Why the Apple Watch struggles to establish itself as a luxury product
After launching the first edition of its Apple Watch, the Californian giant took yet another step in its ambition to conquer the luxury market with the Hermès version. Everything has been said on the subject, but this innovation and the changes it introduces represent a magnificent case study for examining what has evolved in the relationship between luxury, new technologies, and longevity.
On the face of it, we are dealing with three very different elements — sometimes even opposing ones — yet they have always maintained a close relationship, as the history of brands and technologies demonstrates. Apple has always been part of this logic. Since its creation, Apple has sought to elevate "new technologies." Steve Jobs always strove to have machines considered on a par with luxury objects. In tackling the watch, the Californian giant would seem to have finally found the means to complete this objective.
Yet despite the efforts made, one realises that even an imposing object such as the Apple Watch Edition Gold has not quite attained the prestige of an Oyster Perpetual Rolex or a Hublot Big Bang — let alone a Patek Philippe complication. There are no doubt several reasons for this — Apple is obviously a newcomer to the watchmaking market. But the reason that interests us here and seems fundamental is the role played by technology in the luxury object.
What prevents the Apple Watch Edition Gold from being spontaneously perceived as a luxury watch by enthusiasts of the genre — despite its high price and choice of materials — is the intuition of the product's obsolescence. The buyer will not have the feeling of possessing an object that will pass through generations. They can never attribute to it the famous Patek slogan: "You never actually own a Patek Philippe, you merely take care of it for the next generation." Barely launched on the market, the technological product is by definition already superseded. Whereas the luxury product can be passed from one generation to the next without suffering the effects of time. There are exceptions, however. A Ferrari V12 engine, for example, achieves this incredible feat: although a pure technological object, it is not threatened by obsolescence. But this "faculty" is not given to all technological objects. Indeed, as soon as "new technologies" are involved, one realises that things become complicated and that "artifice" and "marketing" must be added to say "this is a luxury object worth keeping." The question that then arises is: "Is it not precisely this difficulty in achieving longevity that prevents new technologies from spontaneously joining the luxury universe?" This natural demarcation seems insurmountable, for the very nature of technology is to constantly surpass itself through innovation. Yet this does not mean that luxury objects cannot be technological objects.
Luxury brands never stop innovating — some have now staked everything on innovation. But one can add all the rubies and gold one wishes to a watch: from the moment one knows it has already been superseded by the update it cannot escape, it immediately ceases to be perceived as a pure luxury object. For the primary reason the consumer will desire it will be technological innovation.
The question facing brands and innovators today is "how to create a perfectly homogeneous object that is a good compromise between luxury and technology?" A fine illustration of this problem can be found in the objects of the brand "Art of Secret." By reviving the tradition of secret furniture, it draws its inspiration from the history of craftsmanship and techniques. The Duo Expression desk, for example, presents itself at first glance as a beautiful design object made of wood and precious leather. The technology that makes it a secret piece of furniture is not an end in itself — it is merely a means. Being totally invisible, it does not disrupt the use. One then understands that from the moment technology is perfectly integrated into the object and is not the ultimate goal, one has partly answered the question: a luxury object can indeed be a technological object when its use becomes enduring. The reverse is less obvious: a technological object does not systematically become a luxury object simply by adopting the trappings of luxury. And when a brand the size of Apple must seek the endorsement of another such as Hermès to claim it belongs to the luxury universe — is that not, precisely, artifice?
