Please re-read my post. My comment was not a comparison of the two brands, but rather policy and the fact that Patek and/or AP are still willing to support their product in the aftersales category; watches of complicated nature with no limit on age. If they made it, they stand behind it. Sadly, Rolex does not stand behind their heritage... At least, not to the level that they should, considering their relatively uncomplicated watches that share many of the base components and concepts.
If the original manufacturer does not stand behind their product, then what does that tell collectors? Essentially i) your old Rolex is not worth keeping; trade it in for a new one (your watch is essentially disposable, only good for 10 or so years) and ii) we're not afraid to turn our back on you.
Last I checked, AP and Patek are still selling new watches, so cutting off your consumers who are likely to buy new and collect vintage isn't that great of a marketing sttategy. Especially considering that a typical modern/new Rolex is usually purchased not for it's horological merit, but rather as a symbol of status for someone who wants to show the world that he/she has made it in life (rolls eyes). So, I fail to see how not supporting your vintage customers will force them into buying a modern; the vintage collectors are the connoisseurs, not the status symbol seekers (they're likely far, far, far beyond that), though many of them purchase the new models as well. It's the wrong demographic of consumer to be snubbing.