# is the iwatch going to replace all watches as fashion?



## Legore

im seeing so many celebrities going iwatch...and even on style forums people were talking about selling their old rolexes to get the 10k$ iwatch... the other day i was in the lobby for doctors appointment and this guy with an iwatch looked at another guy who had an omega and literally said "oh an omega? how quaint, i used to be a big watchaholic, but after the iwatch i could never go back to a traditional watch."

i almost strangled him from across the room :|


----------



## Francisco Grajales

Don´t expect the majority of the people to understand the difference between a mechanical watch and the digital watches in general (iwatch). Nowadays it is all about "cool" even if it is useless. If I wanted to tell time from a screen I just would use my phone, don´t need an iwatch........


----------



## Cobia

The imbecile factor of this thread is off the charts, i had to read it a few times to see i wasnt mistaken.

'style forums' 
'celebrities'
Ridiculous fables about doctors offices and omegas
People selling their rolex's to buy 10k smart phones, this threads really got it all.


----------



## Legore

Cobia said:


> The imbecile factor of this thread is off the charts, i had to read it a few times to see i wasnt mistaken.
> 
> 'style forums'
> 'celebrities'
> Ridiculous fables about doctors offices and omegas
> People selling their rolex's to buy 10k smart phones, this threads really got it all.


why are your panties in a knot today? Do you want to talk about it?


----------



## bigclive2011

OP get real!!

Posting something like this is going to illicit replies that you won't like!!

In answer to your question, don't be daft of course not!! It's a 5 minute wonder, I have a phone and an I pad for that stuff, and a collection of beautiful timepieces for telling the time and admiring, in equal measure.


----------



## frankyb

I doubt the Swiss watch industry is worried. Everyone thought when quartz movements hit the market that there would be no need again for high end mechanical watches. Rolex ignored that thought and redefined themselves in the process by doubling down on their movements. I think the iwatch is pretty cool but I'm not abandoning my mechanical watches any time soon. Technology driven products have a way of becoming worthless in time. Fine mechanical devices don't seem to ever go out of style. The question should be, "will the iwatch be relevant in 10 years"? Will anyone be able to fix it in 6? Anyone interested in my 1st gen ipod? I brought it to an Apple store for service and the 18 year old employee didn't know what it was! The manager declined to fix it.


----------



## tinknocker

LOL


----------



## hidden by leaves

Legore said:


> im seeing so many celebrities going iwatch...and *even on style forums people were talking about selling their old rolexes to get the 10k$ iwatch*... the other day i was in the lobby for doctors appointment and this guy with an iwatch looked at another guy who had an omega and literally said "oh an omega? how quaint, i used to be a big watchaholic, but after the iwatch i could never go back to a traditional watch."
> 
> i almost strangled him from across the room :|


I've never felt so good and secure in being a Rolex owner...

As for the rest of your "story", well... keep your day job.


----------



## Gunnar_917

Legore said:


> im seeing so many celebrities going iwatch...and even on style forums people were talking about selling their old rolexes to get the 10k$ iwatch... the other day i was in the lobby for doctors appointment and this guy with an iwatch looked at another guy who had an omega and literally said "oh an omega? how quaint, i used to be a big watchaholic, but after the iwatch i could never go back to a traditional watch."
> 
> i almost strangled him from across the room :|


&#55357;&#56398;


----------



## OSUMBA2003

No. Just no.


----------



## ttmctoad

The iwatch tells time, but I don't consider it a watch. It might replace what a certain percentage of individuals wear on their wrists, but it's main function is not as a timepiece.


----------



## watermanxxl

Novelty sells... 
A quality "tool diver" won't easily be replaced by a digital device. If that were the case..."diving computers" would've long ago drove "mechanicals" out of the market... 
And, so it is with the smartwatch. Cute...Trendy...Clever...they're a neat "electronic gimmick" to fiddle on the train. But, a watch..especially one "mission specific" (diver, dress, flieger) conveys a "classic style" that a iWatch doesn't pull-off as well.
What a sad day it will be...when James Bond checks the time...on a Pebble. LoL!


----------



## TradeKraft

Vinyl
Fountain pens
Classic cars
Sailing
Cufflinks
Film-based photography
Blackpowder rifles
Charcoal BBQs
Straight razors
The list goes on and on, not everyone is consumed with "new" some people prefer a "purer" experience.


----------



## Nokie

To each his own........


----------



## Polke45

Logically speaking, if you put a rolex, patek, jlc, or etc watch on a table next to an iwatch edition, i guarantee most people who pick up the iwatch first to exam it don't know much about watches. It just shows how many people favor the apple brand regardless the longevity 

People who are passionated about watches wouldn't sell their collection for a smart watch


----------



## Sam K

I know this is a troll post, but I will answer it anyway because the question is interesting. Beware, heavy bias will follow: 


The gold Apple Watch (we’ll call it the GACH because that sounds slightly disgusting, like the people who will buy it) is the ultimate fashion accessory. By its very nature, it will be outdated in a year and completely behind in less than two years. Because of the technology becoming obsolete, there’s no real chance of a “vintage” or “retro” feel to it at this point. While vintage cars (and watches) and retro clothes can have some charm, a GACH in 5 years will be like using a first generation Pentium running Windows 95. 



The GACH will be an important status symbol for people who strive to be seen as trendy, and who need luxuries that are easily recognized by everyone. I do not think it is a coincidence that people (supposedly) “plan to sell their Rolexes” – people who want a recognizable luxury watch buy a Rolex. People who want a recognizable luxury ANYTHING buy a Rolex. It’s probably the world’s most recognized luxury brand! You won’t find many claims of people selling their JLCs, Omegas, IWCs or Pateks to buy GACHes, even though all those companies offer watches as expensive as the prestige Rolexes, because most people outside the WIS and some brand snobs aren’t familiar with those brands. If you mentioned Patek Philippe on a style or fashion forum, people would ask if that was your hairdresser. 



Two kinds of people will want to buy GACHes: 
1. Those who are so wealthy and trend-conscious that buying a $10k fashion accessory that will be worthless save the material it’s made of, in 2 years, is no big deal. 
2. Those who wish they were. 

The first group can easily sell their gold and diamond Rolexes to buy GACHes, but selling would be a statement rather than a financial transaction required to buy the GACH. I’m not sure what the second group can do? I don’t think selling their Michael Kors quartz will give enough to put a downpayment on even a regular Apple watch. 


And just so there are no hurt feelings: it is in no way my intention to rip on Rolex. They make outstanding products, and I would be proud to wear a Daytona or a Submariner, although I will admit that the main appeal for a Rolex is the recognizable luxury. No better way to annoy my communist friends.


----------



## kjelldb

When you need to sell your Rolex to buy a gold apple watch you should buy something cheaper.


----------



## hidden by leaves

Sam K said:


> I know this is a troll post, but I will answer it anyway because the question is interesting. Beware, heavy bias will follow:
> 
> The gold Apple Watch (we'll call it the GACH because that sounds slightly disgusting, like the people who will buy it) is the ultimate fashion accessory. By its very nature, it will be outdated in a year and completely behind in less than two years. Because of the technology becoming obsolete, there's no real chance of a "vintage" or "retro" feel to it at this point. While vintage cars (and watches) and retro clothes can have some charm, a GACH in 5 years will be like using a first generation Pentium running Windows 95.
> 
> The GACH will be an important status symbol for people who strive to be seen as trendy, and who need luxuries that are easily recognized by everyone. I do not think it is a coincidence that people (supposedly) "plan to sell their Rolexes" - people who want a recognizable luxury watch buy a Rolex. People who want a recognizable luxury ANYTHING buy a Rolex. It's probably the world's most recognized luxury brand! You won't find many claims of people selling their JLCs, Omegas, IWCs or Pateks to buy GACHes, even though all those companies offer watches as expensive as the prestige Rolexes, because most people outside the WIS and some brand snobs aren't familiar with those brands. If you mentioned Patek Philippe on a style or fashion forum, people would ask if that was your hairdresser.
> 
> Two kinds of people will want to buy GACHes:
> 1. Those who are so wealthy and trend-conscious that buying a $10k fashion accessory that will be worthless save the material it's made of, in 2 years, is no big deal.
> 2. Those who wish they were.
> 
> The first group can easily sell their gold and diamond Rolexes to buy GACHes, but selling would be a statement rather than a financial transaction required to buy the GACH. I'm not sure what the second group can do? I don't think selling their Michael Kors quartz will give enough to put a downpayment on even a regular Apple watch.
> 
> And just so there are no hurt feelings: it is in no way my intention to rip on Rolex. They make outstanding products, and I would be proud to wear a Daytona or a Submariner, although I will admit that the main appeal for a Rolex is the recognizable luxury. No better way to annoy my communist friends.


Thanks for redeeming this bad joke of a thread.


----------



## flybynight70

In one word: Nope.

Different demographics, different senses of what 'staus' means to some.

Those looking for a "look at me" watch might go with the Apple Watch, but's that a whole 'nother subset of the watch-wearers at large.

If they like/enjoy it, more to 'em. But on a watch forum dedicated to watches, I don't think you'll find many sympathetic voices.

Personally, I like my watches for what they _are_, not what they _represent_.

YMMV


----------



## Tucker3434

watermanxxl said:


> Novelty sells...
> A quality "tool diver" won't easily be replaced by a digital device. If that were the case..."diving computers" would've long ago drove "mechanicals" out of the market...
> And, so it is with the smartwatch. Cute...Trendy...Clever...they're a neat "electronic gimmick" to fiddle on the train. But, a watch..especially one "mission specific" (diver, dress, flieger) conveys a "classic style" that a iWatch doesn't pull-off as well.
> What a sad day it will be...when James Bond checks the time...on a Pebble. LoL!


You're right about the classic style. The apple watch is just plain ugly, and Bond will never be caught dead at a black tie dinner in one. But I don't think they're a gimmick either. They aren't must haves yet, but I believe they're moving in that direction. I Doubt were too many movies away from Bond checking the time on a special Q-edition smart watch while fighting bad guys in a jungle.


