wealth" is yet another way that people are trying to extort money from the gullible, but it's effective.
Because there are some signals of wealth that rich people could use to distinguish each other, but it's never flexing brands or bling.
HN routinely acts as if luxury brands hypnotise their customers or something.
> There is a trick the fashion industries pull […] convincing new wealth that they need to flex their wealth.
Do they? Do they “convince them” that they “need to flex their wealth”?
> They do this by presenting an aura of exclusivity to certain products, usually by gating it by being expensive and hard to acquire.
I think you’re trying to describe Veblen goods but without the necessary vocabulary.
> New wealth tends to fall for it.
It’s just baseless assertions (and a dog whistle about “hip hop artists”) all the way down, I guess?
> There is a trick the fashion industries pull […] convincing new wealth that they need to flex their wealth.
Do they? Do they “convince them” that they “need to flex their wealth”?
> They do this by presenting an aura of exclusivity to certain products, usually by gating it by being expensive and hard to acquire.
I think you’re trying to describe Veblen goods but without the necessary vocabulary.
> New wealth tends to fall for it.
It’s just baseless assertions (and a dog whistle about “hip hop artists”) all the way down, I guess?
> Because there are some signals of wealth that rich people could use to distinguish each other, but it's never flexing brands or bling.
Like your name on a college building or prominent museum, or building a 400+ ft superyacht.
Like your name on a college building or prominent museum, or building a 400+ ft superyacht.
I think it mostly didn't survive the smartphone era, but this was A Thing back in the day. This was the main player; it still seems to exist to some extent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertu
I think that the phone industry matured to a point where if people would buy a premium luxury phone, they would never pick anything else other than a special iPhone or Samsung.
Vertu by Nokia. They used to push them in Rolex/Omega showrooms.
But never made by Apple themselves. This feels particularly special after their self-congratulatory comedy skit they included in their latest announcement event about how environmentally friendly they are.
How much does $17k cost for a celebrity or wealthy person compared to someone making $75k-$100k? It would be interesting to see comparisons with an average celebrity or multi-millionaire, but it seems hard to define without getting into crazy wealth.
$17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.
What do you mean by "cost"? They both have to pay the same price, one might have to spend less time to make that amount if that's your point, but that's kinda obvious.
What do you mean by "cost"? They both have to pay the same price, one might have to spend less time to make that amount if that's your point, but that's kinda obvious.
> $17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.
At $100k, $17k after tax is maybe 30% of your income (and I don't mean disposable) for a year.
I think you would be hard pressed to find financially stable people in this income bracket who would consider this deal "affordable".
At $100k, $17k after tax is maybe 30% of your income (and I don't mean disposable) for a year.
I think you would be hard pressed to find financially stable people in this income bracket who would consider this deal "affordable".
At $100k per year many people can probably have whatever they want in life after a few years. Why not pop $17k on a watch? Of course this particular one is a bad choice, but buying a good watch could be considered an investment.
Probably affordable was a bit of a stretch, I meant that it's not out of the question of buying, like a $50k Rolex.
Probably affordable was a bit of a stretch, I meant that it's not out of the question of buying, like a $50k Rolex.
>(my take home is about 40% of my salary)
Then I'd guess you either don't live in the US or make far more than 100k.
Then I'd guess you either don't live in the US or make far more than 100k.
DC takes 8.5% of anything over 60k. That's just one city. You could live in Yonkers and pay through the nose for city and state income taxes. If you have a family and pay for health benefits, that comes out of your paycheck, too. All that is before federal income tax. Some states tax your health benefits as income, too so your state-reported income is higher than your federal.
>DC takes 8.5% of anything over 60k.
And even so, at 100k, the effective tax rate there is under 30%
And even so, at 100k, the effective tax rate there is under 30%
[deleted]
Cost is generally a more holistic concept than price. If you use money (or any resource) to do X, then you can't use it to do Y. So if your money supply is limited, every purchase is more costly to you because of what you must forego to make it. For the same reason, a 10k raise when you make 1M is not worth nearly as much as a 10k raise when you make 30k. It's the same 10k dollars, but has very different worth depending on who's dollars they are.
