Apple does design and software. When they need hardware, they buy it.
That's not entirely true. It's sort of true, in the sense that many hardware vendors don't create all their own components, but Apple does develop their own hardware (and related technology) to some extent. For example, yes, they bought the ARM manufacturer, but now they have continued to advance that in-house. They developed methods for building better Aluminum cases, and now apparently are doing the same thing for sapphire screens. Many of the components for laptop, desktops, iPods, iPads, and iPhones may all be outsourced to be produced by other companies, but the overall device was developed by Apple.
And honestly, headphones aren't as hard to build up from scratch as ARM processors.
I don't understand this deal yet, but my problem isn't with Beats headphones being a "rip off". That's not the issue for me. The larger issue for me is, I don't see why Apple couldn't have simply produced their own rip-off headphones if they wanted to, or their own music streaming service. They have the technical ability. They have the design and marketing talent. So what are they getting out of the deal?
I would imagine that this is either a waste of money, or there's some other calculation. Like maybe record labels have been trying to bend Apple over a barrel when they ask for streaming rights, and in this deal, Apple acquires the streaming rights that Beats had, thereby side-stepping the deal. Or maybe Apple looked at the organization and thought it was a good team as a whole, and rather than trying to steal the employees away one-by-one, they thought it was better to purchase them outright. There's always the explanation that they were buying the customer base, but I'm not sure that'll hold once they rebrand and integrate-- and I would be surprised if they didn't rebrand and integrate it into their existing products/services.
I don't know. Does anyone have info here that would shed light on the real motivation? Or has Apple just started buying random businesses because they're profitable, without a larger strategic plan?
That's only really valid if you consider property laws and intellectual property laws to be part of "the government intentionally creating monopolies". In which case, sure, let's do away with private property and see how far that gets us.
Yeah, I don't feel like reading this whole thing because it reeks of some engineer trying to be an expert on the brain without bothering to dig into what's already been discovered. We've been studying the mind for thousands of years. Don't think that knowing about computers will make you more of an expert than people who've studied the subject.
Remembering both enhances and corrupts memory. You could compare "remembering" to "opening and resaving a media file with a lossy format" specifically because the more you do it, the more you get distortions, similar to the artifacts in an overly-compressed file. It's similar to there being a filter that tries to distinguish a pattern, and whichever pattern it locks onto becomes more prominent the more you do it.
It's a good metaphor, but that doesn't mean that human memory actually works like computer storage, compressing and storing media information in a lossy codec. The more you remember, the more "artifacts" you're likely to pick up, but it also becomes easier to locate those memories. In that sense, memory can also be a bit like a natural footpath-- the more traveled a path is, the easier it is to find. Memory also has strange features like being state-based (e.g. there may be things that you'll only remember when you're drunk, or angry, or when eating a particular food) and highly associative (e.g. you may not be able to remember a childhood friend's name until you first recall a specific memory of that person wearing a blue shirt).
I'm not saying that human memory or consciousness could absolutely not be modeled on a computer, but it certainly doesn't work the way current computer work.
I think you're right, but what may happen sooner is that the whole "cable" system goes away. My prediction is that within 10 years, the number of cord-cutters will grow, and you'll see people move to streaming solutions similar to Netflix and Hulu. Of course, those services will continue to "bundle" in a bunch of content that you're not interested in, either, but nobody will care. You don't hear people complaining, "Why am I paying for that movie on Netflix that I have no interest in watching? Just let me pay for what I want!" But of course, if someone does feel that way, they'll be able to just buy the TV shows they want on services like iTunes and Amazon.
It'll happen. It's already happening. Right now, cable companies and content owners are in about the same place as the record stores and record labels were in the late 90s. What's unclear is, how long can the cable companies and content owners prop up the existing system? Who will die off, and who will make some kind of transition to the new model? Who will be Apple's analog in this scenario, and who will be Tower Records?
Then my product key won't work, which means I have to come up with a product key generator or a crack. And at that point, why even bother buying a legit copy of Windows?
However, Comcast is overwhelmingly an 'eyeball' network
It's worth noting, however, that Comcast (and others) try to make sure they're "eyeball" networks. For many years, ISPs have been offering things like "20 mbps downloads, 1 mbps upload." You make it sound a little too much like, "Poor Comcast. They only get the 'eyeball' business, while Cogent and Level 3 go around courting customers looking for mass distribution!" Really, these ISPs have been trying to turn the Internet into more of a broadcast model for years, specifically in the hopes of capitalizing on continued control of the distribution channels to consumers.
