# Smart watches. It's not about telling time.



## OnlyOneMore

Do you actually feel that smart watches are a threat to mechanical watches?

I was talking to a friend of mine over the weekend and he was asking me why I was into mechanical watches when his quartz watch was more accurate and a fraction of the cost. I thought about it and explained to him that for me "telling time" was almost the least important factor in a watch. Accurate time with a mechanical watch was more a measurement of refinement and tuning than anything else.

History, craftsmanship, micro-mechanics. diversity, the magic of a handmade little machine thats accurate to 99.998% of a day even when running relatively poorly were all things I listed.

He seemed confused that I didn't rate telling time as the number one reason for owning a watch. He's a big Porsche guy, so I asked him if owning a Porsche was about transportation, about just getting from one place to another, running errands. Then he got it. It's not about telling time, it's about how the time is told.

This got me to thinking. Are people who appreciate mechanical watches really drawn away from making a purchase by smart watches? The watch industry seems to like to blame the new technology as a reason for falling sales, but for me it's not even a device competing in the same market. 

If you're a watch enthusiast you're not swayed by an electronic device. Are you?


----------



## lovetheautos

I won't buy a smartwatch because much like the phone it'll connect to, it too will become a leash. It's probably so convenient that I won't wanna go anywhere without it, thus eliminating the need for a traditional watch at all.


----------



## pickle puss

I use mine as a watch. To tell the time. It looks great on an aftermarket strap. Hell-I don't even know how most of the features work! I like it-but then again I tend not to overthink this hobby.


----------



## CaliMex

I sold my Apple Watch to become less connected. There's nothing wrong with them though.


----------



## Watchbreath

No and there're not watches!!


----------



## OnlyOneMore

Watchbreath said:


> No and there're not watches!!


No, they're not and that's my point. It's not a this or that thing. There's a lot of people who seem to believe the smart watch is stealing market share from the "traditional" watch. I just don't see it that way. They aren't competing, they're two completely different products.

Nobody goes shopping and compares a Hamilton to an Apple watch while on the hunt for a time piece. They are either looking for a watch or they're looking for a gadget.

I think it's disingenuous to blame smart watches for what many believe is a decline in watch sales. If anything makers are hurting themselves with elitist marketing. George Clooney on a yacht is not going to draw in new young watch buyers. They really need to abandon the ambassador marketing model in my opinion.


----------



## Alysandir

OnlyOneMore said:


> If you're a watch enthusiast you're not swayed by an electronic device. Are you?


Why would you assume that? Electronic devices serve a purpose as well, and never forget that both are essentially forms of jewelry.

I wear my watch-of-the-day on my left wrist and a Fitbit Alta on my right wrist, with a bracelet that goes with whatever I'm wearing. For the few people who've asked me why I wear two watches, I correct them: I'm wearing one watch and one fitness tracking device. That the fitness device can also be used to tell time is irrelevant, because that's not why it's there.

I could just as easily see replacing the Fitbit with a smart device, if the value of doing so is compelling enough, but it's still not there to tell time.

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## grinch_actual

I love the looks of a lot of mechanical watches (Sinn/Rolex/Marathon/etc) but my profession and hobbies require something that I know will work all day every day. That means G-SHOCK and Suunto. They are a hell of a lot less money and they require zero service. Less moving parts means less issues. My new Suunto Traverse Alpha can do all that and then some. Plus you can turn those notifications off.

The watch industry can blame smart watches for their poor sales or they can try to innovate and stop relying on clever marketing. Or better yet, cut out the celebrity endorsement and pass the savings on to the customer.

I love watches that work, I couldn't care less how they work.


----------



## pickle puss

time·piece
ˈtīmˌpēs/
_noun_


an instrument, such as a clock or watch, for measuring time.

]noun: *watch*;
*1*.
a small timepiece worn typically on a strap on one's wrist

How is it _not_ a watch? Because it goes beyond what watches typically do, tell time? Is a G-Shock a watch? It does a lot of things unrelated to telling time. How about watches with depth meters ? To be a watch does someting have to _only_ perform functions reelated to time? Or can it be a watch if one of it's primary functions is to tell time. I use mine to tell the time,which it does very well. But now it's not a watch??


----------



## drhr

For people (non watch addicts) who own/buy other than mechanical/quartz watches, I agree with your assessment (in general) that it's not for time telling . . . that said, as an addict, I'd never wear a fitbit and a mechanical watch at the same time, kinda redundant from a time standpoint imo.


----------



## Davekaye90

OnlyOneMore said:


> If you're a watch enthusiast you're not swayed by an electronic device. Are you?


I am not. I think quartz watches are soulless (classic digital watches more so) so there's absolutely no way I would replace any of my automatics with a smart watch. I will probably be getting a Fitbit Charge to wear on my right arm, but that's a fitness band, not a watch, and I'll probably never use the clock function. I look at it as a necessary evil to have real time HR tracking because the sensors on the machines at the gym are terrible and never work right.

I'm just as likely to strike up a conversation about watches with someone wearing a Seiko 5 as a Submariner, but I have no interest in talking to someone with an Apple Watch about said Apple Watch.


----------



## OnlyOneMore

pickle puss said:


> time·piece
> ˈtīmˌpēs/
> _noun_
> 
> 
> an instrument, such as a clock or watch, for measuring time.
> 
> ]noun: *watch*;
> *1*.
> a small timepiece worn typically on a strap on one's wrist
> 
> How is it _not_ a watch? Because it goes beyond what watches typically do, tell time? Is a G-Shock a watch? It does a lot of things unrelated to telling time. How about watches with depth meters ? To be a watch does someting have to _only_ perform functions reelated to time? Or can it be a watch if one of it's primary functions is to tell time. I use mine to tell the time,which it does very well. But now it's not a watch??


It's a interface for your phone that happens to tell time, but I suspect to the majority of people here it's not a "watch". Like I said in my original post a watch tells time but it's so much more, It's art, history, craftsmanship, micro-mechanics, it's jewelry, the magic of a handmade little machine. The fact it tells time is for me secondary to these.


----------



## Watchbreath

"handmade", not even close and you don't want it to be.


OnlyOneMore said:


> It's a interface for your phone that happens to tell time, but I suspect to the majority of people here it's not a "watch". Like I said in my original post a watch tells time but it's so much more, It's art, history, craftsmanship, micro-mechanics, it's jewelry, the magic of a handmade little machine. The fact it tells time is for me secondary to these.


----------



## Palmettoman

I love my mechanical watches and will never sell the core ones. That said, I bought an Apple Watch with LTE a few months ago and find myself wearing it most days. As a tool, it can’t be beat. 

For example, at work the other day, I was elbow deep in some dirt and my phone rang. I really needed to speak with the person who called, and was able to talk with them on my watch rather than having to call them back.

I don’t feel tethered to anything...it’s my choice whether or not I answer the ring or check a notification. If I don’t want to be bothered, I just turn it to airplane mode. Done.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## wbird

I can't see how it doesn't take business from mechanical watches. Does anyone believe that quartz watches don't take business from mechanical watches. There are plenty of inexpensive mechanical watches on the market and a lot of people look at them and decide to buy the quartz watch instead. There also a bunch of people that look at quartz watches and decide to buy a smart watch.

The Apple watch is kind of unique because it is also considered acceptable to be worn as a dress watch because a bunch of celebrities, athletes, politicians, and wealthy entrepreneurs are seen with one, at big events.

I have noticed that on the train and on the street in NYC, a lot of those older bankers and traders on the street still wear those nice suits but have stopped wearing their Rolex and are wearing various smart watches, I'm guessing to monitor their heart. I'm not saying their selling their Daytona, but they may not be buying another expensive mechanical watch.

As to why people buy a mechanical, quartz, or smart watch it may be about time, or not. Dont know much about their motivations, I do know the population on this forum is not your average watch buying customer.


