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

Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete

techspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete

#21

Post by pohl »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #10
tyingq wrote: post #2

Feels 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It’s not the outrage the object is obsolete.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…

Elaborate on this disconnect, because I’m not seeing it. How is recycling the gold any worse than recycling the frame of an obsolete aluminum watch?

Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete

#22

Post by koolba »

poisonborz wrote: post #15

Karl 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...

Would the battery still swell if you never turned it on?

Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete

#25

Post by nickpeterson »

jraph wrote: post #9
nickpeterson wrote: post #4

This is why I always make sure my bars of gold run Linux. I’d hate to have a completely useless lump of gold.

What kind of Linux maintainers can afford maintaining your bars of gold? Do you sponsor them?

Yes, gold, silver, and bronze sponsorships.

Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete

#26

Post by signal11 »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #10
tyingq wrote: post #2

Feels 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It’s not the outrage the object is obsolete.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…

This has to be taken in the context of electronics’ lifetimes.

A smartwatch that was supported for 8 years is pretty great. Who’s doing better?

But if competitors do better, that raises the bar for Apple and is a net benefit for customers. So yeah, Samsung, Google — here’s your opportunity to outshine Apple.

(Google’s already making noises about supporting newer Pixel phones for 8 years, and have committed to supporting some Chromebooks for 10 years. This is a good thing and I’d like to see more manufacturers get interested in offering longer periods of support.)

For now, I suspect Apple will say they’ll be recycle your watch so the materials are not “wasted”.

Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete

#27

Post by swader999 »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #10
tyingq wrote: post #2

Feels 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…

Naw, it's the tires.

Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete

#28

Post by theshrike79 »

piokoch wrote: post #23
jraph wrote: post #16

I bet they will advertise this fact on https://www.apple.com/environment/

Yes, next to pushing people to buy new iPhone every two years.

Why two years? My phone is almost two years old, when will I be receiving this push? =)

Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete

#29

Post by Closi »

pohl wrote: post #21
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Elaborate on this disconnect, because I’m not seeing it. How is recycling the gold any worse than recycling the frame of an obsolete aluminum watch?

If anything, I assume the gold is much more likely to get recycled.

Re: Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete

#30

Post by jraph »

nickpeterson wrote: post #25
jraph wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of Linux maintainers can afford maintaining your bars of gold? Do you sponsor them?

Yes, gold, silver, and bronze sponsorships.

Well played xD

I'll refrain from qualifying your comment, chains of bad puns are not very highly regarded here.

Post reply on HN