> $17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.
Maybe if there were no taxes or utilities, food, housing, etc.
$50-60k in taxes (my take home is about 40% of my salary). $2k/month in rent/mortgage, so about $25k/year. $1k in utilities and food ($12k). So, we are up to $96k and haven't even touched on car payments, clothing, entertainment, etc.
Maybe if there were no taxes or utilities, food, housing, etc.
$50-60k in taxes (my take home is about 40% of my salary). $2k/month in rent/mortgage, so about $25k/year. $1k in utilities and food ($12k). So, we are up to $96k and haven't even touched on car payments, clothing, entertainment, etc.
> $17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.
Hmm, I'd disagree.
$100K salary takes home $78K, i.e. $6,500/mo.
I don't know that a watch that costs nearly 3 months of every cent of my take home pay is "in the affordable range".
Hmm, I'd disagree.
$100K salary takes home $78K, i.e. $6,500/mo.
I don't know that a watch that costs nearly 3 months of every cent of my take home pay is "in the affordable range".
[deleted]
I'm curious what the convention is for gold consumer electronics at EoL. Do you bring it into a jeweler and get the gold casing pried off and melted down?
I’m not sure it will beat the S&P 500 or Apple stock, but I’d bet that an OG Apple Watch Edition will hold its value better than the gold you’d melt out of it.
People have repurposed gen0/1 AW's into mechanical watches with a bit square-ish case.
I kinda expect a YouTube video to exist of a Chinese hardware hacker transplanting the Watch Series 9 innards into an obsolete gold (or better: ceramic) Apple Watch case.
Ultimate planned obsolescence and an ultimate flex.
Whenever I show my mechanical watches to my colleagues, they ask what's the point. Well, my Rolex and my Hublot are NEVER going to be Obsolete.
>Well, my Rolex and my Hublot
Nice flex, but you don't need to spend Wolf of Wallstreet money to enjoy the fun and diversity of traditional analog and digital watches.
You can build an entire watch collection for every occasion, of high quality Casios, that will last ~forever, for the price of one new Apple watch who's lifespan will be less than the CR2016 battery on those Casios, while having more features that a Rolex.
Casio even had the audacity to build an analog knock-off of the Apple watch and IMHO they nailed the design better than Apple (the moon phase indicator is a functioning complication, not a design element): https://down-th.img.susercontent.com/file/th-11134207-23030-...
Nice flex, but you don't need to spend Wolf of Wallstreet money to enjoy the fun and diversity of traditional analog and digital watches.
You can build an entire watch collection for every occasion, of high quality Casios, that will last ~forever, for the price of one new Apple watch who's lifespan will be less than the CR2016 battery on those Casios, while having more features that a Rolex.
Casio even had the audacity to build an analog knock-off of the Apple watch and IMHO they nailed the design better than Apple (the moon phase indicator is a functioning complication, not a design element): https://down-th.img.susercontent.com/file/th-11134207-23030-...
Hands that tick? They give me the ick. Hands that sweep? On watches I'll keep.
Swatch watches for about 100€ last a lifetime
True, I forgot about Swatch which has many eye-catching designs, though to me, they're a bit "expensive" compared to how cheap Casios can get.
I'm swiss
Sure, just like a necklace or a ring. Because that's what those expensive watches are: pieces of jewelry.
Yes, they can tell the time but there are better ways of knowing the time nowadays. Especially if you care about accuracy, a smartwatch connected to a smartphone connected to an atomic clock is more accurate than your Rolex.
So what's the point of jewelry? Fashion, and signaling your wealth mostly.
Yes, they can tell the time but there are better ways of knowing the time nowadays. Especially if you care about accuracy, a smartwatch connected to a smartphone connected to an atomic clock is more accurate than your Rolex.
So what's the point of jewelry? Fashion, and signaling your wealth mostly.