----------



## jason10mm

I dislike smart watches for the form factor (the apple block), the need to charge it regularly, and the planned obsolescence of the device since it probably has a non-replaceable battery, non-upgradeable parts, and are still very fragile. The Samsung is a better shape but is too thick. But I'm sure in a few more years they will get smaller and will replace a phone for many functions, able to work independently. The wrist is a convenient spot for tech (as are glasses, I expect those to make a comeback as well). Once all the tech goes internal maybe mechanical watches will make a comeback!

So I see the "watch as jewelry" argument as very strong. Watch as austere environment timekeeper has a place as well, so tool watches will stay popular so long as phones are so fragile (no wonder dive watches are so popular; water, dirt, and sand are a smart devices natural enemies). The g-shock/garmin watches are bridging the smart watch gap from the other side, eventually they will meet.


----------



## rdoder

OnlyOneMore said:


> Do you actually feel that smart watches are a threat to mechanical watches?


Yes, I think smart watches are threats to mechanical and quartz watches, because to non-watch people who are looking to buy a first watch, a smart watch is compelling in the functions it offers. To young people that grow up with electronic devices, if they buy a watch, a smart watch is almost the default option, given their digital upbringing?

I agree with wbird, watch enthusiasts as a group is probably a small proportion of all potential watch buyers. Look at how the luxury watch market crashed, not because of decrease in demand from watch enthusiasts, but because of decrease in demand from Chinese buyers that bought them as gifts/bribes or for prestige.


----------



## 59yukon01

You should have asked him how long his smart watch can go without a charge. I can wear my mechanical endlessly with no worries. In fact I did for 16 years straight. A smart watch is nothing more than a miniature cell phone strapped to your wrist imo. Those two reasons are why I'll never own one.

I'd rather strap a Sun dial to my wrist.


----------



## Raza

My friend got an Apple Watch while we were living in Japan, and seeing how convenient it was made me a little envious. It's Dick Tracy's radio watch, something I always wanted as a kid. But at the same time, every time I looked at one of my watches, I knew that I could never make the switch to something like that. You're right that practicality isn't the number one draw for wearing a watch.


----------



## watchRus

How many would wear a fitness tracker or smart watch on their wrist if it did not display time?


----------



## BarracksSi

OnlyOneMore said:


> This got me to thinking. Are people who appreciate mechanical watches really drawn away from making a purchase by smart watches? The watch industry seems to like to blame the new technology as a reason for falling sales, but for me it's not even a device competing in the same market.
> 
> If you're a watch enthusiast you're not swayed by an electronic device. Are you?


I can tell you that my desire for multiple mechanical watches has morphed into wanting just one really good one to wear when I'm not wearing my Apple Watch.

I appreciate nearly all kinds of watches (except Seiko Kinetic, which I think searched for a solution but created a problem instead). I like how my dad's 50-year-old Omega still runs fine, or how my radio-synced Citizen is always dead-on accurate, or how my Rado's mechanical movement magically runs at the same rate every day (yeah, so it's +5 s/d, but it _never_ does any worse).

I also like how my Apple Watch is slimmer and lighter than my Garmin Forerunner; how it's able to tell me the weather at a glance (it's such a habit now that after I put on my Citizen this morning, I fruitlessly checked it for the temperature); how I can change its strap in twenty seconds without tools; how it taps me awake without bothering my wife; how it really doesn't look that bad with a tuxedo; how it helped give me directions to the concert where I wore that tuxedo; etc etc etc.

I'm only going to wear one watch at a time. I now mostly wear my regular watches only when I can't wear my AW. It doesn't surprise me to hear anecdotes like wbird's about the bankers and traders in NYC wearing smartwatches instead of their Rolexes.


----------



## annmes

BarracksSi said:


> I can tell you that my desire for multiple mechanical watches has morphed into wanting just one really good one to wear when I'm not wearing my Apple Watch.
> 
> I appreciate nearly all kinds of watches (except Seiko Kinetic, which I think searched for a solution but created a problem instead). I like how my dad's 50-year-old Omega still runs fine, or how my radio-synced Citizen is always dead-on accurate, or how my Rado's mechanical movement magically runs at the same rate every day (yeah, so it's +5 s/d, but it _never_ does any worse).
> 
> I also like how my Apple Watch is slimmer and lighter than my Garmin Forerunner; how it's able to tell me the weather at a glance (it's such a habit now that after I put on my Citizen this morning, I fruitlessly checked it for the temperature); how I can change its strap in twenty seconds without tools; how it taps me awake without bothering my wife; how it really doesn't look that bad with a tuxedo; how it helped give me directions to the concert where I wore that tuxedo; etc etc etc.
> 
> I'm only going to wear one watch at a time. I now mostly wear my regular watches only when I can't wear my AW. It doesn't surprise me to hear anecdotes like wbird's about the bankers and traders in NYC wearing smartwatches instead of their Rolexes.


I don't quite understand the constant need for checking weather lol literally just look above and you'll see. I only check the weather forecast for the day once in the morning, before I go out, and I'm set. If in any situation I need to recheck the weather, it's probably some serious weather and I would probably have time to pull out my phone and check.


----------



## mleok

OnlyOneMore said:


> No, they're not and that's my point. It's not a this or that thing. There's a lot of people who seem to believe the smart watch is stealing market share from the "traditional" watch. I just don't see it that way. They aren't competing, they're two completely different products.
> 
> Nobody goes shopping and compares a Hamilton to an Apple watch while on the hunt for a time piece. They are either looking for a watch or they're looking for a gadget.
> 
> I think it's disingenuous to blame smart watches for what many believe is a decline in watch sales. If anything makers are hurting themselves with elitist marketing. George Clooney on a yacht is not going to draw in new young watch buyers. They really need to abandon the ambassador marketing model in my opinion.


By the same measure, a mechanical watch isn't a watch, it's a piece of antiquated mechanical art that happens to tell the time.


----------



## DilliTime

My one issue with smart watches is the sense of self-importance that they can convey. I know us WIS are also guilty of this to some degree with endless justifications of why certain features are indispensable for our lifestyles when really they're occasionally useful at best, but there's something about the smart watch that seems a bit too try-hard in that regard. "I am literally so busy that checking my phone wastes valuable seconds, and I also need to have 24/7 email access even in meetings when it's impolite to check my phone". I suppose the major issue here for me is that - to my knowledge - they function in conjunction with a phone, not independently. That means you always have a device nearby that's essentially a better tool for doing all the things the watch can, and so there's a certain odd conceit in the notion that people somehow need to be able to do these things though a watch so that they can be "switched on" permanently. It's like people who always talk about how busy they are. We get it, you're really really important.


----------



## Carl.1

Maybe to a lot on this forum they are not a watch.....to just about everyone else they are a watch and so much more.

My wife has now ditched her watch, stopped wearing mine and uses her Fitbit super duper whatever it is called watch because it does the watch thing and a whole lot more.

A couple of friends have done the same so I do think they are now serious competition for watch companies, neither my wife nor my friends now wear anything else and they use their smart watches exclusively for all occasions.

Personally I like mechanical watches but the allure is there and I believe there will be a massive shift causing a collapse / shift in the market. The design of these things is now really good and they are a watch.

I asked my wife about a new watch and she actually stated that her wants have now shifted as she uses her smart watch for so much and would not want to be without it, so she is actually not bothered about watches any more.

10 years time as the school kids leave school with their electronic dependency and I would say the majority will be using some sort of connected watch.


----------



## DilliTime

Carl.1 said:


> Maybe to a lot on this forum they are not a watch.....to just about everyone else they are a watch and so much more.
> 
> My wife has now ditched her watch, stopped wearing mine and uses her Fitbit super duper whatever it is called watch because it does the watch thing and a whole lot more.
> 
> A couple of friends have done the same so I do think they are now serious competition for watch companies, neither my wife nor my friends now wear anything else and they use their smart watches exclusively for all occasions.
> 
> Personally I like mechanical watches but the allure is there and I believe there will be a massive shift causing a collapse / shift in the market. The design of these things is now really good and they are a watch.
> 
> I asked my wife about a new watch and she actually stated that her wants have now shifted as she uses her smart watch for so much and would not want to be without it, so she is actually not bothered about watches any more.
> 
> 10 years time as the school kids leave school with their electronic dependency and I would say the majority will be using some sort of connected watch.