Comcast is being paid by their users specifically so that they can access the content that's coming into their network through Level 3. Being able to provide that content quickly is exactly what they're being paid to do, but they refuse to spend their profits to build the infrastructure to provide fast access. Meanwhile, if they want a piece of the action in selling the "cheap bandwidth to internet companies who mostly only send traffic one way", then all they have to do is provide a reliable connection with a decent upload rate.
Not only is the update failing for some people, but Microsoft has also made re-installations a pain for some of the rest of us. I bought a Windows 7 machine a few years ago, and decided to go ahead and upgrade to Windows 8. So I bought Windows 8, but they only sold Windows 8 as an "upgrade" which means I can only install it from an executable from Windows 7. I can't install a clean copy directly, and at the time I bought it, Microsoft was literally not offering a "retail" version of Windows 8, instead offering only "upgrade" and an OEM version.
Since then they've introduced "8.1" and "8.1 Update 1", and the last I checked, I can't get an updated installer for those, let along an ISO for a fresh install. If I want to reinstall, I need to install Windows 7 from DVD, upgrade to Windows 8 from a downloaded installer, Upgrade to 8.1 through their app store, and then upgrade to Windows "8.1 Update 1" through Windows Update.
Must it really be so difficult? Does this BS successfully stop piracy?
Can someone explain how this isn't silly? He wants it backed by intrinsic value, which I think may be missing the point of Bitcoin, and his example of the perfect thing with intrinsic value is "stocks"?
I'm sure this guy has some fans who can explain why this makes sense, but it just seems like more evidence that he's completely out of touch and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Well for one thing, it would probably help accidental shootings, kids playing with guns, etc. Also, lots of the guns that criminals have are stolen from legitimate owners. This countermeasure increases the difficulty of theft, since you'd have to either steal the watch as well or else have the expertise to hack/circumvent the lock.
It's not a cure-all, but it generally makes unauthorized use more difficult, which is often what security is about.
What, exactly, entitles them to a cut? I would say nothing entitles them to a cut.
I'm not saying they should get a cut. I'm suggesting (though I don't really know, so I'm phrasing it as a question) that the HFT is even worse than simply "skimming off the top" because they're also spending a lot of money to develop software and run datacenters to do nothing productive aside from "skimming off the top".
Does net neutrality fix the problem, though? Even with net neutrality, there's still the possibility of someone buying more bandwidth or lower latency. Though I'd agree that getting rid of net neutrality would open the doors for further abuse, but I'd think you'd need some additional measure to solve the problem.
If you accept that the market system is a way of determining the value of securities...
Is that what it is, though? I was under the impression that it was largely a casino dedicated to gambling on economic matters instead of card games or horse races. To that extent, it's not shocking when some rules are arbitrary, based on nothing in the "real world", and it's not surprising that everyone is looking for a way to cheat.
Actually, when I originally saw the new Star Trek, I thought that it was a fun movie that wasn't Star-Trek-y enough. I remember saying at the time that I wished Abrams had done a reboot of Star Wars instead, since his style of action/adventure, mystical explanations, and lens flare would be better suited to that franchise.
Say what you will, but I think lens flares will feel right at home in the Star Wars universe. And at least Abrams wouldn't have introduced the midi-chlorians. He might introduce a bunch of weird things that are never explained to the fans' satisfaction, but at least he won't over-explain.
I've always been the proponent of the idea that ISPs should be split up into two different businesses: Infrastructure Providers, and Service Providers. That is, if you're the company that builds and maintains the physical infrastructure, then that's all do you. You can't also provide services over that infrastructure.
My reasoning is that the fundamental problem is that the part of the business that is "providing infrastructure" is what's going to tend towards a monopoly or cartel. There can be very tight restrictions on it, and a very high barrier to entry.
Most of the abuse of these kinds of monopolies/cartels is going to come in the form of discriminating against competing services running on top of the infrastructure. For example, since Comcast provides its own VoIP service, it might want to block or interfere with Skype calls to ensure their own service is successful. Since they provide video services, they might seek to interfere with Netflix's ability to deliver video to their network. They could eventually choose to provide their own Dropbox competitor and block Dropbox traffic, or decide to compete with Spotify and interrupt that traffic. Essentially, they could do this for any service on the Internet that they believed would eventually become profitable enough.
