People seemed amused and even offended by the price of the new Apple Watch Ultra, which is around £849.00. Yet no one seems to bat an eye at an £84,900 Rolex - which has one function: keeping time.

We thought this was interesting enough to warrant an exploration of the differences between the two.

It took almost 600 years for us to figure out how to scale down a clock and fit them to a wrist strap so they could be transported portably.

By contrast, there was just 31 years between the Macintosh computer and the significantly more powerful Apple Watch.

Would you rather strap a little clock to your wrist, or a little computer?

A mechanical watch will typically depreciate the moment you buy it. After a few years it will level out and maintain a consistent value. Some watches will appreciate in value.

A smart watch will depreciate from the moment you buy it, and continue to depreciate as new models with better technology replace it, eventually becoming redundant.

A luxury watch bought today can (should) last you a lifetime. It might also last your child's lifetime, and your grandchild's lifetime, provided it's serviced every 10 years or so.

A mechanical watch is far more resistant to the elements than an Apple Watch - which can easily be destroyed in a hard drop or extreme weather. There are some pretty tough smartwatches available though.

The tech industry innovates at a much greater rate than the luxury watch industry. New devices released every year quickly take over product lines. As the hardware ages, the battery degrades, the device slows down, and the manufacturer ceases supporting it with OS updates.

In terms of functionality, the smartwatch is king. Not only can it keep time; it can set alarms and timers, track sleep, steps and heart rate, make calls, send messages, make payments, stream music and video, and many more really useful things. 

Both types of watches are available in a range of styles, sizes and materials; each with a distinct look and feel, depending on the brand.

A Rolex, Omega, Cartier, or Patek Phillipe watch each have their own distinct aesthetic and character, as do more affordable brands such as Seiko, Cassio or Timex.

You could argue that smartwatches are more homogenous. Even so, Apple, Samsung, Garmin, FitBit, and Google each have their own unique, signature style. Plus you can change your watch face every day, which is pretty cool.

To complete an outfit, it's hard to beat a traditional watch. Anyone can appreciate the classic style and workmanship of a ticking timepiece. There is something magical about hundreds of tiny parts moving in unison to produce a precise reading.

A luxury watch is a signal of wealth or prestige. Dropping tens-of-thousands on a watch has long been the ultimate status signal. Rappers simply cannot flex their $600 Apple Watch.

Perhaps smartwatches will become more fashionable in time; through both improvements in design and craftmanship, but also with shifts in public perception and trends.

But who's to say we can't have a platinum watch with a custom diamond-encrusted bezel that perfectly resembles a luxury swiss watch AND has fitness tracking and notifications?

Sounds like a new ultra-luxury market in the making.

Perhaps having to charge a smartwatch every day or two is a tad inconvenient, just as having to manually wind an old watch was. But the tech is only going to get better.

Smartwatches are young: The Pulsar Time Computer Calculator was released in 1976. The Timex Datalink - the first product that we would consider a smartwatch - came in 1994. The Apple watch changed the game and set the stage for the future of wearables - but this was just 7 years ago, in 2015.

Wristwatches on the other hand, have been ticking along since 1868.

Smartwatches aren't going to replace luxury mechanical watches any time soon. They just aren't the same thing... Smartwatches utilise technology to create functional and practical products. Luxury watches utilise rare materials to craft a beautiful piece of jewellery.

Perhaps both technologies can co-exist in harmony, with the upper-middle class opting to regularly switch between the two as required, or even wear one of each on opposing wrists (Yes, that's a thing)!

Notice how they have mostly replaced digital watches though, which are now reserved for athletic over-60s. Something like a Garmin Forerunner just does it all better, and is relatively inexpensive. And no one was ever winning over girls at the bar with their digital watch.

One thing is for sure: smartwatches aren't going anywhere. Amongst other wearables, they have tons of potential, and are the future of tech. Manufacturers will innovate, and products will continue to improve at a rapid rate. Mechanical watches simply cannot improve that much, unless of course they integrate smart technology - a hybrid watch if you will.

Here we have some accessories from the Apple store...

Each of which priced at 3-5x more than you'd expect to pay elsewhere for an equivalent product.

Having a luxury brand to leverage over consumers enables a company to sell their products at disproportionately greater prices.

> Consumers automatically associate the brand with superior performance and quality.

> Wealthy, "price-blind" consumers are typically willing to pay for the "best" and/or most convenient option.

> People want to signal their ability to afford premium products because it increases their mate value or bolsters their position in the social hierarchy. 

Studies have shown that we spend an average of 6-8 hours looking at screens. If we take an average of 7, that's 43% of our waking hours.

Over the course of 75 years, that's 191625 hours, or 21.88 years. Office/knowledge workers, Millennials and Gen Z might allocate 25 years of their life to looking at a screen.

