zlacker

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+(OP)
Precisely this.

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

>>mronet+(OP)
How much does $17k cost for a celebrity or wealthy person compared to someone making $75k-$100k? It would be interesting to see comparisons with an average celebrity or multi-millionaire, but it seems hard to define without getting into crazy wealth.

>>Kaiser+n
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?

>>mronet+(OP)
The kind of person that spends $17k on an Apple Watch probably stopped using it years ago and moved on to some $50k Rolex the next week.

>>Kaiser+n
But never made by Apple themselves. This feels particularly special after their self-congratulatory comedy skit they included in their latest announcement event about how environmentally friendly they are.

>>lopis+g3
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.

>>wil421+Y2
$17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.

What do you mean by "cost"? They both have to pay the same price, one might have to spend less time to make that amount if that's your point, but that's kinda obvious.

>>wil421+Y2
If you have 150M, then you can spend about 15k per day forever without much risk of ever running out of money, even without any further income.

>>lopis+g3
I think it mostly didn't survive the smartphone era, but this was A Thing back in the day. This was the main player; it still seems to exist to some extent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertu

>>tibors+I5
> $17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.

Maybe if there were no taxes or utilities, food, housing, etc.

$50-60k in taxes (my take home is about 40% of my salary). $2k/month in rent/mortgage, so about $25k/year. $1k in utilities and food ($12k). So, we are up to $96k and haven't even touched on car payments, clothing, entertainment, etc.

>>tibors+I5
Cost is generally a more holistic concept than price. If you use money (or any resource) to do X, then you can't use it to do Y. So if your money supply is limited, every purchase is more costly to you because of what you must forego to make it. For the same reason, a 10k raise when you make 1M is not worth nearly as much as a 10k raise when you make 30k. It's the same 10k dollars, but has very different worth depending on who's dollars they are.

>>dijit+H5
> 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.

>>tibors+I5
> $17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.

At $100k, $17k after tax is maybe 30% of your income (and I don't mean disposable) for a year.

I think you would be hard pressed to find financially stable people in this income bracket who would consider this deal "affordable".

>>thfura+T5
And yet it's still not enough for nearly every single person who made it to that point

>>dijit+H5
HN routinely acts as if luxury brands hypnotise their customers or something.

> There is a trick the fashion industries pull […] convincing new wealth that they need to flex their wealth.

Do they? Do they “convince them” that they “need to flex their wealth”?

> They do this by presenting an aura of exclusivity to certain products, usually by gating it by being expensive and hard to acquire.

I think you’re trying to describe Veblen goods but without the necessary vocabulary.

> New wealth tends to fall for it.

It’s just baseless assertions (and a dog whistle about “hip hop artists”) all the way down, I guess?

>>tibors+I5
> $17k should be in the affordable range if you make $100k.

Hmm, I'd disagree.

$100K salary takes home $78K, i.e. $6,500/mo.

I don't know that a watch that costs nearly 3 months of every cent of my take home pay is "in the affordable range".

>>atonse+Y3
>The kind of person that spends $17k on an Apple Watch

On any watch.

>>jstumm+Y7
At $100k per year many people can probably have whatever they want in life after a few years. Why not pop $17k on a watch? Of course this particular one is a bad choice, but buying a good watch could be considered an investment.

Probably affordable was a bit of a stretch, I meant that it's not out of the question of buying, like a $50k Rolex.

>>lopis+g3
Vertu by Nokia. They used to push them in Rolex/Omega showrooms.

>>tibors+tc
>(my take home is about 40% of my salary)

Then I'd guess you either don't live in the US or make far more than 100k.

>>thfura+ez
DC takes 8.5% of anything over 60k. That's just one city. You could live in Yonkers and pay through the nose for city and state income taxes. If you have a family and pay for health benefits, that comes out of your paycheck, too. All that is before federal income tax. Some states tax your health benefits as income, too so your state-reported income is higher than your federal.

>>hiatus+xE
>DC takes 8.5% of anything over 60k.

And even so, at 100k, the effective tax rate there is under 30%

>>rsynno+t7
I think that the phone industry matured to a point where if people would buy a premium luxury phone, they would never pick anything else other than a special iPhone or Samsung.

>>Firmwa+gc
To an extent. Apple Watches don’t hold value like other brands.

There are some collectors that will buy timeless watches and expect their value to stay or go up.