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

221–230 of 278 posts

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

#221

Post by quickthrower2 »

winReInstall wrote: post #213
Sporktacular wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure, charities would be a much better use of the money involved... but on the other hand couldn't you say the same about art in general? I think what makes it different is the conspicuousness of these watches when they become a way to advertise wealth and status. But I like that artists/engineers can make a living by putting their time into producing such marvellous things. The world is richer for them.

Eh, these are cnc milled and and robot handled just like any other industrial good. Sure the quality expectations are high, but the production process is nothing unique..

Swiss watchmakers innovated CNC machinery though.

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

#223

Post by quickthrower2 »

Justin_K wrote: post #171
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…

Should we also drive shitty cars and live in small houses?

Should? No. But smaller cars and houses can be nicer. Smaller house = easier to maintain, for example.

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

#225

Post by injidup »

bowsamic wrote: post #209
Dylan16807 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drew a line. It goes on that side of the line I drew. > And you won’t find many watch enthusiasts who agree with you either about this class of watch. What specifically would they disagree with? The idea that these 150 watches are made in bulk to a single design, and that watches of this class have many closely related designs? Or something I said that wasn't watch-specific? If they're not made in bulk that's extre…

To me it seems in bad faith to use a word that draws a line in a roughly agreed upon place, and then claim you have freedom to place that line wherever you want, and thus are always correct in asserting that it is "made in bulk". Using your argument, you could claim that 1, or even 0 watches are "made in bulk", or that 30C is "cold" bc you draw the line of "cold" at 40C, etc. Throwing away all understanding of concep…

It is not bad faith at all. He is pointing out that the watches are an example of artificial scarcity. The original engineering may be impressive but once the tooling and quality control has been setup the process will be, to a reasonable extent, automated.

Whether 10, 50 or 100 or 100000 of these watches are made, is the process any different? Is it more like a limited edition print. High DPI printing is an example of technology magic but you can't argue that the choice to limit the output of a printer to a few runs means that the print itself is not mass produced

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

#226

Post by huhtenberg »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #87
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

In my opinion, its successor, the S200, has a cleaner design.

Steel instead of titanium and the glass is flat (?), very nice. I do wish that S100 was a bit heavier.

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

#227

Post by kqr »

closeparen wrote: post #199
lmm wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income? Why? Just because they're good at something that takes effort? By that logic everyone who has a challenging hobby - and most hobbies are ultimately challenging - deserves an income from it. Would you say that anyone who's good at any sport, or any craft, or any game, or even knowing celebrity trivia, deserves an income? IMO at most people who produce re…

Because someone is willing to pay them one. Value is between buyer and seller. It's not for an onlooker to say which value is "real" and which is not.

But why is someone willing to pay them? Because luxury watches are a status item. Why are they a status item? Because enough people believe them to be one.

So value (in this sense) is not really between buyer and seller at all, but a common agreement between a large enough number of people.

What OP in this discussion did was shine a spotlight on that fact, maybe in the hopes of getting at least one person to change what they think is valuable, to ultimately help society redirect money to more needed things.

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

#228

Post by Sporktacular »

winReInstall wrote: post #213
Sporktacular wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure, charities would be a much better use of the money involved... but on the other hand couldn't you say the same about art in general? I think what makes it different is the conspicuousness of these watches when they become a way to advertise wealth and status. But I like that artists/engineers can make a living by putting their time into producing such marvellous things. The world is richer for them.

Eh, these are cnc milled and and robot handled just like any other industrial good. Sure the quality expectations are high, but the production process is nothing unique..

I'm guessing the part production is automated but low yield and the mechanisms/watches hand-assembled. For a run of 150 it makes no sense making a custom assembly device.

Why does the production process have to be unique for the result to be art? It's like saying Picasso wasn't making art because he used paint, brushes and canvass like everyone else.

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

#229

Post by Sporktacular »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #212
bowsamic wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems in bad faith to use a word that draws a line in a roughly agreed upon place, and then claim you have freedom to place that line wherever you want, and thus are always correct in asserting that it is "made in bulk". Using your argument, you could claim that 1, or even 0 watches are "made in bulk", or that 30C is "cold" bc you draw the line of "cold" at 40C, etc. Throwing away all understanding of concep…

Well it's not bad faith if I'm accidentally somewhat unclear. Like, I could say something completely objective like "100 for watches" if that's better, and it would be impossible to argue about whether 150 is more or less than 100. If I'm wrong about the production of 150 watches having some quality, argue about that quality, no need to argue about broader categories in a completely abstract way while introducing no…

I think he's disagreeing with the arbitrariness of where you're drawing lines to make your argument sound more reasonable. And he's free to argue his way. Mass production already has a definition and I'm pretty sure significant manual work goes into each copy.

But this is beside the point. Regardless of how many copies are made, the creativity and ingenuity that went into the first one alone makes it something marvellous. Jaquet-Droz only made one handwriting automaton boy. But if he made 150 it would still be a contribution to human endeavour and I'm glad for that.

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

#230

Post by Sporktacular »

dotancohen wrote: post #158
Sporktacular wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite" This is precisely wrong. The rich do indeed owe society. They owe their wealth to the workers working for them. To the education system that educated their workers and made them productive, the roads that brought them to work and the health system that keeps them at work. This is obvious from the number of millionaires produced by healthy, educated, stable societies…

> They owe their wealth to the workers working for > them. To the education system that educated their > workers and made them productive, the roads that > brought them to work and the health system that > keeps them at work. Assuming that they've paid their taxes, they've paid their debt.

This is a lazy libertarian talking point. When someone accepts come award saying he owes his success to his family/mentor/agent, it's not an IOU for some cash value.

But even if it was, how would you quantify whether a tax rate captures the full, less-tangible value of what a society provides? If through lobbying or creative accounting, a billionaire is able to reduce his yearly taxable income to $100 then he's met your definition of fully paid-up, when obviously he 'owes' (in the ethical, non-accounting sense) a lot more.

Because society provides more than just economic opportunity, taxes are just one of the things we're required to pay back. We're expected to follow the law or sometimes fight for it (giving up some of our absolute freedoms), to be helpful or follow hundreds of other social conventions. If you insist on reducing all that to a tax rate, then it's so low that it points to a welfare state for the rich.

Post reply on HN