Interesting article.

It's always been about control and goes way beyond Rolex

 

You can kind of see where they are coming from, but I wonder if they are
trying to have too much control. On the one hand, I feel that they make
the watches and should say how things go. But then I wonder is it overreach?
Honestly 'is' interesting, because I see both sides of this. Oh, and I had also
forgotten that they had bough Bucherer by the way ! 😮

Great stuff Hector ! ..THX a bunch for sharing this with all of us !!!

 

From a business perspective, it's genius. If I could only own shares.

 

It's like the path Apple have been travelling along for ages except they don't make anything, they just design it. The 'Walled Garden' concept. Under pressure of consumer rights advocates they had to relinquish that step by step. The right to self repair (which is still almost impossible), the change to USB-C (no longer we have to pay US$ 20 for a two dollar cable) and recently the App Store change to allow app creators to apply their own (outside) payment system instead of Apple taking 30% of the proceeds (which is going to Supreme Courts all over the globe). Rolex are thinking ahead in fear of losing customers and market share. If they clamp down on parts distribution to non Rolex affiliated partners or even just ADs, it will be difficult to have your watch serviced outside of the Rolex universe. Up-scale Rolex buyers won't give a hoot of course but third party resellers of used watches will be hit.

 

Rolex has refused to sell / supply parts to independent watchmakers for a while now. Many retailers do not have a watchmaker on premise, so already they have to send everything to a Service Centre. (I had this experience at an Omega boutique)

It would be interesting to see if the EU will take on Rolex's walled garden and force them to offer parts for sale using their laws for right to repair. Especially if the prosecutor was placed on one of their "your are not worthy" wait lists...

 

The other consequence of the relentless closing down of spares and forcing in-house only repairs, is their policy of not touching old things.
This makes a nonsense of their luxury claim to heirloom status
If you can't get it repaired once it hits the 40 year mark, then it's hardly likely to be passed on to future generations, not to mention the escalating costs and their ignoring customer's desire's ( like no, don't replace the dial/hands etc) or the "no original bracelet as sold, no service" bull they pull here.

Not yet an heirloom killer problem, as old parts stashes are still around, but going forward?
The tighter the grip - the more is lost through the fingers.
I think it will happen in this case too.
Not enough to do major damage to their brand, but it's happened in other spheres of niche markets and allowed competition to grow from minor to significant.
Apple isn't an equivalent example, I don't think.
Australia is another possible forcing hotspot for legislative imposition of conditions
The government here has justwon another term with a major victory.
One of their tenets was to force big companies to provide repair paths to independents, mainly due to the situation with remote agriculture equipment, but if it is enshrined in law, the smaller Independent watchmakers could use it if they so choose.
I fully expect the Rolex CEO to acquire either a white Persian or mexican hairless cat real soon now.
I swore off the crown a few decades ago - most disappointing watch I ever bought, and all the shenanigans they have undertaken since has only firmed my dislike.
It's a simple and solid tool watch range, for the most part, not the pinnacle of luxury or even horology.