So the solution, in my mind, is to bar them from providing any other services. They should also be barred from making special exclusive deals with companies that provide these services (e.g. they can't make a deal with Netflix to get special access to their network, without offering the same deal and terms publicly, to all takers.
Essentially, the infrastructure should be turned into a public utility, even if it remains privately owned.
If you're the first person to get to a downed tree, you need to be able to do something intelligent when you get there. Or in this case, the car does.
I agree. My argument is essentially that we could still require that a licensed driver is in the car, and that the "something intelligent" that the car does in case of a downed tree could be to pull over, notify the driver that due to a problem it cannot determine a safe action, and wait for the driver to take control.
Now that in itself is a difficult thing for the car to be able to recognize and decide and execute for itself, but it should be a "good enough" solution to start putting these systems into cars.
The car needs to drive in the snow. I can't call my boss and say "Im not coming in today, the car doesnt want to drive".
So then you get in your car and take manual control. Or if the roads are too dangerous for the automatic driving or the manual driving, then they're just too dangerous.
Part of my point here is that the idea of a car-autopilot doesn't have to wait for things to be perfect. We have autopilot for planes, but that doesn't mean that we've taken pilots out of the equation.
I'm not sure there's a great solution. One way or the other, you could possibly run into a fringe case where the vehicle won't operate safely, so there should be a protocol of "what happens when it can't operate safely?"
It might be that it turns over manual control. Perhaps if you really can't drive, there could be an override that says, "I understand that it's not safe, but I'm overriding the safeguards. I take legal responsibility in case something goes wrong." It would probably be a better answer to have the ability to set of some kind of robust "distress signal" in case of a serious problem, alerting the local search-and-rescue team to come find you.
There are actually a few different options, but my point here is that it's not all about engineering problems, i.e. making the AI "smart enough" to handle every possible eventuality. Some of these things can probably be solved through laws and public policy, and having a sensible protocol for what to do when things aren't working.
These kinds of problems do need to be addressed, but I'm not sure they need to be *fixed* before you turn this into a product. For the snow-storm example, I don't think the car needs to be able to drive in the snow. It's much more important that the car is capable of detecting "this is a situation in which I can't operate safely," and refusing to try. It should be good enough if the car's AI can say, in effect, "Listen, human, I can't take responsibility for driving in this snow storm. If you're comfortable driving in it, go ahead and take manual control. Otherwise, we're staying right here." On the other hand, I could see an interesting application in providing some kind of intelligent 'driver assist' for bad weather conditions that helped the driver maintain traction.
Regarding details, I think the ideal would be for most road conditions, detours, and traffic issues to be kept up-to-date on a database that could allow for dynamic routing instead of the car relying completely on markers. It's not a complete solution, but again, it may be enough to pair a large database with some ability for the car to say, "I don't know what to do here, so I'm going to either give back manual control or pull over and wait."
At the end of the day...doesn't the public (an individual) have the right to know the metrics applied to him at a policy level...such metrics could essentially be considered extra-judicial accusations...should we not be guaranteed the opportunity to face policy accusations as well...or at least know the rules?
That's an interesting point. Of course, there's an additional layer of problem, in that once people know the rules, they're going to start gaming the system. Not that I'm putting it forward as a good reason to keep the rules secret, but it's another thing to worry about.
I'm not saying I'm a huge fan of expensive watches. I'm just pointing out that the appeal of being long-lasting (and perhaps an heirloom) is one of the things that sells very expensive watches, and digital smart-watches run contrary to this.
I'm not doing it at all. For now, I don't wear a watch of any kind. I have various methods to tell time. My phone is the object most often used for that purpose.
So I'm not arguing that a Rolex is better than a Pebble. I'm arguing that Rolex as a company is making products that aren't actually competing with the Pebble, and one of the distinguishing factors is the approach toward "how long the product is supposed to remain in use before it is replaced."
In our society, at this point in time, high-tech computing devices are designed to be constantly replaced every few years. Anything more than 5 years old isn't really going to be supported anymore. Newer products will break compatibility. The manufacturer's warranty will expire. Buying a new product suddenly becomes less expensive than fixing and maintaining the old one. Fancy watch-makers, on the other hand, have been selling their products on the basis that they'll keep working well for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple does design and software. When they need hardware, they buy it.