> Sure, just like a necklace or a ring. Because that's what those expensive watches are: pieces of jewelry.
> So what's the point of jewelry? Fashion, and signaling your wealth mostly.
That's a sweeping generalization, pun intended... I guess "expensive" is relative but I own a few four-figure watches and appreciate them for their aesthetic and the engineering that went into creating them. Being able to tell the time mechanically without cellular service or an Electron app is a welcome reprieve in today's world. I suppose my Casio F-91W is more accurate but it's also much less whimsical and doesn't really feel like "my" watch the way that my Damasko does. Ditto for the Rolex that I inherited from my Grandpa - the German watch that's worth 15% (but still 50 times the cost of the Casio, i.e. "luxury") and has zero brand recognition gets worn way more often because it's my jam.
My next purchase will likely be a Seamaster Professional not because I want to signal that I can afford a $4000 watch but because I like the aesthetics and the movement. Obnoxious Rolex bros are certainly a thing (I see them in public fairly regularly) but that doesn't mean that everybody that enjoys nice watches does so for the sake of conspicuous consumption :-).
> So what's the point of jewelry? Fashion, and signaling your wealth mostly.
That's a sweeping generalization, pun intended... I guess "expensive" is relative but I own a few four-figure watches and appreciate them for their aesthetic and the engineering that went into creating them. Being able to tell the time mechanically without cellular service or an Electron app is a welcome reprieve in today's world. I suppose my Casio F-91W is more accurate but it's also much less whimsical and doesn't really feel like "my" watch the way that my Damasko does. Ditto for the Rolex that I inherited from my Grandpa - the German watch that's worth 15% (but still 50 times the cost of the Casio, i.e. "luxury") and has zero brand recognition gets worn way more often because it's my jam.
My next purchase will likely be a Seamaster Professional not because I want to signal that I can afford a $4000 watch but because I like the aesthetics and the movement. Obnoxious Rolex bros are certainly a thing (I see them in public fairly regularly) but that doesn't mean that everybody that enjoys nice watches does so for the sake of conspicuous consumption :-).
Just because my phone can tell the time, doesn't mean a watch is obsolete.
It gives me an ambient sense of the time because I end up glancing at it randomly. I lose track of how far along I am in the hour if I forget my watch.
It gives me an ambient sense of the time because I end up glancing at it randomly. I lose track of how far along I am in the hour if I forget my watch.
> Yes, they can tell the time but there are better ways of knowing the time nowadays. Especially if you care about accuracy, a smartwatch connected to a smartphone connected to an atomic clock is more accurate than your Rolex.
I agree that expensive watches are mostly status symbols, but a quartz watch is accurate to about 15 seconds a month, which unless you're in the military is good enough accuracy, may I ask what you do day-to-day that requires you to have atomic-clock levels of time accuracy?
I agree that expensive watches are mostly status symbols, but a quartz watch is accurate to about 15 seconds a month, which unless you're in the military is good enough accuracy, may I ask what you do day-to-day that requires you to have atomic-clock levels of time accuracy?
15 seconds a month is 3 minutes per year, and I don't want to bother having to fix my watch every few month.
Simply to catch a train it's important to have a precise watch.
Simply to catch a train it's important to have a precise watch.
In my country, 3 minutes is not enough difference to miss a train (it's probably been cancelled already ;)), if you live in Japan, I can understand. Comparing your watch to another timepiece is a fairly common occurence imo.
Ok but what is the point, though? Surely obsolescence resistance was not high on the list when you got them.
In another sense, they're long obsolete, but that doesn't mean they weren't impressive technical achievements of their day.
Electronic watches can last a long time too. My 40+ year old Casio scientific calculator watch still works.
The biggest problem with longevity of modern portable electronics (watches, phones, etc) is that they usually use the internet. That generally means they need security updates when bugs are found, protocol updates as the net evolves, and sometimes they depend on specific network services that the provider drops.
Sometimes the electronics themselves fail. For example I've got a Casio MG-510 guitar [1] that I bought in the late '80s. It still works great as an electric guitar, but its MIDI functionality no longer works.