----------



## BarracksSi

No.

This is "fashionable" and presents a certain style for just fifteen bucks. You could accumulate a large stash of these for every outfit and spend less than an entry level Apple Watch.

Not saying whether my wife has actually _worn_ it, but still&#8230;


----------



## Fer Guzman

I do think it will replace fashion watches that are close to the price of the apple watch.



Legore said:


> "oh an omega? how quaint, i used to be a big watchaholic, but after the iwatch i could never go back to a traditional watch."


I can't see myself using a traditional watch as my daily wearer anymore either.



frankyb said:


> I doubt the Swiss watch industry is worried. Everyone thought when quartz movements hit the market that there would be no need again for high end mechanical watches. Rolex ignored that thought and redefined themselves in the process by doubling down on their movements. I think the iwatch is pretty cool but I'm not abandoning my mechanical watches any time soon. Technology driven products have a way of becoming worthless in time. Fine mechanical devices don't seem to ever go out of style. The question should be, "will the iwatch be relevant in 10 years"? Will anyone be able to fix it in 6? Anyone interested in my 1st gen ipod? I brought it to an Apple store for service and the 18 year old employee didn't know what it was! The manager declined to fix it.


The swiss companies that survived did so because they accepted the inferiority and high price of a swiss mechanical watch when it comes to telling time versus a quartz watch so they shifted to making watches that serve more as jewelry or accessories. A brilliant strategy. They doubled down on prestige, status, and ornateness. Will the apple watch be relevant in 10 years? Who knows. Will it be fixable in 6 years? Doubt it, but is anyone expecting that? The apple watch doesn't compete with the rolex or pateks of the world. But it does with all the cheaper swiss watches.



watermanxxl said:


> Novelty sells...
> A quality "tool diver" won't easily be replaced by a digital device. If that were the case..."diving computers" would've long ago drove "mechanicals" out of the market...
> And, so it is with the smartwatch. Cute...Trendy...Clever...they're a neat "electronic gimmick" to fiddle on the train. But, a watch..especially one "mission specific" (diver, dress, flieger) conveys a "classic style" that a iWatch doesn't pull-off as well.
> What a sad day it will be...when James Bond checks the time...on a Pebble. LoL!


Mechanical tool divers don't sell because of their diving characteristics they sell because they are rugged and cool. While I don't know many divers, none of the ones I do know use a mechanical watch to dive, they use some sort of digital watch. James Bond already used a digital watch, with a tux nonetheless, and it looked pretty cool to me.



Tucker3434 said:


> You're right about the classic style. The apple watch is just plain ugly, and Bond will never be caught dead at a black tie dinner in one. But I don't think they're a gimmick either. They aren't must haves yet, but I believe they're moving in that direction. I Doubt were too many movies away from Bond checking the time on a special Q-edition smart watch while fighting bad guys in a jungle.


Pulsar










seiko


----------



## valmak

Uber = Apple
Rolex, Omega, etc... = Paris cab drivers

LOL


----------



## 123Blueface

Polke45 said:


> Logically speaking, if you put a rolex, patek, jlc, or etc watch on a table next to an iwatch edition, i guarantee most people who pick up the iwatch first to exam it don't know much about watches. It just shows how many people favor the apple brand regardless the longevity
> 
> People who are passionated about watches wouldn't sell their collection for a smart watch


Not only those passionate, but those who know they bought a Rolex in 1994, to be worth 3x's as much 20 years later.
Try that with the Apple Watch.
I had the SS with Classic Leather Band. Sold it.
It was inconceivable for me to justify a new Rolex Sub and a new Breitling Navitimer sitting in a safe with an Apple Watch on my wrist. Life is way too short.


----------



## Fer Guzman

^ If you purchased a SS apple watch and had it in the first 2 weeks or so you easily could have made $100 profit. With a new Submariner, you would have lost money. That being said, no one expects their apple watch to appreciate even after a year let alone a decade or two.


----------



## zetaplus93

123Blueface said:


> Not only those passionate, but those who know they bought a Rolex in 1994, to be worth 3x's as much 20 years later.
> Try that with the Apple Watch.
> I had the SS with Classic Leather Band. Sold it.
> It was inconceivable for me to justify a new Rolex Sub and a new Breitling Navitimer sitting in a safe with an Apple Watch on my wrist. Life is way too short.


Agreed. Life's too short, wear what you like!


----------



## shnjb

I could see the apple watch replacing most watched below $2000 range except for the cheapest kind.


----------



## 41Mets

I love apple. I love my iPhone and my computer. But I like that I can use the phone as my computer in one hand. Those who didn't need a watch to tell the time in the first place are the people who will consider the apple watch. They may have owned a digital watch just to tell the time, and this will just be a digital watch that has more features. But anyone who appreciates the feeling of a real watch, or the look of a real watch will never switch to an apple watch.


----------



## zetaplus93

jaywinston41 said:


> But anyone who appreciates the feeling of a real watch, or the look of a real watch will never switch to an apple watch.


But many people have.


----------



## James142

Fer Guzman said:


>


Uhhh ... he's wearing a watch? 

I got distracted.


----------



## watermanxxl

Fer Guzman said:


> I do think it will replace fashion watches that are close to the price of the apple watch.
> 
> I can't see myself using a traditional watch as my daily wearer anymore either.
> 
> The swiss companies that survived did so because they accepted the inferiority and high price of a swiss mechanical watch when it comes to telling time versus a quartz watch so they shifted to making watches that serve more as jewelry or accessories. A brilliant strategy. They doubled down on prestige, status, and ornateness. Will the apple watch be relevant in 10 years? Who knows. Will it be fixable in 6 years? Doubt it, but is anyone expecting that? The apple watch doesn't compete with the rolex or pateks of the world. But it does with all the cheaper swiss watches.
> 
> Mechanical tool divers don't sell because of their diving characteristics they sell because they are rugged and cool. While I don't know many divers, none of the ones I do know use a mechanical watch to dive, they use some sort of digital watch. James Bond already used a digital watch, with a tux nonetheless, and it looked pretty cool to me.
> 
> Pulsar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seiko
> View attachment 4445266


Bond wearing a digital... It was the 70's; they thought "bell bottoms", platform shoes and "butterfly collars" were kewl then too.


----------



## Veda

zetaplus93 said:


> But many people have.


Yes you'd be surprised. My friend who wears a Zenith and is very knowledgeable in horology started wearing an AW and he can't let it go. Not sure if he will ever go back to his Zenith. I actually thought it looks cool too. Switzerland has a strong case to be afraid.


----------



## zetaplus93

Veda said:


> Yes you'd be surprised. My friend who wears a Zenith and is very knowledgeable in horology started wearing an AW and he can't let it go. Not sure if he will ever go back to his Zenith. I actually thought it looks cool too. Switzerland has a strong case to be afraid.


We're actually agreeing. My response to another statement was that there are watch people (i.e. those with several traditional) who both love traditional watches and new modern smartwatches (like myself).


----------



## 123Blueface

watermanxxl said:


> Bond wearing a digital... It was the 70's; they thought "bell bottoms", platform shoes and "butterfly collars" were kewl then too.


What do you mean they thought? I wore all three and they were cool! LOL


----------



## Silvertouran

FYI. 
It's not called the iwatch. It's an Apple Watch.


----------



## scentedlead

watermanxxl said:


> Bond wearing a digital... It was the 70's; they thought "bell bottoms", platform shoes and "butterfly collars" were kewl then too.





123Blueface said:


> What do you mean they thought? I wore all three and they were cool! LOL


Because I love my mother, I am going to say that her wardrobe from the '70s was cool.

Round digital watch . . . Cringe. Surely Bond can do better with a digital watch. I kinda like the Seiko H357 ana-digi. Clear the RAM and voilà, the message has self-destructed . . . or, I hope that memory is self-erasing.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Veda said:


> Yes you'd be surprised. My friend who wears a Zenith and is very knowledgeable in horology started wearing an AW and he can't let it go. Not sure if he will ever go back to his Zenith. I actually thought it looks cool too. Switzerland has a strong case to be afraid.


This probably gives Apple 1% of hope, and the SWISS industry 5% concern
Post back when your friend sells his ZENITH


----------



## 123Blueface

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> This probably gives Apple 1% of hope, and the SWISS industry 5% concern
> Post back when your friend sells his ZENITH


Awesome response!


----------



## Veda

123Blueface said:


> Awesome response!


Err he just did. But probably because he also has an old IWC.


----------



## 123Blueface

scentedlead said:


> Because I love my mother, I am going to say that her wardrobe from the '70s was cool.


I have to admit that while we thought that fashion was really cool then, man do I spit my coffee when I look back at it now.
Cant believe we wore elephant bell bottoms, checkered no less, with wild flowered shirts, with collars that reached your shoulders and then some, all while standing on 3-4" high heels with platforms to boot.

Comical now at minimuM, but hey, we were the fashion then. LOL


----------



## CamperMan

I would not even waste my time looking at an iWatch never mind wasting money on one..... as soon as the warranty is out, the iWatch will disintegrate. or it will need an update and become obsolete.


----------



## Henraa

CamperMan said:


> I would not even waste my time looking at an iWatch never mind wasting money on one..... as soon as the warranty is out, the iWatch will disintegrate. or it will need an update and become obsolete.


I wouldn't say that as Apple are one of the best companies for supporting old devices. They still provide updates for the iPhone 4S and my original iPod 1st generation from 2007 is supported as I bought an update for £1.50 the other day (using it for our daughter).

I understand what you are saying though. Next year the Apple Watch 2 will be out and will have many of the features users should have expected this time around. Apple do drip feed features to their devices to spread out the releases. I have an iPhone 6 but with hands on experience of the Apple Watch, I can't say I am in the least bit tempted. I still prefer a traditional watch and am not lazy enough to worry about pulling my phone out of my pocket. I appreciate the fitness side of it, but can wear my iPhone in an arm band and save more money. I am seeing surprisingly few about and only one person I know actually bought one. The reaction has been rather mute.


