# why would anyone spend 10,000$ on a apple watch when it could be obsolete in a few years?



## jeffreymak (Nov 29, 2014)

Why would someone spend 10000$ on a apple watch that is dependent on having a IPhone? 
If I was going to spend 10000$ on a watch I would get a rolex


----------



## Schneeflocke (Mar 8, 2015)

jeffreymak said:


> Why would someone spend 10000$ on a apple watch that is dependent on having a IPhone?
> If I was going to spend 10000$ on a watch I would get a rolex


Two different target groups. An Apple Watch for as much as 17 000 $ is however hilarious. I love Apples products and have had most of them since the late 80-ties, but will never get an Apple Watch. Like you, I prefer Rolex.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Because, the fact that it will become obsolete in a few years only serves to enhance its stature as a Veblen good.


----------



## P1B1 (May 29, 2012)

jeffreymak said:


> Why would someone spend 10000$ on a apple watch that is dependent on having a IPhone?
> If I was going to spend 10000$ on a watch I would get a rolex


I bought a near $10k Rolex that is obsolete now.... I guess I done goofed.


----------



## slcbbrown (Nov 12, 2009)

Schneeflocke said:


> Two different target groups. An Apple Watch for as much as 17 000 $ is however hilarious. I love Apples products and have had most of them since the late 80-ties, but will never get an Apple Watch. Like you, I prefer Rolex.


I'm this on an Apple product that is a great product, but this is the third or fourth version of the iPad that I own. And, for about $250, you can probably buy a lightly used model that's newer than the one I'm using. The $10,000 Apple watch makes me think that I should have bought a platinum Startac, back in the day.


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

do you guys not know the difference between forums???

this is like the 20th thread on the apple watch...


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

To be the first one on their block.


----------



## jeffreymak (Nov 29, 2014)

sorry, I didn't even know there was a smart watch forum on here



Memphis1 said:


> do you guys not know the difference between forums???
> 
> this is like the 20th thread on the apple watch...


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

Watchbreath said:


> To be the first one on their block.


their lives must suck....


----------



## jilgiljongiljing (Jun 20, 2011)

It will sell out in no time, celebs, actors, rich kids, pop stars, hip hop stars, there is a huge market who will gladly sport it instead of their gold Hublot and diamond studded Rolex or flashy Breitling.


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

jilgiljongiljing said:


> It will sell out in no time, celebs, actors, rich kids, pop stars, hip hop stars, there is a huge market who will gladly sport it instead of their gold Hublot and diamond studded Rolex or flashy Breitling.


me thinks you're right...


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

jeffreymak said:


> Why would someone spend 10000$ on a apple watch that is dependent on having a IPhone?
> If I was going to spend 10000$ on a watch I would get a rolex


Before you get too wound up do a little research. Another high-tech electronic watch attracted plenty of buyers in gold and many more in steel. The original Pulsar LED watch was very popular when new and sold for about $2,000. Adjust that to present time and the watches have similar prices. The Apple watches will sell to those with an interest in high-end high-tech stuff. The market for high-priced new stuff has and will continue to exist.

I think it's great that you want to spend $10k on a watch using 1940's technology. I expect the market for such devices will continue into the future. However there is now and will continue to be a market for wrist borne communications devices that also tell time. I think that the high-end Apple watch will serve mostly to make their more moderately priced watches even more attractive to prospective buyers. As solid Gold Rolex watches do for buyers of their more popular steel watches.


----------



## WatchNRolla (Feb 4, 2014)

It is kind of funny that many "outdated mechanical watches" on the market have a 72 hour power reserve while Apple's "new technology" maxes out at 18 hours.


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

A person who has the cash to spend (or waste) 10k on a gold Apple watch does not care that it would be obsolete in a few years, nor does he (or she) care that it will probably have no second-hand value. 

These are issues of no consequence to such a person. 

I, like I assume the vast majority of people on this forum, do not think this way, hence this is a forum topic.


----------



## inhaus (Jul 30, 2014)

I agree that many will buy them because they are the new thing from apple, but after the novelty wears off and they get tossed in the junk drawer I doubt many will be up for the 2.0 round of releases. They won't last unless they make them much more useful and much more affordable having the highest end ones cap at $500.


----------



## FernandoValenzuela (Dec 23, 2008)

It seems to have some in the watch industry concerned: Swatch Co-Inventor: Apple Watch Could Cost Swiss Jobs - Fortune


----------



## en914 (Jun 15, 2013)

It's an excellent status symbol for a certain type of person. While most people aren't familiar with just how expensive / can't recognize a lot of high end watches I would think the average person will know that the apple watch edition costs $10k/17k. Therefore those interested in being flashy / showing off have a great way to do it... it being disposable only helps. Not sure how many people out there would be interested in doing that though?


----------



## MarqDePombal (Jan 1, 2015)

P1B1 said:


> I bought a near $10k Rolex that is obsolete now.... I guess I done goofed.


You mean it wasn't obsolete when you purchased it?


----------



## sticky (Apr 5, 2013)

For the same reason that huge queues developed outside Apple stores when the iPhone 6 was launched - just to say they own one.


----------



## Urs Haenggi (Feb 17, 2015)

jeffreymak said:


> If I was going to spend 10000$ on a watch I would get a rolex


I'm waiting for one of the Seiko jihadists to run in here screaming, "Why!? You could buy like 5 MM300s, or a SARB, SARG, AHHHH.... fit & finish clearly on par..." etc etc.


