I don't think this means it has no value as an item, it may be totally useless in 10 years but collectors would want it, but there is humour in the idea that a $17 000 watch could be totally repairable by the people who made it.
Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete
11–20 of 75 posts
Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete
#12Feels like artificial outrage to me. I'm not convinced the people who can afford a $10k-17k smart watch and bought it in 2015 are surprised it's now going to be unsupported. It probably also still has some collector type value, and at least $2-3k of gold scrap value.
Generally expensive watches are associated with longevity, but I can't imagine someone buying this and expecting lifelong support.
I bet longevity is not a specific trait of expensive watches.
I think most non-smart watches can live for very long.
Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete
#13Looks like gold is up about 50% since it launched. Would they get back more than they paid if they melted it down?
Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete
#14Feels like artificial outrage to me. I'm not convinced the people who can afford a $10k-17k smart watch and bought it in 2015 are surprised it's now going to be unsupported. It probably also still has some collector type value, and at least $2-3k of gold scrap value.
I mean, relatively speaking, that support lifetime is still better than most pieces of tech, so they're still getting a better "deal" in that sense.
Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete
#15Karl Lagerfeld, and I guess many others who got (and not bought) this should not be too bothered, as they didn't turn it on/set it up in the first place, and wore it just as jewelry.
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/karl-lagerfeld-audemars-pi...
Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete
#16I bet they will advertise this fact on https://www.apple.com/environment/
Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete
#17This was posted yesterday and made the front page then.
Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete
#18Karl Lagerfeld, and I guess many others who got (and not bought) this should not be too bothered, as they didn't turn it on/set it up in the first place, and wore it just as jewelry. https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/karl-lagerfeld-audemars-pi...
Karl Lagerfeld died in 2019, so I'd say he's not too bothered.
Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete
#19Feels like artificial outrage to me. I'm not convinced the people who can afford a $10k-17k smart watch and bought it in 2015 are surprised it's now going to be unsupported. It probably also still has some collector type value, and at least $2-3k of gold scrap value.
It’s not the outrage the object is obsolete. It’s the outrage it’s obsolete while making marketing material like the ‘Mother Earth’ movie. There’s a huge disconnect with what’s being said and the day to day actions. Bringing disposable objects like this and AirPods into the world is environmentally abhorrent. Which you know I’m actually fine with for the trade off but just don’t lecture me about how much you care whe…
The waste part, though, is the innards and bezel. Most of the weight/volume is 18k gold.
Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally expensive watches are associated with longevity, but I can't imagine someone buying this and expecting lifelong support.
I bet longevity is not a specific trait of expensive watches. I think most non-smart watches can live for very long.
Expensive watches are often considered "heirlooms": I'd say trans-generational longevity is a reasonably high expectation for most tech.