I suppose I get the FitBit stuff, and if you are runner then I can see how they have useful functions. But for daily life I'm not sure what else they do that is so indispensable when they cannot yet entirely replace a phone. They still seem largely in the realm of gadgetry for me. I'm excited to see where they go, but in their present guise they don't seem an essential technology as such.

For the fitbit and tracking/sensory data angle, we now also have things like the FC smart buckle that can perform these functions. Sure, it's a bit clunky but I have no doubt that we will start to see other more refined approaches to hybrid mechanical/smart timepieces in future. I can readily see a day when major brands for example produce their watch with sensors built as standard into the clasp to enable data tracking.


----------



## mleok

DilliTime said:


> I suppose the major issue here for me is that - to my knowledge - they function in conjunction with a phone, not independently.


The latest generation Apple Watch can be purchased with cellular capabilities, so that it can function independently of a phone.


----------



## ACoulson

They are in competition in that most people will only wear one or the other. Some enthusiasts will wear one on each wrist but most normal people will not. Therefore, if people are attracted to and enjoy wearing a smart watch, or feel compelled to wear a smart watch, they are unlikely to want a mechanical watch too.

Watch enthusiasts think of many ways smart watches can live in harmony with mechanical watches in harmony in one collection, but most people don’t want or see the need for a collection, and for many owning or ‘needing’ a smart watch will preclude them from buying a mechanical watch, or make it less likely.

Even people who wear a smart watch for work and have a mechanical watch for leisure are no longer in the market for two mechanical watches (smart and leisure).

I don’t like the things and can never see myself wearing one, but I’m not representative of the typical consumer, and neither is anyone on this forum.


----------



## columela

Hello there

I think that the smart watch is still in its infancy but has a potentially destabilising effect on the watch industry. Once the watch can be used independently of a phone, has longer battery life (or even becomes solar) and has better health related apps, it might become the only electronic device that people might carry on themselves. The space for the mechanical watch will be left to those too fond of their privacy to wear a tagging device everywhere. I seriously think that the desirability of the Apple Watch is also a menace to the social side of wearing a nice watch. But only time will tell.


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk


----------



## ACoulson

And one other thing - the tired old line about watches being art on the wrist. As an amateur watchmaker and an amateur artist, and an enthusiast of both, they couldn’t be further apart. What joy I get from one, I can’t find in the other... 

Art in this day and age is about expression, emotion, communication. You don’t sit and design out a painting in meticulous detail, use CAD, design it in a committee, get multiple people and organisations to prepare different key components (unless you consider the paint and the canvas, for example), and then assemble it exactly as per your design.

Watchmaking is about careful and functional design, prototyping, trial and error, the scientific method, creating something exactly to a design (which in many cases is designed by committee or by group). There’s little personal expression outside those handmade pieces designed and manufactured by one hand and one brain. That isn’t what is competing with smart watches.

Yes, there can be purely decoration and aesthetic work on a watch, but it isn’t art (except in very few incredibly expensive exceptions), it’s manufacturing. Let’s not over-romanticised it.

Sorry, mainly off topic diatribe over...


----------



## hasto092

OnlyOneMore said:


> Do you actually feel that smart watches are a threat to mechanical watches?
> 
> I was talking to a friend of mine over the weekend and he was asking me why I was into mechanical watches when his quartz watch was more accurate and a fraction of the cost. I thought about it and explained to him that for me "telling time" was almost the least important factor in a watch. Accurate time with a mechanical watch was more a measurement of refinement and tuning than anything else.
> 
> History, craftsmanship, micro-mechanics. diversity, the magic of a handmade little machine thats accurate to 99.998% of a day even when running relatively poorly were all things I listed.
> 
> He seemed confused that I didn't rate telling time as the number one reason for owning a watch. He's a big Porsche guy, so I asked him if owning a Porsche was about transportation, about just getting from one place to another, running errands. Then he got it. It's not about telling time, it's about how the time is told.
> 
> This got me to thinking. Are people who appreciate mechanical watches really drawn away from making a purchase by smart watches? The watch industry seems to like to blame the new technology as a reason for falling sales, but for me it's not even a device competing in the same market.
> 
> If you're a watch enthusiast you're not swayed by an electronic device. Are you?


I got, and still do, caught up in the smart watch phenomenon. If I see a watch that has the looks and millions of functions then I want it, BUT then there's days wherein I couldn't give a rat's arse about them so i'll wear a Seiko Turtle. With me it's all about mood and what I want for the day(s) ahead. I reckon today they are an "evil" that is here to stay. Make sense?


----------



## DilliTime

mleok said:


> The latest generation Apple Watch can be purchased with cellular capabilities, so that it can function independently of a phone.


I see. However you still can't really replace a phone with them unless you are happy with a tiny screen. I'm sure at some point they will solve this though, with roll out flexible screens and such.


----------



## Carl.1

ACoulson said:


> And one other thing - the tired old line about watches being art on the wrist. As an amateur watchmaker and an amateur artist, and an enthusiast of both, they couldn't be further apart. What joy I get from one, I can't find in the other...
> 
> Art in this day and age is about expression, emotion, communication. You don't sit and design out a painting in meticulous detail, use CAD, design it in a committee, get multiple people and organisations to prepare different key components (unless you consider the paint and the canvas, for example), and then assemble it exactly as per your design.
> 
> Watchmaking is about careful and functional design, prototyping, trial and error, the scientific method, creating something exactly to a design (which in many cases is designed by committee or by group). There's little personal expression outside those handmade pieces designed and manufactured by one hand and one brain. That isn't what is competing with smart watches.
> 
> Yes, there can be purely decoration and aesthetic work on a watch, but it isn't art (except in very few incredibly expensive exceptions), it's manufacturing. Let's not over-romanticised it.
> 
> Sorry, mainly off topic diatribe over...


Not an artist here but I do think there are a number of watches that are a little piece of art on the wrist, so what if it is manufactured.
Art is very personal and there is no definitive answer to what is and what is not.


----------



## ACoulson

Carl.1 said:


> Not an artist here but I do think there are a number of watches that are a little piece of art on the wrist, so what if it is manufactured.
> Art is very personal and there is no definitive answer to what is and what is not.


While there is no definitive definition of what art is, this phrase is trotted out frequently with no thought at all...

The oldest definition of art is that it means the same as technique. It's where the word artisan comes from as well. It's not really commonly used now though, because art moved on from mastery of technique. If we take that definition of art, everything with even the slightest human Labour is art.

Another definition of art is that it exists purely to communicate a message, mood, opinion, or feeling. This definition relies upon the idea hat the object therefore can't be 'useful' in any utilitarian sense.

Yes, the debate is more nuanced than I made it sound, but watches that compete or are in the same price bracket as smart watches fail under any scrutiny to be art. That £500 Hamilton or £1k Tissot, or even £10k Rolex, is not art. It's machines, purposeful, useful, and designed and manufactured by groups. It may have human elements in assemble, QC, and even functional finish, but you can't reasonably label it art... It's manufacturing. That's cool enough on it's own terms without over-romanticising...


----------



## drunken monkey

DilliTime said:


> there's a certain odd conceit in the notion that people somehow need to be able to do these things though a watch so that they can be "switched on" permanently. It's like people who always talk about how busy they are. We get it, you're really really important.


Like those people who are so busy that they absolutely need to have a watch on their wrist to tell the time and that they need accurate time too so it must be a £2000 mechanical watch because nothing else will do.


----------



## DilliTime

drunken monkey said:


> Like those people who are so busy that they absolutely need to have a watch on their wrist to tell the time and that they need accurate time too so it must be a £2000 mechanical watch because nothing else will do.


I'm not sure many luxury watch buyers do try and justify things on those grounds though do they?