We know that increased screen time is linked to insomnia, neck and back pain, reduced physical activity, addictive behaviours, social isolation and other adverse health consequences. What about our eyes?

As a dual-eyed human who enjoys looking at things, yet spends almost every waking hour staring at a screen or fixing tiny objects, this topic is important to me. 

Screens omit a lot of blue light. Early research in animals suggested that excessive blue light exposure could damage some sensitive nerve cells in the retina.

This resulted in countless articles being published, claiming that screens could make you blind.

Subsequent research has failed to validate these claims: Human eye cells do not break down when exposed to normal amounts of blue light.

If you know how to read studies and interpret data, you will be very familiar with the ways in which the media draws false conclusions, gives unhelpful recommendations, and generally spews out misinformation to create controversy and/or increase site traffic.

It's not just the media though. Manufacturers of blue blocker glasses often cite these early animal studies to support some rather far-fetched claims on how their products can prevent retina damage.

There is currently no evidence that digital screens cause damage to the human eye.

Blue light is simply part of the visible light spectrum - whether it comes from a screen or the sun - blue light is blue light.

We expose our eyes to 100,000 times more blue light on a sunny afternoon outside than we do looking at a computer screen.

Screens do not emit sufficient levels of UV radiation to cause macular degeneration (They don't give you sunburn either, by the way).

However, screen time can induce other, more acute visual problems - most of which are classified under "Computer Vision Syndrome".

Symptoms include:

> Eyestrain

> Headaches

> Blurred vision

> Dry Eyes

> Neck and shoulder pain 

Most people will have experienced one or more of these symptoms. But note that these symptoms don't typically occur in isolation, purely as a result of looking at screens:

> Eyestrain: Focusing on close up objects for a prolonged period.

> Headaches: Poor posture, dehydration, allergies, illness etc. Constantly looking at any object up close.

> Blurred vision: This can be caused by a number of health issues such as glaucoma, eye infection or even high blood sugar.

> Dry Eyes: Cold, dry environments, air conditioning or heating. 

> Neck and shoulder pain: Poor posture or an acute injury.

So what can we do to mitigate any possible negative effects on our eye health as a result of looking at screens?

> Remember to blink. Studies have shown that we blink less when looking at screens. Blinking keeps the cornea lubricated and removes debris. It also brings nutrients and minerals to the surface of the eye  to maintain a protective, lubricating film.

> Our eyes relax and our pupils dilate when looking at things farther away.

Use it or lose it: Training eyes to look at things up close but not far away can lead to short-sightedness.

Maybe this is why stereotypical nerds wear glasses - because they read books all day.

Good protocols to improve farsightedness include taking a 20 second break from a screen/book every 20 minutes, and taking a 5-10 minute break every 90 minutes to focus on something far away - preferably outside.

My personal recommendations are to use lunch breaks to get away from screens, and to consume more audio-only content like audiobooks or podcasts, preferably whilst walking outside.

> Make it easier to see what you're doing: Use a device with a high resolution display. Increase text size. Use a bigger screen or monitor (don't read and write on a phone). Wear glasses if you need to.

> Make sure that your workspace is well ventilated, with adequate humidity. This should prevent dry eyes.

Note how all of these issues and their solutions can apply to reading a book in the same way that it can to looking at a screen.

Screens will almost certainly not damage your eyes directly. If you do the four things mentioned above, you really shouldn't have to worry about the indirect effects of screen time on your eye health.

Other important things related to eye health (but beyond the scope of this post) include adequate nutrition, hydration, posture and stress management.

The impact of screens on our circadian rhythm and sleep quality is well documented and should be taken seriously. We wrote about this here.

If you read the whole post - well done! Reward yourself with a 20 second break from your screen.

TL;DR - look out over the horizon every once in a while.

Disclaimer: This is not medical advice. Consult your doctor or optometrist for any matters related to eye health - not your phone technician.

All iPhone 14's sold in the US are eSIM only ("e" stands for embedded). In other words, they do not have a slot for a physical SIM card.

We're going to explain why we think this was a miscalculation by Apple.

Let's first touch on the concept and history of eSIMs.

Dual SIM mobile phones are nothing new. We've had them in some form since 2000. Everything from basic Nokias, to top-end Android smartphones have been available in Single SIM or Dual SIM versions. Apple have only released dual SIM iPhone's in China; never in Europe or the US.

By contrast, eSIM technology is quite young. Released in 2018, the iPhone XS, XS Max and XR were the first Apple phones to support a digital SIM, which could be used in addition to a physical SIM. The Google Pixel 2 - released in 2017 - was the first smartphone with embedded SIM technology.

In eSIM devices, a small chip inside the phone controls the cellular function entirely. The information on an eSIM is rewritable, which means that the user can still change their number, network provider or data plan.

