# What if Apple were to start building mechanical watches?



## valmak (May 29, 2010)

Apple doesn't get much respect, unjustly in my opinion, from serious watch fans. Imagine if they started building really good mechanical watches at reasonable prices. I think their reputation among watch people would shift over night. I feel like watch people will come around eventually but it would be much quicker this way.


----------



## Toothbras (Apr 19, 2010)

They probably don't give a crap about us watch people. We are less than 1% of the population and only a small percentage of the members here would ever buy a mechanical Apple watch


----------



## Skeptical (Sep 14, 2012)

If Apple made a mechanical watch we could at least have that discussion. But they don't.


----------



## tommy_boy (Jul 11, 2010)

Still wouldn't buy one. 

Never owned/done Apple anything; don't foresee that practice changing.


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

Mechanical watch fans seem to tend to value form and ego even at the expense of function (that's one explanation for why they'd spend a fortune on dated technologies that fail to keep accurate time). Apple is excellent at designing devices with appealing form, so it is probable that they'd be able to come up with a design that would appeal to mechanical watch fans. If, however, that design kept accurate time it may have limited appeal in terms of its function with that group. 

I doubt I'd buy one, though I do think Apple makes the best *nix devices at this point. It's not their strong suit.


----------



## ff25 (Aug 10, 2015)

Toothbras said:


> They probably don't give a crap about us watch people. We are less than 1% of the population and only a small percentage of the members here would ever buy a mechanical Apple watch


Actually I think Apple cares very much about us watch people. In fact watch people are the only ones I recommend the Apple Watch to. For everyone else there are cheaper and better solutions out there. You have to be a watch person to really appreciate the little details of the Apple Watch like changing the face of the chronograph, the astronomy watch faces or the digital crown.

Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk


----------



## balzebub (May 30, 2010)

watch people are also the least likely to buy an Apple watch...


----------



## valmak (May 29, 2010)

Toothbras said:


> They probably don't give a crap about us watch people. We are less than 1% of the population and only a small percentage of the members here would ever buy a mechanical Apple watch


I believe this to be very wrong. It's true that we are less than 1% of the population but we are very vocal and have a larger influence than just that 1%. I think they actually took many steps to appease watch people in the design of the Apple Watch (it may have just been to appease themselves since the top Apple people are watch people too). The back of the Apple Watch is reminiscent of a mechanical watch and the inclusion of a Milanese loop shows they are making efforts to make us watch nerds happy.


----------



## scentedlead (May 11, 2015)

Toothbras said:


> They probably don't give a crap about us watch people. We are less than 1% of the population and only a small percentage of the members here would ever buy a mechanical Apple watch





ff25 said:


> Actually I think Apple cares very much about us watch people. In fact watch people are the only ones I recommend the Apple Watch to. For everyone else there are cheaper and better solutions out there. You have to be a watch person to really appreciate the little details of the Apple Watch like changing the face of the chronograph, the astronomy watch faces or the digital crown.





valmak said:


> I believe this to be very wrong. It's true that we are less than 1% of the population but we are very vocal and have a larger influence than just that 1%. I think they actually took many steps to appease watch people in the design of the Apple Watch (it may have just been to appease themselves since the top Apple people are watch people too). The back of the Apple Watch is reminiscent of a mechanical watch and the inclusion of a Milanese loop shows they are making efforts to make us watch nerds happy.


To be specific, Swiss mechanical watches have 2.5% market share yet 54% profit share. Having a low market share yet high market share is something that Apple too knows about-in the smartphone market, 20% market share yet 92% profit share.

Superficial comparisons aside, I don't think Apple cares about mechanical watches. Jony Ive and Marc Newson obviously have deep appreciation of mechanical watches-witness all the nods to horology and traditional watchmaking-and I'm sure that lots of other people who work at the company also do. But as a company? No. Apple is a _computer systems_ company. Asking them to make a mechanical watch is like asking a car company to make a better horse-technology has long since moved on and most people have long since incorporated this newer technology into their lives.



Rallyfan13 said:


> Mechanical watch fans seem to tend to value form and ego even at the expense of function (that's one explanation for why they'd spend a fortune on dated technologies that fail to keep accurate time). Apple is excellent at designing devices with appealing form, so it is probable that they'd be able to come up with a design that would appeal to mechanical watch fans. If, however, that design kept accurate time it may have limited appeal in terms of its function with that group.
> 
> I doubt I'd buy one, though I do think Apple makes the best *nix devices at this point. It's not their strong suit.


