Steelman argument for the Cubitus

[EazyE]

Cubitus is getting a lot of hate because it feels like cheap design thinking. I'm interested to get feedback on a different perspective:

We know that nautilus demand far outstrips the supply with no end in sight. That imbalance turns away new customers, makes existing customers unhappy, and distracts from other watches. This is a problem.

The options to solve the problem are:
1. Increasing the supply of the nautilus. TS said he doesn't want to be the nautilus company, so this won't do.
2. Reduce demand directly. I'm not sure how to do this.
3. Substitution: redirect some of the the demand to another watch.

Cubitus is a substitute. If even 20% of customers seeking a nautilus are okay with the cubitus, that will:
– Create space for new customers
– Serve collectors who won't be allocated a nautilus

The cubitus also has the same bracelet as the nautilus. That will make the nautilus less special.

All of these have the effect of reducing demand for the nautilus.

Finally, look at the code 11.59. There are few AP customers purely interested in the code; It is seen as the royal oak stepping stone. AP took a huge design risk, and it seems that is not paying off. Patek is taking the safer route to solve the problem by designing a watch they know at least some customers will be happy with.

The Cubitus makes sense when you start with this problem and work backwards. IMO its a solid business decision made for the benefit of customers


...

Or maybe this is all cognitive dissonance because I've sunk so much money into the brand