iPhones are mass produced and although they use high quality materials they can be manufactured at a very similar cost to any of the other smartphones. The thing that separates iPhone from the rest is industrial design and software. Rolexes are much more expensive than Timexes because they are made with 24k gold and diamonds but they don't keep better time. iPhones are not any more expensive than a Samsung SIII, for example. The original analogy was pompous.

 

Interesting. When I think Rolex, I think something more like this:

 

  

Rolex? That's such a pretentious brand with oversized watches. That Piper doesn't know much about watches... I would have said Omega, Patek ...

And that's my point. Look at the design of that watch. Clumsy and overcomplicated. Lots of design features that add absolutely no value. And that's probably one of the LEAST gaudy Rolex watches out there.

Now, compare it to this:
http://www.ashford.com/watches/movado/corporate-exclusive/0605975.pid?source=602555123
or
http://www.overstock.com/Jewelry-Watches/Movado-Womens-Museum-Watch/6581056/product.html?cid=144060&fp=F&TRACK=CSEPG&mr:referralID=61d24787-ff6a-11e1-8751-001b2166c2c0
or
http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/movado-concerto-ladies-bracelet-watch/3146202?cm_cat=datafeed&cm_ite=movado_'concerto'_ladies'_bracelet_watch:333780_1&cm_pla=jewelry:women:watch&cm_ven=pricegrabber&mr:referralID=73c238c0-ff6a-11e1-8751-001b2166c2c0

I think it's important to think of PERCEPTIONS. For the average person, 'Rolex' means top quality at a premium price. The comparison "a Rolex among a sea of Timexes" (especially when they added "Rolex at a Timex price") gets the message across. The average consumer sees the Rolex as a premium product and the comparison says that you can get a premium product for the same price as a generic. They could have said "BMW at a Hyundai price" or "Ruth Chris at a McDonald's price" or "Chateau Lafitte at a Boone's Farm price" or any number of other comparisons.

It's fine to quibble about it, but the message was clear.

emphasis mine - The analogy was well used and  perfectly clear. A highly regarded well known(rolex) phone among a sea of otherwise shitty(android) phones. Perfect example.

 

There aren't any, "design features that add absolutely no value," on that watch, and most of Rolex's watches over the years are more like that than what you describe. The Movado is a nice watch to wear to the opera, but it doesn't offer the functionality of a Rolex.

 

I will agree that an iPhone's outward design shares many characteristics with a Movado, but, overall, Rolex is not a bad choice for the present analogy.

I guess I was so unimpressed with the title that I failed to read the text that said get a Rolex at the same price as a Timex. Now that just sounds like a stolen Rolex. Sure I got the message just fine - iPhones are gorgeous compared to other smartphones.  I have since noticed that Apple is also saying it is 'made with the level of precision of a finely crafted watch' on their website http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/

That is also very relative, but I wouldn't expect anything else from you ;-)

I think the point that is missed here is that Rolex watches are considered to be the brand that best holds its resale value.

The posters who pooh-pooh Rolexes as being worse than Timexes or quartz watches seem to prove themselves to be similar to Android fans who equate features to quality, even if they are wrapped in cheap plastic. The thing is that next year, there will be one thing faster, glitzier, more powerful that will have Android users dumping this year's shiny model. The iPhone is iconic because of its timeless quality, like Rolexes.

It's hard to beat the resale price of a Rolex Submariner that to this day is consider the standard for military divers.

How many atmospheres are those Movados good to?

 

Sure, but an analyst making the statement that it's like a Patek Phillipe vs. a Baume & Mercier might not help the majority of people understand what he's saying. ;)

You have no idea what makes a Rolex expensive. First 24k gold is too soft and only a few Rolexes have diamonds. The precisely built internal mechanism is where the money's at.

Actually, even though few people use them for diving, the real value is in the crystal and the oyster stem.

Ben

All of those features are speed bump/improvements. Not that people won't use any of those features, but it's a matter of degree. I have an iPhone 4, I could drop $200 and upgrade it locking me to another two year contract, but none of those features justify that commitment to me -- you see? If money were no object, sure, why not -- just pay $700 and get an unlocked 5, right? The 4 does the job well, still meets all of my needs, without sacrificing too many features of iOS 6. Why should I upgrade for performance upgrades I may or may not see in the real world? I didn't see Em between the original iPhone and the 3G, or 3GS. But the 4 made a significant leap for me, to a place where I have no urgent need to improve anything, especially given the relatively unspectacular improvements on the 5. Would I recommend the 5 to someone with the 3G or 3GS -- you betcha. But the 4S will handle most, if not all, of the new features in a smaller form factor, and for less money. I would definitely encourage friends to consider that option as well.

As for the breakage, the 5 is essentially the same as the original iPhone in construction. The original iPhone suffered plenty of damage to the front glass with a metal back (even if not dropped on its face), and the metal suffered dents that could compromise the tightly packed interior components. Being of unibody construction, I would expect the 5 to keep its structural integrity a little better, and who knows if it has better shock absorption that the original iPhone with respect to the glass (and it still has two glass panels on the back). Either way, given the similarities to the original iPhone construction, I would expect it to be just as prone to damage, albeit less so than the 4/S. is this a reason not to buy the 5? No. But it's not a reason to buy the 5 either, even though I would call it an improvement.

