# Smart Watches to kill sub-$500 watch market?



## phydaux

Here is an episode pf the Watch and Listen pod cars with special guest celebrity chef Tyler Florence:






Around the 30 minute mark he starts to outline a scenario where Apple Watches and other smart watches take over the sub-$500 wristwatch market. Over the $500 price point luxury watches would still be in demand because those customers still buy them and don't move to smart watches for all the reasons that that don't currently buy $45 quarts watches.

What are the forum's thoughts on this?


----------



## longsk8

I can't watch the video right now, but I could see how the smart watch market could have an impact on the sub $500 category in the short term. However, I feel like smart watches aren't an end game product, but rather a stepping stone to what the future holds (like hybrids in the auto market). Right now they are making advancements in the functionality of smart watches, particularly with health and activity monitoring. In the not so distant future many of those functions will be available as implants or some other wearable technology and smart watches will start to look like the old mobile phones of the 80's. I have no desire for a smart watch, especially since they all seem to be over sized too. Ultimately I think technology will outpace the market and only the very mainstream offerings in the affordable watch arena will be impacted.


----------



## Slm643

I'll watch the video later tonight but I don't want a smart watch, I can see the advantage of Bluetooth on a digital though, easier setup, time sync and such. Forget the health stuff, forget the pay by watch stuff. Also all my watches are under 1000.00 usd. I'm just not into them.. 

Sent from my K92 using Tapatalk


----------



## Palmettoman

I wasn't that interested in wearing an Apple Watch until I got one. I got it mainly to wear when cycling. Now, I feel naked without it. The LTE connectivity was the big deal for me.


----------



## TheWalrus

Palmettoman said:


> I wasn't that interested in wearing an Apple Watch until I got one. I got it mainly to wear when cycling. Now, I feel naked without it. The LTE connectivity was the big deal for me.


Yep. As I mentioned in my post in the 'other' smart watch thread going on right now - I wasn't a fan until I got my Garmin. Now, it's by far my most commonly worn watch. The functionality makes it impossible to put away.

Still love my regular watches - and I may still buy a new one at some point - but there's no way I'm hopping off the smart watch train, now.


----------



## kepa

This view has been expressed by a lot of people and websites, and kinda proven true already. Fossil themselves, I believe, have acknowledged this, and their sales in recent years have taken a huge hit, as well as their competitors in that fashion brand market. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## JParanee

Gonna kill more than the $500 dollar watch market 

I have clients with 60k watches at home and they walk around with an Apple Watch


----------



## Ard

Although this forum does not encompass the entirety of watch addicts I think a quick trip through the Affordable Watches sub forum here will give you a snapshot image. From there you may be able to figure out the answer to your own question.


----------



## FJR1971

I have had an Apple Watch for a week or so now and haven't worn another watch since. This is the first time one watch has been on my wrist for this long in over 5 years. 
I'm not really sure where my watch hobby is going now.


----------



## badgerracer

JParanee said:


> Gonna kill more than the $500 dollar watch market
> 
> I have clients with 60k watches at home and they walk around with an Apple Watch


I definitely notice at my work that most of the VP's and other high ups I see are wearing an Apple Watch more often than not

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JParanee

badgerracer said:


> I definitely notice at my work that most of the VP's and other high ups I see are wearing an Apple Watch more often than not
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


People think the quartz revoloution was bad


----------



## TheWalrus

JParanee said:


> People think the quartz revoloution was bad


People who think the quartz revolution was bad, don't have any genuine interest in, or appreciation for, horology.


----------



## Tonhao

JParanee said:


> Gonna kill more than the $500 dollar watch market
> 
> I have clients with 60k watches at home and they walk around with an Apple Watch


They'll still reach for the Patek or Rolex on special occasions, Apple Watch hasn't made high end watches obsolete. Maybe one day a super-rich smartwatch will compete with high end mechanicals but now people just use them for different purposes.

Also some "fashion watches" under $500 have sold well by being extra trendy. Smartwatch design is limited by the screen but traditional watches can do much more aesthetically.


----------



## Horologic

For me, smart watches can never compete on an aesthetic basis. It's just a black screen on a generic rubber strap. Looks are my main criteria for buying watches, not functionality. I can get the time and 10,000 other pieces of information from my cell phone. I don't need that on my wrist. 

