I'm not sure if I really qualify as being well versed in high end watches, my only current wristwatches are a Timex and a Casio G-Shock, but I did submit the article and I do have an interest in watches and clocks so I'll try and answer as best I can.
In terms of engineering, Rolex watches tend to be on the simpler side, relative to some of the the complications you find in even higher end watches. They don't employ tourbillons, or minute repeaters, or offer watches with a laundry list of different complications, so in that sense they are not on the cutting edge. On the other hand, the things that Rolex does, they seem to do very well. They spend quite a bit of R&D on research into things like special alloys for watch cases as as well as balance wheels, escapements and mainsprings.
In terms of quality, they seem to have a very well earned reputation. It's also important to note that Rolex produces somewhere around 600k-1 million watches a year. They seem to be very good at producing high quality at very large scale.
Regarding maintenance costs, I don't think Rolex is know as a particularly expensive brand, although again, I don't actually own a Rolex so this is second hand info from watch forums. I think one of the problems in this area is that I doubt most watch buyers, Rolex or otherwise, have any clue about the long term maintenance of watches. And I doubt the salespeople selling Rolexes spend much time educating potential customers on these costs so you probably end up with a bit of sticker shock when people realize they have to send a mechanical watch in for service. I do know that Rolex has received some criticism for making spare parts increasingly hard to get for independent repair shops, requiring customers go through authorized channels.
A complaint levied against the Swiss watch industry recently it that they are very happy to allocate labor & capital to producing and selling watches, but they don't like making the same investments in labor to ensure quick servicing, which has a habit of pissing off customers when they have to send a watch back to Switzerland for months at a time every few years. One of the things Rolex has been working on with regards to mainsprings and other alloys is developing movements that require less frequent lubrication and servicing.
I'll also add that Rolex movements, both the newer ones as well as older ones from the 1960s-70s, have a reputation for being rock solid and relatively straight forward to service, assuming parts availability. I've never worked on Rolex movements myself but I have done minor servicing on several ETA 2824s, a lower end workhorse of the Swiss watch industry, and I've been told that Rolex movements are significantly more robust.
In terms of engineering, Rolex watches tend to be on the simpler side, relative to some of the the complications you find in even higher end watches. They don't employ tourbillons, or minute repeaters, or offer watches with a laundry list of different complications, so in that sense they are not on the cutting edge. On the other hand, the things that Rolex does, they seem to do very well. They spend quite a bit of R&D on research into things like special alloys for watch cases as as well as balance wheels, escapements and mainsprings.
In terms of quality, they seem to have a very well earned reputation. It's also important to note that Rolex produces somewhere around 600k-1 million watches a year. They seem to be very good at producing high quality at very large scale.
Regarding maintenance costs, I don't think Rolex is know as a particularly expensive brand, although again, I don't actually own a Rolex so this is second hand info from watch forums. I think one of the problems in this area is that I doubt most watch buyers, Rolex or otherwise, have any clue about the long term maintenance of watches. And I doubt the salespeople selling Rolexes spend much time educating potential customers on these costs so you probably end up with a bit of sticker shock when people realize they have to send a mechanical watch in for service. I do know that Rolex has received some criticism for making spare parts increasingly hard to get for independent repair shops, requiring customers go through authorized channels.
A complaint levied against the Swiss watch industry recently it that they are very happy to allocate labor & capital to producing and selling watches, but they don't like making the same investments in labor to ensure quick servicing, which has a habit of pissing off customers when they have to send a watch back to Switzerland for months at a time every few years. One of the things Rolex has been working on with regards to mainsprings and other alloys is developing movements that require less frequent lubrication and servicing.
I'll also add that Rolex movements, both the newer ones as well as older ones from the 1960s-70s, have a reputation for being rock solid and relatively straight forward to service, assuming parts availability. I've never worked on Rolex movements myself but I have done minor servicing on several ETA 2824s, a lower end workhorse of the Swiss watch industry, and I've been told that Rolex movements are significantly more robust.