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

51–60 of 75 posts

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

#51

Post by tyingq »

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 luxury smart watch is its own category, separate from luxury watch.

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

#52

Post by Xenoamorphous »

londons_explore wrote: post #33
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.

A quick Google search says this one weighs 180 grams.

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

#53

Post by Xenoamorphous »

HPsquared wrote: post #6

At least it'll have some decent scrap value.

I’m curious about the resale value of these; even after this announcement I wouldn’t be surprised if it actually went for over retail, seeing how many limited availability luxury items actually go up in price in the resale market.

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

#54

Post by dade_ »

I’ll stick with a company that actually supports its wearables for the long haul and doesn’t lock me into a phone or create obsolescence of perfectly good hardware. I believe Samsung is even worse than Apple. https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/03/garmin-fenix3-detailed-r...

Fenix 3, still going strong, and has a program for refurbishment.

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

#55

Post by ghaff »

mcv wrote: post #38
Jorge1o1 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stil…

It's modern electronics vs. mechanical or even simpler analog electronics (modulo leaking capacitors and the like). You can absolutely buy a watch today that will last for decades plus--but you and a lot of other people presumably prefer a smartwatch instead. Perhaps the day will come when electronics can be designed in a way that replacing hardware isn't necessary to improve/update them but it's hard to see the path to that in the near future for non-trivial devices.

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

#56

Post by jraph »

hutzlibu wrote: post #49
jraph wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I think we should be revolted to see hardware released in 2015 being out of support for environmental reasons, but I can't feel sad for people needing this amount of status. They should be fine.

But maybe it makes more sense to have those rich people on your side, when it is for the common cause, instead of mocking them.

With this mindset, we would risk the rich to be completely free of criticism.

They are already the decision makers not taking the right decisions for the environment. They are the ones choosing not to be on my side.

We need to spend a lot of efforts fighting their carelessness and bad decision-making. I want to be able to mock them. (though I don't usually do it, it does not bring joy in me, mostly bitterness).

If someone rich is reading my comment and taking issue with it, they need to treat the cause and stop the dissonance. I don't expect rich people already doing something for the environment to take issue with it.

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

#57

Post by ghaff »

jraph wrote: post #12
Kwastie wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

>I think most non-smart watches can live for very long.

Other than batteries and watchbands (and physical damage), yes, but that's because the functionality generally doesn't change--they tell the time and don't need to interact with any other devices or software.

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

#58

Post by hutzlibu »

jraph wrote: post #56
hutzlibu wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But maybe it makes more sense to have those rich people on your side, when it is for the common cause, instead of mocking them.

With this mindset, we would risk the rich to be completely free of criticism. They are already the decision makers not taking the right decisions for the environment. They are the ones choosing not to be on my side. We need to spend a lot of efforts fighting their carelessness and bad decision-making. I want to be able to mock them. (though I don't usually do it, it does not bring joy in me, mostly bitterness). If so…

What is the environmental problem with a gold watch?

Aside from a little extra effort in manufacturing, I fail to see it.

Jetting everywhere for the sake of it, yes, this is worth critizicing( and mocking), but a golden luxory is harmless I think and not worth a class warfare.

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

#59

Post by g232089 »

O_nlogn wrote: post #47
g232089 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do they do that?

In the UK at least Apple has a subscription-based iPhone upgrade program [1] to get a new iPhone every year. Makes sense as they want recurring revenue, but it does seem wasteful to promote that type of consumer behavior. [1] https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/iphone/iphone-upgrade-program

You must return the old iphone when you upgrade, and I am sure it does not end in the dustbin :)

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

#60

Post by ghaff »

mcv wrote: post #38
Jorge1o1 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stil…

>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.

Leaving aside the fact that the whole thing seems like a branding mistake...

It can be repairable/supported for as long as Apple continues to make watches. It's just a matter of recycling/reusing the high value non-electronic components and making a replacement/updated watch available. That's pretty much what most "refurbished" electronics look like. It's generally a different approach than you'd take with a high-end mechanical watch where a lot of the cost is in the innards.

Post reply on HN