Can’t see any reason why they would to be honest.
Never really understood why the depreciation on Apple watches is so bad, even on durable models like the stainless steel and titanium.
I think it's an unfortunate combination of:
- Being more gadget than actual watch
- Being more smartwatch than a smartphone
What do I mean by the above?
Point 1
Nice analogue Swiss watches do depreciate; it's rare you can buy a new Swiss watch and sell it for more immediately or soon after. Manufacturers like Rolex, Omega, Breitling etc raise their prices once or twice a year typically, so this then raises the tide so to speak for all nice analogue Swiss watches - old and new alike get a lift up. My first Omega watch cost me £2,800 in 2012 and the latest version of that watch now costs £5,800.
Anybody that buys a used Swiss watch and is bothered about it not being clean and pristine can simply pay for a watch service with the manufacturer and it'll come back looking good as new. It will have been fully disassembled and cleaned in an ultrasonic cleaner, with any worn parts also replaced. It will also receive a polish and any original metal brushing will be restored. I paid £400 for such a service and Omega guaranteed the work for a further 2 years.
Some (probably many) are just uncomfortable with buying a used watch that's been intimately close to the previous owner - sweat, dander, etc - yuck... Without coming across as crass to world economics, a new aluminium Apple Watch is affordable and for some, it's not that far a stretch to go from a used Apple Watch to a new one.
The money we spend on an Apple Watch - whether the regular aluminium or the ceramic editions - the guts and potential for future obsolescence by software simply make them a bit too disposable. The only thing that will make my Omega obsolete is Omega being unable to source parts. The fact that they're still able to service watches from the 50s and 60s bodes well for me, whereas an Apple Watch will probably no longer receive support after 5 years or so.
Point 2
An iPhone (or any smartphone) is considered essential by most. An Apple Watch is not considered as essential - it is an accessory to the iPhone and even the cellular versions require a companion iPhone just to set it up.
Not long ago, I recall Apple said the attach rate of the Apple Watch was only ~10%, so Apple has barely scratched the surface of potential Apple Watch customers amongst their pool of iPhone customers. The Apple Watch is undoubtedly the best selling smartwatch out there, but I think even Apple knows they need to start scratching around at the edges to gain new market share, hence the upcoming Pro watch. They've already done a good job of convincing traditional watch wearers and non-watch wearers that an Apple Watch is the one to put on the wrist. They're now turning to another group - endurance sports athletes - who are already comfortable with wearing a watch; it's just not an Apple Watch due to the reasons the Pro watch will likely soon address.