Apple declares its $17,000 solid-gold watch officially obsolete | Hacker News Reader

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

techspot.com

24 pointsbelter73 comments

Open articleView on HN

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.

Well played xD

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

Upvoted out of rebelliousness.

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It’s not the outrage the object is obsolete.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 when I can see with my own eyes you don’t.

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.

"People buy it, so someone will make it" doesn't apply when they're at the size of Apple. They absolutely make things that no one else could make if they didn't.

Xiaomi, Huawei and Samsung certainly could, and probably more.

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.

I disagree completely. People wanted this for a long time, now it's available, that's it. People usually claim that Apple didn't invent anything new...

>So how should a company that makes tech that people want while being as environmentally friendly as possible present itself?

Not with self indulgent high budget folly like ‘Mother Nature’

I never said don’t make the objects I actually said I’m fine with how abhorrent a 3 plastic battery coffins that are AirPods are for how good the experience is.

Just don’t make marketing material like ‘Mother Earth’ when you’re shipping those products.

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.

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”.

The waste part, though, is the innards and bezel. Most of the weight/volume is 18k gold.

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.

Naw, it's the tires.

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.

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.

"Somebody focusing so much on status so as to need to spend this much money is merely out of my understanding."

Out of mine either. But I accept that other people have other values and rather focus on the things in common. In this case, fighting for things to last.

Perhaps because the mining industry for gold is one of the dirtier ?

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.

Yes, and this is why the Apple Watch in gold was a branding mistake. That’s when Jony Ive started losing it, confusing elitism with high design. He wanted to turn an Apple product in a piece of timeless design for the enlightened few and by doing that he absolutely lost track of what Apple is about. That is what he needed to do and in fact he’s better off creating bizantine logos for King Charles rather than the next environmentally friendly Apple device.

>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.

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.

> 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.

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

There are different customer expectations in the luxury watch market and tech market. Apple didn't respect those expectations.

A luxury watch, certainly above the $15k range, is expected to receive lifetime servicing. It is a very clear principle that practically all luxury watchmakers respect.

It's not so much something to outrage about, as it is Apple harming themselves in this market a lot.

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.

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.

>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.

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...

Karl Lagerfeld died in 2019, so I'd say he's not too bothered.

> https://www.hodinkee.com

Heh that is clever domain name for the topic.

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

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.

This is like writing an article about Rolex producing watches with terrible accuracy - just completely missing the point. If people are genuinely upset that their first generation solid gold iWatch is obselete then... sell it, it's probably worth more now than it was when released. It is (and was always) a collectors item.

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.

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.

The fix is simple: keep the watch for show and get a F-91W to tell the actual time.

Maybe Casio should make a $17,000 gold version of that. For people who want an expensive status symbol that will actually work.

A consumer smart watch being end of life should not come as a surprise to anyone.

You could probably melt the watch and afford a new Apple Watch with the money.

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? =)

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 :)

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.

They managed to unmake gold's intrinsic durability. They effectively sold a service, not an object. Software is intrinsically mutable (not durable).

This was posted yesterday and made the front page then.

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.

Can you jailroot that? ;-) in the worst case, OS wise, we can wait for a future retrocomputing project to update these devices.

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.

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.

They can still scrap and melt it I guess

Reply on news.ycombinator.com