Maybe eventually conventional watches will go the way of the dodo bird, but I don't plan on quitting anytime in the next several decades. In fact I just bought a $200 range Seiko this week. A smart watch wouldn't give me the same thrill. It's like technology with built in obsolescence.


----------



## TwentiethCenturyFox

No interest in the video or the argument. The sub-500 range has classic watches in every category. The Hamilton Khaki for instance will always have a srrong following.


----------



## RPF

I think young people won't buy Swatch, Seiko 5 and other beginner's watches once smart watches solve the problem of battery life and price. I think a $1-200 smart watch with a week's battery life or more will kill this market. There will probably be a reorganization of the industry, with a dearth of choices between the $100 to $1k level.


----------



## TreebeardIM

To each their own.
I hate the "Smart Watch" thing.
They have zero soul (price point irrelevant). They are not watches but computers.
Are obsolete 5 minutes after you buy them so always have to get another in a year - "Smart" for the companies that put them out - suckers for the consumers.
I personally don't have this obsessive compulsive desire to be connected to the outside world 24/7 and having my every movement monitored every second.
The next item to be data hacked and/or breached? 

Again, to each their own.


----------



## c185445

RPF said:


> I think young people won't buy Swatch, Seiko 5 and other beginner's watches once smart watches solve the problem of battery life and price. I think a $1-200 smart watch with a week's battery life or more will kill this market. There will probably be a reorganization of the industry, with a dearth of choices between the $100 to $1k level.


I thought the same when everyone checked their time in their Nokias 3310 and Ericssons T-20 and almost everyone had a PC already.

I was a WIS already when I was a teenage. I had a crappy Spanish fashion brand named Lotus (which still exists). I forgot about wristwatches because of mobile phones. Later I came back. I think many people from the new generations might end up following this pattern.

I think the fundamentals why someone might like a traditional watch will still remains, and as others I want to believe smartwatches actually might create more WIS people by creating the need of wearing something in your wrist.


----------



## Maithree

Agree mostly, except nothing ain't beating a Casio G-shock in it's price range.

Or if some people want a dive watch. It's a small market but it does exist. Mostly people working or spending a lot time on water or in the ocean.

Yeh, the budget dress watch market is fast decreasing in volume I would think.


----------



## garysingerlaw

I think it is more the opposite. I never liked wearing a watch but strapped on the original Apple Watch for the connectivity and cool factor. This got me comfortable with something on my wrist and I soon graduated to nice dress quartz for work and finally discovered the dream of mechanical. The bug bit in hard and now all I think about is watches and have too many (and not enough). Still wear my Apple Watch series 3 but mostly only when exercising and occasionally when I feel like it. Other than that it is one of the babies in my collection. Today? Hamilton Khaki Field Mechanical. Traveling this week with the kids and left the Apple Watch at home. Plus I like to wear a different watch everyday. Keeps ‘em guessing...

Conclusion: I think smart watches are getting people back into wearing a watch and is good for the watch industry overall. They were my gateway drug and were probably the same for many others too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dartok22

I have no urge to buy a smart watch. Im waiting for the new eyePhone.


----------



## Golder

There is a major dichotomy in this discussion. Which is that those of us participating here are the watch hobbyists, so we are far more likely to reject a major trend like the apple watch. All of the people that have never thought about discussing watches on an online forum are coming from a much different place in this decision. Those people are far more likely to go with the Apple watch, and they also represent the great majority of the market for sub $500 watches.

There will always be a market for sub $500 non smartwatches, however for next 5-10 years apple and smart watches might be 70-85% of the sub $500 market, which is utter domination. Fossil, Michael Kors, probably also Citizen and Casio, are likely to be in for some rough times ahead.


----------



## John MS

Q: Will Smart Watches kill the sub $500 watch market?
A: No. But consumers will undoubtedly continue to purchase increasing numbers of non-traditional watch-like devices. I don't see large numbers of consumers buying Smart Watches and disposing of their traditional watches at the same time. I do think that traditional wrist watches will continue to be purchased but competition will continue to reduce the amount of wrist time they see.


