Originally Posted by K2Grey
That's why I have a bit of trouble grasping the Bose analogy, other than with regards to profit margin. With Bose, the sound quality is less than other equipment of the same price, so one can rightly say they are ripoffs. But with Oakley, the timekeeping is similar to that of other watches of the same price. So if watches generally have similar timekeeping ability, it would seem to me that one would be paying for things like name and style. And if Oakley watches have good style, then what's the problem? The marketing doesn't make it better, but it also doesn't make it worse.
My Bose analogy is with respect to technical complexity and production cost, not with respect to timekeeping ability. Even a $20 watch keeps time very well these days, so a person is never really paying for timekeeping ability.
What do you get in a $1000 watch? With traditional watch vendors, you get style, the name, and
a complicated internal mechanism. With Oakley, you just get style and the name.
The speaker comparison is thus: from a decent speaker manufacturer, a $1000 pair of speakers will get you a nice look and
quality drivers (Seas, Scanspeak, etc.). For the same price, going Bose gets you a nice look along with cheap drivers (<$20 paper cheapies).
Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument about this. I was just genuinely surprised when Plainsong said that Oakleys used quartz movements. I had always assumed that since Oakleys were so expensive they used technology that watches in that price class typically used. I was wrong. This happens in the speaker world too.