Finally, the 4S sold better than the 4 because it was the latest, greatest offering from Apple and had Siri. There will be a lot of people who buy the 5, perhaps the majority, because it is the latest & greatest, not because they need all, or any of the improved features. I don't know anything about TI, other than what my friends who work their tell me, that many of the employees who just bought the 4S last year, plan on paying the early upgrade fee to get the iPhone 5, simply because they want it and can, not because they need it. Ultimately, I'm just putting out thoughts for discussion here, I haven't seen any sales figures. But given that the 4 and 4S are so similar in both appearance and performance, I would speculate that those who don't care about Siri, will likely opt for the free 4, and the rest opt for the 5, leaving the minority to choose the 4S. Again without seeing any data, I would suggest this stands in contrast to those choosing to pay for the 4, over the free 3GS, because it looked like the 4S, and had similar features.

Why is looking at the new iPhone release pragmatically automatically considered trolling? Why do people who express opinions get slammed as if they are espousing facts? forums are a place to discuss ideas. Ocassionally someone will offer facts in which case, yeah -- call them on the source. But generally, I find anything less than unbridled, blind enthusiasm for even the most modest improvement of an Apple product on this forum is met with vitriol and bile. But whatever ... Just an observation. I don't really take any of this too seriously ... It's a rumor forum, and even the most cogent of debaters on this forum are routinely wrong.

 

Not a PERFECT analogy -- but what would fit any better? Rolex is just a well-known name.

 

Of course, he could have said; "The iphone is an iPhone in a sea of Androids" but that would be a bit self-referrential.

;)

Neither Rolls nor Rolex.  The Rolex analogy fails on so many levels - Thinner/sleeker? Form following function?  Rolex is nothing except a statement that a gunked-up, ungainly Roccoco piece of junk does nothing better than any $10 timepiece, but means "I have (or had) some money to blow on conspicious consumption. See?  See?"  The one thing they have in common is that both are knocked off by other companies. 

 

And Rolls-Royce also fails, unless you consider having to hire a chauffeur akin to using Siri.

 

If you want an examplar of sexy, consumer lusted for build quality and high tech (that unlike the Rolls Royce actually sells in some quantity and someone in your hood can be seen driving one) a BMW or Audi in what someone else cleverly called "a sea of Kias" is more on the money. 

Kind of like a look only more focused.

 

I study prostitutes, so that makes me a.......     ;-p

 

Don't worry, there's a conspiracy theory for that too.   As in "everybody" knows they're holding back all the good stuff in "the secret" back room - the one where the giant corporations have been holding those carburetors (remember carburetors?) that allow cars to run 300 miles on a gallon of water, tires that never wear out, etc. since I was a kid - and others I still hear today.....

Americans Have Spent $5.9 Billion on Damaged iPhones

 

The latest SquareTrade iPhone study is out, and the revelations in it are sure to shock. The biggest news out of it? iPhones break, and that costs Americans a pretty penny!

 

• Damaged iPhones have cost Americans $5.9 billion since 2007
• 30% of iPhone owners have experienced accidental damage in the past 12 months
• 17% of iPhone owners have damaged an iPhone more than once
• 6% of iPhone users have taped up their phone

 

 

That doesn't sound like a Rolex to me.

More like a Patek Phillipe in a sea of Swatches

Um, except Jobs was quite alive when the design was being worked on, and you can be sure he signed off on it. Try again.

iPhones generally aren't strapped to people's arms. iPhone breakage is due to drops, I don't see where any watch is dropped because they aren't handled like that.

I call shenannigans on the figure. I suspect it's to scare people into buying repair plans. The number is sketchy. If there are 6+ million iPhones in use in the US, that means US iPhone owners supposedly spent nearly $1000 an iPhone. They don't cost that much outside of contract, let alone cost that much to repair. Apple quotes $175 last I heard, you might find someone that charges $125. Put it in a case and you lower the risk considerably.

Please don't talk in a degrading manner about a Timex watch in relation to a Rolex - when buying a Rolex you pay about 80% of the price for just the name...
I have a friend with a Rolex who says it's highly overrated.
I personally have an expensive Raymond Weil watch, but the watch I wear when I go on holiday and which I bought from a market stall is considerably more accurate.

over-thinking the analogy... its not hard to understand the analogy. why is everyone being a troll and going into the merits of Rolex as a watch??

Edited by Harry Durden - 9/20/12 at 11:18am

 

It's based on a survey of 2000 and also includes, among the damage figures, people who dropped their phone in water (complete replacement) and other damage that doesn't involve glass breakage, as well as, in the cost estimate, the cost of insurance plans people have bought to cover damage, which may actually include a large number of instances where there hasn't been damage, just the expense of the insurance.

 

So, the title is misleading at best, since at least some of the expense is almost certainly not for "damaged" iPhones.

I still don't see where that adds up. Even adding the cost of insurance, I don't know how aggregate insurance + cost of repairs + device replacement would average $500 per user. I suspect there's even deeper shenanigans going on.

I revised my per-owner figure down because I noticed the user number I quoted was from 2009.

You mean as opposed to Android users who have spent $5.9 Billion on NEW phones after throwing away the phone they bought 9 months ago that is now outdated?

 

 

According to Squaretrade, "Costs include iPhone repairs, replacement iPhones and iPhone insurance deductibles."  What price did they use for phone replacement? Most likely the unactivated price and some people may had more than 1 claim.

Squaretrade had Survey Sampling International, conduct the survey.

 

More survey details can be found in the link.

http://blog.squaretrade.com/

Typical engineers... Over thinking the analogy.

The best driving car is not necessarily the one that goes 0-60 or the quarter mile in the least amount of time. Would you rather drive across the country in an Aston Martin One-77 or a Nissan GTR?