Plus having a watch on your wrist to tell the time is sort of practical in general. I'd argue checking the time is a little more of a routine thing than reading emails.


----------



## drunken monkey

DilliTime said:


> I'm not sure many luxury watch buyers do try and justify things on those grounds though do they?
> 
> Plus having a watch on your wrist to tell the time is sort of practical in general. I'd argue checking the time is a little more of a routine thing than reading emails.


You can tell the time on a smart watch. 
It also does other things.

Those are facts.

You are offering opinions and accusations.

There's a difference.


----------



## DilliTime

drunken monkey said:


> You can tell the time on a smart watch.
> It also does other things.
> 
> Those are facts.
> 
> You are offering opinions and accusations.
> 
> There's a difference.


It's your world boss.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## arogle1stus

OnlyOneMore:
You are telling a watchowner of 65+ years "It's not about telling time"?
I bought my first watch (a mechanical hand cranker) before smart watches
and their inventors saw their 1st day on earth (unless they're nearly 70)
Watches, IMO, are all about telling time!!!
I don't want em to cook supper for me, operate only until the next battery
change or give folks around me the impression I'm thumping my watch as
tho it were a mellon.

Smart watches have captured many of my family. But not I. I'm too ole school

X Traindriver Art


----------



## BarracksSi

OP, looks like you’re right. The defensiveness in this thread helps make your point.


----------



## Rakumi

OnlyOneMore said:


> Do you actually feel that smart watches are a threat to mechanical watches? I was talking to a friend of mine over the weekend and he was asking me why I was into mechanical watches when his quartz watch was more accurate and a fraction of the cost. I thought about it and explained to him that for me "telling time" was almost the least important factor in a watch. Accurate time with a mechanical watch was more a measurement of refinement and tuning than anything else. History, craftsmanship, micro-mechanics. diversity, the magic of a handmade little machine thats accurate to 99.998% of a day even when running relatively poorly were all things I listed. He seemed confused that I didn't rate telling time as the number one reason for owning a watch. He's a big Porsche guy, so I asked him if owning a Porsche was about transportation, about just getting from one place to another, running errands. Then he got it. It's not about telling time, it's about how the time is told. This got me to thinking. Are people who appreciate mechanical watches really drawn away from making a purchase by smart watches? The watch industry seems to like to blame the new technology as a reason for falling sales, but for me it's not even a device competing in the same market.  If you're a watch enthusiast you're not swayed by an electronic device. Are you?


 You are correct in this way of thinking. Smart watches are an extension of your phone (which is why most simple connect sith your phone via bluetooth) as a easy way to update you on phone information (calls, messages, email, etc). So the smart watch does not compete with your watch anymore than your phone does and your phone should not compete with jewelry. Now I do get how smart watches might comlete with highly digital quartz watches like G shocks (not in the area of touchness) as some people wear digital watches to convey as much info as possible (alarms, day, date, stop watch, light up features, etc). Watches like Casio digital watches in essence were the first smart watches.


----------



## jason10mm

We'll see how well smart watches do when everyone starts having to cycle them out due to planned obsolescence and damage and their cost, due to increasing capabilities, keeps going up. It'll be interesting to see a less rugged hybrid quartz that looks mostly like a regular watch, but has a smart screen that can be hidden as a dial. The ability of some smart watches to have custom faces is HUGE IMHO, you can tailor it on a whim, it is 50 watches in 1! We just need color e-ink so it is a very low power draw.


----------



## BarracksSi

annmes said:


> I don't quite understand the constant need for checking weather


It's something I didn't think would be handy, or would even notice, until after I had owned the AW a few months and then put on a different watch. My wife, before choosing clothes for the day, would often ask how warm or cold it was going to be. With a smartwatch, it's as easy as checking the time or date - I don't have to look for the phone anymore (many times now, it's not even in the room with me).

For various little snips of info, it's good enough. It's not going to fully replace a smartphone, but neither is a smartphone going to fully replace a laptop, either. But just as a smartphone is more convenient than a laptop, a watch is more convenient than a phone, too.


----------



## Carl.1

ACoulson said:


> While there is no definitive definition of what art is, this phrase is trotted out frequently with no thought at all...
> 
> The oldest definition of art is that it means the same as technique. It's where the word artisan comes from as well. It's not really commonly used now though, because art moved on from mastery of technique. If we take that definition of art, everything with even the slightest human Labour is art.
> 
> Another definition of art is that it exists purely to communicate a message, mood, opinion, or feeling. This definition relies upon the idea hat the object therefore can't be 'useful' in any utilitarian sense.
> 
> Yes, the debate is more nuanced than I made it sound, but watches that compete or are in the same price bracket as smart watches fail under any scrutiny to be art. That £500 Hamilton or £1k Tissot, or even £10k Rolex, is not art. It's machines, purposeful, useful, and designed and manufactured by groups. It may have human elements in assemble, QC, and even functional finish, but you can't reasonably label it art... It's manufacturing. That's cool enough on it's own terms without over-romanticising...


I am surprised as an artist you deny others the right to define what they see as art, an interesting argument could be had just walking down the street with you as I find that sometimes the best discussions can only be had with a believer in their field. Art for arts sake such as Turner or more recently DeMateo is clearly art but it spans the world into design and manufacturing too. Though the Tate does sometimes push the point a little to far.


----------



## rdoder

DilliTime said:


> there's a certain odd conceit in the notion that people somehow need to be able to do these things though a watch so that they can be "switched on" permanently. It's like people who always talk about how busy they are. We get it, you're really really important.





drunken monkey said:


> You can tell the time on a smart watch.
> It also does other things.
> 
> Those are facts.
> 
> You are offering opinions and accusations.


While I agree that it is not fact that all smart watch users wear a smart watch for a sense of self importance (nor was that DilliTime's assertion), and I agree that this thinking could be seen as accusatory, I could see how the feeling of self importance (i.e. "I'm a busy, important person.") could be one potential, partial appealing element that make some people like using a smart watch. i.e. Some people could like using/wearing/owning a smart watch partly because it's a symbol or a tool of a busy, important person.


----------



## BarracksSi

This little point...


jason10mm said:


> ...and their cost, due to increasing capabilities, keeps going up.


... ignores the advancement in technology that we've seen over decades (or even longer, if we want to go back to the invention of metal plows for farming).

Either the cost stays the same and capabilities are added, or the capability stays the same and costs go down. The vacuum tube computers that occupied large rooms and consumed thousands of watts of electricity are now outperformed by a credit card-sized solar calculator that you get for free when you open a bank account (well.... at least, back when we used to get free stuff...). That 1.5 liter turbo engine in your average econobox car outruns the Mustangs of the Sixties.

The Patek Grande Complication pocketwatch? Sure, it's expensive, but I don't think anyone has enough nerve to try to build it without the significant assistance offered by computer-aided design and prototyping. "Handmade", my foot. That mechanical marvel wouldn't exist if it weren't for modern technology.


----------



## BarracksSi

rdoder said:


> While I agree that it is not fact that all smart watch users wear a smart watch for a sense of self importance (nor was that DilliTime's assertion), and I agree that this thinking could be seen as accusatory, I could see how the feeling of self importance (i.e. "I'm a busy, important person.") could be one potential, partial appealing element that make some people like using a smart watch. i.e. Some people could like using/wearing/owning a smart watch partly because it's a symbol or a tool of a busy, important person.


(it sounded to me like it was exactly DilliTime's assertion... but anyway...)

Sometimes, when I wear my AW, I wonder about this, too. I ask, is it really any less self-important than wearing a Bluetooth earpiece all day?

I tried wearing an earpiece regularly, but I didn't last too long. Besides the fact that people rarely called me (I guess I'm not important!), it was uncomfortable, and it was _always_ there. In the eyes of anyone talking to me face-to-face, I looked like I was ready to leave the conversation at any moment. Putting it in my pocket, though, meant that it was no longer usable at all.

At least a smartwatch can be "put away" by just leaving your wrist at your side. You still get to choose whether you need it at any moment. You can also set it up so that it will only notify you of messages from a few people, like close family or your boss, so it's not going to interrupt you for every little thing.