From what I've read this is almost certainly due to a bunch of bad electrolytic capacitors. Someday I'll have a go at replacing the capacitors, which other people have reported fixed theirs.
[1] https://spinditty.com/instruments-gear/The-Casio-Midi-Guitar...
The biggest problem with longevity of modern portable electronics (watches, phones, etc) is that they usually use the internet. That generally means they need security updates when bugs are found, protocol updates as the net evolves, and sometimes they depend on specific network services that the provider drops.
Sometimes the electronics themselves fail. For example I've got a Casio MG-510 guitar [1] that I bought in the late '80s. It still works great as an electric guitar, but its MIDI functionality no longer works.
From what I've read this is almost certainly due to a bunch of bad electrolytic capacitors. Someday I'll have a go at replacing the capacitors, which other people have reported fixed theirs.
[1] https://spinditty.com/instruments-gear/The-Casio-Midi-Guitar...
Different tools with different uses. Sure, your Rolex won't ever be obsolete in what it does but given that no one needs a watch to tell time anymore it's really a symbol of your preferences and where you like to spend your money. It's wrist art.
Yes and no.
Yes, almost no one needs a watch to tell time. I counted the clocks in my house a few years ago, counting anything that displays the time as a "clock" including things such as my microwave oven, my stove, computers, phones, tablets, DVCR, thermostat, TV, etc, and found something like 20.
But no, there are still functional reasons to have a watch. I do not want to deal with keeping all the aforementioned clocks actually set to the correct time. Some aren't a problem, such as computers and phones, because they automatically sync to time servers over the net.
With a watch I can reduce my clocks to those on my computer, phone, and tablet, and my watch for when I'm not using those, plus any clocks on things that actually need the correct time.
Yes, almost no one needs a watch to tell time. I counted the clocks in my house a few years ago, counting anything that displays the time as a "clock" including things such as my microwave oven, my stove, computers, phones, tablets, DVCR, thermostat, TV, etc, and found something like 20.
But no, there are still functional reasons to have a watch. I do not want to deal with keeping all the aforementioned clocks actually set to the correct time. Some aren't a problem, such as computers and phones, because they automatically sync to time servers over the net.
With a watch I can reduce my clocks to those on my computer, phone, and tablet, and my watch for when I'm not using those, plus any clocks on things that actually need the correct time.
My personal anecdote is that I stopped wearing a watch once I got a smartphone. I only recently picked one up because I was interested in the biometric data and tracking my running.
That all said the fact that they are wearing a rolex isn't to tell time, it's to wear a rolex.
That all said the fact that they are wearing a rolex isn't to tell time, it's to wear a rolex.
I have a watch so that I can tell time without needing to access a device that is carefully tuned to draw my attention (especially if I'm in a situation where pulling out my phone would be rude or intrusive).
Do you have statistics of usage for Apple or Android watches? do people really use more than time on them? 10% ? 50% more? It would be interesting to have some data because even if people have plenty of other ways to get the time, I believe we still haven't invented a more efficient way that a watch with physical handles.
You're right, I have no idea. But there are also far more cost effective ways to check the time than a rolex. That was the point I was trying to get across - the rolex won't become obsolete because it's not there to be a watch, it's there to make a statement as a rolex.
I have one that was completely unexpected. My mother loves her apple watch - for apple pay! She doesn't have to fish anything out of her purse. She just double squeezes the watch, taps and pays. If five years ago you would have told me my 70+ year old mother would be a touch less pay enthusiast I would have said you were crazy - yet here we are.
Doesn't have to be expensive! You can find a Bulova Hack [0] (the modern remake) for ~400$ usually. (Well under 400 on sale) I love mine: looks different with it's military styling, durable, repairable (by a jeweller, the watch glass is special but that's it), and accurate enough. A casio is going to last a lifetime too (with battery changes) if you want something under 100$.
