zlacker

"It was never clear who the $10,000 to $17,000 18-karat gold Apple Watch was for, beyond celebrities and the ultrarich"

Ummm I think it was for celebrities and the ultrarich.

>>dools+(OP)
It is a bit wild that Apple refuses to support this further. At that price you can buy things like Rolexes that will last your entire life.

>>__loam+r
Apple refused to support it 8 years ago when the Series 2 came out and there was no way to upgrade it.

It’s not a special watch. It’s a Series 0 with $16k of gold.

We don’t even know if anyone ever bought a single one (as opposed to being given one by Apple/an Apple exec).

>>dools+(OP)
The obvious purpose of everything is clear up to a point, beyond which it is unclear.

It's not clear whom crutches are for beyond those with broken legs or atrophied muscles.

It's not clear what an eraser is for beyond removing pencil traces from a paper, or any purpose benefiting from a small block of rubber/elastomer.

...

>>__loam+r
The cost of keeping them alive will eventually outweigh any margin they've ever made on the product.

>>MBCook+A1
> It’s not a special watch. It’s a Series 0 with $16k of gold.

In 2015, gold was approximately $1250 per oz.

Perhaps someone who has a gold Rolex can correct me, but it seems unlikely that there is more than 3/4 lb (362 grams) of gold in it, even counting the band. That would probably be very tiring to wear.

>>dools+(OP)
And if it stops working, not something they'll care too much about.

>>gunapo+d4
Precious metal Rolexes can cost north of $30k

>>judge2+b2
Right, and that's what the apple watch is, a disposable consumer electronic. They shouldn't have made anything like this.

>>__loam+9q
55g (1.940068 oz) of gold, worth approximately $2,425 at spot price in 2015: https://support.apple.com/kb/SP737?locale=en_US