All that said ---

I've still worn regular watches for certain occasions, like job interviews or special nights out, where I didn't want to appear like I was tethered to anyone else.


----------



## Rakumi

BarracksSi said:


> It's something I didn't think would be handy, or would even notice, until after I had owned the AW a few months and then put on a different watch. My wife, before choosing clothes for the day, would often ask how warm or cold it was going to be. With a smartwatch, it's as easy as checking the time or date - I don't have to look for the phone anymore (many times now, it's not even in the room with me). For various little snips of info, it's good enough. It's not going to fully replace a smartphone, but neither is a smartphone going to fully replace a laptop, either. But just as a smartphone is more convenient than a laptop, a watch is more convenient than a phone, too.


 I think this is just a tech thing and not so much a watch thing (which is why I think smart watches should not be compared to regular watches) because I do the same in my home with my Amazon Echo in multiple rooms.


----------



## BarracksSi

Rakumi said:


> I think this is just a tech thing and not so much a watch thing (which is why I think smart watches should not be compared to regular watches) because I do the same in my home with my Amazon Echo in multiple rooms.


Yeah, and we've done the same thing at our cousin's house with their Echo Dot (plus, occasionally, with Siri at our house). Voice assistants are still a little less "portable" since they announce their results out loud so anyone can hear them, but in the right environment, they're pretty cool.


----------



## Rakumi

BarracksSi said:


> Yeah, and we've done the same thing at our cousin's house with their Echo Dot (plus, occasionally, with Siri at our house). Voice assistants are still a little less "portable" since they announce their results out loud so anyone can hear them, but in the right environment, they're pretty cool.


 Yeah. As far as smart watches go, I think they have a place in the world and I think it is significant. It is not to compete with mechanical watches and not so much digital watches (but maybe a little), but I think they are very important for places where you either cannot pull your phone out or it is rude to look at your phone. I have a smart watch (which uses Android Wear) just to test it out. It was not for me but I did have moments where it was great because I could not pull my phone out so I was able to text on it and check notifications. So many people live on their phones and I think there is a disconnect from people in the world because of this but I think it helps this issue just a tad that people can glance at their wrist and just continue with what they were doing.


----------



## jthole

drunken monkey said:


> Like those people who are so busy that they absolutely need to have a watch on their wrist to tell the time and that they need accurate time too *so it must be a £2000 mechanical watch because nothing else will do*.


Well ..... I'm wearing a £190 watch today. This weekend it's going to be a £2500 watch. And both are great watches for the price.

I wouldn't know what to do with a smartwatch even. Facebook? Don't have that. Twitter? Neither. Instagram? Never used that. And I don't want to be disturbed by incoming emails all the time.

OTOH, needing to know what time it is, is essential in modern society. And that's why I am wearing a watch.

And the difference between inexpensive and expensive watches is much smaller than between any regular watch and a smartwatch.


----------



## mleok

BarracksSi said:


> (it sounded to me like it was exactly DilliTime's assertion... but anyway...)
> 
> Sometimes, when I wear my AW, I wonder about this, too. I ask, is it really any less self-important than wearing a Bluetooth earpiece all day?
> 
> I tried wearing an earpiece regularly, but I didn't last too long. Besides the fact that people rarely called me (I guess I'm not important!), it was uncomfortable, and it was _always_ there. In the eyes of anyone talking to me face-to-face, I looked like I was ready to leave the conversation at any moment. Putting it in my pocket, though, meant that it was no longer usable at all.
> 
> At least a smartwatch can be "put away" by just leaving your wrist at your side. You still get to choose whether you need it at any moment. You can also set it up so that it will only notify you of messages from a few people, like close family or your boss, so it's not going to interrupt you for every little thing.
> 
> All that said ---
> 
> I've still worn regular watches for certain occasions, like job interviews or special nights out, where I didn't want to appear like I was tethered to anyone else.


I absolutely hate people who wear a Bluetooth earpiece everywhere. I was sitting behind a corporate type at the launch of a new research institute and the blasted thing on his ear kept blinking the entire time, which was ridiculously distracting in the darkened room. I don't understand why he can't just put it on when he gets a call like a normal human being.


----------



## utzelu

I believe the < $2000 category is under threat from smart watches. While products are different indeed they compete for the same place on the wrist. Like someone said before, one would wear a watch or a smart watch at a time, but not both.

On another note, you need to remember that until the mass adoption of mobile phones, the watch was a tool primarily. Now it is less of a tool and more of a fashion or status symbol, while the smart watches have taken the role of the tool.

Personally, since my price range is < $1500, I am very much interested in the smart watches market as there is not much going on in the mechanical world on this price segment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

mleok said:


> I absolutely hate people who wear a Bluetooth earpiece everywhere. I was sitting behind a corporate type at the launch of a new research institute and the blasted thing on his ear kept blinking the entire time, which was ridiculously distracting in the darkened room. I don't understand why he can't just put it on when he gets a call like a normal human being.


I turned against earpieces when I began reasoning that if you're important enough, you have someone else take your calls for you, and you can tell people, "Sorry, you'll have to wait. I'm off until Monday." It changed from being connected to being tethered.

And I say that in spite of what I'm writing next! ---



Rakumi said:


> Yeah. As far as smart watches go, I think they have a place in the world and I think it is significant. It is not to compete with mechanical watches and not so much digital watches (but maybe a little), but I think they are very important for places where you either cannot pull your phone out or it is rude to look at your phone. I have a smart watch (which uses Android Wear) just to test it out. It was not for me but I did have moments where it was great because I could not pull my phone out so I was able to text on it and check notifications. *So many people live on their phones and I think there is a disconnect from people in the world because of this but I think it helps this issue just a tad that people can glance at their wrist and just continue with what they were doing.*


Yup, and that's what got me to use my smartwatch even more.

The killer moment was, I was out shopping with my wife, and I decided to try something new: I put my phone in _her_ purse instead of my pocket. My AW became my primary connection to the outside world. I ended up getting a couple texts from work, and I sent my replies from the watch. Meanwhile, I felt more involved with my wife as she shopped around -- because I wasn't walking head-down into my phone, she would show me things, ask if I thought they looked good, and other stuff like that.

Go to the mall again sometime and see how many husbands and boyfriends are shuffling through clothing stores, slowly trailing behind, staring at Twitter or Candy Crush. I finally realized that I didn't have to be "that guy" anymore. Now, almost every time we shop, my phone goes straight to her purse.

Here's the old article in Wired, just before the AW's release, talking about Kevin Lynch being brought in to head up the development team. Right at the end, he says that the watch helped him get his family time back. He says he could be playing with his kids, get a notification, briefly glance and decide it can wait till later, then go right back to his kids without skipping a beat. Now, he's got big bosses -- he reports straight to Tim Cook, Jony Ive, and the like -- yet he's still able to tamp down the interruptions.
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/the-apple-watch/


----------



## Derek411

I have a Seiko Marinemaster Tuna Quartz on my left and an Apple Watch on my right.

The Apple Watch stays on airplane mode unless I need it.

Skipping tunes on Spotify, headphones in and leaving my phone in my pocket is Ace when I need it, my phone is always on silent so a bump on the wrist in a noisy environment when my wife is done shopping and I'm wasting time is great. Mainly the fitness tracking is why I have one. I also have a Fitbit Alta HR but it's lightly used.

The Apple Watch is the only relatively cheap watch celebrities and you can be seen wearing. 

Oh and for the soul I always carry a mechanical pocket watch.

This post was created while waiting for my wife in an upstairs cafe of a large store. I thought I would have to follow her like a sheep bored. I didn't bring my wallet or anything but spotted the cafe. I used my Apple Watch to pay for a coffee. Wallet on my wrist for the win IMO.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## richnyc

I love smart watches but a very specific segment of them: GPS sports watches by either Garmin or Suunto.

