[Jorge1o1]

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.

[mcv]

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]

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]

>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.

Leaving aside the fact that the whole thing seems like a branding mistake...

It can be repairable/supported for as long as Apple continues to make watches. It's just a matter of recycling/reusing the high value non-electronic components and making a replacement/updated watch available. That's pretty much what most "refurbished" electronics look like. It's generally a different approach than you'd take with a high-end mechanical watch where a lot of the cost is in the innards.

[ghaff]

It's modern electronics vs. mechanical or even simpler analog electronics (modulo leaking capacitors and the like). You can absolutely buy a watch today that will last for decades plus--but you and a lot of other people presumably prefer a smartwatch instead. Perhaps the day will come when electronics can be designed in a way that replacing hardware isn't necessary to improve/update them but it's hard to see the path to that in the near future for non-trivial devices.

[jraph]

> 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.

[tyingq]

I think luxury smart watch is its own category, separate from luxury watch.