----------



## c185445

garysingerlaw said:


> I think it is more the opposite. I never liked wearing a watch but strapped on the original Apple Watch for the connectivity and cool factor. This got me comfortable with something on my wrist and I soon graduated to nice dress quartz for work and finally discovered the dream of mechanical. The bug bit in hard and now all I think about is watches and have too many (and not enough). Still wear my Apple Watch series 3 but mostly only when exercising and occasionally when I feel like it. Other than that it is one of the babies in my collection. Today? Hamilton Khaki Field Mechanical. Traveling this week with the kids and left the Apple Watch at home. Plus I like to wear a different watch everyday. Keeps 'em guessing...
> 
> Conclusion: I think smart watches are getting people back into wearing a watch and is good for the watch industry overall. They were my gateway drug and were probably the same for many others too.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Just as I and some others thought. Smartwatches might bring back the mainstream necesity there was once about wearing something in your wrist that got lost with the rise of portable phones.

Even if a smartwatch becomes a necesity, who says that its use cannot be alternated with a mechanical one? That might also be a perk of sub-$500 watches, allowing people to have it easier to have both.

In some other threads and forums it was argued that actually it's sub-$1000 watches which are in danger. Time will tell.


----------



## timefleas

I guess I live in a different world, as I see college kids every day, and have seen many many watches (at least 50% of the students were them), and have yet to see a single Smart (or similar) watch. And, none of my colleagues or "superiors" wear them either. 

If I need net functions, they are close enough at hand (smartphone, laptop...). I wear "traditional" watches for their elegance, their utility and their uniqueness--the last thing I would do is to slap a tiny little computer screen on my wrist where, if I really needed it, a much more legible, usable and powerful alternative is within easy reach. 

To me, Smart watches are like the tiny little calculator watches that Seiko and others came out with many years ago (from '77, below)--trendy at first, and sure, some found them useful, but the pros still used their pocket calculators (before and in the early days of the net...). The difference between now and then is that there will indeed a significant segment of the population that will wear and swear by Smart watches--good for them--but I won't envy them even a little bit--in fact, quite the opposite.


----------



## Doninvt

I'm not eager to buy into a paradigm of 1) another thing to charge every day, and 2) at this point, obsoleted every year.

One data point from the younger generation, my daughter gave up any interest in wearing a watch at all once she had a phone in her pocket to check the time.


----------



## sfaxtis

Most of my watches fall in the category of $500 more or less, and still i am not really interested in smart watches. 
Personally i view them more as gadgets rather than watches, so even if i ever got one, it would not replace my interest in regular watches as its something different.


----------



## Raza

badgerracer said:


> I definitely notice at my work that most of the VP's and other high ups I see are wearing an Apple Watch more often than not
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's part of the continued home invasion of endless connectivity.


----------



## chronomanic

I have had an Apple Watch for more than two years. I found it to be better as a limited alternative to a smartphone than as a watch, esp. since it required nightly recharging. But smart watches are getting better. My wife wants to lose weight and has been wearing a Fitbit to track her activity levels... and as her only watch for the past couple of years. None of my adult children wear a watch... just use their phones.

But me... I got tired of the Apple Watch. I really never bought it as a watch, just as an adjunct to the smartphone... ultimately an unnecessary one. Last year I decided to go back to "real" watches and (since I'm now in a better position to afford it) got truly serious about really good watches. So for me, the Apple Watch was a gateway drug into the better watches world. The same has not been true (yet) for the rest of my family. Even though I was nudged this way, I lean toward pessimism re. the future of regular watches; I suspect many brands are in for some rough sailing ahead.


----------



## ffritz

phydaux said:


> What are the forum's thoughts on this?


Since >90% of all <$500 watches are bought for reasons of fashion, why should they be replaced with something ugly and impractical?

As for <$500 mechanical watches, the far more practical and cheaper quartz didn't kill them, so why on earth should smartwatches be any different? Ridiculous.


----------



## utzelu

It’d probably be a combination of the above. The fact is Swiss watch exports in the sub $500 segment dropped consistently throughout 2018, while the smart watch segment increased tremendously during the same year. We need to remember that the industry needs to sell big quantities in this category so it may be possible that if the sales drop to a certain level, it won’t be lucrative anymore for the manufacturers.

I’d also not take many opinions expressed here too serious, since I assume some have “vested interests”. Those who spent a lot of money on watches would reject the smart watches in order to confirm themselves that their “investment” is sound and safe.


----------



## c185445

utzelu said:


> [...]
> *I'd also not take many opinions expressed here too serious*, since I assume some have "*vested interests*". Those who spent a lot of money on watches would reject the smart watches in order to confirm themselves that *their "investment" is sound and safe.*


I personally don't like to go there in debates, as it's something you cannot deeply and objectively prove. However, I'd like to counter it.

