4 ms·

I don’t agree at all. Neither is Rolex high utility, nor is anyone fooled that an analog watch which sets you back 3-4 orders of magnitude more than digital/sma

I don’t agree at all. Neither is Rolex high utility, nor is anyone fooled that an analog watch which sets you back 3-4 orders of magnitude more than digital/smart watches should be higher utility. Products competing directly with Apple products offer, at best, equivalent utility and performance for no more than 1 magnitude cost difference. Flagship android phones have cost about the same as iPhones for the better part of a decade and macbooks are often price competitive with a similarly specced ultra books. It’s understood that cheaper phones and laptops have similar utility for the average user, but some aspect of performance or quality is often a tradeoff.

dotancohen 1y ago
Rolex is not high utility, it is harsh environment. Real Antarctic expeditions, mountaineering, pre-GPS flight and navigation, SCUBA diving, sea navigation, desert navigation, etc. You could rely on your Rolex not to be the component that fails and gets you killed or lost. Of course, like the SUV, often it's actual use case is a far cry from what it is actually capable of doing.
- hx8 1y ago
  Except mechanical watches fail all the time. The sapphire glass shatters, or a strong impact disrupts the movement, or a user doesn't screw down the crown and water enters the device. They require expensive regular services. Rolex has a long history of being a tool watch, and mechanical watches can be used in a lot of neat ways, but I would never want to depend on one in a life or death situation without fully understanding a backup plan.
  - microtherion 1y ago
    Rolex may have historically been a tool watch, but nowadays it seems more of a watch for tools.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  You don't think it's useful to know what time it is? Where does "Rolex is not high utility" come from?
  - keiferski 1y ago
    That comment has a typical HN form: agree with the parent poster, but make an unnecessary, arbitrary new distinction so that you’re acceptably argumentative.
  - jwagenet 1y ago
    In the modern context, no. At least not from a watch. The parent offers a number of applications where timekeeping can be critical, but even when the Casio came out there were likely more functional alternatives to even the cheapest Rolex (a piece of jewelry).
jojobas 1y ago
Nice, now please do you have anything to say about the $1000 monitor stand?

dotancohen 1y ago

Rolex is not high utility, it is harsh environment. Real Antarctic expeditions, mountaineering, pre-GPS flight and navigation, SCUBA diving, sea navigation, desert navigation, etc. You could rely on your Rolex not to be the component that fails and gets you killed or lost. Of course, like the SUV, often it's actual use case is a far cry from what it is actually capable of doing.

hx8 1y ago
Except mechanical watches fail all the time. The sapphire glass shatters, or a strong impact disrupts the movement, or a user doesn't screw down the crown and water enters the device. They require expensive regular services. Rolex has a long history of being a tool watch, and mechanical watches can be used in a lot of neat ways, but I would never want to depend on one in a life or death situation without fully understanding a backup plan.
- microtherion 1y ago
  Rolex may have historically been a tool watch, but nowadays it seems more of a watch for tools.
thaumasiotes 1y ago
You don't think it's useful to know what time it is? Where does "Rolex is not high utility" come from?
- keiferski 1y ago
  That comment has a typical HN form: agree with the parent poster, but make an unnecessary, arbitrary new distinction so that you’re acceptably argumentative.
- jwagenet 1y ago
  In the modern context, no. At least not from a watch. The parent offers a number of applications where timekeeping can be critical, but even when the Casio came out there were likely more functional alternatives to even the cheapest Rolex (a piece of jewelry).

jojobas 1y ago

Nice, now please do you have anything to say about the $1000 monitor stand?