Right now, I have three Garmins (fenix 3HR, forerunner 645 and vivosport), OK, maybe just two that can be considered a 'watch', the last one is more of a smart activity tracker (vivosport). Had Suuntos before but sold them and moved to Garmins which I consider more on the cutting edge nowadays But I use them mostly for my running, cycling, hiking, trekking, anything sports related, tracking my routes, paces and heart rates, training and racing... 

And despite being able to be notified of calls and emails, I have disabled it on all of them... Don't like to be connected 24/7

When not exercising, I have no problem sporting my Rolex together with the vivosport as my activity tracker


----------



## jthole

Derek411 said:


> I used my Apple Watch to pay for a coffee. Wallet on my wrist for the win IMO.


That summarises it for me, I think. I highly prefer real money and a real wallet. The whole idea of a thing on my wrist (or around my neck) which is my wallet, a texts receiver, and an email client doesn't appeal to me. I don't care about the activity tracking either. I can lead a perfectly happy life without knowing how many steps I exactly walked.


----------



## peagreen

I have worn a smart watch for >3 years now. 
I'm very happy with it. I can give google instructions and read incoming messages without taking my "phone" out of my pocket. It counts my steps and records where I go. I find all of that very useful and I enjoy changing the watchface from time to time.
I don't *also* wear a separate real watch, so I believe that *is* having an impact on the traditional watch market.


----------



## utzelu

It’d be interesting to know the age of all the people commenting on this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

utzelu said:


> It'd be interesting to know the age of all the people commenting on this thread.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It might be surprising for the people who've dismissed them as things that kids wear.


----------



## mleok

I’m in my early forties, and I’m wearing a Fitbit Charge 2 at the moment, and I also have a first-generation Apple watch. When I feel the urge to wear a real watch, I use my Fitbit One which clips onto my belt instead.


----------



## peagreen

66

Do apple and tapatalk pay you for advertising their products?


----------



## Carl.1

51. Mechanical watches all the way, but I will strap on my wife's old Fitbit surge now when I go for a run or am in the gym. I could not care less about connectivity.


----------



## jthole

utzelu said:


> It'd be interesting to know the age of all the people commenting on this thread.


I think it has less to do with age than with your attitude towards technology. I am a happy tech user (50yo) but I don't want it to control my life. That's why I put my phone in flight mode when I am not using it, and why I don't want a smartwatch. At least not now ( who knows in ten years from now).


----------



## mleok

jthole said:


> I think it has less to do with age than with your attitude towards technology. I am a happy tech user (50yo) but I don't want it to control my life. That's why I put my phone in flight mode when I am not using it, and why I don't want a smartwatch. At least not now ( who knows in ten years from now).


But, it's not surprising that a 50 year old, even one who is tech savvy, isn't quite as obsessed about being constantly connected.


----------



## utzelu

Since I asked about the age thing, I should mention that I am 42, working in IT domain.

TBH I thought age has something to do with the adoption or rejection of the smart watches, although I see more and more people passed their middle age wearing them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

utzelu said:


> Since I asked about the age thing, I should mention that I am 42, working in IT domain.
> 
> TBH I thought age has something to do with the adoption or rejection of the smart watches, although I see more and more people passed their middle age wearing them.


I suspect that many of the older people wearing smart watches do so for the health tracking capabilities. But at the same time, I see smart watches as being consistent with corporate types who are always wearing a Bluetooth earpiece, in the sense that they are always connected.


----------



## Moerdn

OnlyOneMore said:


> If you're a watch enthusiast you're not swayed by an electronic device. Are you?


I actually am - I think in day to day usage automatic as well as smart/"electronic" watches serve their own purposes. In the past months I have been primarily using my Fitbit as a day to day watch.


----------



## utzelu

If you think that in the past the watch was a tool, it makes sense that smart watches are taking over the wrist as they are the modern tool devices.


----------



## jthole

mleok said:


> But, it's not surprising that a 50 year old, even one who is tech savvy, isn't quite as obsessed about being constantly connected.


Umm ... we're not aliens (even though my kids sometimes think so ;-) ). I think there are people in all generations who see the appeal of a smart watch, and that there are people who don't. I happen to fall in the second category. I am not even sure what I would _want_ to do with it.


----------



## lml999

mleok said:


> By the same measure, a mechanical watch isn't a watch, it's a piece of antiquated mechanical art that happens to tell the time.


My first, and only, expensive watch purchase was a 1950 Breitling Chronomat. I bought it, sent it away to be refurbished, got it back six months later. Wore it a handful of times, kept forgetting to wind it, and decided I didn't need an expensive piece of antiquated mechanical art that didn't reliably tell time.

My fault entirely...I was not in the habit of winding watches. I had been wearing automatics and quartz watches for a while, couldn't get used to remembering to wind the Breitling every day. If I had to, I probably wouldn't remember to charge my Fenix 5 every day either...fortunately, it only needs attention every 10 days or so...


----------



## peagreen

... and yet, you appear to be browsing a forum dedicated to smart watches ...


----------



## jthole

peagreen said:


> ... and yet, you appear to be browsing a forum dedicated to smart watches ...


Actually not; I am just browsing Tapatalk's "New Posts" list.


----------



## mpvick

I think the issue that people are having OP is that millennials such as my self-have no real desire for statement pieces like previous generations. While we still want luxury goods we don't necessarily buy or own luxury items to show success or even that we have money but rather often times to hold money or value that can be later liquidated easily. this can be observed by the popularity of brands such as supreme. Brands such as Rolex will do well with my generation so long as they don't try to cater to us too much other than styling and things of that nature because they hold so much of their value. The smartwatch does eat at luxury watch markets but only the grey sectors with brands such as Tudor, Fredrick Constantine, and Tag Huer where calling it luxury is a little debatable since they aren't necessarily universally desired the way a Rolex or a Patek Phillipe is. However, I think that sector has always had issues since it's not at a price that the average person is willing to let go because its so little money losing it doesn't hurt but not enough that you can sell it whenever to whoever without losing much money. Since that section of the market doesn't really offer much value to the consumer the smartwatch tends to win out because really its the price of a Hamilton with an eta movement and offers quite a bit of functionality. Brands like nomos I think will do semi-decent because of the styling cues really allowing a watch to be a part of an outfit rather than a statement of an outfit, The issue nomos will have is at that utility how do you beat out a smartwatch that will probably cost the amount of money you would lose at resale of a nomos anyways.


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> (it sounded to me like it was exactly DilliTime's assertion... but anyway...)
> 
> Sometimes, when I wear my AW, I wonder about this, too. I ask, is it really any less self-important than wearing a Bluetooth earpiece all day?
> 
> I tried wearing an earpiece regularly, but I didn't last too long. Besides the fact that people rarely called me (I guess I'm not important!), it was uncomfortable, and it was _always_ there. In the eyes of anyone talking to me face-to-face, I looked like I was ready to leave the conversation at any moment. Putting it in my pocket, though, meant that it was no longer usable at all.
> 
> At least a smartwatch can be "put away" by just leaving your wrist at your side. You still get to choose whether you need it at any moment. You can also set it up so that it will only notify you of messages from a few people, like close family or your boss, so it's not going to interrupt you for every little thing.
> 
> All that said ---
> 
> I've still worn regular watches for certain occasions, like job interviews or special nights out, where I didn't want to appear like I was tethered to anyone else.


What you need are headphones, whether corded or Bluetooth. Why care about looking important? when you could care about looking like you don't want to be bothered?

When I wear my Sony MDR-XB950BT, half of the time I'm not listening to anything through them. No one needs to know that I am listening to every word they are saying-they just need to think I don't care about them.


----------



## scentedlead

Rakumi said:


> I think this is just a tech thing and not so much a watch thing (which is why I think smart watches should not be compared to regular watches) because I do the same in my home with my Amazon Echo in multiple rooms.





BarracksSi said:


> Yeah, and we've done the same thing at our cousin's house with their Echo Dot (plus, occasionally, with Siri at our house). Voice assistants are still a little less "portable" since they announce their results out loud so anyone can hear them, but in the right environment, they're pretty cool.


