# Will smartwatches replace all lower tier (below $1000) watch segments?



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Smartwatches seem to be on the rise lately.

In the background of an overall trend in wearables and sensor technologies, Google has released their platform and Apple is expected to release theirs soon next week.
Samsung, Sony, LG, and others are releasing their products and even Swatch is getting into the action.

*The company said it is introducing fitness functions, a key feature of smartwatches, to its Touch line of digital watches. Swatch hasn't detailed the fitness functions it will launch, but said they would be the "usual features." Smartwatches often have pulse measurement, training calculators and speed monitors.

The new features will launch in 2015, a Swatch spokeswoman said.

This represents the first time the company has made watches with "smart" features since an ill-fated venture 10 years ago.

Swatch is seen as more vulnerable to the wave of smartwatches hitting the market than more luxury-focused competitors because it generates 30% of revenue from low- and midrange brands. 
*
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_e...MDIwNjEyNDYyWj​What do you guys think?

I can't imagine the sales for high-end (around $10k or more) mechanical watches being affected but it seems likely that all watches below $1k could be replaced and some sales could be reduced in the $3k to $6k segments.


----------



## BrentYYC (Feb 2, 2012)

This 'chestnut' again?

The answer is "No". The smartwatch segment (i.e. kids with the latest toys) don't even wear watches normally. It's a brand new market that will have little impact on traditional watches, in fact I predict it will probably impact traditional watch sales in a positive way by introducing non-watch wearers to devices that will get new users into the market, many who will then develop more sophisticated tastes and move upscale into traditional watches.

There you go.


----------



## Greek Trojan (Sep 2, 2012)

BrentYYC said:


> This 'chestnut' again?
> 
> The answer is "No". The smartwatch segment (i.e. kids with the latest toys) don't even wear watches normally. It's a brand new market that will have little impact on traditional watches, in fact I predict it will probably impact traditional watch sales in a positive way by introducing non-watch wearers to devices that will get new users into the market, many who will then develop more sophisticated tastes and move upscale into traditional watches.
> 
> There you go.


Well said. If the iWatch takes off (which I am still dubious of BTW, for non-WUS reasons), it'll just get people used to wearing a watch again and interested in buying a non-smart watch as a new accessory again.


----------



## Likestheshiny (Nov 28, 2011)

Now, no. I bet in five years it will, though. If smartwatches succeed and remain popular as a product, sooner or later their functionality will be appealing enough that people who wear watches will begin to prefer the smartwatch.

It's worth noting that six years ago there were people claiming that smartphones were only for "kids with the latest toys," and now they're the de facto standard. There's significant overlap between "I like watches" and "I like gadgets" -- it's only a matter of time before smartwatches are well-enough executed to make people really think about the choice.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

For me at least, I don't really want to spend more than $400 on a smartwatch, since they're essentially disposable, and become obsolete after about 2 years. I would prefer that if I spend more than $500 on a watch, that it'll last longer than 2 years.


----------



## Greek Trojan (Sep 2, 2012)

The thing that put the cellphone over the top was texting, not calling, which was something few people could predict on a phone. For the Smartwatch to take off its going to need to do something new/unique to justify the $400+ to buy one over the newest phone.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Nov 6, 2013)

Well considering how active F71 on this forum is, I seriously doubt it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Wow. A resounding no from the watch fan crowd.

I am getting a very different consensus from the non watch wearers, as some delusional ones seem to think that the entire Swiss watch industry will be affected, which I don't believe in at all.

If I had to guess, I would say that five years down the line, almost all watches under $200 could be smart watches except G-Shocks.


----------



## mew88 (Jun 1, 2010)

I would say no.
Consumers seem to have a predilection for larger screens and while the Smartphones are able to scale to meet this demand, this is not quite possible on a wrist worn device without looking asinine.


----------



## WnS (Feb 20, 2011)

Well, good news for us is that some watch prices will fall.


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

G shocks will evolve to have smart features too. Currently there are already gshocks that have iphone notifications.

Low quality $100 quartz watches will definitely be affected.


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Crunchy said:


> G shocks will evolve to have smart features too. Currently there are already gshocks that have iphone notifications.
> 
> Low quality $100 quartz watches will definitely be affected.


I'm thinking once these come out in their third and fourth generation, it will be stylish enough to replace Nixon and other crap watches like Invicta unless those companies evolve to at least adopt the Android platform.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Yeah, I think they will. I mean, really, for people for whom the watch is just a thing to have on their wrist. Having something on their wrist that's really functional, will always beat out the merely functional.

