4 ms·

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 b

by tyingq 3y ago

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.

jraph 3y ago
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.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  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.
  - jraph 3y ago
    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.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      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.
      - jraph 3y ago
        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.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        "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.
      - aziaziazi 3y ago
        Perhaps because the mining industry for gold is one of the dirtier ?
Kwastie 3y ago
Generally expensive watches are associated with longevity, but I can't imagine someone buying this and expecting lifelong support.
- jraph 3y ago
  I bet longevity is not a specific trait of expensive watches. I think most non-smart watches can live for very long.
  - lucideer 3y ago
    Expensive watches are often considered "heirlooms": I'd say trans-generational longevity is a reasonably high expectation for most tech.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    >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.
whywhywhywhy 3y ago
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.
- tyingq 3y ago
  The waste part, though, is the innards and bezel. Most of the weight/volume is 18k gold.
- pohl 3y ago
  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?
  - Closi 3y ago
    If anything, I assume the gold is much more likely to get recycled.
- signal11 3y ago
  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”.
- swader999 3y ago
  Naw, it's the tires.
lucideer 3y ago
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.
Jorge1o1 3y ago
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.
- tyingq 3y ago
  I think luxury smart watch is its own category, separate from luxury watch.
- jraph 3y ago
  > 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.
- mcv 3y ago
  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.
  - camillomiller 3y ago
    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.
  - ghaff 3y ago
clnq 3y ago
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.

by tyingq 3y ago

jraph 3y ago

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.

hutzlibu 3y ago
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.
- jraph 3y ago
  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.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    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.
    - jraph 3y ago
      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.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        "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.
    - aziaziazi 3y ago
      Perhaps because the mining industry for gold is one of the dirtier ?

Kwastie 3y ago

Generally expensive watches are associated with longevity, but I can't imagine someone buying this and expecting lifelong support.

jraph 3y ago
I bet longevity is not a specific trait of expensive watches. I think most non-smart watches can live for very long.
- lucideer 3y ago
  Expensive watches are often considered "heirlooms": I'd say trans-generational longevity is a reasonably high expectation for most tech.
- ghaff 3y ago
  >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.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago

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.

tyingq 3y ago
The waste part, though, is the innards and bezel. Most of the weight/volume is 18k gold.
pohl 3y ago
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?
- Closi 3y ago
  If anything, I assume the gold is much more likely to get recycled.
signal11 3y ago
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”.
swader999 3y ago
Naw, it's the tires.

lucideer 3y ago

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.

Jorge1o1 3y ago

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.

tyingq 3y ago
I think luxury smart watch is its own category, separate from luxury watch.
jraph 3y ago
> 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.
mcv 3y ago
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.
- camillomiller 3y ago
  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.
- ghaff 3y ago

clnq 3y ago

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.