Apple will no longer fix the $17,000 gold Apple Watch::The original Apple Watch models, including the $10,000-plus 18-karat gold Edition that Beyoncé wore, are now officially obsolete and won’t get parts, repair, or replacement services.

143 points

Even before they were unsupported, how have they not been “obsolete” for some time. Cannot imagine how slow a gen 1 watch would be. I can see the appeal of a timeless heirloom watch, but this is such a brain dead purchase.

permalink
report
reply
130 points

Well, it’s not a brain dead purchase when $20k doesn’t even register for you.

Got $500,000,000 in the bank? Who cares?

You family has billions and you just have an unlimited alllowance. Who cares.

That’s who this is for.

With that being said, Apple did it for one year and I think it was just a marketing stunt. Everyone talked about it and now people know what an Apple Watch is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Apple did it for one year and I think it was just a marketing stunt

That’s exactly what it was. They never expected to sell many, just get the headlines for making a “luxury” watch that could “compete” with the likes of Rolex. That some ultra-wealthy people went out and bought one was just a bonus.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

And now its built-in obsolescence is being paraded around pointing out why no one should buy such a thing ever again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

They didn’t even carry them at all of their stores.

I did get to wear one once, and only did so I could say I wore a watch that cost more than my car.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It is for those with more money than sense, 100%. No matter how much money you have, it’s not going to solve the problem of it being incompatible with a newer iPhone. And that makes anyone who bought this a clown.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The point is that for them, it doesn’t matter if the watch is obsolete and ends up in a drawer after a few years. They’ll just buy a new one.

For them 20k is like $20 for you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s all relative.

If I spend £1 of my last £5 on a bottle of water, I’m equally as dumb.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s accurate I think but the departure point here is where Apple was making noises about delivering ‘premium jewellery’ or some such spiel.

Rolex, Omega, etc. all support their products for life and beyond. I’m still able to get my dads Speedmaster from the 60s serviced, heck my daily driver Seiko Pepsi from the 80s still has parts available.

Apple can easily afford this level of support which makes it kind of iffy that they don’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Is there really a reason to need faster smart watches? I can understand shrinking the internals to pack in a larger battery, but I’m kinda confused about what newer smart watches do that requires a more powerful processor (I don’t own a smart watch).

It seems like you could support backward compatibility pretty easily by having basic software running on the watch with a program-agnostic API to send and receive info from the watch (kinda like midi or osc). I doubt the processor necessary to send, receive, decode and display information in this format would require that much power. If smart watches honestly get slower over time, the only thing I can think is that the software itself is getting less efficient at doing the same tasks it previously did.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Software is a gas: it expands to fill the processor and memory you give it. That’s a goofy way of saying that, as manufacturers cram faster processors and more memory into devices, software developers will use the extra facilities.

If you’re on an old device with limited CPU/RAM, you’ll be forced to upgrade to a newer OS that was built with newer devices in mind.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Mostly new sensors rather than larger battery I think. For instance, newer Apple Watches can monitor temp and oxygen (at least in some capacity).

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I have a S3 Apple Watch, and while it’s stuck on an older version of watchOS, it serves my purposes perfectly. Sends me notifications, lets me control my music and tracks my exercise. That’s pretty much all I need from a smart watch at this point. The battery isn’t amazing, but if I charge in the evening when I’m watching TV, it’ll last me through the night. I give it a little bump while I’m drinking coffee and reading in the morning and it’ll still be on 40/50% when I get home from work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

It seems like you could support backward compatibility

Good one lol. I’m sure apple will think about it haha

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I wonder how much of that price is just the value of gold.

I’m seeing a 24k bracelet no watch and similar shape is $5k to $10k

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Very little of the price is the gold.

An actual gold watch case (excluding the bracelet and the movement inside it) weighs about 20g.

At about £50 a gram that’s £1000.

And I doubt the amount of gold in the case of the Apple watch is anywhere near the same amount as in a traditional gold watch case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

There is almost no gold in it. 18k gold is 75% gold by weight, not volume. Apple created an alloy that, in addition to the normal metals, is mostly lightweight ceramic.

At the time I was surprised there wasn’t a class action suit. They were charging an amount that was in line with real gold watches and yeah the “gold” part was 75% gold by weight but it was such a departure from anything else ever called 18k gold it just seemed like a straight up scam to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I was talking about the bracelet, the watch itself is essentially e waste I think it’s only 18k gold anyway seems like the price of just branding/exclusivity

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Cannot imagine how slow a gen 1 watch would be.

It’s a fucking watch. I mean it can also monitor bpm and stuff like that but I can’t imagine it’s doing any complex scientific calculations on there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

And I’m sure you’re posting this comment from your eMachine? The Apple Watch is a computer. As applications become more demanding, any older computer will be “slower”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Gen 1 Apple Watch haver here

Yep it’s laggy and low FPS, but it does everything I need it to. I agree with you. Would I love a newer one? Sure, but do I need it? Hell no

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Sure, I mean if you want to use your apple watch to play Tomb Raider or something, go ahead. When the apple watch first came out, most of the buyers used it to track fitness and sleep stuff. It has now become a messenger device, phone, email client. Even with all these extra features, I can’t imagine the consumer wanting much more from this tiny interface.

permalink
report
parent
reply
127 points

The irony of building something so expensive, opulent and heirloom worthy around one of the most rapidly depreciating assets you can buy (technology)

permalink
report
reply
0 points

I mean, a 17k$ (back then) workstation from the 90s would still be fine. People love their SGI and Sun machines.

Not sure how much they did cost back then, I was born in 1996, but you get the idea.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

A $17k workstation from the 90’s would not even be able to browse the internet.

To put it in perspective, we didn’t even have multi-core CPUs until the mid 2000’s, a mid 90’s machine would have around 400 MHz on a single core and that’s being generous.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’m well aware of what these are capable of, these things are not bought for your Twitter and Reddit activities.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You’d be able to upgrade the insides while still looking opulently golden.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

And yet a $17k apple power Mac g5 today barely functions for YouTube

https://youtu.be/6SqYMU81l8Y?si=x9zrS6y27Gv4Mvby

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/6SqYMU81l8Y?si=x9zrS6y27Gv4Mvby

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Macs are not iconic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
*

I mean is at the end is a watch… at worst case the basic function will work. Although I admit that the battery is still a problem in this case. And that’s even if you look at the hour and isn’t just an accessory that you barely use it’s function.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Once the batteries of those things die (and they will die in short order) they are completely useless. Just small black bricks with a hint of gold on the outside.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah with that I agree as I said.

permalink
report
parent
reply
71 points

The big luxury watch brands will service their watches for many decades; a Rolex will last a lifetime, if not longer.

permalink
report
reply
24 points

Rolex buyers are smart enough to not buy another if theirs breaks after a few years. Apple’s, not so much.

permalink
report
parent
reply
66 points

For +$17,000, that shit better have a lifetime guarantee on it, though I guess anyone with $17,000 to throw away on a watch probably doesn’t care anyways, they’ve probably forgotten that they own the thing anyways.

permalink
report
reply
24 points

Anyone who has 19,000$ to blow on a watch needs to be taxed a additional 18,000$

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

Honestly, good. Fuck the people who have this sort of money to throw away. They deserve it.

permalink
report
reply
17 points

Unfortunately they funded the richest company in the world.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

They’ve probably stopped using it years ago and got a new one

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

Weak attidude grounded in jealousy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I’m not jealous of someone who throws away $17,000 on a useless toy. Maybe you think that’s impressive, but I don’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 555K

    Comments