Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluthru | Hacker News Reader

>But I was under the impression that we were Apple fans in the first place because they made best-in-breed products for everyone, not just the elite.

Which is exactly why there is an expensive tier for the Apple Watch: to sell watches to everyone.

Apple is taking this product category so seriously that they're going after the high-end heirloom watches while not leaving the teenage iPhone user market behind. Hate the game not the player. This doesn't look like existing tech markets because as of now it's not a tech market. If you want your apps to be prevalent on wrists, you should be thanking Apple for legitimizing smart watches to the gold-watch crowd. Crowd-funded wrist watches could never do that.

I would rather everyone just had $350 watches and the rest of the capital went to... vaccination research or something, but Apple Watch Edition is how a 55 year old lawyer in the midwest gives up his Rolex.

View on HN

> But I was under the impression that we were Apple fans in the first place because they made best-in-breed products for everyone, not just the elite.

Another take on this quote: the watch has the same functionality regardless of whether you buy the most expensive model or the cheapest one. In that sense, it's very egalitarian. Let the people who want to buy a more expensive model buy one; all they'll do is subsidise development costs for the rest of us.

Haha. Because Apple has ever used the volume of sales and its twelve digit war chest as a justification for reducing its profit margin, consistently recognized as the highest in the industry?

Apple consistently increases profits. I own a lot of Apple products, but don't be deluded. The wildly speculated Edition watch isnt some Apple effort to play Robin Hood and pass on development savings to the common man.

Funny how that gets convicted, though.

You're exactly right they want to hit all the markets. People will buy the most expensive watch, but it's not for everyone. It will be a conversation piece or it will be an object of jealousy (or possibly ridicule). None the less I'm curious to see how it sells but I'm more interested in the next version of the watch.

> but I'm more interested in the next version of the watch

That seems like it should be especially true if you're buying the expensive gold version. In recent history, first-gen Apple products are vastly inferior to the second or third generation. They don't age well.

The Apple Watch reminds me strongly of the first iPhone. It'll get thinner and probably a lot more powerful in a year or two.

> Apple Watch Edition is how a 55 year old lawyer in the midwest gives up his Rolex.

I am not a 50 year old lawyer, but I do have a Rolex watch. The Day-Date and Datejust are beautiful, timeless classics IMO. When I think of a watch, I think of those.

Sure I'll get an Apple watch - the cheapest one - I like the idea of having a map on my wrist when cycling. However, you can pry my Rolex from my cold, cold, very dead hands.

I think you might be the nightmare scenario for Apple. I have a feeling they expect Rolex owners to buy the Watch Edition, and the regular non-watch wearing 18-35 demo to suddenly show an interest in wearing watches and buy the cheapest one. The real outcome ends up being that the majority, who doesn't wear a watch, will show continue to show no interest in watches when they're 'smart,' and the small demographic that does wear watches will stick to the "cheap," rapidly depreciating Apple Watch.

He still bought an Apple Watch, instead of a Moto 360.

That's far from 'nightmare scenario'.

Reminds me of Tim Cook embracing cannibalization, because it still results in Apple customers.

Have you actually tried to see map info on a watch while riding? I have tried while driving on my Pebble, and it does not work for me at all. The display is too small to see anything useful and the amount of time needed to comprehend what is being displayed is scary.

Perhaps if it indicated one buzz for left and two for right, it might work, but looking at a watch while driving or riding does not work for me.

>Apple Watch Edition is how a 55 year old lawyer in the midwest gives up his Rolex.

Maybe. Or maybe said lawyer can afford a timeless Rolex due to lower mental susceptibility to shiny! new! improved! marketing of instantly obsolete widgets.

Apple quality and marketing has made billions, but this can lead to commodization of those marketing techniques, as former employees diffuse those techniques into surrounding industry. Over time, the population develops immunity to this marketing and the cycle starts anew.

Jobs spent many years developing his regenerative capacity for reality distortion. Can a corporation synthesize that capacity by hiring "fashion" executives? Fashion buyers were pre-inculcated with decades of cyclical norms, how many fashion executives have needed to execute Apple-scale reality distortion?

What does the midwest have to do with your 55 year old lawyer example? Not asking this as a hostile defense of the midwest, just genuinely curious how you meant that to add to the example.

- an east coaster

I was trying to paint a profile of someone who doesn't follow consumer technology closely.

52, sw (pfSenee) dev (mgr), live in Austin. Not a lawyer, but quite familiar with contract and IP law. I've had a stainless Rolex for 25 years. I've hardly work it since 2007.

So, I don't get your point.

