Quote:
Originally Posted by Driver8
Interesting how this issue still polarises members like no other.
Opinions are always driven by personal experience, and where some claim to have owned tens of these movements with no issues at all, others (like myself, and two of my friends) have each owned a single 32xx movement that went on to develop the very same problem within one to two years.
Either way I find it interesting that this thread is now over a year old with almost 1000 responses to the poll (at the time of writing), and it's still sitting at around 25% experiencing timekeeping issues.
Are people on forums more likely to join to complain about issues? Yes they are. But are people on forums also more likely to actually notice issues than Joe Public? Probably also yes. (PS - If it was any brand other than Rolex, I'd say definitely yes, but I know we have members here who freely admit to not even bothering to set the time on their watches when they wear them!).
All things considered I'd imagine the true global percentage to be less than our 25%, but whatever it is, the fact is that the 32xx was released in early 2015, so that's over 7 years ago now.... and issues are still being reported.... and still (apparently) no permanent fix.
|
To me, it's not that surprising how strong of a reaction this sort of thing elicits. It happens with Apple products all of the time.
Similar to Rolex, Apple doesn't really release many service figures on anything (as doing so serves them no real benefit), and when there is something that appears to be systematic, generally nonprobability samples like these are the extent of available data.
As you have noted, there are potential arguments to be made that the true number of watches having issues could be lower or could be higher than what this poll shows, and potentially valid reasons to justify either direction. I, too, am inclined to think the real percentage is likely lower than what this poll shows, but we simply cannot say that for certain with the inherently limited amount of data we have.