I have this nightmare scenario where everyone is connected to everything, all the time, through multiple devices.

I recall reading an article by Peter Egan, where he commented on the fact that at least according to some pundits, only the upper classes - the elite classes - will have the luxury of a life that's not connected to the web 24/7. For them, yeah, the mechanical watch and the cellphone-less existence will be possible. So the Pateks and the JLCs and the Breguets and the ALSes will all be fine in the long and short term. Not so sure about the rest of us. But I plan on resisting for as long as possible. And I absolutely draw a line in the sand at the smart watch.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

It's possible. Check back in 10-15 years once the dust has settled.

IMO, power consumption is the biggest hurdle. Once that's sorted enough to make them hassle-free, the gates will be fully open.

What if there's an aftershock of sorts? Early adopters swarm all over smartwatches, get tired of recharging them every couple days, but start to miss having the time of day so easily accessible, so they start buying more low- and mid-priced watches?


----------



## Phong Vu (Sep 6, 2014)

The biggest obstacle for smartwatches is the "throw away mindset" of consumers. No matter how innovative a smart watch is at release date, in a year time it would become antiques. It happened in the camera market already where a film Leica camera could keep its price for a very long time while a digital Leica M9 lost half of its value after just one year. People buy a smartwatches because of their functionality, which make them only the threat for tool mechanical watches like seiko, sinn, etc. Other dressier and more expensive mechanical watches will be just fine


----------



## Georgef (Aug 14, 2013)

mleok said:


> For me at least, I don't really want to spend more than $400 on a smartwatch, since they're essentially disposable, and become obsolete after about 2 years. I would prefer that if I spend more than $500 on a watch, that it'll last longer than 2 years.


Great, differentiating point.

Swatch present in lower end watches had to get into the sector, maybe too late already.....


----------



## balzebub (May 30, 2010)

Maybe I am an old guy, but I have no interest at all in a smart watch. Don't need another device adding stress to my life. I usually keep my phone in my sling bag/brief case just so I don't get bugged by messages, emails etc until I want to or need to be. Having a constant reminder strapped to my wrist....? Not good.

Sent via carrier pigeons


----------



## gaopa (Dec 6, 2008)

I'm 73 and like my smart watch with the temp. on the watch face. However, my smart watch will not replace my other watches. I wear my smart watch, but mostly wear other watches in my collection. Cheers, Bill P.


----------



## SOG (Jun 28, 2012)

Gonna say no to that, Quarts watches didn't take over, so smart watch also won't.

But I think the prices will continue to raise though.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

SOG said:


> Gonna say no to that, Quarts watches didn't take over,...


Yeah they did. Everything from wristwatches to wall clocks to cell phones to car radios has a quartz timekeeping circuit. Mechanical clocks are left to mantelpieces (my parents' still works, btw), cheap travel alarms, and-you have to be honest about this-a minority of wristwatches.

Oh, fine mechanical timepieces are the darlings of WUS, but we're the nutballs who crave Old World artisanship instead of modern accuracy, durability, and efficiency.


----------



## SOG (Jun 28, 2012)

Ok, change word from "take over" to "Extinct" 



BarracksSi said:


> Yeah they did. Everything from wristwatches to wall clocks to cell phones to car radios has a quartz timekeeping circuit. Mechanical clocks are left to mantelpieces (my parents' still works, btw), cheap travel alarms, and-you have to be honest about this-a minority of wristwatches.
> 
> Oh, fine mechanical timepieces are the darlings of WUS, but we're the nutballs who crave Old World artisanship instead of modern accuracy, durability, and efficiency.


----------



## dbakiva (May 7, 2011)

Unfortunately, this thread asks one question in the title and another in the poll.

I have little doubt that a successful implementation of a smart watch will impact sales of low and even moderately priced watches (in civilian concept of price; not WIS terms). No, it won't replace them, but it opens some very attractive options for people in the market for a $300 - $500 watch. Even old mechanical fuddy-duddies like me sense the appeal. It won't affect my interest in a Speedmaster or a Nomos or a Breguet, but I doubt if I'll be picking up an atomic Protrek or some mid-hundreds quartz any time soon.


----------



## Ed.YANG (Jun 8, 2011)

Likestheshiny said:


> Now, no. I bet in five years it will, though....