On campus there are buildings where many rooms don't see the light of day. It is possible to go for a few hours feeling hermetically enclosed and cut off from the weather. It's nice to check my watch or phone to check the weather and then dress accordingly, instead of having to stop at the exit to add or remove layers.

I think environment and one's own personality will determine what one will use. Voice-activated Alexa and Siri are great for things you wanna share with those around you. What is the weather like at the concert we all will go to? Smartphones and smartwatches are better for when you want to keep things private. What is the weather like for my commute that no one else in this university library will go on?


----------



## scentedlead

mleok said:


> I absolutely hate people who wear a Bluetooth earpiece everywhere. I was sitting behind a corporate type at the launch of a new research institute and the blasted thing on his ear kept blinking the entire time, which was ridiculously distracting in the darkened room. I don't understand why he can't just put it on when he gets a call like a normal human being.





BarracksSi said:


> I turned against earpieces when I began reasoning that if you're important enough, you have someone else take your calls for you, and you can tell people, "Sorry, you'll have to wait. I'm off until Monday." It changed from being connected to being tethered.


I've known CEOs and founders of startups on shoestring budgets. They slavishly take any phone call from anyone who even hints they would invest more money into the business. "Oh hi. I'm not annoyed at all by your 3 a.m. phone call. I can sleep when I'm dead. And thank you for calling." It doesn't make them less annoying but there are busy people who can't afford staff.


----------



## scentedlead

Carl.1 said:


> Not an artist here but I do think there are a number of watches that are a little piece of art on the wrist, so what if it is manufactured.
> Art is very personal and there is no definitive answer to what is and what is not.


You're also not a designer. If something appeals to you so profoundly as art, that's great. But every watch on the market went through a design process. Materials were chosen. Textures were chosen. Colors were chosen. Typefaces were chosen. Manufacturing processes were chosen. Everything about a Patek Philippe was chosen to elicit a specific reaction from its owner. Everything about a G-Shock was chosen to to elicit a specific reaction from its owner. A person who owns both these watches reacts to them differently. And it is the same process that brings out these different reactions.

It's less a question of, "Is it Art™?" and it's more a quesiton of, "Is it thoughtful design?"


----------



## Carl.1

scentedlead said:


> You're also not a designer. If something appeals to you so profoundly as art, that's great. But every watch on the market went through a design process. Materials were chosen. Textures were chosen. Colors were chosen. Typefaces were chosen. Manufacturing processes were chosen. Everything about a Patek Philippe was chosen to elicit a specific reaction from its owner. Everything about a G-Shock was chosen to to elicit a specific reaction from its owner. A person who owns both these watches reacts to them differently. And it is the same process that brings out these different reactions.
> 
> It's less a question of, "Is it Art™?" and it's more a quesiton of, "Is it thoughtful design?"


Nope, they are little pieces of art, no question.


----------



## Carl.1

scentedlead said:


> When I wear my Sony MDR-XB950BT, half of the time I'm not listening to anything through them. No one needs to know that I am listening to every word they are saying-they just need to think I don't care about them.


Sooooo, half the time you wear headphones you do not actually use them. A bit silly.


----------



## ram71

OnlyOneMore said:


> Do you actually feel that smart watches are a threat to mechanical watches?


Mechanical watches are luxury items. Smart watches and mechanical watches belong in different product categories, targeted at different sets of customers. I feel that affordable (not in a WIS sense) quartz watches are the ones which are under threat, as they fall in the same cluster as smart watches.


----------



## SLWoodster

OnlyOneMore said:


> Do you actually feel that smart watches are a threat to mechanical watches?
> 
> I was talking to a friend of mine over the weekend and he was asking me why I was into mechanical watches when his quartz watch was more accurate and a fraction of the cost. I thought about it and explained to him that for me "telling time" was almost the least important factor in a watch. Accurate time with a mechanical watch was more a measurement of refinement and tuning than anything else.
> 
> History, craftsmanship, micro-mechanics. diversity, the magic of a handmade little machine thats accurate to 99.998% of a day even when running relatively poorly were all things I listed.
> 
> He seemed confused that I didn't rate telling time as the number one reason for owning a watch. He's a big Porsche guy, so I asked him if owning a Porsche was about transportation, about just getting from one place to another, running errands. Then he got it. It's not about telling time, it's about how the time is told.
> 
> This got me to thinking. Are people who appreciate mechanical watches really drawn away from making a purchase by smart watches? The watch industry seems to like to blame the new technology as a reason for falling sales, but for me it's not even a device competing in the same market.
> 
> If you're a watch enthusiast you're not swayed by an electronic device. Are you?


I think smart watches are threats to watches in their price range and people who actually purchase watches for functionalities other than diving 300m deep into the sea, flying out into space, rolling around in the mud while getting shot at, and being away from charging stations more than 2 days.

For those that are buying watches as "art," "timepieces," "status symbols", "feats of engineering", "heirloom", and any of the lies I tell myself to justify what is just a jewelry purchase, it makes zero difference. Your car example hit home for him, so maybe we'll see him in a starter omega/ rolex soon.


----------



## Tonystix

I've looked at them a little, but so far I'm unmoved.


----------



## ram71

Tonystix said:


> I've looked at them a little, but so far I'm unmoved.


Same here!


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> What you need are headphones, whether corded or Bluetooth. Why care about looking important? when you could care about looking like you don't want to be bothered?
> 
> When I wear my Sony MDR-XB950BT, half of the time I'm not listening to anything through them. No one needs to know that I am listening to every word they are saying-they just need to think I don't care about them.


Reminds me of a couple things --

I've got a cousin who's an occupational therapist. She says it's not uncommon to recommend to patients who always talk to themselves that they wear a phone earpiece in public. They can keep rambling (I forget the name of the condition) but maintain the appearance that they're having a phone conversation.

I also had a boss who'd wear his music earbuds while we loaded our truck and buses, and often without having them plugged into anything. He was indeed listening to everything that was happening -- and he was so good at it, it was nigh-impossible to break his poker face.


----------



## guspech750

Smart watches are just another electronic piece of crap you don't need. 

I also don't think smart watches have no real threat to an actual watch company selling watches. More than likely, that person who bought a smart watch either has a few watches or they don't have any real watches and had no plans to ever buy one as they prefer more electronic crap in their lives to make them feel more connected to the world. 

Sent from my SM-T378V using Tapatalk


----------



## scentedlead

scentedlead said:


> You're also not a designer. If something appeals to you so profoundly as art, that's great. But every watch on the market went through a design process. Materials were chosen. Textures were chosen. Colors were chosen. Typefaces were chosen. Manufacturing processes were chosen. Everything about a Patek Philippe was chosen to elicit a specific reaction from its owner. Everything about a G-Shock was chosen to to elicit a specific reaction from its owner. A person who owns both these watches reacts to them differently. And it is the same process that brings out these different reactions.
> 
> It's less a question of, "Is it Art™?" and it's more a quesiton of, "Is it thoughtful design?"





Carl.1 said:


> Nope, they are little pieces of art, no question.


If a Patek Philippe is art, then so is a G-Shock-if you're going to be fair to the process. Once you start saying this is Art™ but that isn't art, you start revealing yourself. You wanna be careful you don't do a self own.


----------



## scentedlead

scentedlead said:


> What you need are headphones, whether corded or Bluetooth. Why care about looking important? when you could care about looking like you don't want to be bothered?
> 
> When I wear my Sony MDR-XB950BT, half of the time I'm not listening to anything through them. No one needs to know that I am listening to every word they are saying-they just need to think I don't care about them.





Carl.1 said:


> Sooooo, half the time you wear headphones you do not actually use them. A bit silly.


If you read my post, you would've noticed that I do use my headphones 100% of the time I wear them.


----------



## BarracksSi

guspech750 said:


> Smart watches are just another electronic piece of crap you don't need.
> 
> I also don't think smart watches have no real threat to an actual watch company selling watches. More than likely, that person who bought a smart watch either has a few watches or they don't have any real watches and had no plans to ever buy one as they prefer more electronic crap in their lives to make them feel more connected to the world.