That's not entirely true. It's sort of true, in the sense that many hardware vendors don't create all their own components, but Apple does develop their own hardware (and related technology) to some extent. For example, yes, they bought the ARM manufacturer, but now they have continued to advance that in-house. They developed methods for building better Aluminum cases, and now apparently are doing the same thing for sapphire screens. Many of the components for laptop, desktops, iPods, iPads, and iPhones may all be outsourced to be produced by other companies, but the overall device was developed by Apple.
And honestly, headphones aren't as hard to build up from scratch as ARM processors.
I don't understand this deal yet, but my problem isn't with Beats headphones being a "rip off". That's not the issue for me. The larger issue for me is, I don't see why Apple couldn't have simply produced their own rip-off headphones if they wanted to, or their own music streaming service. They have the technical ability. They have the design and marketing talent. So what are they getting out of the deal?
I would imagine that this is either a waste of money, or there's some other calculation. Like maybe record labels have been trying to bend Apple over a barrel when they ask for streaming rights, and in this deal, Apple acquires the streaming rights that Beats had, thereby side-stepping the deal. Or maybe Apple looked at the organization and thought it was a good team as a whole, and rather than trying to steal the employees away one-by-one, they thought it was better to purchase them outright. There's always the explanation that they were buying the customer base, but I'm not sure that'll hold once they rebrand and integrate-- and I would be surprised if they didn't rebrand and integrate it into their existing products/services.
I don't know. Does anyone have info here that would shed light on the real motivation? Or has Apple just started buying random businesses because they're profitable, without a larger strategic plan?
That's only really valid if you consider property laws and intellectual property laws to be part of "the government intentionally creating monopolies". In which case, sure, let's do away with private property and see how far that gets us.
Yeah, I don't feel like reading this whole thing because it reeks of some engineer trying to be an expert on the brain without bothering to dig into what's already been discovered. We've been studying the mind for thousands of years. Don't think that knowing about computers will make you more of an expert than people who've studied the subject.
Remembering both enhances and corrupts memory. You could compare "remembering" to "opening and resaving a media file with a lossy format" specifically because the more you do it, the more you get distortions, similar to the artifacts in an overly-compressed file. It's similar to there being a filter that tries to distinguish a pattern, and whichever pattern it locks onto becomes more prominent the more you do it.
It's a good metaphor, but that doesn't mean that human memory actually works like computer storage, compressing and storing media information in a lossy codec. The more you remember, the more "artifacts" you're likely to pick up, but it also becomes easier to locate those memories. In that sense, memory can also be a bit like a natural footpath-- the more traveled a path is, the easier it is to find. Memory also has strange features like being state-based (e.g. there may be things that you'll only remember when you're drunk, or angry, or when eating a particular food) and highly associative (e.g. you may not be able to remember a childhood friend's name until you first recall a specific memory of that person wearing a blue shirt).
I'm not saying that human memory or consciousness could absolutely not be modeled on a computer, but it certainly doesn't work the way current computer work.
Unbundling will not happen anytime soon
I think you're right, but what may happen sooner is that the whole "cable" system goes away. My prediction is that within 10 years, the number of cord-cutters will grow, and you'll see people move to streaming solutions similar to Netflix and Hulu. Of course, those services will continue to "bundle" in a bunch of content that you're not interested in, either, but nobody will care. You don't hear people complaining, "Why am I paying for that movie on Netflix that I have no interest in watching? Just let me pay for what I want!" But of course, if someone does feel that way, they'll be able to just buy the TV shows they want on services like iTunes and Amazon.
It'll happen. It's already happening. Right now, cable companies and content owners are in about the same place as the record stores and record labels were in the late 90s. What's unclear is, how long can the cable companies and content owners prop up the existing system? Who will die off, and who will make some kind of transition to the new model? Who will be Apple's analog in this scenario, and who will be Tower Records?
Then my product key won't work, which means I have to come up with a product key generator or a crack. And at that point, why even bother buying a legit copy of Windows?
So yeah, great job stopping piracy, Microsoft!
Is ntfsclone good enough for a real Windows imaging solution at this point?
However, Comcast is overwhelmingly an 'eyeball' network
It's worth noting, however, that Comcast (and others) try to make sure they're "eyeball" networks. For many years, ISPs have been offering things like "20 mbps downloads, 1 mbps upload." You make it sound a little too much like, "Poor Comcast. They only get the 'eyeball' business, while Cogent and Level 3 go around courting customers looking for mass distribution!" Really, these ISPs have been trying to turn the Internet into more of a broadcast model for years, specifically in the hopes of capitalizing on continued control of the distribution channels to consumers.