----------



## Yuj

This thread is interesting to me, and I'd like to add my experiences:

I work in tech, I'm in my mid-20s and I've been enamored with watches for a very long time. I've bought and sold various Breitlings, Omegas, IWCs. I like to design and 3d print watch cases and put mechanical movements in them for fun.

However, I did get an Apple watch, and I must say that it's amazing. I don't really care about the notifications, apps, whatever. On my watch face, I can have a second timezone, weather, stocks, and my next calendar appointment. That in itself already makes the watch worth it. I've worn my Fifty Fathoms twice since I've had the Apple watch (because I was kayaking at a lake). To be completely honest, I've been contemplating selling it.

With that said, I still of course believe that there will always be a market for mechanicals. I still enjoy looking at a beautifully crafted movement through a sapphire caseback (which I also install in my 3d printed watches). However, financially, purchasing a new mechanical today is hard to justify for me. I also did a quick NPV analysis of the cost of purchasing a Rolex Submariner (plus service every 10 years) versus buying a brand new Apple Watch every 2 years (without accounting for resale) over a 30 year period with a very conservative discount rate of 6%. The net cost in today's dollars of the Submariner+service over 30 years is $7,500 versus $5,400 for 15 Apple Watches over 30 years.

Math:








Sure, it can be argued that some Rolex models increase in value over time, but past performance is no indication of future returns. Additionally, trying to pick the model that you think will increase in value over 30 years is really no different than gambling. Not only that, if you're buying your watch with the hope that it gains value, then you sure as hell aren't wearing it. Which would be a shame.


----------



## scentedlead

With the Rolex Submariner, everyone says to service it every five years. But I’d let that slide because I know if I owned one, I’d try to push it to ten years.

But, how do you figure a two year buying cycle for the AW? That’s the buying pattern for smartphones but only because two years is the length of a cell phone contract and that’s when subscribers are eligible for a discounted phone. As for tablets, people’s buying cycles for them run more like 3 – 4 years, like a computer. We don’t know yet the general buying cycle for smartwatches. How long will people’s upgrade cycles be if new products are remarkably different, like the Pebble? How long will people’s upgrade cycles be if new products are only incremental improvements, like with most established products?


----------



## 123Blueface

scentedlead said:


> With the Rolex Submariner, everyone says to service it every five years. But I'd let that slide because I know if I owned one, I'd try to push it to ten years.


It's now official, directly from Rolex. Recommended service is now 10 years instead of 5.


----------



## 123Blueface

Yuj said:


> This thread is interesting to me, and I'd like to add my experiences:
> 
> I work in tech, I'm in my mid-20s and I've been enamored with watches for a very long time. I've bought and sold various Breitlings, Omegas, IWCs. I like to design and 3d print watch cases and put mechanical movements in them for fun.
> 
> However, I did get an Apple watch, and I must say that it's amazing. I don't really care about the notifications, apps, whatever. On my watch face, I can have a second timezone, weather, stocks, and my next calendar appointment. That in itself already makes the watch worth it. I've worn my Fifty Fathoms twice since I've had the Apple watch (because I was kayaking at a lake). To be completely honest, I've been contemplating selling it.
> 
> With that said, I still of course believe that there will always be a market for mechanicals. I still enjoy looking at a beautifully crafted movement through a sapphire caseback (which I also install in my 3d printed watches). However, financially, purchasing a new mechanical today is hard to justify for me. I also did a quick NPV analysis of the cost of purchasing a Rolex Submariner (plus service every 10 years) versus buying a brand new Apple Watch every 2 years (without accounting for resale) over a 30 year period with a very conservative discount rate of 6%. The net cost in today's dollars of the Submariner+service over 30 years is $7,500 versus $5,400 for 15 Apple Watches over 30 years.
> 
> Math:
> View attachment 4882770
> 
> 
> Sure, it can be argued that some Rolex models increase in value over time, but past performance is no indication of future returns. Additionally, trying to pick the model that you think will increase in value over 30 years is really no different than gambling. Not only that, if you're buying your watch with the hope that it gains value, then you sure as hell aren't wearing it. Which would be a shame.


Great analysis but having owned both, I prefer to wear the same Rolex Sub Bluesey for 10 years than 5 Apple Watches in the same period of time.


----------



## Tallest

Legore said:


> im seeing so many celebrities going iwatch...and even on style forums people were talking about selling their old rolexes to get the 10k$ iwatch... the other day i was in the lobby for doctors appointment and this guy with an iwatch looked at another guy who had an omega and literally said "oh an omega? how quaint, i used to be a big watchaholic, but after the iwatch i could never go back to a traditional watch."
> 
> i almost strangled him from across the room :|


For some reason an episode of South Park popped into mind. You know, the one where they all drive Priuses and are so smug about it.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Remember Patek statement
"you never own a Patek, you are only looking after it for the next (and next and next) generation

When I die my 1998 Rolex will carry on another 100 Years when Yuj dies, his Apple watch will be sold as scrap

Fact

And I bet, there are more people in Apple Board Meetings worried about iWatch sales than there is in Swiss watch manufacturers boardrooms

Would Steve Jobs have launched the iWatch - I doubt it!
A


----------



## scentedlead

If we wanted our phones to last the next generations, we’d still be using rotary phones. Even if my dad owned a Rolex, I’d care less about inheriting that and more about inheriting the house I grew up on. (Though, I’d jump on a Patek.) I think it’s very pompous to assume your descendants are going to have the exact same taste that you have.

How insecure should smartwatch makers and mechanical watch makers feel? One appeals to people who want a tool on their wrist, the other appeals to people who want a piece of adornment. How insecure you feel depends on how much you think those two overlap.

Also, Tim Cook has been running big chunks of Apple long before Steve Jobs died, and Steve Jobs even told him to not think about, “What would Steve Jobs do?” but to run the company the way he thinks it should be run. Sure, Jobs might of said of Cook, “Tim’s not a product person,” but whatever, that’s what Jony Ive is for—the one who with Marc Newson is largely responsible for the Apple Watch.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

scentedlead said:


> If we wanted our phones to last the next generations, we'd still be using rotary phones. Even if my dad owned a Rolex, I'd care less about inheriting that and more about inheriting the house I grew up on. (Though, I'd jump on a Patek.) I think it's very pompous to assume your descendants are going to have the exact same taste that you have.
> 
> How insecure should smartwatch makers and mechanical watch makers feel? One appeals to people who want a tool on their wrist, the other appeals to people who want a piece of adornment. How insecure you feel depends on how much you think those two overlap.
> 
> Also, Tim Cook has been running big chunks of Apple long before Steve Jobs died, and Steve Jobs even told him to not think about, "What would Steve Jobs do?" but to run the company the way he thinks it should be run. Sure, Jobs might of said of Cook, "Tim's not a product person," but whatever, that's what Jony Ive is for-the one who with Marc Newson is largely responsible for the Apple Watch.


You want the house, you would "I'd jump on a Patek."
Fine, no difference to my Rolex analogy
Would you "Though, I'd jump on a Apple iWatch." - I doubt it!

Great for Tim Cook - he might be the next John Skulley!


----------



## Yuj

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Remember Patek statement
> "you never own a Patek, you are only looking after it for the next (and next and next) generation
> 
> When I die my 1998 Rolex will carry on another 100 Years when Yuj dies, his Apple watch will be sold as scrap
> 
> Fact
> 
> And I bet, there are more people in Apple Board Meetings worried about iWatch sales than there is in Swiss watch manufacturers boardrooms
> 
> Would Steve Jobs have launched the iWatch - I doubt it!
> A


As much as I love swiss watches, I don't think I can buy into their marketing. I've worked in sales before: "sell the sizzle, not the steak." In other words, don't list product features; sell feelings and make people picture how amazing their life will be with the product. Swiss watch companies love to tell you a story about how you'll pass these watches down to your children, and they to their children. The harsh reality is that many of these expensive mechanical watches that are passed down will require expensive servicing in increasingly frequent intervals, may have parts that are no longer in production that need to be replaced, and there's a very high probability that it will probably sit in a drawer and be forgotten.

For me, the core functionality of the Apple watch (the steak) is: dual (or triple) time zone, weather, stocks, and calendar appointments on my watch face. As I stated earlier, I could care less about notifications, apps, whatever. Others like/dislike other things about the watch; that's fine. Yes, Apple tends to do a lot of sizzle for their products too, but there's definitely steak to back it up.

Again, don't get me wrong. I love the beauty of a mechanical watch; I love designing watches and wearing the watches that I've made. I love putting mechanical movements into these watches. But I think it's silly to think that a watch (whether mechanical, quartz, smart, etc) is something more than an item that's strapped to your wrist that helps you in some way. Of course I won't be passing down my Apple watch to my kids. Of course it'll be scrap in a few years. Unfortunately, many mechanical watches also end up as scrap.

If you want to invest in something for the future, invest in real estate. Invest in ETFs. Put money into your local community. Donate to the teachers, classrooms, community centers. Help out with music and arts education programs. Watches are not investing.


----------



## Drumguy

Legore said:


> im seeing so many celebrities going iwatch...and even on style forums people were talking about selling their old rolexes to get the 10k$ iwatch... the other day i was in the lobby for doctors appointment and this guy with an iwatch looked at another guy who had an omega and literally said "oh an omega? how quaint, i used to be a big watchaholic, but after the iwatch i could never go back to a traditional watch."
> 
> i almost strangled him from across the room :|


Because celebrities and style forums are known for their quality timepiece selection right? What kind of doctors office was it? A psychiatrist? Because only a mentally challenged person would say something like that to a stranger without worrying about having that apple watch shoved up their ass. Either way I doubt that happened and as for the apple watch, I would say to anyone thinking it's going to replace all watches as fashion......I'll believe you when you can show me that same watch in 20 years still working.


