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

31–40 of 75 posts

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

#31

Post by throwaway10965 »

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It’s not the outrage the object is obsolete.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

So how should a company that makes tech that people want while being as environmentally friendly as possible present itself? What other company is more environmentally conservative while making the tech that people want (for example Xiaomi, Huawei, etc) than Apple?

"Don't make it" is not a good answer. People buy it, so someone will make it.

And I'm happy that Apple educates their customers about the environmental impact.

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

#32

Post by Jorge1o1 »

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.

If you bought a $17k Rolex Submariner back in 2015, and they told you it could no longer be serviced, I think many people would be outraged.

Rolex's own recommended service timeline is every 10 years, so you would actually be told it's obsolete before the first recommended service.

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

#33

Post by londons_explore »

skybrian wrote: post #13

Looks like gold is up about 50% since it launched. Would they get back more than they paid if they melted it down?

Gold isn't as expensive as you imagine. Can't find the weight of the gold one, but the regular watch is 31 grams. I assume most of that is glass/screen/batteries/strap/electronics, so perhaps just 8 grams is case? 8 grams of gold is worth about $500.

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

#34

Post by aziaziazi »

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…

Many commercials works by saying stuff far from the reality. Can’t help thinking of those gigantic EV advertised everyday and everywhere as climate saving wands. « Change the world, by X or Y » (no pun intended).

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

#35

Post by wodenokoto »

The most expensive bottle of vodka comes with refills (which is kinda funny in its own right)

I believe expensive mechanical watches comes with a service plan (or at least something to the effect of a note saying “send it in for service every x years or so”)

I’m similarly surprised that this one doesn’t come with hardware upgrades as part of its “service”, whether it be included in the purchase price or paid extra.

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

#37

Post by jraph »

Jorge1o1 wrote: post #32
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.

If you bought a $17k Rolex Submariner back in 2015, and they told you it could no longer be serviced, I think many people would be outraged. Rolex's own recommended service timeline is every 10 years, so you would actually be told it's obsolete before the first recommended service.

> I think many people would be outraged.

I think most people would make fun of the buyers.

It's also not a smart watch. You expect a regular watch to last.

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

#38

Post by mcv »

Jorge1o1 wrote: post #32
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.

If you bought a $17k Rolex Submariner back in 2015, and they told you it could no longer be serviced, I think many people would be outraged. Rolex's own recommended service timeline is every 10 years, so you would actually be told it's obsolete before the first recommended service.

Yes, but that's Rolex. Apple doesn't have that level of trust or reliability.

It is ridiculous of course that these overpriced toys have such a limited lifespan, but that's a problem with every gadget these days. Stuff used to be good for decades, sometimes even centuries. All our modern high tech is only good for years. If that. Our economy is all about disposable luxuries.

Even so, if I was Apple, I'd probably still go out of my way to make sure these $17k watches will remain repairable for as long as it takes. The comparison with other golden watch brands really drives home the problem with these disposable business models.

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

#39

Post by curiousllama »

wodenokoto wrote: post #35

The most expensive bottle of vodka comes with refills (which is kinda funny in its own right) I believe expensive mechanical watches comes with a service plan (or at least something to the effect of a note saying “send it in for service every x years or so”) I’m similarly surprised that this one doesn’t come with hardware upgrades as part of its “service”, whether it be included in the purchase price or paid extra.

Yea this is kinda funny. Not like they’ve massively changed the shape of the thing
Post reply on HN