1. I linked to hundreds of people saying exactly that thing, plus it's all over Twitter, the op-ed-osphere, in-person conversations, etc.
2. I argued very clearly: Apple Watch is not a watch. It occupies a similar spot on the wrist and it has a time keeping app. That's where the similarities actually end, digital crown or no.
3. My point was never that "People buy Ferraris because they've been in business forever." That's irrelevant. My point is: There are plenty of very wealthy people who don't fret about $10k, or that it might be a "waste," because they're wealthy enough it doesn't matter. F Scott Fitzgerald and all that.
4. I think it's funny that you don't believe in the idea of "track records." Which invalidates skill, experience, customer loyalty, brand recognition, platform lock-in… all the things that drive sales. Apple products are not randomly generated in a vacuum.
5. Nope, it's not about conspicuous consumption. Never claimed it was. It only came up in my quoting that article about the "basic bitch" Birkin. Very wealthy people who are inclined to drop $10k on a whim could buy something much rarer and more impressive than a mass-produced electronic device. Which isn't to say there aren't stratified status layers inside the Watch editions/brands.
6. I never claimed "People will buy Apple Watch as a causal outcome of plane tickets." You missed the entire point of the article.
7. You probably should brush up on the definition of "straw man argument," since you made several. I didn't make any; straw man requires you to set up a false premise in order to knock it down. I made an argument by analogy.
8. You didn't cite any sources for your claims, or even quote the parts of my essay you were refuting, but you used a lot of Classic Style so it sounds impressive.
2. I argued very clearly: Apple Watch is not a watch. It occupies a similar spot on the wrist and it has a time keeping app. That's where the similarities actually end, digital crown or no.
3. My point was never that "People buy Ferraris because they've been in business forever." That's irrelevant. My point is: There are plenty of very wealthy people who don't fret about $10k, or that it might be a "waste," because they're wealthy enough it doesn't matter. F Scott Fitzgerald and all that.
4. I think it's funny that you don't believe in the idea of "track records." Which invalidates skill, experience, customer loyalty, brand recognition, platform lock-in… all the things that drive sales. Apple products are not randomly generated in a vacuum.
5. Nope, it's not about conspicuous consumption. Never claimed it was. It only came up in my quoting that article about the "basic bitch" Birkin. Very wealthy people who are inclined to drop $10k on a whim could buy something much rarer and more impressive than a mass-produced electronic device. Which isn't to say there aren't stratified status layers inside the Watch editions/brands.
6. I never claimed "People will buy Apple Watch as a causal outcome of plane tickets." You missed the entire point of the article.
7. You probably should brush up on the definition of "straw man argument," since you made several. I didn't make any; straw man requires you to set up a false premise in order to knock it down. I made an argument by analogy.
8. You didn't cite any sources for your claims, or even quote the parts of my essay you were refuting, but you used a lot of Classic Style so it sounds impressive.