----------



## Drumguy

Yuj said:


> As much as I love swiss watches, I don't think I can buy into their marketing. I've worked in sales before: "sell the sizzle, not the steak." In other words, don't list product features; sell feelings and make people picture how amazing their life will be with the product. Swiss watch companies love to tell you a story about how you'll pass these watches down to your children, and they to their children. The harsh reality is that many of these expensive mechanical watches that are passed down will require expensive servicing in increasingly frequent intervals, may have parts that are no longer in production that need to be replaced, and there's a very high probability that it will probably sit in a drawer and be forgotten.
> 
> For me, the core functionality of the Apple watch (the steak) is: dual (or triple) time zone, weather, stocks, and calendar appointments on my watch face. As I stated earlier, I could care less about notifications, apps, whatever. Others like/dislike other things about the watch; that's fine. Yes, Apple tends to do a lot of sizzle for their products too, but there's definitely steak to back it up.
> 
> Again, don't get me wrong. I love the beauty of a mechanical watch; I love designing watches and wearing the watches that I've made. I love putting mechanical movements into these watches. But I think it's silly to think that a watch (whether mechanical, quartz, smart, etc) is something more than an item that's strapped to your wrist that helps you in some way. Of course I won't be passing down my Apple watch to my kids. Of course it'll be scrap in a few years. Unfortunately, many mechanical watches also end up as scrap.
> 
> If you want to invest in something for the future, invest in real estate. Invest in ETFs. Put money into your local community. Donate to the teachers, classrooms, community centers. Help out with music and arts education programs. Watches are not investing.


First, I wouldn't take "investing advice" from a twenty something. Second, I have a Timex mechanical older than you and my wife has a Hamilton older than me by 25 years. Third, it is watch collecting 101 day one common knowledge that you don't buy watches as investments. So your age reflects your point of view, I am of the generation that knows to take care of things, meaning I work on my house, perform minor maintenance on our vehicles and know to get my watches serviced when they need them so they will last.


----------



## Lokifish

scentedlead said:


> How insecure should smartwatch makers and mechanical watch makers feel? One appeals to people who want a tool on their wrist, the other appeals to people who want a piece of adornment.


Most smartwatches are designed like a $5 Wal-Mart Special, the Apple Watch is more like a $20 Special. With my mechanicals, and only two smartwatches, I have never had to worry about water (at any depth I can swim to), mud, dirt, chemicals, paint and so on. With my other smartwatches however, almost every single one of those things has resulted in a dead smartwatch. And I've owned an awful lot of smartwatches in the past 10 years. So adornment, I think not. But having something on your wrist you have to treat like a fragile little flower, that's an adornment.


----------



## Yuj

Drumguy4all said:


> First, I wouldn't take "investing advice" from a twenty something. Second, I have a Timex mechanical older than you and my wife has a Hamilton older than me by 25 years. Third, it is watch collecting 101 day one common knowledge that you don't buy watches as investments. So your age reflects your point of view, I am of the generation that knows to take care of things, meaning I work on my house, perform minor maintenance on our vehicles and know to get my watches serviced when they need them so they will last.


That's fine, you don't have to take anyone's advice. Your life is your own. I work with people of all ages; many are younger than me, many are much older than me. With so much in this world to learn, I've never discounted any of their opinions or knowledge based on their age, so it seems a little shocking to me that you'd say such a statement. However, every person is different, so be it.

Regardless, you are correct in that our generations are different. My generation is about sharing, efficiency, and experiences. I own a car, but I'd rather not have to deal with it. However, you'd be mistaken to think that we don't know how to take care of things. I've definitely fixed issues in my house, on my 3d printer, and I cook almost every day. I've serviced a Unitas 6497 (the third wheel pinion was dirty and causing slippage).

I'm glad that you have mechanical watches older than me. I hope you enjoy them in good health. We have different needs. For me--even though I love mechanicals--an Apple Watch makes more sense.


----------



## 123Blueface

On another thread I created, a great revelation arose.
One buys a Rolex and is pleased they offer a five year warranty and only needs to be serviced every ten years.
So what does one do with that Rolex? You wear the hell out of it and enjoy it, carelessly if need be, as the likelihood of invoking the warranty is slim to none. They are made to last for ages, through generations.

In contrast, one buys an Apple Watch and feels compelled to get Apple Care because concerned about breakdown, screen, water, air, dust, staring at it too long but more importantly, because a purportedly such great product offers a lousy short term warranty. Things that make you go hmmmm.

I have had the privilege of owning both. Let me be clear, major, major Apple Fan Boy here. My house is full of Apple products. They make it, I buy it. The Apple Watch is the first product of theirs I got rid of in a month. In fact, the first Apple product I ever sold without replacing it with a newer Apple product to fill that need. I didn't need an extension of my phone on my wrist when I can burn some quality calories by reaching in my pocket and have a better quality and larger screen.

If the Apple Watch is for you and makes you happy, that is all that counts. But to compare it to a quality watch that will last a lifetime and then some? To think it is the next big thing and Switzerland needs to be concerned? One can only chuckle at such thoughts. In fact, skip chuckling and just break out in laughter.


----------



## 123Blueface

The progression of my Apple Watch.




























To this










Time sharing with this


----------



## scentedlead

Lokifish said:


> Most smartwatches are designed like a $5 Wal-Mart Special, the Apple Watch is more like a $20 Special. With my mechanicals, and only two smartwatches, I have never had to worry about water (at any depth I can swim to), mud, dirt, chemicals, paint and so on.


Honestly, for a waterproof watch, I'm saving up for a G-Shock GWM5610. For less than $200, I'm looking at 200m water resistance, the day/date, world time, a 1/100 second stopwatch, four alarms, a solar battery, an atomic radio with ±15 seconds per month when out of range of an atomic clock but that's moot because I've never been out of range of one. If I want a watch as a tool, no mechanical is going to beat that kind of value.

I can't think of when I'd ever need a waterproof watch to have an analog face instead of digital, but if I did, I'd go with a Casio Marlin. I like the precision of quartz and $50 for 200m water resistance is an awesome bargain.



> With my other smartwatches however, almost every single one of those things has resulted in a dead smartwatch. And I've owned an awful lot of smartwatches in the past 10 years.


*shrugs* So I adapt. It'd be nice if the AW were water resistant to 200m, but oh well. That's what the G-Shock will be for.



> So adornment, I think not. But having something on your wrist you have to treat like a fragile little flower, that's an adornment.


Mechanicals are mesmerizing, but there's a reason I'll own one and only one. I want the time as accurate as possible; I also want as many complications as possible-day, date, alarm, chronograph/timer, world clock, moonphase, sunrise/sunset, power reserve. I want the time and I want it in lots of different ways. The less a watch gives me of what I want, the less of a tool it is and the more it is adornment.


----------



## scentedlead

123Blueface said:


> If the Apple Watch is for you and makes you happy, that is all that counts. But to compare it to a quality watch that will last a lifetime and then some? To think it is the next big thing and Switzerland needs to be concerned? One can only chuckle at such thoughts. In fact, skip chuckling and just break out in laughter.


No one's saying smartwatches will last forever. But complications that make a mechanical watch cost more than a house in a middle class neighborhood are suddenly available for only a few hundred dollars. Plus add all the more that a computer platform has the potential for.

There will always be a market for mechanical watches. But quartz pushed mechanicals outside the mainstream and into niche demographics-namely the high end of the watch market. Since the '60s and '70s, most brands of mechanicals either went bankrupt or went to higher price points, with the ones in the highest price points going towards in-house everything, making pieces more exclusive and more expensive.

Of course the mechanical watch industry will survive but _how_ it will survive is the question-will the industry accelerate the same trajectory it has been since the '70s and go even more exclusive and inaccessible? Or something else? And if so, then what is that something else?


----------



## scentedlead

Back to topic: Is the Apple Watch going to replace all watches as fashion?

I saw a YouTube video of someone who had a dozen or so Michael Kors watches. Um, I don’t see the AW replacing fashion watches for fashion conscious buyers—even the costume jewelry watches. Smartwatches just can’t compete with that kind of bling.

Obviously, I think the AW isn’t ugly but, if you want jewelry first, a smartwatch can’t compete. You’d have to be satisfied with the supplied watch faces and have to be willing to use only watch straps as your only means of true personalization.

Editing to add:

I don’t think it’ll replace G-Shocks. No matter which ones you have, these things are their own fashion statement and the AW will replace few if any of them. I’m sure you can buy a pink AW and ink it with a gold or silver sharpie, but it’s just not the same thing as a pink G-Shock that you ink’d up yourself. You can also buy a matte black AW but, that too, is just not the same thing as a matte black G-Shock.

:think:

I wonder how many $20 digital Casios the AW will replace. If you can’t afford a smartwatch, then you can’t afford a smartwatch. But I wonder how many of those digital Casio wearers could afford a smartwatch.


----------



## CamperMan

.. it's the iWatch 1... then the iWatch 2 comes out and the people that follow fashion (sheeple) throw away the old outdated iWatch 1 and the cycle continues right up to iWatch 675 and beyond...

I will keep my mechanical watches.. they won't die on me just because a forced update makes it obsolete...


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> I wonder how many $20 digital Casios the AW will replace. If you can't afford a smartwatch, then you can't afford a smartwatch. But I wonder how many of those digital Casio wearers could afford a smartwatch.


You can count one of my coworkers among this group.

He's the second in our company to get an AW (as of two days ago, I'm the third), and I haven't seen him wear his Casio FW-91 (whatever model is the most basic Casio digital) since he received it.

But, he's not exactly broke, either. He just didn't think much about watches, and couldn't imagine spending four figures on something which just told the time.


----------



## Lokifish

scentedlead said:


> It'd be nice if the AW were water resistant to 200m, but oh well.


Kind of missing my point. A 200m rated Wear or Apple smartwatch is more than doable, so is 50m and even 10m. But just because a (smart)watch doesn't have 3 million features means it's an adornment, but something you can't wear all the time because of poor design and requires a second (smart)watch isn't? Apples to apples- a (smart)watch you *can't* wear in all situations* is *an adornment and has nothing to do with it's functions.