If Apple were to design a mechanical watch that kept great time, I don't think its accurate time would be a turn-off to mechanical watch users. It's not that these users don't care about accurate time-because they truly don't care about accurate time-but because mechanical watches are about _status and exclusiveness._ Which mechanical watches get the most status? The ones with in-house and hand-assembled movements, and made in Switzerland. An Apple watch would have an in-house movement, but it wouldn't have anything else that gives a mechanical watch _*status*_ to a mechanical watch user. I don't see the advantage in trying to appeal to a demographic that would devalue your product.

Anyways, I'm uninterested in Swiss companies making smartwatches-this is an industry that spurned quartz in the '60s and '70s, and now they're gonna make _computers?_ Smartwatches are best left to Japanese, Korean, and American computer companies. Likewise, I'm uninterested in computer companies making mechanical watches-again, it's asking car companies to make a better horse. Maybe they could, but why? when they already make a more convenient and useful product.


----------



## Jubejubilee (Jun 29, 2014)

I think watch people don't give a crap about smart watches in general, not just the Apple watch.

And if Apple were to make mechanical watches, they would probably end up making something akin to the Swatch Sistem 51 but with stainless steel and rose gold options. And they would somehow manage to force you to use iTunes to set the time.


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

I think watch people should care about smart watches, but only from Apple in particular. Expensive mechanicals cost lots of money, and the only smart watch maker stock that has made money is... Apple.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

They'd use the same strap connector that they have now.

Which, I'm sure everyone has noticed by now, is the easiest proprietary mechanism to adapt to traditional springbar-attached straps…


----------



## dirtvictim (Mar 9, 2006)

First off everything would have to be contract manufactured and they would have to source movements because you can't just all of a sudden create one definitely not a company that has no knowledge of horology, its mostly because they wouldn't know where to start on building the hundreds of machines that make all the individual parts of a mechanical movement. so what would they use? Chinese most likely, Japan maybe but Swiss won't happen because the margins wouldn't work for their typical business model.
eta wouldn't sell to them so that's out and there go's the Swiss quality. They could buy a manufacture but that would be a lot of money and again wouldn't fit their business model for profitability. They would pretty much be relegated to seiko or miyota movements which forces them into a low end market where there are no real margins. Hopefully people would realize they would only be buying their way into the traditional watch market and look elsewhere. it is less than likely that anyone at Apple is an actual watchmaker. Apple is not a watchmaker.


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

So far you've described Bremont and other brands that do enjoy a following.

Apple, incidentally, is a watchmaker...


----------



## scentedlead (May 11, 2015)

Apple has USD $200 _billion_ in cash reserves. If they haven't bought something, it's because they haven't wanted to.

Apple is not a watchmaker. It does not make mechanical watches. However, it is a computer systems maker and it does make a wrist-sized computer and said computer does the tasks its users want fairly well-including, incidentally, telling the time. At the same time, Swiss watchmakers aren't computer makers. Yet, somehow, people here think they'll make a better wrist-sized computer than Apple-or any other American, Japanese, or Korean computer maker. *nods* Sure.

Personally, I wonder if Jony Ive and Marc Newson-who talk about how much they love their mechanical watch collections-have more appreciation for horology than the Swiss mechanical watch industry has for computers-the same industry that shunned quartz. So far, the Swiss watch industry has shown nothing but contempt for smartwatches, and all the while without seriously asking why smartwatches are now beginning to make waves among consumers. With that attitude, sure, why not enter the smartwatch market; why not enter a market for a product you disdain? What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

scentedlead said:


> is not a watchmaker. It does not make mechanical watches.


I'd disagree. A company that manufactures watches of any type is a watchmaker. Mechanical watches can no longer be taken seriously as actual timepieces, since they are obsolete and have been for decades. That leaves quartz and electronic/computerized watches. Apple makes such products. So do horologically significant firms like Casio etc.



> Personally, I wonder if Jony Ive and Marc Newson-who talk about how much they love their mechanical watch collections-have more appreciation for horology than the Swiss mechanical watch industry has for computers-the same industry that shunned quartz.