[0] https://www.bulova.com/us/en/product/98A255.html
[0] https://www.bulova.com/us/en/product/98A255.html
An absence of device on the wrist is also never obsolete. Or a polished stone on a bracelet.
So it's a question of what utility or value you derive from it.
Personally if I didn't have a smart watch that tracked activity, showed me the weather forecast, let me glance at a notification without taking my phone out of my pocket etc. I would have no watch. That's what I had before my first Apple Watch.
If you find value and enjoyment from your mechanical watches, then that is the point, and they don't need to do anything else to justify it.
So it's a question of what utility or value you derive from it.
Personally if I didn't have a smart watch that tracked activity, showed me the weather forecast, let me glance at a notification without taking my phone out of my pocket etc. I would have no watch. That's what I had before my first Apple Watch.
If you find value and enjoyment from your mechanical watches, then that is the point, and they don't need to do anything else to justify it.
You’re comparing apples with oranges. Just because both products are called “a watch” doesn’t mean they’re interchangeable.
It’s like comparing a wired phone to a smartphone because they’re both “phones”.
It’s like comparing a wired phone to a smartphone because they’re both “phones”.
They’re interchangeable in the sense that you can't wear both at the same time.
You can, unless you have only one arm.
You can doesn't mean you should though
But you said that one "cannot" do it.
Oddly enough, I think this - wearing both a smart and an analog watch - is actually a trend [0], which I think makes sense, since analog watches could nowadays be considered purely attire complements.
[0] https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/double-wristing-a-guide-fo...
Oddly enough, I think this - wearing both a smart and an analog watch - is actually a trend [0], which I think makes sense, since analog watches could nowadays be considered purely attire complements.
[0] https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/double-wristing-a-guide-fo...
Well, I mean, you could argue that those became obsolete in the 1970s with the introduction of practical quartz watches, which worked better by all reasonable performance metrics.
I don't show my watches unless I'm asked, so I'm not sure what people think about them, but I do see smartwatches everywhere. It's becoming an obvious choice nowadays, I think that they are an easy way not to make a choice in the ocean of mechanical watches. A glass screen that can display anything has an apparent appeal.
I've been looking into mechanical watches. Not quite Rolex level, but Égard watches look interesting.
Maybe I'm just becoming a graybeard, but I'm tired of software updates, constantly charging devices, and throwing away good hardware because it's not supported by software anymore.
Maybe I'm just becoming a graybeard, but I'm tired of software updates, constantly charging devices, and throwing away good hardware because it's not supported by software anymore.
> Égard watches look interesting
They knock off famous watch designs. Their whole Patriot line is meant to look like Richard Mille. I'm showing my bias but if you want a mechanical go right to Seiko instead of this company putting Seiko cases that are meant to make you look like a soccer player who just got his signing bonus.
They knock off famous watch designs. Their whole Patriot line is meant to look like Richard Mille. I'm showing my bias but if you want a mechanical go right to Seiko instead of this company putting Seiko cases that are meant to make you look like a soccer player who just got his signing bonus.
Neither will my cheapo casio watch :)
Vacuum tube amplifiers and germanium fuzz pedals are simultaneously obsolete and timeless.
[deleted]
There’s a story about this newly rich woman who is trying to impress her new friends. “I clean my diamonds with milk, and my rubies with dilute vinegar,…”
Finally, she turns to an older lady and asks, what she uses.
The older lady just smiles and says that when her jewels get dirty, she just throws them away.
The gold Apple Watch is a status overpriced, impractical good for signaling and technological obsolescence is not really something that a person who buys it cares about.
Finally, she turns to an older lady and asks, what she uses.
The older lady just smiles and says that when her jewels get dirty, she just throws them away.
The gold Apple Watch is a status overpriced, impractical good for signaling and technological obsolescence is not really something that a person who buys it cares about.
I wonder how many people actually purchased them vs gifted from Apple.
If I'm a celebrity people are paying me to wear their crap.
If I'm a celebrity people are paying me to wear their crap.
I seriously question if they ever sold a single one.
