zlacker

>>ortusd+(OP)
so... what did people expect? Also, people who buy 17,000$ Apple Watch have probably moved to a different model long time ago.

Is any of that OK? No. It's just not surprising.

>>mronet+CP1
Precisely this.

There have been specially expensive editions of the iphone before, and they were chucked on the bonfire of e-waste long before.

>>Kaiser+ZP1
I remember once, eons ago, there was a gold plated 3.5 inch android phone that costed a few thousand euros. This was probably iPhone 4 era. It was a mediocre phone, specs wise. I struggled to understand who would ever buy this. Maybe as a prank ultra rich teens would pull on their friends?

>>lopis+SS1
There is a trick the fashion industries (jewellers, clothing manufacturers) pull: Convincing new wealth that they need to flex their wealth as much as possible otherwise people will think they're not wealthy.

They do this by presenting an aura of exclusivity to certain products, usually gating it by being expensive and hard to acquire. Trying to suggest to people that "if you buy this: it is a signal that you are wealthy! people will like you more!"

New wealth tends to fall for it, especially those that become wealthy quickly like lottery winners. This also disproportionately affects hip hop artists who become famous (or used to).

"Flexing wealth" is yet another way that people are trying to extort money from the gullible, but it's effective.

Because there are some signals of wealth that rich people could use to distinguish each other, but it's never flexing brands or bling.

>>dijit+jV1
> Because there are some signals of wealth that rich people could use to distinguish each other, but it's never flexing brands or bling.

Like your name on a college building or prominent museum, or building a 400+ ft superyacht.