I think the Swiss are in part posing. There's another part though -- they've figured out that they can sell less for higher prices based on ego and perception (in a way, victimizing their clientele...). They can't compete at the lower price points with timekeeping devices that are actually accurate, so they chose to move to higher price points and bank (heh... ) on perceived prestige. Ω are a great (actually, terrible!) example of this. Economy going south globally? Fantastic! Now's the time for us to shut out mom-and-pop dealers and increase our prices! Worked great for them too.



> So far, the Swiss watch industry has shown nothing but contempt for smartwatches, and all the while without seriously asking why smartwatches are now beginning to make waves among consumers. With that attitude, sure, why not enter the smartwatch market; why not enter a market for a product you disdain? What could possibly go wrong?


Swatch group is trying to enter the smartwatch market. Many of the more traditional Swiss firms seem to focus their efforts entirely on pensioners though, and that's a different audience to typical smartwatch folks (this statement from a Zenith owner; my local dealer is closed when I am off work -- ostensibly, because most clients no longer work, having retired, and can stroll by during working hours -- and Zenith HQ along with their symbol are both straight out of some sort of Cold War tragic novel, dreary stuff. Good watches, but sheesh, open a window or something).


----------



## alex-w (Sep 4, 2015)

Apple is terrible at long-term suport and loves to drop standards when it fits them. Then there's their love of "walled garden" approach, where everything possible will be made proprietary. I'm sure they could do that, given their immense cash reserves and cult followers, but they've never even remotely considered making and supporting the product for decades. And that's what I'd expect from premium watch manufacturer.


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

I think you make a strong point. There is something ephemeral about a smart watch, and traditional watches ideally having something longer-term about them.


----------



## valmak (May 29, 2010)

Apple could build a better mechanical watch in my opinion. They have really smart people working for them and nearly unlimited resources. Swatch group came up with the Sistem51 and they have a market capitalization of 20 billion. Apple has a market capitalization of 620 billion so just imagine what they would come up with.


----------



## dirtvictim (Mar 9, 2006)

I have to assume that some here have not seen this 



if you can watch this and still think Apple makes watches then you are in denial, believe what you want but it just isn't true. Just because apple adopted the term watch doesn't make it so. Sorry but I doubt anyone at Apple is a watchmaker, they can be watch designers and hire a watchmaker to build watches for them.


----------



## Rallyfan13 (Feb 23, 2013)

Ok sure.


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

Rallyfan13 said:


> Mechanical watches can no longer be taken seriously as actual timepieces, since they are obsolete and have been for decades. That leaves quartz and electronic/computerized watches.












Oh, that's right. These are all bought by pensioners.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

scentedlead said:


> Apple has USD $200 _billion_ in cash reserves. If they haven't bought something, it's because they haven't wanted to.


That's not how this works. If you have that much cash piling up, you must buy back shares. Clearly Apple cannot venture into saving up for a huge purchase like Microsoft or Yahoo as U.S. Govt will interject.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## valmak (May 29, 2010)

dirtvictim said:


> I have to assume that some here have not seen this
> 
> 
> 
> if you can watch this and still think Apple makes watches then you are in denial, believe what you want but it just isn't true. Just because apple adopted the term watch doesn't make it so. Sorry but I doubt anyone at Apple is a watchmaker, they can be watch designers and hire a watchmaker to build watches for them.


the market for that watch is 0.001% of the population. how is it even relevant?


----------



## bentfish (Jul 26, 2015)

Apple is a technology and lifestyle company. Assuming this premise/perception to be true and waiving all other considerations aside, I think Apple would contribute a few technological advances into mechanical watches, as they would be in a good position to provide a different approach to the current way of watchmaking. Unfortunately, it might not be as affordable as the OP would like to think; Apple's products have very high margins that only appeals to a certain demographic and set of affinity points.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

valmak said:


> the market for that watch is 0.001% of the population. how is it even relevant?


Never mind that example -- what happened to all those digital watches? Are they suddenly not wristwatches anymore?


----------



## scentedlead (May 11, 2015)

alex-w said:


> Apple is terrible at long-term suport and loves to drop standards when it fits them. Then there's their love of "walled garden" approach, where everything possible will be made proprietary. I'm sure they could do that, given their immense cash reserves and cult followers, but they've never even remotely considered making and supporting the product for decades. And that's what I'd expect from premium watch manufacturer.


