A Rolex is likely still working if you buy it at an antique market. Apple, not so much. They'll be non-functional and useless well before they could be even considered a 'classic.'

Even old Casio watches from the early 80's have Apple beat on that measure.

A Rolex watch will roughly cost $600 to $1000 USD in servicing every 10 years to run properly (plus an upfront cost of, let's say, $10,000 USD for a certain model of a Rolex Submariner), whereas the Apple Watch Ultra (choosing a high-end model) will cost roughly $799 USD to purchase the latest version every four years or so.

Dollars-wise, there is not much of a gap between the two over a lifetime (unless you skip the servicing of a Rolex watch, which increases the odds of a breakdown and costly repair).

The main value of keeping the same watch would be sentimentality, as shown in the film Pulp Fiction. But the main advantage of mechanical watches over Apple Watches, it seems, is drawn from their aesthetics and an appreciation of their design—rather than as a practical preference based on cost.

If longevity and practicality were the main concerns, a Casio watch—such as the famous F91W or updated alternative with a better backlight such as a W86 or F201WA—would be a better selection.

Who cares if they work after 15 years? It's not like people buy Rolexes to keep track of time.

Recall that Apple announced the end of its $15,000 Apple Watch.

I wonder what one does with that thing? Personal Watch Museum it would seem.