Well, their is PLENTY of hatred towards Apple users just like your implying towards people who like nice watches, and you have stereotyped those users the same as Apple users are stereotyped.
Also, it IS the same, why get an iPhone or iPod or Mac when their are many many many many many many many cheaper devices that do the exact same thing and some do it better also.
Apple is a fashion brand, people even see an iPhone as a piece of jewellery, it is the same no matter how you spin it.
And please, tell us, how is using a watch not anywhere near as easy as using an iDevice or Mac computer? Unless you can't tell the time?
It's also pretty hilarious how you imply middle class people buy Apple products but only millionaires and the super rich buy nice luxury watches? Seriously you can't be any more wrong if you tried, stop stereotyping so much. You don't need to be mega rich to have a nice TAG for instance and I have seen plenty of expensive watches on middle class wrists. I am also pretty certain that many millionaires own Apple products, so are you also saying your a millionaire?
-----
sorry, but your reply doesn't really make sense to me.
point by point:
1. "Well, their is PLENTY of hatred towards Apple users just like your implying towards people who like nice watches"
> I never made any statement at all about "people who like nice watches", nor did i imply anything about them, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I was commenting on Rolex watches in particular, and only Rolex watches. And I don't "hate" anyone. The only person i was dissing was the goofus who wrote the original statement about Rolex watches being for "real men", a statement no 21 century person would defend.
2. "and you have stereotyped those users the same as Apple users are stereotyped."
> I don't stereotype anyone. I listed the reasons why the majority of ROLEX buyers purchase, and wear, a Rolex. If you can think of other, legitimate reasons to buy a Rolex (a watch that is more expensive, less accurate, and less attractive that other premium watches- Tag would be a good example) then please list them.
3. "Also, it IS the same, why get an iPhone or iPod or Mac when their are many many many many many many many cheaper devices that do the exact same thing and some do it better also."
> this one's a doosey. implying that all smartphones are the same almost disqualifies you from this discussion board. it is absolutely legitimate to say you LIKE the features of one smartphone over another, but to imply that they are "all the same" is simply false. they are not. they use fundamentally different approaches to design, UX, app selection, the list goes on and on. if you don't notice a difference, then buy the cheapest, by all means. just don't pretend there isn't a difference.
4. "Apple is a fashion brand, people even see an iPhone as a piece of jewellery, it is the same no matter how you spin it"
> it is not the same. just because SOME people use apple products as fashion accessories doesn't mean that the brand is a pure fashion or status brand. they are also amazingly well designed and engineered machines with state-of-the-art technology and capabilities that set the standard for the industry in many ways. it just means that some people have less functional reasons for buying them. that doesn't change the product itself. a rolex, on the other hand, has long since been bypassed by other watches technologically, fashion-wise, etc. so buying a Rolex is much more of a pure "statement" of one's status or wealth. there are some Rolexes that are 50-100x more expensive than other expensive, very nice watches. the iPhone is not 50-100x more expensive than ANY smartphone. price-wise, iPhones are on parity with other full featured smartphones like the Galaxy S4, and at a slight premium over other smartphones, many of which have either lesser build-quality or lower ease-of-use. in summary: iPhone invented the category, innovates at an incredible pace by any historical standard, is reasonably priced based on the market and level of innovation, and is affordable to hundreds of millions of people.
5. "And please, tell us, how is using a watch not anywhere near as easy as using an iDevice or Mac computer? Unless you can't tell the time?"
> what are you [even] talking about? using a standard wristwatch is definitely easier that using any smartphone. i never implied anything to the contrary.
6. "It's also pretty hilarious how you imply middle class people buy Apple products but only millionaires and the super rich buy nice luxury watches? Seriously you can't be any more wrong if you tried, stop stereotyping so much. You don't need to be mega rich to have a nice TAG for instance and I have seen plenty of expensive watches on middle class wrists."
> see #2. a "nice watch" and "Rolex" are different things. i mentioned a specific brand because i was commenting on THAT BRAND. yes, many middle class folks buy nice watches. i never implied otherwise. but rolex watches, especially as they were referred to by the post i was originally replying to, are a different animal. the watches themselves actually have a cool history. but it is a mechanical machine doing what can be done digitally for pennies, which makes it anachronistic. something people might admire for it's classic look, precision and what it represents. but it's appeal is not "functional". so unless you are specifically a watch enthusiast or collector, or very wealthy, spending $8-50K on a Rolex Submariner is just plain nuts. it's simply too big of percentage of your total income/wealth to justify it's cost, especially for the completely basic function it performs. if you are mega-wealthy, it's a drop in the bucket- do whatever you want! but if you truly are "middle class", spending that kinda dough on a watch SCREAMS "look at me! pleeeeease think of me as much more wealthier than i really am!" the book "the millionaire next door" analyzed data from thousands of millionaires and found that the majority of them never spent more than $500 on a watch. why are they rich? because they spent as money as possible on things that didn't add measurable value to their life. they are, in the purest sense, a luxury item.
the iPhone, on the other hand, was created from the ground up as a device to provide more, and better, function. and it was created in a way so that it could continuously add MORE function. an iPhone can, in a very real sense, help you be more productive, communicate better, run your business better, laugh, learn, enjoy... the list goes on and on.
therefore... insisting that a product (ROLEX) that performs one BASIC function (along with a few other minor ones) that you can basically get for FREE from multiple sources in daily life, and executes it's function it in an anachronistic/bygone way for as much money as people spend on a car or down payment on a house is the SAME TYPE OF LUXURY/STATUS SYMBOL as a product (iPhone) that's mass produced, affordable to hundreds of millions around the world, highly functional, currently the state-of-the-art in a category that is still in it's infancy, ever-evolving, and adds so much value to people's lives that an ECOSYSTEM has sprung up around it to add even more value is just wrong. period.
7. "stop stereotyping so much"
> i wasn't. for your convenience, here's a link to the definition of "stereotype"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stereotype
8. "I am also pretty certain that many millionaires own Apple products, so are you also saying your a millionaire?"
> just because a "millionaire can buy apple products" doesn't mean that "buying apple products makes you a millionaire" OR that "anyone who buys apple products must also be a millionaire". see "basic laws of math/logic" for a more thorough explanation. hard to believe this was your close.