----------



## Genebe (Aug 30, 2011)

Why!? You could buy like 5 MM300s, or a SARB, SARG, AHHHH.... fit & finish clearly on par...


----------



## sirgilbert357 (Mar 21, 2012)

chunder tunt said:


> I'm waiting for one of the Seiko jihadists to run in here screaming, "Why!? You could buy like 5 MM300s, or a SARB, SARG, AHHHH.... fit & finish clearly on par..." etc etc.


WHY?? UGH, you could buy...oh wait.

LOL.

To each their own and all that, but if I had 10k to drop, I'd be at Timeless Luxury Watches in Frisco getting my SpringDrive on, ya feel me??


----------



## colgex (Dec 12, 2013)

I have a non WIS friend that posted this on facebook using a different perspective. Let's take our WIS hats for a second:

Even if there was a market for the 10k watch, it does not make sense because, how often do you change your phone? It used to be 2 years, now, there are payment plans that let you change it every 6 months. Hardware in the technology market ages faster than dog years. A smartwatch may be snappy now but it may be sluggish in 2-3 years because that's just how technology is.

If you think about it, for 10k, you can get a nice JLC, Zenith, Omega, Rolex etc. and pass it down to your kid. On the other hand, you would be lucky if your smartwatch is even smart the next decade.


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

chunder tunt said:


> I'm waiting for one of the Seiko jihadists to run in here screaming, "Why!? You could buy like 5 MM300s, or a SARB, SARG, AHHHH.... fit & finish clearly on par..." etc etc.


your pushing your luck with that avatar name....


----------



## Blitzzz (Dec 26, 2007)

Just playing devil's advocate, but I'm sure the rest of the non-WIS world thinks spending $10k on a STEEL watch is insane. Our watches are inaccurate and perform very limited functions. It's a bit hypocritical to complain about the value proposition of the apple watch when many of our "real" watches are just as bad. Luxury items defy all logical pricing concepts. 

Having said all that, the fact that they release the SAME watch that ranges from $350 to $10k is ridiculous. Battery life is also very poor compared to it's competition. Despite all these problems, Apple will continue to dominate whatever market they get into due to their crazed fanbase. The people that are driving the demand for these products is what I have an issue with.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

If I was going to spend $15k on a watch, and I already had a few $10k-20k watches, am I ready to look "cheap" by buying an aluminum Apple Watch? Or do I go for the gusto and get the rose gold version?

Additionally, I think it's not accurate to compare these to phones and tablets. There's only one wireless connection that an Apple Watch needs to make now, and that's Bluetooth. No cellular radio, no WiFi -- just Bluetooth, and it's still compatible with the now-discontinued iPhone 5. There's also no camera, so that's one less rapidly-evolving component to upgrade. It also doesn't need multi-core graphics processing to push a few million polygons around the screen.

That's a whole lot of stuff that doesn't need to be upgraded for any reason. I don't think a camera in a watch is a good idea anyway -- it's possible to add one, sure, but it takes up valuable space that would be used for more battery capacity, and the watch itself is too small to be a decent platform for photo editing and sharing.

Is the battery life shorter than I would like? I think so, yeah. Is the battery replaceable? Yes, it is, so when it starts to suffer in a couple years, you can get a fresh battery installed. Are _all_ the internal components upgradeable? _Maybe,_ because it appears that the whole thing runs on a single chip; when the Watch 2 with its S2 chip comes out, what if you could send your first-gen to Apple and have the S1 chip swapped out?

Apple's crazy, but they're not stupid. We're the ones wasting time on internet forums instead of building new tech, after all.


----------



## SaoDavi (Jan 28, 2014)

jeffreymak said:


> Why would someone spend 10000$ on a apple watch that is dependent on having a IPhone?
> If I was going to spend 10000$ on a watch I would get a rolex


----------



## SaoDavi (Jan 28, 2014)

Alternatively ..


----------



## Deledda (Jun 15, 2014)

SaoDavi said:


> Alternatively ..


I laughed because it was painfully true.


----------



## watchvaultnyc (Jun 5, 2014)

In Serendipity 3 in NYC, they have a dessert that costs $1000, the Golden Opulence Sundae. It had edible gold leaf as part of it's in ingredients (which you will $#!+ out later) and at one point was the most expensive dessert in the world. I've been to Serendipity 3 more than once, and their desserts are nothing special. But you know what? Just offering that dessert put it in the Guinness Book of World Records and it now has it's own Wikipedia entry. It exists for the marketing. Do you think it matters to them how many they sold?

Golden Opulence Sundae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The $10K Apple Watch exists so people will talk about it. And its so funny because all the people starting hater threads here are falling into Apple's marketing trap by talking about it.


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

Blitzzz said:


> Just playing devil's advocate, but I'm sure the rest of the non-WIS world thinks spending $10k on a STEEL watch is insane. Our watches are inaccurate and perform very limited functions. It's a bit hypocritical to complain about the value proposition of the apple watch when many of our "real" watches are just as bad.


but our $10k watches keeps little cute swiss elves employed:-d


----------



## SubVette (Dec 4, 2014)

BECAUSE THEY CAN......


----------