I have a 2009 Macbook Pro that still receives operating system upgrades. As for repairs, most people, after Apple Care expires, just go to 3rd party shops. And my dad has an iPhone 4s that still receives operating system upgrades-this is a phone that was released in 2011. How many Android phones can say the same thing about receiving OS upgrades? Personally, I'll take my chances with Apple.

All computers companies plan for obsolescence. Given advances in technology and engineering and changes in what people want, no computer company is going to support a machine for decades. How often do you find an average person on the street who would, today, rather work on computers from the '90s? or the '80s? I have an almost decade old computer but believe you me, I'd love a newer computer.

We don't know yet what the average consumer's upgrade cycle will be for smartwatches, but I really doubt people will want a computer on their wrist to last for decades.



watchRus said:


> Oh, that's right. These are all bought by pensioners.


But how many people buy mechanicals for their accuracy? Quartz watches have more precision. Atomic watches have more precision _and_ accuracy. And now smartwatches have precision and accuracy and apps! The selling points of mechanicals aren't new technologies, they're exclusiveness and status. When something is hand-assembled with luxury materials in limited quantities for a select few people, then of course people will want them more.

Mechanical watches stopped changing the lives of the masses decades ago-since then, they've been surpassed by the quartz revolution, the computer revolution, the internet revolution, the latter two being especially key in this information age. Mechanical watches are in no position to be disruptive; they are prime for being disrupted (again).



bentfish said:


> Apple is a technology and lifestyle company. Assuming this premise/perception to be true and waiving all other considerations aside, I think Apple would contribute a few technological advances into mechanical watches, as they would be in a good position to provide a different approach to the current way of watchmaking. Unfortunately, it might not be as affordable as the OP would like to think; Apple's products have very high margins that only appeals to a certain demographic and set of affinity points.


In the smartphone market, Apple has 20% market share yet 95% profit share; similarly, in the watch market, Swiss mechanicals have 2.5% market share yet 54% profit share. These are companies that have in common eschewing market share in favor of profit share.

Also, *valmak*'s not arguing that Apple would make a mechanical watch for cheaper-maybe Apple would, maybe Apple wouldn't-just that Apple would make it better. I think the work and design ethics that Apple engineers have make that a plausible statement. But all this is a moot hypothetical. Apple is a computer systems company and isn't interested in pretending to be anything else. They didn't set out to make a smartwatch be better than a mechanical watch-they set out to make the smartphone less annoying (albeit with lots of nods to horology).

I would rather Apple stick to smartwatches. And also, mechanical watch companies should just stick to mechanical watches.



BarracksSi said:


> Never mind that example -- what happened to all those digital watches? Are they suddenly not wristwatches anymore?


If you limit the definition of horology to gears set to keep track of time-and nothing else-then yes, digital watches are not watches. Sometimes I wonder if that's not an uncommon bias here on WUS-you have to admit, mechanical watches are so normalized here on this forum.

The Apple Watch is not a watch because it is a computer. And so, all these people who refuse to call the AW a watch are also refusing to call smartphones "phones"-'cause you know, computer where the phone is an app. And now they are so scrambling to find other words such as smart communicators because how dare you call a smartphone a phone . . . Oh wait. They're not scrambling to find new words. Their umbrage is only with smartwatches. Hm, funny that.


----------



## bigclive2011 (Mar 17, 2013)

In answer to the OP's question, yes why not, as a WIS I am open to mechanical offerings from any manufacturer as long as it looks good and fits my requirements then I would consider buying one.

But as for its current wrist mounted computer, it is not a watch, I have a I phone in my pocket and an I pad in my house, so will never buy one thanks.


----------



## ZIPPER79 (Jan 23, 2008)

Howdy folks,

This post really made me laugh so hard I almost fell off my chair.....

Firstly I think you cannot appreciate a mechanical movement because you like "easy and simple", am I right? I thought so.
Secondly the amount of time it takes to develop and manufacture a mechanical movement could be years if they're developing a new movement. So how ling does it take to design a quartz movement that runs on a battery. Not as long as a mechanical movement. 
Also when you have an exhibition back on a watch its fascinating and amazing how all the components work. I've never seen an exhibition back on a quartz watch.

It's a sad thing when someone like you has only negative remarks about mechanical movements.....It shows you're lacking.

As for quartz, solar power, and kinetic movements VS mechanical movements they both play an important role in our hobbies and obsessions.