This is what I love about your post in which you rant about electronic crap:



guspech750 said:


> *Sent from my SM-T378V using Tapatalk*


----------



## Phelyx

I don't see that anyone else has posted this video and I cannot post links yet because I'm new to the forums, but there is an excellent point of view on the Watchfinder Youtube Channel called "Apple Watch vs Rolex Submariner". It's opened my eyes about my Apple watch. I highly recommend checking that out as it addresses this very question.


----------



## utzelu

I think I saw that video and even commented on it, when the presenter compared the Rolex vs AW with a Porsche 911 GT3 vs Tesla. It was funny and I mentioned that the actual comparison would be between a 1930's Duesenberg vs a Tesla Model S 



Phelyx said:


> I don't see that anyone else has posted this video and I cannot post links yet because I'm new to the forums, but there is an excellent point of view on the Watchfinder Youtube Channel called "Apple Watch vs Rolex Submariner". It's opened my eyes about my Apple watch. I highly recommend checking that out as it addresses this very question.


----------



## peagreen

Have you ever googled (or BINGed)
"stuff you don't need but really really want"


----------



## jthole

scentedlead said:


> If a Patek Philippe is art, then so is a G-Shock-if you're going to be fair to the process. Once you start saying this is Art but that isn't art, you start revealing yourself. You wanna be careful you don't do a self own.


Nothing wrong with a G-Shock, in my opinion. And a lot more useful than a smart watch that runs out of battery within a week.

I see a lot of rationale for quartz watches (I have a few, in fact) but none so far for smart watches. I have no idea what I really would want from a smart watch that a regular quartz (or even a mechanical watch) could not give me.


----------



## Carl.1

scentedlead said:


> If a Patek Philippe is art, then so is a G-Shock-if you're going to be fair to the process. Once you start saying this is Art™ but that isn't art, you start revealing yourself. You wanna be careful you don't do a self own.


There is no definition for art. If you are happy for a G shock to be art then good for you.

(What is a 'self own'?)


----------



## jthole

I read an article in the newspaper (yes, on paper) this morning by someone who argues that smart watches make most people less efficient, because they are more often distracted from their work. It does not surprise me, given how much of a distraction a mobile phone already is.


----------



## utzelu

jthole said:


> I read an article in the newspaper (yes, on paper) this morning by someone who argues that smart watches make most people less efficient, because they are more often distracted from their work. It does not surprise me, given how much of a distraction a mobile phone already is.


There is certainly a danger of being distracted more often, but the wearer can choose what notifications go through the watch. You can choose from no notifications whatsoever to allow full notifications. So yeah, with a bit of fine tuning, the smartwatch won't take away more of your focus than a regular watch. For example, I find the Stand Up notifications every 50 minutes to be very useful. Some may consider them to be a nuisance since it can get you out of focus but at the same time it is necessary when you forget to move for hours.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

When I’m teleworking, I leave my phone parked in the living room so it won’t tempt me with its distractions (games, Tapatalk, etc). My AW, which doesn’t browse websites or forums, still lets me answer the occasional call from coworkers and recruiters. So, yes, it reduces distractions for me.


----------



## WatchEnthusiast

In my opinion, they are not mutually exclusive. That is to say, there is a place for mechanical watches and smart watches, even fitness watches too.


----------



## utzelu

WatchEnthusiast said:


> In my opinion, they are not mutually exclusive. That is to say, there is a place for mechanical watches and smart watches, even fitness watches too.


I agree. For example today, since it is a bank holiday here and don't need any notifications and know I won't do any physical activities  I switched to a mechanical watch. Tomorrow though will wear the AW again.


----------



## Evil Lipgloss

This has been a topic I've been interested in for awhile now, since I'm an avid FitBit wearer, but as a woman, I find all the fitness and smart watch devices to be rather ugly. There really aren't any stylish options that FitBit provides. But I've kind of sucked it up over the last few years. However, now that I'm getting back into wearing traditional watches for style, rather than function, I'm at a crossroads. While I don't want email/texts/calls, I do love having steps, floors climbed, heart rate, and sleep monitoring. And also, since I have a FitBit, I participate in the weekly challenges with several groups of friends every week. Currently, I'm wearing two watches at a time when I'm at work. When I'm at home, I only wear the FitBit (because I don't need to be stylish while laying on the couch). And I only wear the FitBit at the gym, when I run, and walking my dogs. 

Recently, I ran a poll via my Twitter account which is 90% female followers, ages 20-40. I am almost 33, for the record. The poll was something like "What style of watch do you wear?" These were the results:

Traditional Watch - 20%
Apple Watch - 45%
FitBit - 33%
Combo of Traditional + Apple/FitBit - 2%

I wish I would have added another option of "I don't wear any of those", but I didn't think of it at the time.

I also frequent many "fashion bloggers" on Instagram and majority of them either 1) Don't wear a watch at all (neither smart, nor traditional) or 2) Wear the Chinese fashion brands (think: Daniel Wellington) that will offer them a free watch for being an "Influencer", then the Influencer will review the watch very positively and offer a discount code. It only seems like the big accounts will be sent on trips from certain brands. One blogger went to a JLC event and received a JLC watch. Another was flown from London to Australia to do a Longines photoshoot (she's not a model, she's a fashion blogger) and she got to keep a watch of her choice.

I think if more brands like JLC or Longines would do those kind of things, they could reach a younger audience, though I don't know many women who would spend JLC prices on a watch, at least not within my circle. In fact, I had never heard of JLC or Longines until then, I had to ask my husband about them).

Anyway, I don't mean for this to be so long. Basically, I do think smart watches will take the place of traditional watches for people in my age range and younger, at least for around the same price points of Apple Watches or higher-end FitBits. So I think brands that are in that range, like Seiko, Citizen, Certina, Tissot, Frederique Constant, etc could really push their online presence by reaching out to bloggers and Influencers on social media to drum up interest. Because I see young women wearing Daniel Wellington and MVMT watches, but they have a HEAVY Instagram and social media presence.

Just my two cents!


----------



## OnlyOneMore

Evil Lipgloss said:


> So I think brands that are in that range, like Seiko, Citizen, Certina, Tissot, Frederique Constant, etc could really push their online presence by reaching out to bloggers and Influencers on social media to drum up interest. Because I see young women wearing Daniel Wellington and MVMT watches, but they have a HEAVY Instagram and social media presence.
> 
> Just my two cents!


That's been a beef of mine for quite a long time. They continue to push race car drivers and movie stars as representatives even in the mid-tier brands believing a new/younger watch buyers will be enticed into purchasing by trying to emulate that person. In my opinion most people don't see themselves walking onto a yacht in a tuxedo, so they simply can't relate. I believe people need to see themselves in advertising and most watch advertising seems to picture a lifestyle beyond the reach of most. If they were to dial it back and show average people doing average things I think they would sell more watches.


----------



## Stochastinaut

I think people think apple watches etc are a status or money symbol.


----------



## scentedlead

Stochastinaut said:


> I think people think apple watches etc are a status or money symbol.


Is a $429 Apple Watch with GPS *and* LTE more or less of a status/money symbol than a $10,000 Rolex basic Submariner or $65,000 Patek Philippe basic Nautilus?

Apple Watches signal many things. But if you want to signal status and money, there are other watches that better send that signal-watches that do less, but are believed to have required lots of labor to produce, and cost that much more.

In general, getting the most bang for the buck in terms of features is not-and smart watches position themselves this way with the feature lists they promote for the price points they're at-is not the way to signal you have lots of disposable income.


----------



## raf1919

lovetheautos said:


> I won't buy a smartwatch because much like the phone it'll connect to, it too will become a leash. It's probably so convenient that I won't wanna go anywhere without it, thus eliminating the need for a traditional watch at all.


Exactly what happend to me


----------



## utzelu

raf1919 said:


> Exactly what happend to me


Yeap, me too


----------