Same sentiments here.
Just figure... drawing attentions from tech geeks is not enough. It's more powerful if a maker could draw attentions from traditional watch collectors/buyers as well. KAIROS is one such good example. One case, 2 modules. 1 module built upon technology, 1 module built upon good old tradition of mechanical engineering. Make a single case to accommodate 2, getting simple 3 hand movement to pair with "intelligent" module gets one a complication timepiece that won't break the bank of any buyers.
Eventually such final produce will hit those "easy to spoil upon clumsiness" traditional mechanical timepiece that's usually priced much more than USD$2000 and above.
Price will fall, if the "intelligent" modules gets bigger demand, and produced more. Eventually Gorilla Crystal Glass may replace the sapphire glass that we're mostly crazy about now.


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

A few months ago I bought a Protrek prw3000 on titanium bracelet. It is rather nice but now I think i should have put the money aside for an apple watch instead.


----------



## jcbarnard (Jul 26, 2013)

Yes


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

A Watch Guy's Thoughts On The Apple Watch After Seeing It In The Metal (Tons Of Live Photos)

this review is absolutely wonderful.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

shnjb said:


> A Watch Guy's Thoughts On The Apple Watch After Seeing It In The Metal (Tons Of Live Photos)
> 
> this review is absolutely wonderful.


So much for the grumbly WUS post complaining that Apple was only showing 3D renders.

I'm sure Apple's crew was happy that Benjamin from Hodinkee brought his Patek Philippe, too.


----------



## watchvaultnyc (Jun 5, 2014)

dbakiva said:


> Unfortunately, this thread asks one question in the title and another in the poll.
> 
> I have little doubt that a successful implementation of a smart watch will impact sales of low and even moderately priced watches (in civilian concept of price; not WIS terms). No, it won't replace them, but it opens some very attractive options for people in the market for a $300 - $500 watch. Even old mechanical fuddy-duddies like me sense the appeal. It won't affect my interest in a Speedmaster or a Nomos or a Breguet, but I doubt if I'll be picking up an atomic Protrek or some mid-hundreds quartz any time soon.


Spot on.

Also, people who have fitness trackers will gravitate towards the smartwatch as the smartwatch costs only $50-$100 more and then do much more (see pagers -> , also tablets ->phablets). If you have something very functional (smartwatch) vs something decorative (mechanical watches) competing for wrist space, there is a lot of sense to go with what's functional.


----------



## dbakiva (May 7, 2011)

broudie said:


> Spot on.
> 
> Also, people who have fitness trackers will gravitate towards the smartwatch as the smartwatch costs only $50-$100 more and then do much more (see pagers -> , also tablets ->phablets). If you have something very functional (smartwatch) vs something decorative (mechanical watches) competing for wrist space, there is a lot of sense to go with what's functional.


Lovely Wife's Fitbit recently crapped out, and she's been using a fitness App on her iPhone. I expect that she'll go without another Fitbit and when the AppleWatch comes out, she'll get one for its enhanced functions.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

As a fitbit owner, I can see some of the value of wearable tech, and smartwatches.

I can't see them dominating the market at 1k and under, though. Perhaps under a certain cost, they well have a strong impact, and make manufacturers currently selling a lot in that price range, sit up and take notice.

For me, though, and spending anything about £150 (UK pounds) and I don't want something I'm going to be considering as obsolete and of the same disposable genre of tech like smartphone or tablet, after a year or two. I think that's something that seems reasonable given a lot of smartwatches and their pricing so far. But Apple's watches and the various higher prices for them, plus vendor-lock-in? Not for me.


----------



## Lokifish (Nov 8, 2014)

I wear and enjoy watches. My favorite being a (don't laugh) 70's Tissot Seastar like pictured here. I also own, and wear, a many number of smartwatches as well, and am a geek and technophile. Until big name smartwatch makers design smartwatches based on the core principle of what a watch is, and to watch standards, I don't see smartwatches being a serious threat to anything except maybe the $200 and below market. Also, until they answer the lifespan usage concerns, and this stupid dependency on a new model smartphone, it will remain a niche market. I'll admit, I sure don't have answers to all the issues, but that's not going to stop me from designing and making one for myself while keep the thought that "it's a watch" in my head the whole time.


