Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Watch vs Rolex

fania123 said:
Agreed, but I will on occasion wear a bracelet and I'm not from Northern California ;). BTW, which Panerai do you own?
Click to expand...

:)
The Northern Californian part was a poor attempt at a joke..

My Panerai is a Luminor Marina 1950 3-day Automatic from 2010.
My Rolex is a yachtmaster II in Platinum.
I definitely prefer the cheaper Panerai, there's just something about that clean and classic look that appeals to me!
 
Last edited:
image.jpg
My Panerai, it's as bare bones as you're going to get but that's why I like it.




birnando said:
:)
The Northern Californian part was a poor attempt at a joke..

My Panerai is a Luminor Marina 1950 from 2010.
My Rolex is a yachtmaster II in Platinum.
I definitely prefer the cheaper Panerai, there's just something about that clean and classic look that appeals to me!
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmikhail490 and birnando
Roller said:
I don't see the point of comparing the Apple Watch to a Rolex. Aside from being worn on the wrist and telling time, they're very different animals, each with its own set of pluses and minuses.
Click to expand...
A bit like comparing a tiny Smart car to a Hummer: Pluses and minuses on both sides.

The appeal will vary depending on where you live (congested Manhattan/London vs out in the boonies), what you do, and who you're trying to impress (if anyone).
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
The fact that we now have members saying they'll likely never return to their expensive automatic watches disputes this.
Click to expand...
Raises hand.

I'm seriously considering buying more apple stock because of my experience with the watch so far. Having ditched my beloved Swiss mechanical a couple of months ago in favor of the cheapest Sport, I reckon Apple have something huge on their hands here. Potential that the market and inattentive media haven't yet figured out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bromeo
Paco II said:
It's worth mentioning the emotional aspect of a nice watch, be it Rolex, Omega, Seiko or whatever. It's something that you'll keep around for a long time to come, always working as expected. A smartwatch, with the expectation that you'll replace it regularly, is not something you'll get attached to. It will just be another device. It's hard to say what the long term impact of that emotional connection will be on the mechanical watch business.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the inevitable emotional attachment to a fine watch that you've owned for years - but what's the point of that attachment, and is it good?

I know it's something the Swiss advertisers have been pushing for decades: longevity, heritability, investment value, etc.., but are those aspects really important? We don't, for example, expect those qualities from televisions or toasters, so why is it good or even necessary in a watch?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HopefulHumanist, Bromeo and Night Spring
I think that these two brands are incomparable. Apple watch have some functions that Rolex doesn't, and also Rolex have some qualities that Apple watch doesn't have. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OllyW
Arran said:
I know it's something the Swiss advertisers have been pushing for decades: longevity, heritability, investment value, etc.., but are those aspects really important? We don't, for example, expect those qualities from televisions or toasters, so why is it good or even necessary in a watch?
Click to expand...

It's an emotional attachment that cannot be explained by logic.

Good or bad, that depends on the wearer. One can go either way depending on your views. For example heritage: on one hand, it's a way for you to connect to the past, and yet on another, it means nothing has advanced much.

So to each's own.

What's undeniable is that these are qualities that certain groups cherish and will fight tooth and nail to defend (see threads on WatchUSeek).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bromeo
I feel like I'm in a minority, because I can imagine ditching my quartz watches while keeping just an Apple Watch alongside my Swiss [and Japanese] mechanicals.
 
Agreed. It's the same with a favorite pocket knife. Why does one want to pass it along? Who knows? A trait of humankind? A form of immortality? While nice regular watches exist, people will want to pass them down. Will smart watches kill off these watches? Unclear. Quartz ones didn't. Digital ones didn't. Time will tell.

zetaplus93 said:
It's an emotional attachment that cannot be explained by logic.

Good or bad, that depends on the wearer. One can go either way depending on your views. For example heritage: on one hand, it's a way for you to connect to the past, and yet on another, it means nothing has advanced much.

So to each's own.

What's undeniable is that these are qualities that certain groups cherish and will fight tooth and nail to defend (see threads on WatchUSeek).
Click to expand...
 
I don't see the point of the comparison. Nobody wears a Rolex because it's the best, much less most economical, way to tell time. It's jewelry, pure and simple. I'm not making a value judgment there - some people like jewelry and some don't. But that's what it is.
 
jeepik said:
I'm by no means wealthy

I buy a lexus because its marginally more expensive then a Toyota, with that i get incredible service and better quality vehicle

I buy a Rolex, for quality, for features which most brands offer for same price, for reliability and for the ability to get a return on my investment should i ever choose to part with it.
Click to expand...
Exactly... some people are so conceited that they really believe other people make purchases to try and impress THEM. Think about that for a second... that's damn near psychotic.
 