----------



## 123Blueface

While the Apple Watch has sold many units, many more than all Android combined, it has not been adopted as had hoped but Apple won't admit that. The main reason is it's nothing more than an extension of your iPhone on your wrist. If you were one of those like me that got the 6 Plus, why on Earth substitute that beautiful device with a tiny wrist one? To some, sure, it works, but not to all. It didn't for me. Once I realized the numerous limitations due to its lifeline to the iPhone, I was turned off and sold it.

When Apple figures out they need to make it an independent device as Android Watch devices are, because the competition will in fact catch up, then the next generations of Apple Watch will be a much better product. For now, it's a "dumb" smart watch since relies on another device to fully function. But hey, life is about variety and choices. We all make different ones for different reasons.


----------



## zetaplus93

123Blueface said:


> While the Apple Watch has sold many units, many more than all Android combined, it has not been adopted as had hoped but Apple won't admit that.


What would your expectation be for adoption rates 3 months in?



123Blueface said:


> The main reason is it's nothing more than an extension of your iPhone on your wrist. If you were one of those like me that got the 6 Plus, why on Earth substitute that beautiful device with a tiny wrist one?


Because bigger phones are more inconvenient to carry around, hence a small always-on-you-watch is a nice thing to have.

For example, I leave my phone on the kitchen table when I get home. It's nice to use the watch to control Apple TV and not have to hunt around for my phone.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

123Blueface said:


> While the Apple Watch has sold many units,


How many are sold.
a


----------



## 123Blueface

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> How many are sold.
> a


A recent article I read estimated 3 million units.


----------



## 123Blueface

zetaplus93 said:


> What would your expectation be for adoption rates 3 months in?
> 
> Because bigger phones are more inconvenient to carry around, hence a small always-on-you-watch is a nice thing to have.
> 
> For example, I leave my phone on the kitchen table when I get home. It's nice to use the watch to control Apple TV and not have to hunt around for my phone.


I have no expectation of sales for a company I have no financial interest in. Couldn't care less but from what I have read, not to the level Apple would have really liked.

As far as using around home and putting phone down somewhere, agree with you that was a nice convenience. However, I then realized I personally didn't care to be attached to a phone at the end of the day, after using two cell phones all day long. I prefer to use that time talking to my wife whom I have not seen all day. As to control TV, iPad does that well, as does a cell phone, and ready for this...................so does a good old fashioned remote control.

Last thing I cared for was having to now charge a third device every evening (iPhone and iPad also). As I said before, nice toy but not for me. The day Apple detaches the lifeline to the iPhone, I may reconsider one.


----------



## Henraa

123Blueface said:


> I have no expectation of sales for a company I have no financial interest in. Couldn't care less but from what I have read, not to the level Apple would have really liked.
> 
> As far as using around home and putting phone down somewhere, agree with you that was a nice convenience. However, I then realized I personally didn't care to be attached to a phone at the end of the day, after using two cell phones all day long. I prefer to use that time talking to my wife whom I have not seen all day. As to control TV, iPad does that well, as does a cell phone, and ready for this...................so does a good old fashioned remote control.
> 
> Last thing I cared for was having to now charge a third device every evening (iPhone and iPad also). As I said before, nice toy but not for me. The day Apple detaches the lifeline to the iPhone, I may reconsider one.


I think you raise a very good point or two here. I love my iPhone and it is an essential tool for me throughout the day, in and out of the office. The major point about the Apple watch for me is the fact it is on your wrist and you have to take it off to escape every email and notification coming through, unless you disable them and wear it as an ordinary watch. There's no point doing that as it defeats the purpose. The Apple watch bridges the gap a little too far for me in this regard and like yourself I don't really want to have to charge a third device overnight either.

I have no problem taking my phone out of my pocket to read emails, texts, browse social media, after all I have paid nearly £1000 for the privilege on my current contract. I also have no problem glancing down at my mechanical watch to read the time if I need to whilst appreciating it's aesthetics and craftsmanship. The Apple watch is a nice gadget, but for me that is all it is and not one I am desperate to get.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

123Blueface said:


> A recent article I read estimated 3 million units.


And their shares dropped some 5%, first time in years!

Who needs a watch that needs charged every 8 hours or so.
If it was mechanical, it would be doomed to disaster!


----------



## BarracksSi

8 hours?

Took me 18 hours to drop mine to 10% on my first full day.

Second day, at 10:27 PM, it's at 45%.








Check the bottom right corner:







Just so you can't say I took the screenshot in the morning:


----------



## dw90s

i doubt, i think it wont


----------



## Fer Guzman

scentedlead said:


> Back to topic: Is the Apple Watch going to replace all watches as fashion?
> 
> I saw a YouTube video of someone who had a dozen or so Michael Kors watches. Um, I don't see the AW replacing fashion watches for fashion conscious buyers-even the costume jewelry watches. Smartwatches just can't compete with that kind of bling.
> 
> Obviously, I think the AW isn't ugly but, if you want jewelry first, a smartwatch can't compete. You'd have to be satisfied with the supplied watch faces and have to be willing to use only watch straps as your only means of true personalization.
> 
> Editing to add:
> 
> I don't think it'll replace G-Shocks. No matter which ones you have, these things are their own fashion statement and the AW will replace few if any of them. I'm sure you can buy a pink AW and ink it with a gold or silver sharpie, but it's just not the same thing as a pink G-Shock that you ink'd up yourself. You can also buy a matte black AW but, that too, is just not the same thing as a matte black G-Shock.
> 
> :think:
> 
> I wonder how many $20 digital Casios the AW will replace. If you can't afford a smartwatch, then you can't afford a smartwatch. But I wonder how many of those digital Casio wearers could afford a smartwatch.


What the apple watch has going for it is that apple products tend to be fashion/status statements and seen as cool.

I'm a big Casio, especially gshock fan. Haven't even thought of buying s gshock since I purchased the AW. Gshocks are very popular but I wouldn't doubt apple taking some market share from them especially for the ones costing more than 300 and bought by people because their cool not really for the toughness.


----------



## Cobia

Seriously who could be bothered having to recharge a watch every day or two that offers nothing more than your phone ?

Im trying to make my life easier not make it harder and give myself another thing i have to think about every day.


----------



## scentedlead

Fer Guzman said:


> What the apple watch has going for it is that apple products tend to be fashion/status statements and seen as cool.
> 
> I'm a big Casio, especially gshock fan. Haven't even thought of buying s gshock since I purchased the AW. Gshocks are very popular but I wouldn't doubt apple taking some market share from them especially for the ones costing more than 300 and bought by people because their cool not really for the toughness.


Yeah, sure I can see G-Shock users buying Apple Watches. But, just because people buy one for its looks does that mean that they'll buy the other watch for its looks. The G-Shock and the AW Sport exude very different looks-one exudes "military warrior" while the other exudes "gym warrior." Just because someone doesn't buy a G-Shock for how waterproof and shockproof it is doesn't mean its reputation isn't a factor in the purchase.

As BarracksSi points out, not everything is about function. Some things are all about the look.

I don't think the smartwatch's competition is other watches; I think it's the cell phone, especially the smartphone. Is having a smartwatch that much more compelling than having only a smartphone?


----------



## scentedlead

Apple Watch pre-orders were 1 million in the US on its first day, a shopping data firm estimates - Quartz



> The most popular color is Apple's "space gray" aluminum case-40% of pre-orders-followed by stainless steel (34%), silver aluminum (23%), and "space black" steel (3%).


These are stats that Slice released in April about the pre-orders. Interesting that the Space Grey aluminum (aka, the totally black aluminum one) accounted for 40% of the pre-sales. And then, of the bands, the the black one made up 64% of the silicone bands sold.

Most AWs I've seen in the wild have been the black aluminum-I'm a little surprised when I see one that isn't. When I bought mine, the sales clerk noted that I was getting the same one as hers. I told her that I just really like black, even if the other bands look more fun. She said that she was really wanted the pink one but got the black one because "it goes with more of my wardrobe," yet she eventually got the pink band and gushed how well it went with the black aluminum "despite the silver dot in the back."

Despite all the choices available with between the AW and AW Sport, 40% of buyers bought the same black color scheme. Does the AW replace fashion watches? I think the 60% that did not buy the black aluminum probably care about the aesthetics of their watch. As for that 40%? That's probably a mix of people who do find that it fits in their aesthetics (like me) and also people who are "my one watch is a $20 digital Casio."

Or as John Gruber noted on his blog: Black Is the New Black



> According to Slice, a whopping 64 percent of Sport purchases were for the space gray model with black band, 22 percent for white, and a mere 6/4/4 for blue/green/pink respectively. If this is even close to the true mix, Apple probably should have left the blue/green/pink bands as  accessories only, and added a black-strap-on-silver-sport-watch choice.


I'd be really curious to see how a silver w/ black one sells compared to the black w/ black even though I have a suspicion that black w/ black would sell more. When I bought my iPhone 4s, I asked the sales clerk which color was more popular and without hesitation, they said black. I wonder if, for some buyers, what color watch to get is a matter of matching it to the phone.

Anyways, if you've seen the AW in the wild, which colors have you seen?


----------



## BarracksSi

Black-on-black has been the most common, then SS on leather, SS on mesh, other Sport colors, SS on black Sport band… roughly in that order.

I didn't realize until yesterday that I haven't seen many of the SS on Sport bands. Maybe buyers figure if they're going to spend more, they might as well pony up extra cash for a fancier band.


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> I didn't realize until yesterday that I haven't seen many of the SS on Sport bands. Maybe buyers figure if they're going to spend more, they might as well pony up extra cash for a fancier band.


My guess is that you'll likely see more SS w/rubber in the gym. Probably a lot of SS would be on mesh or link bracelet most of the time.


----------



## scentedlead

I have not seen a metal bracelet at all. What I see are Black on black sport, SS with leather or other Sport colors, and then rare SS with silicone band.

I admit that seeing how rare the black SS one has been—3% of pre-orders—that just makes me want it even more. But I wonder if its rarity is due to its high price tag—at $1,100, and at $100 more than the silver-colored steel bracelet watch, it’s the most expensive AW you can get before going into Edition pricing.


