Rolex

...but does anyone know why Rolex doesn’t make a Perpetual Calendar? They call some of their watches ‘Oyster Perpetual,’ but there doesn’t seem to be any ‘Perpetual’ about them. The ‘Oyster’ part I get...waterproof. I would probably even settle for an Ann... 

Owning a vintage Sub I understand what Rolex’s bread and butter is. But wouldn’t it be amazing to have a smaller, thinner, dressier watch with a PC complication (moon-phase included, naturally)? Perhaps it would be part of the Cellini line, but I imagine ... 

Rolex is able to produce any watch and they have a fantastic vintage collection. But as long as we make each other crazy with all these Oysters with minor detail differences, why would Rolex care. It is a very good brand, but it could have been a very int... 

It’s not how Rolex currently position themselves in the market.

They don’t want to. They don’t have to. They’re busy enough already. Cazalea

...I realize they don’t have to (common response), but I kind of like this reply the best. They would want to build it a certain, way, and perhaps that just can’t be done. I suppose the hunt for a Daytona will continue (not for me).

It's likely when they do the math, the tech doesn't fit into the level of reliability they have as a standard.

. . . and reasonably reliable, though? It shouldn't be out of the question for Rolex to come up with a comparable solution. One could pose an even broader question: why don't they offer repeaters, tourbillons, or grand complications? Not that I know much ... 

Rolex is making an Annual Calendar but the jump to a PC is large and very complex. No reason to do that when they are selling everything they make now. No matter how they package the GMT movement folks have to have each one. They are collectors you know.

...the technology necessary is well within the abilities of Rolex. It isn’t magic. I doubt that patents even apply at this point since everyone and their brother make a PC.