That you said could be said about those that went for a smartwatch too. Perhaps the monetary argument wouldn't apply so much in this case as the Applewatch for instance is affordabe, but in regards to biases, just as happens with other debates one reads on internet people will want to regard their choice as the right one in contrast to those that think in a different way in regards to a purchase. Even a lot of people that deep inside think they made a wrong purchase might justify it just not to feel pissed about the money they spent.

It's called post-purchase rationalization and I wouldn't discount smartwatch owners (especially the Applewatch ones) can be hugely affected by it.

So maybe one shouldn't take many opinions expressed forecasting the end of the affordable watch industry because of smartwatches too serious either?


----------



## utzelu

c185445 said:


> Even a lot of people that deep inside think they made a wrong purchase might justify it just not to feel pissed about the money they spent. It's called post-purchase rationalization and I wouldn't discount smartwatch owners (especially the Applewatch ones) can be hugely affected by it.


I agree with your view and it could well happen for smart watch owners as well. Although the AW had something like 97% customer satisfaction, which cannot be only due to the post purchase rationalization syndrome  The user experience is that good. I still love hearing Mickey Mouse wishing me "Good night pal" every night, when I go to sleep


----------



## c185445

That function I admit might lead to very interesting customizations. I'm thinking about Daenerys Targaryen wishing me to sleep well.


----------



## RPF

c185445 said:


> I thought the same when everyone checked their time in their Nokias 3310 and Ericssons T-20 and almost everyone had a PC already.
> 
> I was a WIS already when I was a teenage. I had a crappy Spanish fashion brand named Lotus (which still exists). I forgot about wristwatches because of mobile phones. Later I came back. I think many people from the new generations might end up following this pattern.
> 
> I think the fundamentals why someone might like a traditional watch will still remains, and as others I want to believe smartwatches actually might create more WIS people by creating the need of wearing something in your wrist.


When the battery life improves, the wrist real estate will be taken up, unlike cell phones. Unless we start seeing people wearing watches on both wrists...


----------



## BarracksSi

utzelu said:


> I still love hearing Mickey Mouse wishing me "Good night pal" every night, when I go to sleep


Wait.... what? He does? I'm gonna have to switch to Mickey tonight. Or maybe Minnie...


----------



## Raza

BarracksSi said:


> Wait.... what? He does? I'm gonna have to switch to Mickey tonight. Or maybe Minnie...


Mickey does that for me too, and I don't even have a smart watch.

Wait, maybe I need to call the police.


----------



## utzelu

BarracksSi said:


> Wait.... what? He does? I'm gonna have to switch to Mickey tonight. Or maybe Minnie...


Both Mickey and Minnie watch faces do that. If you tap it, they will tell you the current time and if it is early morning or later in evening, will wish you good morning or good night. And all this in your language (whatever language your watch is set to). How cool is that?


----------



## BarracksSi

utzelu said:


> Both Mickey and Minnie watch faces do that. If you tap it, they will tell you the current time and if it is early morning or later in evening, will wish you good morning or good night. And all this in your language (whatever language your watch is set to). How cool is that?


I thought he'd do it automatically, like when Bedtime kicks in. Oh well. I guess that would be too intrusive, though.


----------



## arogle1stus

phydaux:
My paw, told me a hunnert years ago:
"Don't believe everything you hear, and half of what you see"!!
In my family, I'm surrounded by Smart Watch owners. Wifee
has the FitBit Charge 3 (Yuck). Daughter the Apple (insert another
Yuck) Son and DIL Triathlete IronMen the Garmin. (3 Yucks). They
like Smart Watches. Me? I'm ole school. Hand crankers fit my pist-
ola. 

X Traindriver Art


----------



## lawtaxi

Nope. Different markets in my totally uninformed opinion.


----------



## kramer5150

Smartwatches wont "kill" the sub-$500 market. Much like how the quartz revolution did not kill automatic watches... same thing IMHO.

Smartwatches most definitely are gaining popularity though, at least from my observations this holiday shopping season (non-horology crowd). On average 7~8 out of every 10 watches I counted were smart-type. Out of those 7~8, the majority were Apple products. It was a pretty clear / distinction too. Either apple watch or fitness watch / band like fitbit, fitbit clone, garmin. Samsung was the second most common smartwatch to apple but there was a considerable gap between the two. I did not see any Huawei, Ticwatch, Diesel, Misfit, LG, Movado and certainly did not see one single Tag Heuer or Montblanc at the smart high end. I think I saw maybe one-two fossil and Michael Kors.