----------



## scentedlead

Here's a conversation at work between two women in the support staff pool about a generation gap:

Woman A: My mom and my aunts, the way to their hearts was through jewelry. But I rather get a new phone.
Woman B: I know right? I'd be upset if my boyfriend bought me a tennis bracelet instead of the latest iPhone. And Mom has no clue why.

I wonder if "Is the Apple Watch going to replace all watches as fashion?" while a more relevant question is, "Is the Apple Watch going to change people's perceptions of the watch as a fashion accessory?"

Wristly.co: Is it time for the Apple Watch? (PDF, 5MB)

Wristly compiled these stats for publication the day before Apple's keynote on Wednesday. Some things I thought were interesting re, fashion:



> What did you wear on your wrist before your Apple Watch? (check all that apply)
> 
> 36% Nothing on my wrist before
> 34% A regular watch
> 21% A fitness tracker
> 18% A premium or luxury watch
> 10% Another smartwatch
> 4% A bracelet or other piece of jewelry





> Do you miss wearing what you used to wear previously on the wrist where you no wear the Apple Watch?
> 
> 70% Not at all
> 26% Sometimes
> 4% Yes quite a bit





> Do you miss wearing what you used to wear previously on the wrist where you no wear the Apple Watch? (Premium/Luxury Watch owners)
> 
> 45% Not at all
> 48% Sometimes
> 7% Yes quite a bit


It looks like mechanical and high-end quartz users miss their old watches more than other users. It'd be interesting to see which bands these users got because:



> Which band did you purchase first with your Apple watch?
> (if you purchased at once more than one, which one do you consider your "primary")
> 
> 68% Sport Band
> 12% Milanese Loop
> 8% Link Bracelet
> 7% Leather Loop
> 4% Classic Buckle
> 1% Modern Buckle





> What is the color of your Sport band?
> 
> 38% Black
> 37% Black + Space Grey Pin
> 14% White
> 6% Blue
> 3% Green
> 2% Pink


At lower prices, it makes sense that the Sport models are the most popular-63% of watches (according to Slice's opening week stats) and 68% of watch bands.

Anyways. I think smartwatches are going to get people wearing watches again. But I wonder if the days of looking at the watch as a fashion accessory is slipping past. Not because watches aren't fashion accessories but because there's going to be-and probably already is-a huge diversity in opinion whether watches are tools or fashion statements or both. 98% of watches sold are not swiss mechanicals so of course there is going to be a huge diversity in that 98%. But I'm just wondering if there's a correlation between attitude v. which Apple Watch and straps were bought.

Lastly, I'm miffed that Apple won't release sales numbers in the foreseeable future. I wanna know how well the Hermès watches do compared to the rest of the line.


----------



## Cobia

Im starting to see plenty of them around Sydney city in the wild, they look really sterile and to be honest they look feminine to me, dainty little shiny things, theres zero personality to them, they would have to pay me a lot to get it on my wrist.
But each to their own.


----------



## Fer Guzman

I bought the SS with blue leather loop, but use the rubber strap probably 95% of the time. It's very comfortable. I've used it daily now since May. I might get the blue rubber strap. I would pony up more for a Ti version on rubber.


----------



## BarracksSi

Fer Guzman said:


> I would pony up more for a Ti version on rubber.


That would be pretty cool indeed.

Or, if I wanted to go heavier, tungsten or hardened steel (such as Rado) would be slick, too. Wonder if Apple would ever go full ceramic, too.


----------



## Fer Guzman

The black SS model I believe is hardened with DLC.


----------



## spongebobgreypants

All I can say is, Tim Cook can DREAM ON.


----------



## shnjb

It's been months since I got my Apple Watch and I must admit that I have not touched my Patek once (it has stayed in the safe).

I still wear Rolex GMT from time to time when I'm going out for dinner but I still kind of like to wear the Apple Watch on my right wrist upside down, so I can get the fitness tracking data.

I must admit, I'm probably in the minority but I really don't think I will buy another fine watch for a very long time.


----------



## jbbutts

Replace? No. Coexist...YES! 
I love each of my watches for a different reason....and I love my Apple Watch as much as my Hamilton cushion case. The Apple Watch will never REPLACE my other watches....but I appreciate what it does....and I like having it in my collection.


----------



## VicLeChic

To all the Apple Watch lovers who dislike traditional watches.

AW, in theory tons of potentially interesting functionalities, granted. But in practice I don't need any of them, fact. It won't make my life better, easier or happier, on the contrary. All I need and desire on my wrist is a good looking and durable timepiece to tell me the time, nothing else. 

Longevity. How long will an AW last, 3 to 5 years perhaps? How long will a decent traditional mechanical watch last, a lifetime?

Yes, Apple has demonstrated it can make attractive products. I still use my discontinued 2 yrs old 160GB iPod on a daily basis for its unbeatable battery life and storage capacity. 

I don't want nor need an AW. I just like traditional mechanical watches.


----------



## VicLeChic

zetaplus93 said:


> But many people have.


Oh yeah? How many? Do you have data to support this, or are you full of ....? The latter? Just what I thought...


----------



## VicLeChic

Yuj said:


> This thread is interesting to me, and I'd like to add my experiences:
> 
> I work in tech, I'm in my mid-20s and I've been enamored with watches for a very long time. I've bought and sold various Breitlings, Omegas, IWCs. I like to design and 3d print watch cases and put mechanical movements in them for fun.
> 
> However, I did get an Apple watch, and I must say that it's amazing. I don't really care about the notifications, apps, whatever. On my watch face, I can have a second timezone, weather, stocks, and my next calendar appointment. That in itself already makes the watch worth it. I've worn my Fifty Fathoms twice since I've had the Apple watch (because I was kayaking at a lake). To be completely honest, I've been contemplating selling it.
> 
> With that said, I still of course believe that there will always be a market for mechanicals. I still enjoy looking at a beautifully crafted movement through a sapphire caseback (which I also install in my 3d printed watches). However, financially, purchasing a new mechanical today is hard to justify for me. I also did a quick NPV analysis of the cost of purchasing a Rolex Submariner (plus service every 10 years) versus buying a brand new Apple Watch every 2 years (without accounting for resale) over a 30 year period with a very conservative discount rate of 6%. The net cost in today's dollars of the Submariner+service over 30 years is $7,500 versus $5,400 for 15 Apple Watches over 30 years.
> 
> Math:
> View attachment 4882770
> 
> 
> Sure, it can be argued that some Rolex models increase in value over time, but past performance is no indication of future returns. Additionally, trying to pick the model that you think will increase in value over 30 years is really no different than gambling. Not only that, if you're buying your watch with the hope that it gains value, then you sure as hell aren't wearing it. Which would be a shame.


What about the residual value of a 30 yrs old Sub (several thousands?) compared to 15 old AWs (worth close to nothing)? That would seriously decrease your Rolex net cost and bring it below the discounted sum of your many AWs. Also, you're not factoring the pleasure of owning something special, full of memories , 30 yrs old and still ticking.

Would you rather be the proud owner of a 30 yrs old Rolex you bought and worn for so long, or the collector of 15 obsolete pieces of junk? I know where my money goes.

***** Christ, 15 AWs, what a nightmare. Don't scare me, man! Vade Retro, AW.!

AW owners in general (not you) are starting to sound like a sect and I won't be part of it. 


Yuj said:


> This thread is interesting to me, and I'd like to add my experiences:
> 
> I work in tech, I'm in my mid-20s and I've been enamored with watches for a very long time. I've bought and sold various Breitlings, Omegas, IWCs. I like to design and 3d print watch cases and put mechanical movements in them for fun.
> 
> However, I did get an Apple watch, and I must say that it's amazing. I don't really care about the notifications, apps, whatever. On my watch face, I can have a second timezone, weather, stocks, and my next calendar appointment. That in itself already makes the watch worth it. I've worn my Fifty Fathoms twice since I've had the Apple watch (because I was kayaking at a lake). To be completely honest, I've been contemplating selling it.
> 
> With that said, I still of course believe that there will always be a market for mechanicals. I still enjoy looking at a beautifully crafted movement through a sapphire caseback (which I also install in my 3d printed watches). However, financially, purchasing a new mechanical today is hard to justify for me. I also did a quick NPV analysis of the cost of purchasing a Rolex Submariner (plus service every 10 years) versus buying a brand new Apple Watch every 2 years (without accounting for resale) over a 30 year period with a very conservative discount rate of 6%. The net cost in today's dollars of the Submariner+service over 30 years is $7,500 versus $5,400 for 15 Apple Watches over 30 years.
> 
> Math:
> View attachment 4882770
> 
> 
> Sure, it can be argued that some Rolex models increase in value over time, but past performance is no indication of future returns. Additionally, trying to pick the model that you think will increase in value over 30 years is really no different than gambling. Not only that, if you're buying your watch with the hope that it gains value, then you sure as hell aren't wearing it. Which would be a shame.


----------



## RotorRonin

VicLeChic said:


> What about the residual value of a 30 yrs old Sub (several thousands?) compared to 15 old AWs (worth close to nothing)? That would seriously decrease your Rolex net cost and bring it below the discounted sum of your many AWs.


He was comparing them _without _getting anything for the AW as he sold them over the years, but Apple products have a pretty decent resale value for a used electronic item, usually for a generation or two at least. If he was selling the last years' model every time he upgraded, that would significantly reduce his AW net cost as well.



VicLeChic said:


> Also, you're not factoring the pleasure of owning something special, full of memories , 30 yrs old and still ticking.


Now that, I can agree with!


----------



## scentedlead

jaywinston41 said:


> But anyone who appreciates the feeling of a real watch, or the look of a real watch will never switch to an apple watch.





zetaplus93 said:


> But many people have.





VicLeChic said:


> Oh yeah? How many? Do you have data to support this, or are you full of ....? The latter? Just what I thought...