In the digital age, it begs the question - why have a physical SIM card at all? Digital products are more flexible, convenient, reliable and efficient than physical products in most cases. No SIM slot means more space inside the phone for a bigger battery or other components. It's also better for water resistance. Your Apple Watch uses e-SIM only, why not your iPhone?

Our current cellular systems and infrastructure are designed to work with physical SIM card technology. These systems are complex and universal, so they take a long time to update, especially in this case - it's a lot of work, there's no huge financial incentive, and the current system works just fine.

Many people in the UK and the US, have been vocal on their difficulties with activating an eSIM, describing it as a slow, clunky, and frustrating experience. This would suggest that the technology is inadequate, or that the carriers haven't yet figured out how to deliver it to the consumer.

Most of our UK networks support eSIM technology, but most networks in developing countries such as India don't. China do not allow eSIM (shock), because it cannot be tracked and monitored. Phones are sold globally, and need to be compatible with as many networks as possible.

We must also consider the implications for the network providers themselves (EE, O2, Vodafone etc.). They can maintain a much closer bond with their customers, who rely on their physical products to make their devices work. They may be reluctant to relinquish some of this control, but this is just our speculation.

Physical SIM cards are actually a very secure way for the user to authenticate with the network - perhaps more so than digital SIMs, because they cannot be cloned, stolen or hacked. Note: we do not have sufficient knowledge to assert which of these technologies is more secure overall.

A major issue arises for people that travel, especially those that frequently travel to different countries for work. Millions of people rely on being able to switch to a Spanish, Canadian, Japanese or Egyptian SIM card at the airport. Most countries don't have the technological infrastructure to support eSIM, or are restricted by government regulation. Developing countries in particular do not have eSIM compatibility as a top priority. Do Apple not see this as a problem?

We know better than anyone how much people rely on their phones for just about everything. When our customers drop their phone in for essential repairs, they can simply swap their SIM card into a spare phone - no need to have Apple and/or your network provider get involved.

But is it that important to have a mobile number whilst your phone is in for repair? YES! So many of our critical accounts rely on two-factor authentication, meaning we cannot login to our email, travel, banking, payment, or health apps without receiving a code via SMS. Imagine if your phone is liquid damaged beyond repair... Nightmare!

Lastly, an eSIM-only iPhone locks users into the Apple ecosystem. A lot of heavy tech users and enthusiasts use or switch between an iPhone and an Android phone. This will be a lot harder to do with eSIM. 

These points should explain why we haven't yet transitioned to eSIMs exclusively.

Now, let's make an argument for moving to eSIM in 2022.

No one company change the status quo by itself. Henning Schulzrinne, a professor of computer science, said that SIM cards are "a good example of an interdependent system that makes it difficult for anybody to change until everybody changes."

What if no company ever made the leap? Would we just be stuck with physical SIMs forever? Perhaps it's a case of move fast; fix as we go. Humans, free markets and technology are incredibly adaptive. The world isn't ready for electric self-driving cars, but thank God companies like Tesla are trying, right? eSIMs aren't going to save the planet, but the concept still applies.

The US tends to be the frontrunner in, and testing grounds for, technological innovation, i.e. they get everything first - so it makes sense that the US mobile market makes the transition to eSIM first. You have to expect that the rest of the world will follow.

eSIM is the future. It has the potential to replace our existing mobile system with something better. Transitioning from a well established, universally adopted system is hard - harder than starting something new from scratch. Sometimes, it takes a bold move from one company to change the status quo. Perhaps Apple think that the rest of the world can and should adopt eSIM now. When the worlds largest company pulls the trigger, it creates massive incentive - perhaps even a necessity - for everyone else to jump on board. If this is the case, then we might just get the improved product sooner than we would have otherwise, at the cost of a little bit of friction in the short-run.

As we have seen time and time again, Apple have disproportionate power to guide the market in whichever direction they please. Other manufacturers will soon follow suit, as they did with the removal of the headphone jack. The perpetual cycle of copying each others concepts until their products become homogenous continues.

Anything that makes a product less versatile by taking control away from the user without a solid rationale is difficult to justify.

However you spin it, removing a feature and calling it "innovation" is a bit of a joke.

What will they remove next? Our money is on the charging port - before wireless charging is actually good. If eSIM has ruffled some feathers, a port-less phone will kill the whole flock.

In time, networks will adapt, the technological infrastructure will catch up, and we will manage our SIM plans through an app. Buying, activating and fiddling around with plastic SIM cards in fragile little trays will be a thing of the past that the children of today will never understand - just like they will never understand buying a newspaper.

It will be interesting to see if next years European/UK spec iPhone is eSIM only. Either way, we expect that everyone in Europe will be using eSIM within the next 5 years. As for developing countries, we've no idea. It's anyone's guess.