I spent a lot of time at the apple store (yuck) this holiday season, waiting for my wife and daughters iPhone batteries to be swapped. The apple watch table was continually crowded... as busy as any area in an already packed store.

Google just bought Fossils smartwatch intellectual property for $40M. Along with that came some of their engineering staff too. This on the heels of their new WearOS release in ~November.

So no doubt smart watches, fitness bands and fitness-smart watches are having a growing impact on the affordable market. Without solid financial numbers is impossible to say just how much it actually is and how far it will go remains to be seen.

For me personally its a GREAT time to be a fan of BOTH platforms!! It's all about having choices and options, and any choice that drives market competition is always great for the consumer. I would rather decline an option than not be presented with any option at all.


----------



## alitaher2009

Apple seems to be dominating smart watch markets pretty well


----------



## X2-Elijah

timefleas said:


> I guess I live in a different world, as I see college kids every day, and have seen many many watches (at least 50% of the students were them), and have yet to see a single Smart (or similar) watch. And, none of my colleagues or "superiors" wear them either.
> 
> If I need net functions, they are close enough at hand (smartphone, laptop...). I wear "traditional" watches for their elegance, their utility and their uniqueness--the last thing I would do is to slap a tiny little computer screen on my wrist where, if I really needed it, a much more legible, usable and powerful alternative is within easy reach.
> 
> To me, Smart watches are like the tiny little calculator watches that Seiko and others came out with many years ago (from '77, below)--trendy at first, and sure, some found them useful, but the pros still used their pocket calculators (before and in the early days of the net...). The difference between now and then is that there will indeed a significant segment of the population that will wear and swear by Smart watches--good for them--but I won't envy them even a little bit--in fact, quite the opposite.


Well, Japan is a very conservative society (just look at the persistence of coins & cash over cards...). And almost none of the japanese watch brands make good (or any) smartwatches... Imho if there was a modern good-looking Seiko smartwatch (with good support for your domestic phone-app-ecosystems, which again are somewhat different from the west), a lot of kids would go for them.


----------



## c185445

kramer5150 said:


> Smartwatches wont "kill" the sub-$500 market. Much like how the quartz revolution did not kill automatic watches... same thing IMHO.
> 
> Smartwatches most definitely are gaining popularity though, at least from my observations this holiday shopping season (non-horology crowd). On average 7~8 out of every 10 watches I counted were smart-type. Out of those 7~8, the majority were Apple products. It was a pretty clear / distinction too. Either apple watch or fitness watch / band like fitbit, fitbit clone, garmin. Samsung was the second most common smartwatch to apple but there was a considerable gap between the two. I did not see any Huawei, Ticwatch, Diesel, Misfit, LG, Movado and certainly did not see one single Tag Heuer or Montblanc at the smart high end. I think I saw maybe one-two fossil and Michael Kors.
> 
> I spent a lot of time at the apple store (yuck) this holiday season, waiting for my wife and daughters iPhone batteries to be swapped. The apple watch table was continually crowded... as busy as any area in an already packed store.
> 
> Google just bought Fossils smartwatch intellectual property for $40M. Along with that came some of their engineering staff too. This on the heels of their new WearOS release in ~November.
> 
> So no doubt smart watches, fitness bands and fitness-smart watches are having a growing impact on the affordable market. Without solid financial numbers is impossible to say just how much it actually is and how far it will go remains to be seen.
> 
> For me personally its a GREAT time to be a fan of BOTH platforms!! It's all about having choices and options, and any choice that drives market competition is always great for the consumer. I would rather decline an option than not be presented with any option at all.


I agree, in other words, Smartwatches are taking their part of the cake, just as Digital and Quartzs did without destroying mechanicals (affordable or not). I also agree they are most likely going to coexist because of what they offer.

I also see Smartwatches a lot but analogs are extremely abundant as well. Even Casios have their market. Don't know there but here babyboomers are wearing the retro ones (made of metal) a lot, including the gold one.

The market's gonna get more rich, we might see moves as Swatch did and are doing but with other brands to deal with these changes, while we will be able to enjoy them all.


