Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

richardmille.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 278 posts

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#111

Post by micromacrofoot »

what-imright wrote: post #95
polio wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead an…

The solution of giving away your money over buying something is some broken logic. Plenty of corrupt charity officials line their pockets and live it up on donations. The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite, hence the money. It represents an unpaid debt so you can’t turn around and ask for it back.

The rich wouldn't exist without society. They owe far more than the average person. Simply maintaining and storing wealth requires rather complex societal structures; before modern society wealth was only a product of power, because without power any schlub with a dagger would come for you. Today's wealthy need a small entourage of security and bookkeepers, but that's a far cry from a whole-ass army.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#112

Post by DesiLurker »

staplung wrote: post #55

William Gibson wrote a piece for Wired back in the day about his obsession with mechanical watches.[1] He puts it thus: ``` Mechanical watches are so brilliantly unnecessary. Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time, and high-end contemporary Swiss watches are priced like small cars. But mechanical watches partake of what my friend John Clute calls the Tamagotchi Gesture. They're pointless in a peculiarly needful way; t…

as I always say about watches, they are socially accepted forms of men's jewelry. after advent of smartphones they are hardly about time anyways. its mostly style & flex. That too in a in-group because most people including many jewelers cant tell difference between and original and a replica for some common mid-high end watches like rolex submariner.

I am actually fine with these 'vanity jewels' for high end buyers so long as they don't end up being a tax haven like art market. its all a way for the money to flow back into society and some more productive good in subsequent iterations. I mean after all its better than a NFT of picture that watch.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#113

Post by caconym_ »

pwillia7 wrote: post #89
caconym_ wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The typography really threw me off. Obviously this is subjective, but it gives me a really cheap vibe, like something you'd find in one of those travel gadget stores at the airport. It looks like they just didn't give a shit. I don't mind the form so much. Obviously it's not a very practical piece, but very expensive limited-run watches rarely are.

Is that not just their logo's font?

It's consistent with the other branding I saw on their website, but that doesn't mean it's good. It makes me think of laser tag and go-karts.

If it works for the people who actually buy their products, or those people don't care what their $1.9M fashion accessories look like, then I would suggest they keep doing exactly what they're doing. But I still think it looks cheap.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#114

Post by polio »

what-imright wrote: post #95
polio wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead an…

The solution of giving away your money over buying something is some broken logic. Plenty of corrupt charity officials line their pockets and live it up on donations. The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite, hence the money. It represents an unpaid debt so you can’t turn around and ask for it back.

It's why I mention "effective" charities. Corruption and inefficiency among charities is yet another issue that we can solve.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#115

Post by comradesmith »

jodrellblank wrote: post #105
huhtenberg wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time ... and that's my cue to pimp one of the most practical watch of all time - Casio Oceanus, the 100 series. * Analog watch face. * Quartz, radio auto-sync, solar-powered. * Sapphire glass, titanium body and bracelet. Waterproof. * Clean design. Under $500. https://www.google.com/search?q=OCW-S100-1AJF&tbm=isch

Practical watches are ones where it's clear at a glance which way up it goes and what the time is; they have numbers on them, preferably in a digital readout like 00:40. Watches without numbers are fashion watches. Watches with analogue faces are relics from when technology only let you decypher the time from rotating pointers. Rotating pointers where the numbers they point at have been removed are form over function…

Technology Connections did a really interesting video showing how a traditional clock face can give a different perspective on the flow of time through the day, as the face and hand let you easily judge the remaining fraction in an hour.

I don’t think this format is antiquated at all

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#116

Post by BirAdam »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #111
what-imright wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution of giving away your money over buying something is some broken logic. Plenty of corrupt charity officials line their pockets and live it up on donations. The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite, hence the money. It represents an unpaid debt so you can’t turn around and ask for it back.

The rich wouldn't exist without society. They owe far more than the average person. Simply maintaining and storing wealth requires rather complex societal structures; before modern society wealth was only a product of power, because without power any schlub with a dagger would come for you. Today's wealthy need a small entourage of security and bookkeepers, but that's a far cry from a whole-ass army.

Oh no. US billionaires do, indeed, have a military. It is the largest, most powerful, most well equipped military in human history. It is the US armed forces. They also have police departments across the country. This is a very large subsidy to these billionaires, as are: mass transit, food stamps, WIC, etc. Without these government services (which the billionaires put in place through politicians whom they purchased), the billionaires would have to provide the services or be killed by angry mobs.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#117

Post by NoPicklez »

Beltiras wrote: post #7

I've never seen an ad for a timepiece feature cars almost to the exclusion of the watch.

At this level, they're just selling the experience and the type of person that wears them. As opposed to the item itself.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#118

Post by akomtu »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #104
polio wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead an…

Watches are about movement/storage of wealth and tax evasion. Like art, very high timepiece value is its ability to move money. They're Old Money Cryptocurrency. Bring $50,000 in cash on a plane to another country and you're a drug dealer/criminal, or at the very least, the tax inspectors want to talk to you. Bring a $50,000 watch on holiday or a business trip, and nobody blinks an eye. Your average customs/border/se…

So a watch serves as a proof of work, and a distributed ledger of watchsmiths can verify a watch for you, anonymously, for a small fee.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#119

Post by mulmen »

polio wrote: post #81
staplung wrote: post #55

William Gibson wrote a piece for Wired back in the day about his obsession with mechanical watches.[1] He puts it thus: ``` Mechanical watches are so brilliantly unnecessary. Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time, and high-end contemporary Swiss watches are priced like small cars. But mechanical watches partake of what my friend John Clute calls the Tamagotchi Gesture. They're pointless in a peculiarly needful way; t…

They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead an…

It’s easy to spend other people’s money.

The base argument of democracy is that because none of us knows the downstream effects we all share decision making.

In other words: “that’s just like, your opinion, man.”

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#120

Post by MrDunham »

DesiLurker wrote: post #112
staplung wrote: post #55

William Gibson wrote a piece for Wired back in the day about his obsession with mechanical watches.[1] He puts it thus: ``` Mechanical watches are so brilliantly unnecessary. Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time, and high-end contemporary Swiss watches are priced like small cars. But mechanical watches partake of what my friend John Clute calls the Tamagotchi Gesture. They're pointless in a peculiarly needful way; t…

as I always say about watches, they are socially accepted forms of men's jewelry. after advent of smartphones they are hardly about time anyways. its mostly style & flex. That too in a in-group because most people including many jewelers cant tell difference between and original and a replica for some common mid-high end watches like rolex submariner. I am actually fine with these 'vanity jewels' for high end buyers…

> watches, they are socially accepted forms of men's jewelry. after advent of smartphones they are hardly about time anyways. its mostly style & flex.

As a daily wear of a “dumb watch“ I somewhat agree with this statement. Having a watch that matches my shoes and belt certainly makes an outfit look both more professional and well coordinated (RE jewelry/style).

However, I find that when I don’t wear my watch and just have my smartphone it is a significantly diminished experience.

Having to pull my phone out of my pocket to check the time is both socially less acceptable (am I checking the time or am I just bored with our conversation?) and far more likely to pull me into some rabbit hole and off of what I was currently doing.

So… it’s actually kind of nice to have a watch around, even if it only cost ~$100 (Skagen are amazing value for the price).

Post reply on HN