asjldkfin

It seems to imply the top 2 people own 30% of the wealth, which is not what the data states.

It means the piece isn't impartial- nor is the sponsorship disclosed.

Enough said

For those who don't know, journalling apps universally suck. Especially when it comes to security.

Day One, the canonically recommended app, doesn't even locally encrypt their entries, so basically anybody can access it despite the veneer of a password on the app.

The quote snippet is out of context and feels like its done strategically.

Don't treat people like they are rational, because they aren't. If you seriously think the Moonswatch isn't canabalizing Omega's brand cache- just ask yourself: If Casio put out the exact same product with the exact same design, would people be lining up to buy it?

You don't actually need to answer that, because as somebody else pointed out, the Pagani Speedmaster already tried it, and it clearly didn't work.

People aren't buying this because they like the design, they are buying it for the Omega logo.

Try to justify it however you will, but at the end of the day, that $250 watch is an Omega watch in the eyes of those who buy it. It might not be a "real" Omega, but it'll still be an Omega watch. And that's too bad for those with "real" Omegas. Because nobody wants to be lumped in with a bunch of hypebeasts and dead-beats who spend an afternoon lining up for a toy watch.

There's a reason why Patek doesn't sell a $1000 version of their watch, or why Porsche doesn't make a Corolla competitor.

If you disagree, then you're free to do so. Just understand you're disagreeing with people with a lot more practical experience, knowledge and skin-in-the-game than you.

1. It has generated significant attention- which has value.

2. Like a BMW 1-series, I imagine the idea is that once people have the "beginner" version, they'll aspire to upgrade to the real thing. It gets people "on the boat".

3. Rolex sells a cheaper version of their flagship watch under the Tudor brand- it's virtually identical and hasn't diluted Rolex's brand value.

4. The funky colors is probably less to do with style and more a guarantee it'll never be confused for the "real" version.

That all said, I would definitely still be salty if I owned a Speedmaster. But I applaud Swatch for making bold and interesting moves- which doesn't exactly happen much in the luxury industry.

It really makes you think twice about about NK, China, Saudia Arabia and all the other supposed international pariahs.

This is what happens when your definition of “exploitative” is based on a relative metric. Exploitative literally means “having a life that’s worst than average”- which by definition means there’ll always be people who are exploited.

There was a time where exploitation meant literally chattel slavery, now it means working a sub-optimal job. You even hear of how Investment Bankers are “exploited” because they work long hours.

The term is frankly meaningless.

Also, the bar for exploitation is so low for the author that it’s hard to imagine a modern day industry that isn’t “exploitative” by their definition.

I think it might be something much simpler, like "journalists often can't find another job based on their english-adjacent degree; and the barrier to entry for journalism is very low".

Of course, when the barrier to entry is low- and most candidates are indistinguishable- you hire your friends; which inevitably leads to homogenization.

I'd re-read this thread carefully and then take a moment to consider: is this really a hill worth dying of embarrassment on? You can always just walk away.