As a matter of fact, Wristly.co compiled these stats-Is it time for the Apple Watch? (PDF, 5MB)-for release the day before Apple's last keynote:



> What did you wear on your wrist before your Apple Watch? (check all that apply)
> 
> 36% Nothing on my wrist before
> 34% A regular watch
> 21% A fitness tracker
> 18% A premium or luxury watch
> 10% Another smartwatch
> 4% A bracelet or other piece of jewelry





> Do you miss wearing what you used to wear previously on the wrist where you now wear the Apple Watch?
> 
> 70% Not at all
> 26% Sometimes
> 4% Yes quite a bit





> Do you miss wearing what you used to wear previously on the wrist where you now wear the Apple Watch? (Premium/Luxury Watch owners)
> 
> 45% Not at all
> 48% Sometimes
> 7% Yes quite a bit


Almost one in five AW users came from luxury watch brands and almost half of them don't miss their old watches-that's 8% of AW users who came from luxury watches and don't miss their former watches at all. So the stats look something like this:



> 36% Nothing on my wrist before
> 34% A regular watch
> 21% A fitness tracker
> 10% Another smartwatch
> 9% A premium or luxury watch and I miss it sometimes
> *8% A premium or luxury watch and I miss it not at all*
> 4% A bracelet or other piece of jewelry
> 1% A premium or luxury watch and I miss it quite a bit


If you wanna crunch the numbers more, the estimates are that Apple sold 2 - 4 million watches, so that's 160,000 - 320,000 AW users who came from premium/luxury watches who don't miss them.


----------



## scentedlead

VicLeChic said:


> ***** Christ, 15 AWs, what a nightmare. Don't scare me, man! Vade Retro, AW.!


Most people won't end up with 15 AWs.

Most likely, a smartwatch will suffer the same fate as a smartphone-used for many many many years till kingdom come, i.e., the electronics recycling center; passed down to children as hand-me-downs when buying a shiny new thing for oneself; or sold to off-set the cost of a shiny new thing.

No need to scare yourself with unbased fantasies of what people do with their electronics.



> AW owners in general (not you) are starting to sound like a sect and I won't be part of it.


Goodbye.


----------



## scentedlead

On a somber note, I found the AW was the most appropriate thing for me to wear to a funeral. My cousin’s grandpa was a devout christian and fairly anti-war, and my three black watches have a military field look. It actually felt more appropriate to wear my black AW. If I had a black watch that wasn’t a military homage, or another watch that goes with an all-black outfit, I might or might not have worn that over the AW. *shrugs*


----------



## CMSgt Bo

Let's try to be more polite, Gents.


----------



## VicLeChic

CMSgt Bo said:


> Let's try to be more polite, Gents.


I do apologize if I got myself carried away and hurt people's feeling.

There is space for all watch lovers after all, being smart watches or traditional ones. Let's just enjoy what we like.


----------



## 123Blueface

Got a chuckle out of revisiting this thread.
To date, I have yet to miss or reconsider my decision to sell my AW within a month of ownership.
However, that is just me.
Others may obviously feel differently.
Whatever makes you happy.

However, sticking with the theme of the thread title, I genuinely feel this is a fad that will eventually pass and join the Beta, VHS and cassette tapes.
If anything, I think it will eventually help turn on younger generation anti watch folks who will eventually age, mature, to genuinely appreciate the classics that are out there as heirlooms, never to need a battery, never to need an update, never to need to remind you to wipe your butt.
Instead, just do what a watch was intended to do and always will, tell time.

When I wore my AW, it was a novelty, a toy.
When I wear my Breitling, Rolex, or any of my other fine watches, I smile. I know I have an heirloom I may end up passing on to my grandchildren.
When I bought my first Rolex well over 20 years ago, it cost me $3,800. When I recently suffered a loss, I was paid $11,500 for it. Try that with an AW.


----------



## Fer Guzman

I don't think anyone is buying an AW with the presumption it will be worth more than close to nothing in a couple of years. The appreciation of your Rolex is not something that is that common in the watch world today when making a new purchase. Especially since Rolex produces so many watches every year today. Certainly a new breitling won't really appreciate and if you buy a new submariner today that won't either. I am curious, did you make or loose money on your AW?


----------



## zetaplus93

Fundamentally, whether the AW (and other similar products) becomes a fad or not is whether it's a useful product for a good chunk of people, and that it continues to be useful in the long term. 

That's the rub there, usefulness. As tools, accessories, heirlooms. 

If you read through the thoughts of people in both camps, you start to figure out what they see as useful, and from there, their values. 

From the traditional watch folks, looks/beauty, quality, longevity, heirloom-candidate, simplicity (i.e. just tells the time, don't want info overload), not wanting to be constantly connected. 

From the pro-AW folks, a need to measure things, be connected (but in smart and more meaningful ways than what's available from phones today), new-ness. Looks are important too, but less so than usefulness. 

So the arguments really aren't about the AW, but rather a clash of values from the different groups of people.


----------



## scentedlead

123Blueface said:


> However, sticking with the theme of the thread title, I genuinely feel this is a fad that will eventually pass and join the Beta, VHS and cassette tapes.


I don't think this was the best analogy?

Beta v. VHS was a format war. Like HD-DVD v. Blu-Ray. Like OGG v. MP4. Like Apple Watch OS v. Android Wear v. Tizen. Two things do the same thing but differently, and consumers will choose which one fits their needs better and sometimes, enough will choose one to make the other extinct.

And as a "fad," VHS had a good run. Developed and released to the public in the 1970s, it didn't decline until the '90s when DVDs and DVD players became affordable to middle class consumers. Two decades is a good run. And you can say almost the exact same thing about cassette tapes being replaced by CDs. Following your analogy, in time, the Apple Watch will be supplanted by technology that's more convenient and as affordable if not more-but that's how technology in consumer spaces progresses.

By your definitions, CD players and DVD players are more fad-ish because, _in a shorter time,_ they've been replaced by digital files read by software players. Quartz watch sales have been declining because of cell phones and fitness wearables; and that decline is accelerating with smartwatches. Are quartz watches just a fad like the AW will be a fad? There are lots of mechanical watch users who still view quartz watches as a fad. That said, as a half-century fad, the quartz watch has a good run behind it.

Heck, wristwatches were supposed to be a fad. No real man wears a wrist-watch-those are for women only. Unless you're in the army and the general requires everyone to have a watch because he wants to coordinate attacks by time instead of by sound and, when you have a rifle in your hand, it's just nicer to have a wristwatch instead of a pocket watch. But fad! Because after the war, you come home and you'll be a proper, civilized gentleman again, complete with pocket watch. Except, it's the post-war boom-this newfangled car thing spawns industries-and you have leisure time, and that includes more sports and yeah, a wristwatch is better for that. By the time WWII strikes, no modern man is going to use a watch that doesn't strap onto the wrist. But you know, fad.

Probably, this is morning-after lounge-chair quarterbacking but in general, I'm reluctant to call things fads. Sometimes enough people find new use cases and a thing goes viral. Tablets were supposed to be a fad but look at the market for ereaders and portable DVD players, and what else are they going to affect? When those Boer War soldiers strapped pocket watches onto their wrists-they were probably loathe to do something so girly since they went back to pocket watches, but a battlefield is a desperate situation-they probably never imagined that they'd change the direction of horology as more people found more uses for them, and _technology improved watches_ for ease of use in even the more demanding use cases.


----------



## BarracksSi

They still sell portable DVD players?


----------



## scentedlead

I see a few models on the shelves at Target—nothing like the dozen or so models from half a decade ago.


----------



## scentedlead

I see a few models on the shelves at Target—nothing like the dozen or so models from half a decade ago.


----------



## 123Blueface

Fer Guzman said:


> I don't think anyone is buying an AW with the presumption it will be worth more than close to nothing in a couple of years. The appreciation of your Rolex is not something that is that common in the watch world today when making a new purchase. Especially since Rolex produces so many watches every year today. Certainly a new breitling won't really appreciate and if you buy a new submariner today that won't either. I am curious, did you make or loose money on your AW?


I don't view watches as an investment so I don't expect to have it appreciate, specially since I buy a watch to keep it for life. Other than my AW, I have never considered selling any of my watches. I buy something I really love and have never considered wanting to part with them, even if limited use. I eventually rotate them and use them all.

My lost one was insured for full replacement value of a new one today, hence that payment I received, which in turn went into the replacement.
My Breitling is insured for full value also and as its price increases for a new one in the future, so will my coverage for full replacement.

I received my AW on launch day so thirty days later, it was pretty much unavailable and still showing long waits on the Apple Store so that helped me almost get all my money back. After seller fees, PP fees and shipping, if I recall correctly, I lost $140.
I was happy with that outcome as rationalized it as $140 to lease the watch for a month. Would have been happier with less of a loss but c'est la vie.


----------



## 123Blueface

scentedlead said:


> I don't think this was the best analogy?
> 
> Beta v. VHS was a format war. Like HD-DVD v. Blu-Ray. Like OGG v. MP4. Like Apple Watch OS v. Android Wear v. Tizen. Two things do the same thing but differently, and consumers will choose which one fits their needs better and sometimes, enough will choose one to make the other extinct.
> 
> And as a "fad," VHS had a good run. Developed and released to the public in the 1970s, it didn't decline until the '90s when DVDs and DVD players became affordable to middle class consumers. Two decades is a good run. And you can say almost the exact same thing about cassette tapes being replaced by CDs. Following your analogy, in time, the Apple Watch will be supplanted by technology that's more convenient and as affordable if not more-but that's how technology in consumer spaces progresses.
> 
> By your definitions, CD players and DVD players are more fad-ish because, _in a shorter time,_ they've been replaced by digital files read by software players. Quartz watch sales have been declining because of cell phones and fitness wearables; and that decline is accelerating with smartwatches. Are quartz watches just a fad like the AW will be a fad? There are lots of mechanical watch users who still view quartz watches as a fad. That said, as a half-century fad, the quartz watch has a good run behind it.
> 
> Heck, wristwatches were supposed to be a fad. No real man wears a wrist-watch-those are for women only. Unless you're in the army and the general requires everyone to have a watch because he wants to coordinate attacks by time instead of by sound and, when you have a rifle in your hand, it's just nicer to have a wristwatch instead of a pocket watch. But fad! Because after the war, you come home and you'll be a proper, civilized gentleman again, complete with pocket watch. Except, it's the post-war boom-this newfangled car thing spawns industries-and you have leisure time, and that includes more sports and yeah, a wristwatch is better for that. By the time WWII strikes, no modern man is going to use a watch that doesn't strap onto the wrist. But you know, fad.
> 
> Probably, this is morning-after lounge-chair quarterbacking but in general, I'm reluctant to call things fads. Sometimes enough people find new use cases and a thing goes viral. Tablets were supposed to be a fad but look at the market for ereaders and portable DVD players, and what else are they going to affect? When those Boer War soldiers strapped pocket watches onto their wrists-they were probably loathe to do something so girly since they went back to pocket watches, but a battlefield is a desperate situation-they probably never imagined that they'd change the direction of horology as more people found more uses for them, and _technology improved watches_ for ease of use in even the more demanding use cases.


