Hacker News Reader

Comment by tajen | Hacker News Reader

Aren't you amazed that the richest billionaire who buys this watch from their palace or skyscraper has only access to the same promotional videos we have? Do they have a personalized purchasing experience? I thought the same when watching golden phone cases for iPhones: However rich you are, what's inside is still the same iOS, with the same usability perks and defects, with the same Flat UI, with the same Appstore apps as everyone. How mundane.

I reckon it's excellent that Apple finally addresses the billionaire market with a gold experience. By taking the money where it is, it provides a revenue stream that can fund features that average people will use.

View on HN

"What's great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it."

-Warhol

Warhol's right, of course, but the bum on the corner is buying the Coke at a much higher relative opportunity cost. The nickel spent on the Coke, was a nickel not spent on "x" other thing that results in personal improvement (housing, clothing, education, etc.). Make what you will of the analogy to implicitly disposable electronics and ~90% of the American population today.

It's somewhat more complex than that. Mexican Coke is slightly different vs canned coke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Coke. Also, restaurants have a fair amount of latitude when it comes to soda machines.

So, the bum might be drinking the same thing as a billionaire or a slightly different version. IMO, what's more interesting is that where wine, beer and even water have a fairly stratified market soda is just store brand vs name brand.

There are actually a lot of smaller companies making craft sodas that are of a superior quality to the mainstream brands. They typically use cane sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup, and come in a wider variety of flavors. Plain cola gets boring fast. I much prefer cream sodas and birch or root beers. Here are some examples:

http://maineroot.com/ (uses fair trade organic sugar) https://www.boylanbottling.com/ http://reedsinc.com/

Personally, I never drink Coke, Pepsi or Dr Pepper products any more. A large part of the cost of those products is relentless marketing, shareholder dividends, and large corporate salaries. They no longer seem to care about delivering a quality product. How can they sell something called ginger ale if it doesn't actually have any ginger? For variety and depth of flavor any money I spend on soda is spent on craft soda.

Just to bring the analogy back to tech... when, if ever, do you think you'll feel the same way about Apple/Google/Microsoft/etc. regarding "relentless market, shareholder dividends, and large corporate salaries"? How do we get the equivalent of "variety and depth of flavor" when products and services converge towards mediocrity (or disregard for end user privacy, or any other complaint du jour)? (Note: I do not know if any or all of the corporate cruft complaints apply to the tech companies mentioned.)

I agree with you, in that spending money on quality products is "voting with your wallet," and overall, a good idea.

I already do feel that way regarding technology (and consumerism in general). I think that by supporting FOSS such as Linux and the Mozilla backed projects you can vote for variety and innovation with both your time and money. I will happily switch from an iPhone to a Firefox OS based phone once a high end model is available.

Be the change that you wish to see in the world.

I am always impressed that the same technology is accessible to everyone, well everyone who can afford it. Going out and buying an iPhone is an expensive experience, and likely out of reach for the very poor (I don't have one, I think it's too expensive for what it is), yet given how many I see wandering around here in the UK I am always impressed that the insanely wealthy and the not-so-wealthy get to use the same device. It's kind of reassuring that we all get access to the same software and hardware, even if we use basic Android smartphones instead.

It's a bit like the wide access to low-cost flights to Europe; that would have been unthinkable in the 1980s.

I always find it oddly refreshing to see! We haven't made the same progress in politeness and kindness to our fellow man, but at least technology is relatively cheap and easily available.

Products are now cheap. Informational products are basically free^. What remains expensive? Property. You have people with iPhones living in cupboards.

Food and energy are kind of on the boundary. I regard the increasing fripperyness of high-end dining as a sign that food is still affordable. Services that require an actual educated human in the West are still expensive, e.g. law, medicine.

^with advertising, piracy, privacy loss etc.

That's one of the things I like most about technology. It takes things that were formerly available only to the rich and gives them to everyone. The only thing left to them to display their "wealth" is to plate the stuff in gold and glue diamonds to it.

Technology makes the rich silly.

Let's take it one step further. In fact, last week, walking out of my apartment, the guys sweeping the street were taking a smoke break (of course ;) and one of them was fiddling on his iphone. Yes, the guy who cleans the street now has the same complete access to human knowledge in his pocket as the billionaire. The same model.

(Ok, the street sweeper probably had an iphone 4, not an iphone 6 plus...)

In the watch world, a $10K watch is nothing. Billionaire watch collectors likely don't even have the Apple Watch on their radar.

He's right, we don't.

I don't particular disagree, but I also don't think Apple is going after either "billionaires" or "watch collectors". Not that they would turn away sales from either category, but the Apple Watch Edition seems to be pointed at those that use Apple products already but also happen to have a boatload of cash. I guess I am saying that I see the target market as celebrities.

I'd agree with that. I actually think it was a bad move on their part. By having a $10k watch it draws media headlines away from their consumer product. I've seen many more headlines like "Apple's New $10,000 Watch" rather than "Apple's New Line of Smart Watches". For those that don't follow the technology news closely they may miss the launch of the regular product.

Do billionaires actually want a "personalized purchasing experience"? If I were a billionaire, I'd pay someone else to do all purchasing for me and get on with my life. Even as not-a-billionaire, I would strongly consider paying a lawyer friend to handle large purchases for me. It's just not worth the time or annoyance.

Last night on NPR they were talking about the future of malls, and hence talked some about Apple stores. One of the guest mentioned that they thought Apple would have a "by appointment" shopping process that was more of a luxury experience for the high end watches.

Apple has pretty decent margins on all their devices. I don't think they need a $10,000 watch to fund R&D.

too bad it's not waterproof for the billionaires

Reply on news.ycombinator.com