----------



## mona666

Smartwatches will be like new segment of watches. As they do a lot besides showing correct time but .. but I like ordinary watch better than smartwatch-no everyday recharging..


----------



## Miklos86

I may be a bit late for the party, but I think the premise is true. Smart, smartish and sports watches cost peanuts today and are generally quite advanced. Take Casio for example. If you take a newly released decent watch (solar, atomic, maybe ABC), you're dropping at least $300. You can get a Samsung Galaxy Watch for that kind of money, where time sync and sensors are just the start.

That said, I love Casio and prefer their higher-end offerings. 

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchman Dan

Smart watches are a fascinating development, but I find that reports of the impending demise of the traditional watch have been greatly exaggerated! The way I see it is that the smart watch is basically just just a shrunken down smart phone, and you are just not going to convince everyone to wear one on their wrist, so I really don't see it killing off traditional watches. Taking a big bite, perhaps. As a watch collector, I think this is even more true. I view the iWatch as just one more of many different kinds of watches. So, I put it in the category of an advanced digital sports watch. Which I tend to wear only when working out, because of the chronograph features and I don't care if it gets beat up. (I find analog chronos to be hopelessly difficult to actually read or use.) Now, when digital sports watches first came out, they were such a novelty that I could wear one as my only watch. But now, I don't find anything about them attractive apart from their sheer functionality, and usually can't wait to put on an analog. There is nothing that replaces a traditional watch face for legibility at a quick glance. And packing so many functions into such a small face is a bit hard to use. So, for me, it will not replace rotation with my old watches.

Now, forgetting the collector aspect, I would say here is the functional appeal for regular customers:

1) The logical evolution of the Casio Sports Watch for fitness buffs.
2) A "remote control" for iPhone users, to place calls, check messages/alerts, listen to iTunes, and even navigate without getting their phones out. (Great "Stealth mode" for office workers and people driving)
3) For the LTE cellular model: A small "communicator" device that allows you to do the above functions, but without the phone. In this way, it is a replacement for not only a traditional watch, but a smartphone as well! To me, that it's most useful function. Although, it's admittedly a bit limited as a real smart phone replacement, due to its tiny size and battery. You can't surf the web or view streaming video.

If you look at the quartz crisis, it pretty much almost totally killed off mechanical watches at every price point, for a good 20 years. Digitals in the low end and analogs in the high end. I mean, almost every high end brand ditched mechanicals, except for Rolex and the big three. But even they offered quartz models! But now, choice is very important, and the market is much more fragmented. So I think we will continue to see a healthy diversity of watches at all price points. That includes analog quartzes priced under the smart watch, and mechanicals priced above. What we may see, is more smart features being added to quartz models. If anyone should be worried, I'd say that it's the in-house movement brands. When a smart watch does so much, it's getting harder to justify spending much over $1,000 on a time piece that only tells the time. When even Rolex owners are ditching them for iWatches, the appeal is just too great. Rather than try to compete, Rolex's curious response seems to be to leave the mass luxury market to Tudor and Omega and simply move into the ultra luxury market without improving the product. Perhaps they see themselves filling the gap as AP and PP move even further up market. I think they want desperately to be Patek Phillipe, and that's why they want to buy them. But Rolex getting their hands on them would certainly turn a lot of PP customers off. Time will tell if Rolex can get away with a $10K+ mass produced, steel watch, but I'd bet against it. Remember, Rolex is currently discounting Gold watches up to 30%. But, I digress.... To sum up, most brands will have to add more features and value to justify themselves, and re-think their inflated pricing. Haggling is out and fair pricing is in.


----------



## DanielSzeto

I agree most of your points. But I still believe that Rolex will still sell their watches with no big problems...whether we like it or not!


----------



## RandM

I am a huge smart watch fan. It meets my needs for my athletic pursuits and is another tool I can use to help me professionally. Not to sound like a jerk, once Marathon went over the $500.00 mark there is not much in that range I am interested in besides a smart watch. However, a lot of smart watches are pricing past the $500.00 point. There will always be collectors of fine Swiss watches, myself included. However, unlike quartz watches smart watches offer a wide range of utilitarian functions that many wearers benefit from. 

A nod to Scurfa for putting out a reasonably price watch well below $500.00. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## utzelu

For me there is nothing in the sub $500 segment that is better than a smartwatch, with the exception of some G-Shocks. But I do realize that there are still people buying fashion watches in this segment.


----------