----------



## Timestop74 (Apr 24, 2010)

I'm going to say yes. 12 yrs ago when in school I asked my friend who was a computer science major what he thought computers would be like in the future (processor speed kept increasing in MHZ every 6 mo--100, 200, and top at that time 233mghz i.e. instant opening of folders windows!!!). He said probably like a tablet that does everything--enter tiny smart phone that seems like 50% of the population uses in place of the watch. I think these new smart watches while a fashion/new fad accessory now will make people put the phone back in their pocket. These people don't think of traditional watches anymore so I doubt it would enter their mine to buy a "dumb watch". I think the tech will get to the point where you just talk into your watch and "stuff will happen". Tv on. Lights on. Car start. wave it to pay for things. No need for a regular watch imho in 10 yrs. Sucks for me who doesn't like tech integrated in every facet of my life but it's where things are going and I may have to eventually conform (still don't use facebook but I've seen people meet their wives/husbands and fine new jobs through it leaving me wonder what the hell I'm missing on there). My watches will probably be confined to a drawer if the watch becomes the future tech interface piece. I still have 5-10 years to be the hold out and enjoy my watches


----------



## athletics68 (Nov 15, 2014)

Overall I'd say no. And I say this as Silicon Valley raised tech gadget guy, and in particular an Apple fan and former employee, who currently owns a Fitbit among other things. But I have little interest in the Apple Watch and ones like it for several reasons. 

First, the price is too high for a disposable watch (which I typically pay $8-$10 for a Casio for), and as an Apple product or similar you'll get maybe 2 years out of it before they obsolete you so it is a disposable watch no matter how much they gussy it up. Which means you're essentially paying for a brand new mid-level priced watch every 2 years, and one that will be replaced less than a year from when you buy it by a newer model.

And on top of that, so far none of them are truly independent functioning devices. They're all essentially technology poor extensions of your iPhone or Android phone. Until someone comes up with one that is truly a standalone device that can replace your smart phone completely, which they never will due to the small screen size, they're largely a niche product that really is just duplicating the functions of a device sitting in your pocket, briefcase or purse (that already provides better versions of those functions and without the added point of potential failure of the phone to watch connection). Do they have some appeal for folks buying those unwieldy near iPad size phones, maybe. But those super size phones are also niche compared to their more reasonable sized brethren. These "watches" might appeal to a niche of that niche and to those that like having "devices" and who likely aren't wearing watches now or folks who wear things like fitbit and the like but who are looking for such a device with a little more functionality. But you also end up paying essentially the same price or even more as your expensive phone two times, first for the phone and second for the watch sized limited extension of your phone. Unless you're made of money it's not a smart monetary choice, particularly for a device that adds little in the way of real value to your life.

Plus for any current watch wearer, you're now limiting yourself to JUST your Apple Watch or similar if you want that limited functionality with you making your watch rotation now useless. And technologically with any of them you're limiting yourself to just the platform you choose to buy into. If you buy an iPhone today you have to buy the Apple watch or vice-versa. Same goes for the Androids, Microsoft, etc... So you've basically just doubled the way a company like Apple or Google gets their hooks into you. And this after they've already taken your cash for the phone, and the iPad or other tablet device that are equally platform specific. 

And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Buddy of mine who worked for years at Apple, cried the day Steve Jobs died and worships Apple as close to a religion as he gets, and even he's disinterested in the Apple Watch.

Until smart watches are platform independent, have longer than 1.5 year lifetimes, have actual battery life (ie: weeks not days), have lower cost (sub $200), and are fully independent devices themselves (ie: don't need a phone to work) while offering me all the functionality of the much more logical device to hold those features (ie: a phone) they'll always be a niche. Now they may get there some day, phones did after 30 years, but I think these watches are going to have a much tougher go of it even for non-watch folks, never mind the WUS type crowd who will also demand a higher level of fit and finish. The form factor of a non-ridiculous sized watch, just doesn't lend itself to meeting those goals I set above. For now I'll stick with wearing my fitbit or like device with whatever watch I choose to don that day.


----------



## Lokifish (Nov 8, 2014)

athletics68 
While I agree on a number of points, there are some things I have to point out. Truly standalone smartwatches have been around for years. At last look there have been around 15-20 Android based standalone smartwatches released in the past two years alone. These devices are unknown to most do to a couple major reasons. They are of Chinese manufacture, have little to no manufacturer support, have unfinished or unpolished firmware, poor QC in most cases.

What I find amusing is the the "duplicating the functions" is the exact same argument many a smartwatch users use against standalone smartwatches. "Why would I bother 'duplicating the functions' of a phone on my wrist when I can just use a phone and smartwatch." is an example of a very typical view regarding standalones. There is also the general feel that they see traditional watch wearers as dinosaurs and completely out of touch with what a smartwatch should be.

To keep from derailing this thread I'll stop here. At some point I'll open up a thread for a discussion and comparative analysis of smartwatch design vs traditional and the approaches being taken. Hopefully it will be a fruitful discussion, elsewhere it almost immediately turns into an Apple vs, Android, vs Tizen fanboy fight filled with cognitive dissonance and little understanding of what a watch is. I have been very busy as of late so it will have to wait though.


----------