Comcast is being paid by their users specifically so that they can access the content that's coming into their network through Level 3. Being able to provide that content quickly is exactly what they're being paid to do, but they refuse to spend their profits to build the infrastructure to provide fast access. Meanwhile, if they want a piece of the action in selling the "cheap bandwidth to internet companies who mostly only send traffic one way", then all they have to do is provide a reliable connection with a decent upload rate.
Not only is the update failing for some people, but Microsoft has also made re-installations a pain for some of the rest of us. I bought a Windows 7 machine a few years ago, and decided to go ahead and upgrade to Windows 8. So I bought Windows 8, but they only sold Windows 8 as an "upgrade" which means I can only install it from an executable from Windows 7. I can't install a clean copy directly, and at the time I bought it, Microsoft was literally not offering a "retail" version of Windows 8, instead offering only "upgrade" and an OEM version.
Since then they've introduced "8.1" and "8.1 Update 1", and the last I checked, I can't get an updated installer for those, let along an ISO for a fresh install. If I want to reinstall, I need to install Windows 7 from DVD, upgrade to Windows 8 from a downloaded installer, Upgrade to 8.1 through their app store, and then upgrade to Windows "8.1 Update 1" through Windows Update.
Must it really be so difficult? Does this BS successfully stop piracy?
Can someone explain how this isn't silly? He wants it backed by intrinsic value, which I think may be missing the point of Bitcoin, and his example of the perfect thing with intrinsic value is "stocks"?
I'm sure this guy has some fans who can explain why this makes sense, but it just seems like more evidence that he's completely out of touch and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Well for one thing, it would probably help accidental shootings, kids playing with guns, etc. Also, lots of the guns that criminals have are stolen from legitimate owners. This countermeasure increases the difficulty of theft, since you'd have to either steal the watch as well or else have the expertise to hack/circumvent the lock.
It's not a cure-all, but it generally makes unauthorized use more difficult, which is often what security is about.
What, exactly, entitles them to a cut? I would say nothing entitles them to a cut.
I'm not saying they should get a cut. I'm suggesting (though I don't really know, so I'm phrasing it as a question) that the HFT is even worse than simply "skimming off the top" because they're also spending a lot of money to develop software and run datacenters to do nothing productive aside from "skimming off the top".
I wonder what happens if they stop making the mortgage payments on that £100 debt.
Does net neutrality fix the problem, though? Even with net neutrality, there's still the possibility of someone buying more bandwidth or lower latency. Though I'd agree that getting rid of net neutrality would open the doors for further abuse, but I'd think you'd need some additional measure to solve the problem.
If you accept that the market system is a way of determining the value of securities...
Is that what it is, though? I was under the impression that it was largely a casino dedicated to gambling on economic matters instead of card games or horse races. To that extent, it's not shocking when some rules are arbitrary, based on nothing in the "real world", and it's not surprising that everyone is looking for a way to cheat.
Basically, HFT is vigorish [wikipedia.org].
But if that's the case, wouldn't we still be better off letting those entities take their cut, and avoiding the waste of building these HFT systems?
Actually, when I originally saw the new Star Trek, I thought that it was a fun movie that wasn't Star-Trek-y enough. I remember saying at the time that I wished Abrams had done a reboot of Star Wars instead, since his style of action/adventure, mystical explanations, and lens flare would be better suited to that franchise.
Say what you will, but I think lens flares will feel right at home in the Star Wars universe. And at least Abrams wouldn't have introduced the midi-chlorians. He might introduce a bunch of weird things that are never explained to the fans' satisfaction, but at least he won't over-explain.
I've always been the proponent of the idea that ISPs should be split up into two different businesses: Infrastructure Providers, and Service Providers. That is, if you're the company that builds and maintains the physical infrastructure, then that's all do you. You can't also provide services over that infrastructure.
My reasoning is that the fundamental problem is that the part of the business that is "providing infrastructure" is what's going to tend towards a monopoly or cartel. There can be very tight restrictions on it, and a very high barrier to entry.
Most of the abuse of these kinds of monopolies/cartels is going to come in the form of discriminating against competing services running on top of the infrastructure. For example, since Comcast provides its own VoIP service, it might want to block or interfere with Skype calls to ensure their own service is successful. Since they provide video services, they might seek to interfere with Netflix's ability to deliver video to their network. They could eventually choose to provide their own Dropbox competitor and block Dropbox traffic, or decide to compete with Spotify and interrupt that traffic. Essentially, they could do this for any service on the Internet that they believed would eventually become profitable enough.