That said the GP’s point is also completely true. No one who bought one (assuming they exist) is mad it fell out support 9 years later. It’s chump change, and if they like Apple Watches they upgraded long ago.
That said the GP’s point is also completely true. No one who bought one (assuming they exist) is mad it fell out support 9 years later. It’s chump change, and if they like Apple Watches they upgraded long ago.
Honestly, I am not rich enough to be upset about this! If you could comfortably afford a $17,000 Apple Watch, this probably would not bother you either.
If you can afford or be stupid enough to pay 17000 for a tech gold watch you wouldn’t care if it went obsolete
I bought a Citizen Eco watch in 2003 for around £120. I still wear it and it still performs all functions correctly. One part of the wristband sports a bit of paperclip for a joint - "jury rigged" by me. The back of the watch has four quadrant shaped solar panels and the have charged the cell for 20 years so far.
I run quite a few ntp time sources at sub milli-second and generally better accuracy (at work). My watch is quite decent for drift. It is far better than I actually need for a wrist watch.
Now, $17,000 for a thing on your wrist for time telling? Apple wankery involved ... please tell me it ain't so!
Quality does not always involve a sodding huge price tag and in this particular case Apple's S&M dept took their eye off the ball and went for a trot around noddy land waving their hands and looking a bit silly.
I run quite a few ntp time sources at sub milli-second and generally better accuracy (at work). My watch is quite decent for drift. It is far better than I actually need for a wrist watch.
Now, $17,000 for a thing on your wrist for time telling? Apple wankery involved ... please tell me it ain't so!
Quality does not always involve a sodding huge price tag and in this particular case Apple's S&M dept took their eye off the ball and went for a trot around noddy land waving their hands and looking a bit silly.
> Now, $17,000 for a thing on your wrist for time telling? Apple wankery involved ... please tell me it ain't so!
My gosh. Wait until you discover how much you can spend on luxury watches from the "established" watchmakers. You might want to be sitting down.
My gosh. Wait until you discover how much you can spend on luxury watches from the "established" watchmakers. You might want to be sitting down.
There are luxury watches which can easily eclipse $17k.
But they basically serve as jewelry.
The problem with the Apple Watch is it tried to be that, but it has absolutely no premium value at all.
Which is unsurprising considering you can get the same brand, same look, etc with a little less gold for 1/200th the price.
Also, it doesn’t help that there is no handcrafted precision work involved with the Apple Watch. It flowed out of the same Chinese assembly line the other $200 Apple Watches did.
But they basically serve as jewelry.
The problem with the Apple Watch is it tried to be that, but it has absolutely no premium value at all.
Which is unsurprising considering you can get the same brand, same look, etc with a little less gold for 1/200th the price.
Also, it doesn’t help that there is no handcrafted precision work involved with the Apple Watch. It flowed out of the same Chinese assembly line the other $200 Apple Watches did.
So much for passing it down to my grandchildren and them telling gross war stories about smuggling it out of POW camps.
And yet Siri on it remains just as useful.
Time to install a mechanical movement into them:
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/08/apple-invent-the-mechanical-...
https://hackaday.com/2023/06/08/apple-invent-the-mechanical-...
Wow, totally forgot about the Apple Watch that cost as much as a car.
My digital Casio from 1982 still works fine. So it’s not that it’s “electronic” that makes it obsolete. It’s because the vendor doesn’t care.
Only one entry on Chrono24 for the 18 karat gold model, GBP 6600, so around 8K USD.
They might creep higher in a decade or so, like a first gen iPhone has.
They might creep higher in a decade or so, like a first gen iPhone has.
That’s rough but who’s crying any tears here. Melt it down for the gold or hopefully it was kept in the box unopened to sell in the next 20 years
How much are they worth nowadays? Like if I wanted to buy one (second hand, obviously) where would I get it, and how much would it cost?
In hindsight, that's a massive premium on the value of the gold. It might even have been cheaper to commission your own.
Not even that hard, there are many jewellers who will gold plate an Apple Watch for you: https://quickjewelryrepairs.com/articles/what-you-need-know-...
