I don't like the trade-offs, but I understand them. I am focused on three:
1. Manufacturing to very fine tolerances. This allows even inexpensive watches to perform very well, even if they have small or thin movements. Of course, the watches are now designed so that each part of the movement requires each other part's fitting perfectly, so a watch that is only slightly out of specification may fail. This adds to problems in initial quality and long-term reliability, especially since such tiny imperfections are very difficult to spot in the quality control process.
2. Manufacturing to suit the needs of automated manufacturing processes. Again, this allows watches to be made much more inexpensively than before. However, it would appear that in some cases machine-fabrication processes require the use of softer metals and simpler shapes (for example, of gear teeth) than were used previously. The bad news: the parts don't last as long and in some cases the simpler shapes contribute to the requirement that all other parts be perfect for the watch to function. The good news: modern parts are interchangeable and replaceable. The further bad news: most manufacturers are making concerted efforts to ensure that you can't get parts for their watches unless you have the watches serviced at the factory (not cheap), or even in some cases to ensure that you can't get parts at all for watches past a certain age (and therefore have to buy a new one instead). The even further bad news: between the use of ever-more exotic materials and the proliferation of watch companies that will go out of business in the next downturn in the watch market, there are going to be a lot of "orphaned" watches sitting around twenty years from now.
3. Low performance standards. I consider this one to be a clear problem. Given the level of precision available, better watch companies should be making watches that vastly exceed chronometer standards. If a watch company said, "Look, your watch will need to have a lot of parts replaced at its five-year service, but until then expect it to perform with -1 to +2 per day in any position," I would happily embrace the tradeoff. Instead, they save money by continuing to act as if -4 to +6 (or whatever similar standard they use) is really good. That bugs me.
Meanwhile, the balance wheel of one of my 50-year old Audemars automatics is out of poise. Fortunately, it has a screwed balance. I dropped the watch off at my watchmaker's shop, and soon it will be back in poise. His comment: "They don't make watches this strong any more." I am confident that it will soon be performing as well as its modern counterparts. That's why I like old watches.
I admit, however, that without the trade-offs described above mechanical watches would require so much highly-skilled hand labor that they would be prohibitively expensive. I think that would be bad for all of us: we would be having a lot less fun.