So the solution, in my mind, is to bar them from providing any other services. They should also be barred from making special exclusive deals with companies that provide these services (e.g. they can't make a deal with Netflix to get special access to their network, without offering the same deal and terms publicly, to all takers.
Essentially, the infrastructure should be turned into a public utility, even if it remains privately owned.
If you're the first person to get to a downed tree, you need to be able to do something intelligent when you get there. Or in this case, the car does.
I agree. My argument is essentially that we could still require that a licensed driver is in the car, and that the "something intelligent" that the car does in case of a downed tree could be to pull over, notify the driver that due to a problem it cannot determine a safe action, and wait for the driver to take control.
Now that in itself is a difficult thing for the car to be able to recognize and decide and execute for itself, but it should be a "good enough" solution to start putting these systems into cars.
The car needs to drive in the snow. I can't call my boss and say "Im not coming in today, the car doesnt want to drive".
So then you get in your car and take manual control. Or if the roads are too dangerous for the automatic driving or the manual driving, then they're just too dangerous.
Part of my point here is that the idea of a car-autopilot doesn't have to wait for things to be perfect. We have autopilot for planes, but that doesn't mean that we've taken pilots out of the equation.
I'm not sure there's a great solution. One way or the other, you could possibly run into a fringe case where the vehicle won't operate safely, so there should be a protocol of "what happens when it can't operate safely?"
It might be that it turns over manual control. Perhaps if you really can't drive, there could be an override that says, "I understand that it's not safe, but I'm overriding the safeguards. I take legal responsibility in case something goes wrong." It would probably be a better answer to have the ability to set of some kind of robust "distress signal" in case of a serious problem, alerting the local search-and-rescue team to come find you.
There are actually a few different options, but my point here is that it's not all about engineering problems, i.e. making the AI "smart enough" to handle every possible eventuality. Some of these things can probably be solved through laws and public policy, and having a sensible protocol for what to do when things aren't working.
These kinds of problems do need to be addressed, but I'm not sure they need to be *fixed* before you turn this into a product. For the snow-storm example, I don't think the car needs to be able to drive in the snow. It's much more important that the car is capable of detecting "this is a situation in which I can't operate safely," and refusing to try. It should be good enough if the car's AI can say, in effect, "Listen, human, I can't take responsibility for driving in this snow storm. If you're comfortable driving in it, go ahead and take manual control. Otherwise, we're staying right here." On the other hand, I could see an interesting application in providing some kind of intelligent 'driver assist' for bad weather conditions that helped the driver maintain traction.
Regarding details, I think the ideal would be for most road conditions, detours, and traffic issues to be kept up-to-date on a database that could allow for dynamic routing instead of the car relying completely on markers. It's not a complete solution, but again, it may be enough to pair a large database with some ability for the car to say, "I don't know what to do here, so I'm going to either give back manual control or pull over and wait."
At the end of the day...doesn't the public (an individual) have the right to know the metrics applied to him at a policy level...such metrics could essentially be considered extra-judicial accusations...should we not be guaranteed the opportunity to face policy accusations as well...or at least know the rules?
That's an interesting point. Of course, there's an additional layer of problem, in that once people know the rules, they're going to start gaming the system. Not that I'm putting it forward as a good reason to keep the rules secret, but it's another thing to worry about.
I'm not saying I'm a huge fan of expensive watches. I'm just pointing out that the appeal of being long-lasting (and perhaps an heirloom) is one of the things that sells very expensive watches, and digital smart-watches run contrary to this.
You doing it wrong.
I'm not doing it at all. For now, I don't wear a watch of any kind. I have various methods to tell time. My phone is the object most often used for that purpose.
So I'm not arguing that a Rolex is better than a Pebble. I'm arguing that Rolex as a company is making products that aren't actually competing with the Pebble, and one of the distinguishing factors is the approach toward "how long the product is supposed to remain in use before it is replaced."
In our society, at this point in time, high-tech computing devices are designed to be constantly replaced every few years. Anything more than 5 years old isn't really going to be supported anymore. Newer products will break compatibility. The manufacturer's warranty will expire. Buying a new product suddenly becomes less expensive than fixing and maintaining the old one. Fancy watch-makers, on the other hand, have been selling their products on the basis that they'll keep working well for decades.