Almost certainly much less than 17k.
Almost certainly much less than 17k.
To be fair, the gold Apple Watch was not just gold plated, a substantial part [0] of it was actual 18k gold.
[0] https://twitter.com/gak_pdx/status/568310194406469632
[0] https://twitter.com/gak_pdx/status/568310194406469632
If the case is worth anything, you could probably gut it and replace with a standard movement somehow.
Reminds me of the Swiss brand H Moser that makes a mechanical wristwatch which looks like an Apple watch
That said, it's a custom case & their movement wouldn't slot into an actual Apple watch without a lot of machining. But it would be a cool way to immortalize one of these Series 1 watches https://www.h-moser.com/product/swiss-alp-watch-5324-1205/
That said, it's a custom case & their movement wouldn't slot into an actual Apple watch without a lot of machining. But it would be a cool way to immortalize one of these Series 1 watches https://www.h-moser.com/product/swiss-alp-watch-5324-1205/
I assume these are solid gold and it can be cast into something useful for many more years?
Seven years? I've kept my $17,000 car for 15.
Apple is to servicing their hardware products as Google is to maintaining their software products
This was a one off first-gen product that was sold almost 9 years ago. How long do you expect them to keep maintaining it? At least no one is attempting to build infrastructure on top of an Apple Watch—that can’t be said about google’s services.
[deleted]
Apple’s executives committed themselves to the lunacy of selling effectively disposable electronics housed inside an actual gold case. They knew exactly what they were doing and that decision is exemplar of their overall practice of building hardware that is impractical to maintain in the long run.
I get that the luxury watch crowd will look at this as a failure because they count the time a watch works not in years but generations. But the Apple watch isn't that type of watch, it's a wrist computer. And from my perspective having gotten 8 years of support on a smartwatch that was still one of the early generations for the device type itself is pretty decent. How long would you expect them to keep supporting this?
Which is why the gold never made any sense. The rumor has always been they did it entirely because Johnny Ive wanted to make a fancy gold watch.
The writing was on the wall the next year when they dropped gold and there was no way to upgrade it.
It was clearly someone’s vanity product. We don’t ever know if they ever sold a single one. Sure celebrities got them, but did anyone ever pay? It’s possible the answer is no. We also don’t know how many they made.
It was a laughing stock from day one, even among Apple lovers (like me).
The writing was on the wall the next year when they dropped gold and there was no way to upgrade it.
It was clearly someone’s vanity product. We don’t ever know if they ever sold a single one. Sure celebrities got them, but did anyone ever pay? It’s possible the answer is no. We also don’t know how many they made.
It was a laughing stock from day one, even among Apple lovers (like me).
There are very few generations old watchmakers who are both still around and servicing their vintage pieces. Generally, even if they are, they're charging an arm and a leg because they're going to have to custom machine the parts for you. On rare pieces the labor costs alone are eye watering. It’ll probably be cheaper to just a modern Apple Watch SOC into a vintage edition.
Another issue with luxury watch crowd is that they have truly skewed definition of what is meant by “works”. The primary function of a watch is to keep time with reasonable precision, not to be an overengineered piece of mechanical complexity.
Google's software rarely makes it beyond 5 years though
[deleted]
worik(1)
gtvwill(1)
Kind of off-topic-but-not: A few years ago I got into watches. I don't know how it happened, but I now have four watches! Have to stop myself buying more, because I can always rationalise it ("well, you were different ones depending on your mood, wardrobe, and the event"). My automatic watch is my favourite. The technology in it is amazing, and it's what, over 100 years old?
One watch I got rid of immediately was my first generation Apple watch. I felt it was a completely useless piece of crap.
One watch I got rid of immediately was my first generation Apple watch. I felt it was a completely useless piece of crap.
Celebrity owners would have got a brief sparkle from it. Perhaps also some of Apple's marketing budget too. And they continue to own a legacy item which will have notoriety beyond mere function.
Collectors of rare historical firearms presumably don't actually fire them.