Short answer to your post.............. what will determine a fad? Time.
Too soon to tell who is right but I am willing to bet on my outlook.


----------



## 123Blueface

123Blueface said:


> Short answer to your post.............. what will determine a fad? Time.
> Too soon to tell who is right but I am willing to bet on my outlook.


BTW,
I still consider Beta, VHS and Cassettes a fad. Regardless of how well they did, they are gone, period.
If that was a bad analogy, then let's use Click Clacks as an example. LOL
Man does that show my age.
For all you young ones, Google. LOL


----------



## shnjb

123Blueface said:


> BTW,
> I still consider Beta, VHS and Cassettes a fad. Regardless of how well they did, they are gone, period.
> If that was a bad analogy, then let's use Click Clacks as an example. LOL
> Man does that show my age.
> For all you young ones, Google. LOL


Are you sure your watches are not a fad?
What watches do you wear?


----------



## 123Blueface

shnjb said:


> Are you sure your watches are not a fad?
> What watches do you wear?


LOL
Followed my much more LOL.
Followed by pissing in my pants.

Primarily, various Rolex. Mixed in with a Breitling Navitimer.
Yeah, what a freaking fad.


----------



## shnjb

123Blueface said:


> LOL
> Followed my much more LOL.
> Followed by pissing in my pants.
> 
> Primarily, various Rolex. Mixed in with a Breitling Navitimer.
> Yeah, what a freaking fad.


Losing control of your bladder? They might have adult diapers for that...

While I also own Rolexes and a Patek, both of which have enjoyed long history of success, I think it's possible that the watch industry will see a decline in sales if wearables become as useful as smartphones are currently.
To be sure, the Apple Watch is not that device (yet) but it has done very well commercially and I think many watch companies will be affected on the lower end of the spectrum (not Rolex and up).


----------



## 123Blueface

shnjb said:


> Losing control of your bladder? They might have adult diapers for that...
> 
> While I also own Rolexes and a Patek, both of which have enjoyed long history of success, I think it's possible that the watch industry will see a decline in sales if wearables become as useful as smartphones are currently.
> To be sure, the Apple Watch is not that device (yet) but it has done very well commercially and I think many watch companies will be affected on the lower end of the spectrum (not Rolex and up).


If you own Rolex and Patel, then why on Earth would you ask if my watches may be a fad and what do I wear?

When you get to my age, you don't mind pissed pants. It's a regular occurrence. Depends are too bulky. Wet pants are a better conversation piece.

What you state about a decline of sales in wearables is already evident based on recent reports. That is not surprising given many factors such as the introduction of AW and other similar Android devices. It's a novelty and many, including myself, immediately rush to it, clearing denting the market. However, one of the major impacts has been the Asian market, where high end wearables seem to flourish much more than elsewhere and it has shown a decline.

All that said, it doesn't change my mind on my perspective of this AW and similar devices that they will in fact be a fad. The watches we own don't need a battery. They don't need to be charged nightly or when in the middle of God knows what and it dies. It doesn't need a phone in your pocket. They don't need regular updates. More importantly, they are not obsolete in a year. That is what will be its primary downfall. Our watches do what they were designed to and do it with class. Perhaps once it becomes more of a watch like device and independent, holds a longer charge and am not made to feel I don't have the latest and greatest if I don't buy a new one yearly, I may buy one again.

In the end, remember this thread's tittle. In response to that, heck no. Never.


----------



## shnjb

123Blueface said:


> If you own Rolex and Patel, then why on Earth would you ask if my watches may be a fad and what do I wear?
> 
> When you get to my age, you don't mind pissed pants. It's a regular occurrence. Depends are too bulky. Wet pants are a better conversation piece.
> 
> What you state about a decline of sales in wearables is already evident based on recent reports. That is not surprising given many factors such as the introduction of AW and other similar Android devices. It's a novelty and many, including myself, immediately rush to it, clearing denting the market. However, one of the major impacts has been the Asian market, where high end wearables seem to flourish much more than elsewhere and it has shown a decline.
> 
> All that said, it doesn't change my mind on my perspective of this AW and similar devices that they will in fact be a fad. The watches we own don't need a battery. They don't need to be charged nightly or when in the middle of God knows what and it dies. It doesn't need a phone in your pocket. They don't need regular updates. More importantly, they are not obsolete in a year. That is what will be its primary downfall. Our watches do what they were designed to and do it with class. Perhaps once it becomes more of a watch like device and independent, holds a longer charge and am not made to feel I don't have the latest and greatest if I don't buy a new one yearly, I may buy one again.
> 
> In the end, remember this thread's tittle. In response to that, heck no. Never.


I'm merely suggesting the unlikely possibility that even Rolexes can go the way of horse carriages and landline phones.
It's very unlikely but certainly not impossible.


----------



## oak1971

Like many things in the tech world, somebody will come along with a better, cheaper alternative. Amana practically invented the microwave craze, yet who owns an Amana these days percentage wise of those who do own microwaves?


----------



## 123Blueface

shnjb said:


> I'm merely suggesting the unlikely possibility that even Rolexes can go the way of horse carriages and landline phones.
> It's very unlikely but certainly not impossible.


True. Completely gree.
I think the key difference lies in our non AW watches, specially your Patek more than any of mine, are luxury items that are appreciated, admired, aspired to and almost like a trophy for reaching a pinnacle in life, when one can afford such luxury.
That is a key difference with the AW. Other the the Gold Edition, almost anyone can purchase one. 
That Gold Edition in contrast has not done very well at all. I am still waiting for the first one on this board to post one in the thread titled "Edition" yet in spite of so many AW posted, none that fit the title to date.


----------



## Fer Guzman

shnjb said:


> I'm merely suggesting the unlikely possibility that even Rolexes can go the way of horse carriages and landline phones.
> It's very unlikely but certainly not impossible.


Watches have already gone the way of landline phones. Realistically and incredibly small % of the population use a watch and an even small % use luxury watches. Most people my age or younger, I'm 29, I know think of watches as things old people wear. From my younger brothers' friends they use watches even less.


----------



## 123Blueface

Fer Guzman said:


> Watches have already gone the way of landline phones. Realistically and incredibly small % of the population use a watch and an even small % use luxury watches. Most people my age or younger, I'm 29, I know think of watches as things old people wear. From my younger brothers' friends they use watches even less.


I would respectfully disagree.
I would not argue the overall percentage of population that use one is not as large as one would assume if speaking in global terms and considering a world where many don't have water or food or shelter, let alone care for a watch.

I don't know what factors drive your logic relative to most people your age like my son who is 31, and all his friends, that are heavily into high end watches. Where I live in South Florida, a Rolex is a badge of honor worn by many. Young ones like my son are often seen with a Breitling Super Avenger or Rolex Subs.
I was recently on a cruise in May where four guys at a bar, in their mid 20's looked over at my wrist and complimented me on my Rolex Submariner. They then went on to show me theirs and we chatted through a martini about watches.

I guess it may be cultural, financial, environment driven. However, I have traveled the country on business and pleasure and seldom do I see a person without a watch on their wrist.

BTW, if they have gone the way of the landline, someone needs to tell the manufacturers , the retailers and the folks buying them.


----------



## scentedlead

shnjb said:


> While I also own Rolexes and a Patek, both of which have enjoyed long history of success, I think it's possible that the watch industry will see a decline in sales if wearables become as useful as smartphones are currently.
> To be sure, the Apple Watch is not that device (yet) but it has done very well commercially and I think many watch companies will be affected on the lower end of the spectrum (not Rolex and up).





123Blueface said:


> I think the key difference lies in our non AW watches, specially your Patek more than any of mine, are luxury items that are appreciated, admired, aspired to and almost like a trophy for reaching a pinnacle in life, when one can afford such luxury.
> *That is a key difference with the AW. Other the the Gold Edition, almost anyone can purchase one. *
> That Gold Edition in contrast has not done very well at all. I am still waiting for the first one on this board to post one in the thread titled "Edition" yet in spite of so many AW posted, none that fit the title to date.


Bold emphasis mine.

I honestly don't think that declining sales would be a bad thing for mechanical watches. To survive the quartz revolution, many of them went more in-house, with hand assembly, with more expensive materials-basically done everything to naturally limit the number of units and naturally drive up the price.

In this age of computers where everyone has a networked computer in their pocket to reliably tell the time, no one needs a watch to be accurate. So why buy a watch? It's jewelry and that means status. With watches, what has more status than an exquisitely hand-crafted piece made of expensive materials that only an elite few people have?

If the mechanical watch industry plays its cards right, declining sales units will be a feature not a bug; declining market share is perfectly okay when paired with increasing profit share.

(Also, the AW Edition isn't there to drive Apple's profits-that's what the AW and AW Sport are for. The AW Edition is there merely for the company to say that they can. Likewise, no one needs to buy an AW Edition when you could get any other model. You get it merely because you can.)


----------

