Live data from Hacker News

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

techspot.com

61–70 of 75 posts

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

#61
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Note that I mostly have issues with hardware released in 2015 being out of support (in this discussion). The effects of gold watches on the environment has to be anecdotal.

Somebody focusing so much on status so as to need to spend this much money is merely out of my understanding. Yes, it's some form of intolerance on my side and I fully admit it.

Now, gold is both rare and needed, and implies mining, and possibly underpaid people with awful work conditions. I find building such short-lived and futile items with it irresponsible. It's fortunate it's mostly anecdotal. This is what, among other things, I see in a gold watch. I also see how most of us need to work for years to save this amount of money, and that we'll have to use it on essential things like housing and still have to use a loan to buy, and they will spend it without thinking much about it. It's unfair, yet, they are proud of it. These people are so out of touch with the realities of our world.

Showing status is a double edged sword.

Of course, it works both ways. Someone wearing a gold watch probably wouldn't care for me. At least the relation is likely symmetrical.

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

#62
post #59
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Yes, and in fact getting a trade-in price is dependent on having a relatively current working phone. They don't give you a trade-in for any random piece of broken metal, silicon, and glass.

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

#64

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.

The price of collectibles (luxury and otherwise) is really hard to predict. (Look no further than how many NFTs basically lost all their value.) But, even for physical goods, there are old cameras, computers, etc. that you can actually get a fair bit of money for and others that are not obviously all that different that are basically worth very little to most people.

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

#65

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

Was wondering that too - I'm surprised you can't swap out the innards for a newer model since the sizes haven't changed over the years. It would be like getting a new motherboard and battery. The screen I guess can just keep being reused.

Saying that, Apple would have had to design it with that in mind, and that possibly caused enough of a burden that they didn't bother.

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

#67
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The price of collectibles (luxury and otherwise) is really hard to predict. (Look no further than how many NFTs basically lost all their value.) But, even for physical goods, there are old cameras, computers, etc. that you can actually get a fair bit of money for and others that are not obviously all that different that are basically worth very little to most people.

NTFs is a particular case, for most people they were always worthless.

But if you combine a powerful brand (Apple) with (I'm assuming) extremely low number of units made then chances of price going up or at least preserving a significant amount of the original price are higher.

I'm not saying this is the case with this watch, just that I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.

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

#68

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…

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 im…

Apple creates the want in the first place or amplifies existing want.

That is what ultimately drives consumption-based pollution, so they are directly to blame.

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

#69

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...

> https://www.hodinkee.com

Heh that is clever domain name for the topic.

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

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

So why isn't this considered and treated as fraud?

It is in my country, but not all laws are enforced.
Post reply on HN