> Apple Watch Edition is how a 55 year old lawyer in the midwest gives up his Rolex.

I have a really hard time buying this argument, because a Rolex will appreciate in value, and that 55 year old lawyer in the midwest isn't stupid, s/he knows this. Nobody in their right mind expects a consumer electronic device to appreciate in value.

The Rolex goes in the bed side cabinet, the Apple Watch goes on the wrist.

And off the wrist in a year

Smart money is on less.

Every evening, if the battery needs a daily charge.

Except when that lawyer is in an important meeting. Then the roles are reversed.

And when that lawyer is 65 and retiring, it's the Rolex that he gives to his son.

Who then swiftly puts it into the drawer and continues to wear something he likes

It might appreciate in value the same way any antique does, but eventually no one will be able to settle for a "dumb watch" the same way no one today can settle for a "dumb phone".

Except for most people a watch is fashion, not a tool. A phone is a tool, and you expect it to perform certain tasks that make your life easier. A smart phone is objectively superior at those things, thus you want a smart phone over a dumb phone.

A watch, on the other hand, is much more a fashion statement and status symbol than a tool. A $10k Rolex doesn't really keep time any better than a $20 Timex, but that's not why one buys the Rolex. Most teenagers _stopped wearing watches_ over the past decade or so because they use their phones to check the time, it's only when we've started dressing more professionally that we've started buying watches.

I don't buy wearable tech as the next big thing in hardware. I don't think most consumers will pay $500 to have something on their wrist that does a fraction of what the thing in their pocket does while looking worse than the "dumb watch" it replaced.

People will buy smartwatches because it adds value a rolex cannot: convenience.

Timex and Rolex have the same amount of information so they differentiate based on other aspects. Smart watches add convenience through serving more information. Not having to take out your phone, wallet, keys, etc. is a compelling selling point. The bet is:

convenience + decent design > timeless design alone

This bears repeating in any Apple Watch discussion: watches are socially approved jewelry for culturally Western males.

The classic and luxury appeal of jewelry is at odds with many parts of tech (eg elegance vs nerdiness, timeless heirlooms vs 1-year product cycles, etc). The Apple Watch Edition will be an interesting attempt to cross that gap. I don't see it becoming a first-tier competitor to classic watches, even in a short term wear, non-heirloom sense, but if the past decade has proven anything, Apple knows how to forecast (or shape) market demand for a product very well.

I don't expect consumer electronics to increase in value for the simple reason that they decay. The batteries decay, the transistors decay, the capacitors decay, etc. The watch will become non-functional and non-repairable.

Just look at what people go through trying to keep older computers running.

Particularly if history repeats itself. If the example of the iPad is anything to go by, this watch has a lifetime of a couple of years at most. Worth bearing in mind if you're going to drop tens of thousands of dollars on it.

Yes, I can't see an electronic watch being an heirloom.

A Rolex one buys in a store today does not appreciate in value at all. They have a similar depreciation curve to cars.

I'd point out that some cars retain value, just like some watches retain value, but I think that's lost on you.

> but I think that's lost on you

No personal jabs, please. This comment makes a fine point without that.

I'll point out that's not true with all Rolexes. Depending on which Rolex you purchase, it may very well appreciate over time.

Rolex occasionally tweaks aspects of its various models. For example, a 2015 Submariner has larger lugs, larger hour markers, and branded rehaut compared to a 2001 Rolex. This makes newer Subs look different and, for some collectors, makes the older models more desirable.

Pepsi Subs and the Paul Newman Daytona are both good examples of watches that have become collectable and whose value today greatly exceeds initial purchase price + inflation.

Exactly this, though I expect it is more hold value than appreciate with current watches. Overall, when dropping a large amount on a watch you expect it to keep value and be something that lasts a lifetime if not generations. Most people wont commit massive funds for something that needs replacing every 2 or 3 years. And even if they get the first one because it's exciting, I cant see people repurchasing on a regular basis.

The entire premise of that sentence is wrong and he contradicts himself two sentences later. Apple has always relied on being viewed (and therefore priced) as a premium brand. The Watch is an extension even further upstream but it's hardly a VW Phaeton headscratcher type of thing.

This is just a uncomfortable realization that your favorite brand wants to go _even further_ upstream than it is today. But that's only because you've misunderstood the brand to begin with.

EDIT: The two sentences later part. If you take out the disparaging tone it boils down to "we were fine paying much more for an Apple machine than another brand" -- "We knew our $2000 laptops were incredible for the price, even while people mocked us for not buying cheap, creaky Windows machines."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com