Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarywinning
Where Apple missed the boat, mind you it could have been on purpose, was to not treat it as more of a tech item by allowing the watch to be serviced long term. That is to build and support long term replacement of battery and tech core driving the watch, so that it's value isn't made obsolete.
|
Apple knows exactly what it's doing. There's no point in trying to make cutting-edge tech items for the long-term. Trying to keep your Apple watch relevant into the next decade would be like you rocking a Motorola Razr right now. The people who buy the gold-plated ones for 10k should know that they are buying something that will be virtually worthless in 5 years time unless they melt it down for the tiny bit of gold. Instead of trying to support outdated tech, Apple will just gladly sell you a new must-have.
Funnily enough, the only reason mechanical watches are a decent long-term buy is because they are totally technologically irrelevant. As soon as quartz came around, they became obsolete in terms of their tech. There was quite a sales dip in mechanical watches at the time, but since then, they've sort of repositioned themselves in terms of what they mean to us. Today, they are treated more like jewelry or objet d'art...cool because of their materials, mechanical intricacies and craftsmanship. They are rather terrible at telling time, and yet nobody cares.
The Apple watch is just pure tech gadget....or at most, tech jewelry. But in 10 years, people will care about their Apple watch about as much as they care about that yellow portable CD player that's been sitting in their closet for the last decade. Meanwhile, a 50 year old Speedmaster will still be sold and worn by people everywhere. Past it's time...yet timeless.