Enygmatic said:
Exactly... some people are so conceited that they really believe other people make purchases to try and impress THEM. Think about that for a second... that's damn near psychotic.
Click to expand...

It's not about impressing me, but rather that the Rolex (or other luxury watch wearer) bought it as a status symbol.

I've met Rolex wearers who are proud of the fact that they know nothing about Rolex, but are proud of the fact that they've been successful and purchased the Rolex as a reward to show that they're successful. They're not pushing the watch in your face, but they did buy it to show status (in addition to Rolex brand and quality, of course).

And of course you'll meet WIS who appreciate the quality of Rolex watches.

So to each's own. But there's certainly a good chunk of Rolex wearers who bought it as a status symbol.
 
I do see the Apple Watch displacing a Rolex on some watch-wearers wrists. But it depends heavily on the person. For those that are really into mechanical watches because of craftsmanship, fashion, and admiration for the mechanical components, the Apple Watch is a very tough sell. I don't see much traction there. For the casual mechanical watch owners (someone who owns only one and mostly uses it for functionality and a bit for fashion), the Apple Watch is quite appealing. I'm sure there are some people that fall on the line between those two camps, and they may be having a major debate with themselves right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bromeo, zetaplus93 and Night Spring
zetaplus93 said:
It's not about impressing me, but rather that the Rolex (or other luxury watch wearer) bought it as a status symbol.

I've met Rolex wearers who are proud of the fact that they know nothing about Rolex, but are proud of the fact that they've been successful and purchased the Rolex as a reward to show that they're successful. They're not pushing the watch in your face, but they did buy it to show status (in addition to Rolex brand and quality, of course).

And of course you'll meet WIS who appreciate the quality of Rolex watches.

So to each's own. But there's certainly a good chunk of Rolex wearers who bought it as a status symbol.
Click to expand...
Still sounds like labeling owners as trying to impress. I guess that's just natural for some. Or maybe I'm just extremely self-centered... lol. If I buy something, it's not to impress anyone or to serve as a status symbol. It's for MY enjoyment, period. If I bought a Lamborghini, please believe it's because I wanted it. Not for some staus, either - if Hyundai made the exact same car for $15K, I'd drive it proudly (probably get a few).

I absolutely agree that there are people who purchase for an audience or the status, and flaunt the name or price tag. But I also know there's a huge portion - probably majority - that are in a financial position where their baseline is what others would consider 'luxury'.

My original point was and is still that it's annoying to constantly read/hear that anyone purchasing nice things or expensive luxury items is doing so to impress someone else.
 
enzo thecat said:
Its idiotic thinking like this that makes me question the kind of person that purchases and defends the AW.
Click to expand...

There's nothing idiotic about members being sad to have relegated their Rolexes to the drawer because they derive more use out of the AW. Rolex defenders would like to think that can't happen, but it'll be increasingly common if wearables take over the watch industry. They're after all competing for the same wrist space, and many do not want to double wrist it lest they look like tools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bevsb2
Did not read the entire thread. But I consider my self a watch aficionado, have an Omega, Rolex and an Audemars Piguet, and of course the SS Apple WTch, and my love and appreciation for watches has nothing to do with "knowing the time".

There's so much more to a watch than the time. From the movement, materials, design period, some are iconic, etc. It's like saying that hanging a 3D poster in your living room is much more convenient than a piece of art because it offers "so much more".

In this case, either you get it or you don't.
 
Enygmatic said:
Still sounds like labeling owners as trying to impress. I guess that's just natural for some. Or maybe I'm just extremely self-centered... lol. If I buy something, it's not to impress anyone or to serve as a status symbol. It's for MY enjoyment, period. If I bought a Lamborghini, please believe it's because I wanted it. Not for some staus, either - if Hyundai made the exact same car for $15K, I'd drive it proudly (probably get a few).
Click to expand...

Well, some are. Many others aren't, including you from how you describe yourself.

Enygmatic said:
I absolutely agree that there are people who purchase for an audience or the status, and flaunt the name or price tag. But I also know there's a huge portion - probably majority - that are in a financial position where their baseline is what others would consider 'luxury'.

My original point was and is still that it's annoying to constantly read/hear that anyone purchasing nice things or expensive luxury items is doing so to impress someone else.
Click to expand...

Point taken. I think we're basically on the same page.

We don't need to go to extremes. Not everyone who buys nice things are just to flaunt. A portion buys because of _____ (fill in the blank). And the reverse is true too. Some buy it for displaying status and wealth (and to which degree of flaunting, that's up to the individual).
 
Arran said:
It's not just about looking like a tool. The mechanical watch on the other wrist is completely redundant. Pointless.
Click to expand...

Not unless it's worn as jewelry...

I wouldn't go double-wristing, but I've read that some watch people do and it's for this reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back