Rallyfan13 said:


> Mechanical watch fans seem to tend to value form and ego even at the expense of function (that's one explanation for why they'd spend a fortune on dated technologies that fail to keep accurate time). Apple is excellent at designing devices with appealing form, so it is probable that they'd be able to come up with a design that would appeal to mechanical watch fans. If, however, that design kept accurate time it may have limited appeal in terms of its function with that group.
> 
> I doubt I'd buy one, though I do think Apple makes the best *nix devices at this point. It's not their strong suit.


----------



## dirtvictim (Mar 9, 2006)

scentedlead said:


> If you limit the definition of horology to gears set to keep track of time-and nothing else-then yes, digital watches are not watches. Sometimes I wonder if that's not an uncommon bias here on WUS-you have to admit, mechanical watches are so normalized here on this forum.
> 
> The Apple Watch is not a watch because it is a computer. And so, all these people who refuse to call the AW a watch are also refusing to call smartphones "phones"-'cause you know, computer where the phone is an app. And now they are so scrambling to find other words such as smart communicators because how dare you call a smartphone a phone . . . Oh wait. They're not scrambling to find new words. Their umbrage is only with smartwatches. Hm, funny that.


its a bit argumentative but I'll play.
apple just wanted to ride the shirt tails of the existing terminology "watch" because they couldn't come up with their own term that would hit such a massive target market, typical of lazy marketing executives. "Watches already exist so let's call our wrist communicator a watch even though only 1 percent of its function is for displaying time" "chronometry isn't a common term so let just use horology it's about as loosely fitting that a term can be and who's really going to debate its validity" I never hear anyone saying I need to answer my smartphone, it is always phone because that is its primary function. I call my iPhone a pocket watch because 1 percent of its function is for displaying time. 
*Horology (via Latin horologium from Greek ὡρολόγιον, from ὥρα hṓra "hour; time" and -o- interfix and suffix -logy; lit. "the study of time")[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] is the art or science of measuring time. Clocks, watches, clockwork, sundials, hourglasses, clepsydras, timers, time recorders, marine chronometers, and atomic clocks are all examples of instruments used to measure time. In current usage, horology refers mainly to the study of mechanical time-keeping devices, while chronometry more broadly includes electronic devices that have largely supplanted mechanical clocks for the best accuracy and precision in time-keeping.*


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

dirtvictim said:


> its a bit argumentative but I'll play.


You will find that a lot in this sub-forum. But be warned that some _may not _be just users of this site.

I wouldn't put it past any company to have marketing individuals making case, defending, arguing for a product line in one of the biggest discussion forum for that specific market.


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

dirtvictim said:


> I never hear anyone saying I need to answer my smartphone, it is always phone because that is its primary function.


Well, if you talk to kids today, I doubt they think of calling someone through the existing copper-wire telephony network being the primary function of an iPhone (or other smartphone). It's much more likely that things like Snapchat, Instagram, camera, etc are the primary functions of their phone.



dirtvictim said:


> apple just wanted to ride the shirt tails of the existing terminology "watch" because they couldn't come up with their own term that would hit such a massive target market, typical of lazy marketing executives.


Another possibility is that these companies are even more ambitious. They're looking to redefine what words like "phone" and "watch" mean to the next generation.

"Phone" already means something else to this generation of kids (a black rectangular that plays music and runs Snapchat, Instagram, and takes photos & videos). "Watch", if successful and becomes widely adopted, would mean something else to the next generation.

Definitions of words change over time, as do social norms.


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

watchRus said:


> You will find that a lot in this sub-forum. But be warned that some _may not _be just users of this site.
> 
> I wouldn't put it past any company to have marketing individuals making case, defending, arguing for a product line in one of the biggest discussion forum for that specific market.


Personally I doubt it. WIS is a niche percentage of the world's watch wearers. Companies like Apple would likely target fashion people (who are trend setters and influence the population) before they deliberately spend time on WUS and other watch sites (who mostly just influence WIS).


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

zetaplus93 said:


> Personally I doubt it. WIS is a niche percentage of the world's watch wearers. Companies like Apple would likely target fashion people (who are trend setters and influence the population) before they deliberately spend time on WUS and other watch sites (who mostly just influence WIS).


For a multi-billion dollar company, spending 100K on a marketing project to influence the thoughts of WIS, with the intend of turning them over, can be considered as a very valid investment. Not to mention where advertisements and 'fashion people' change with time, the discussions on these forums are widely trapped in the cache of Google as if they are taking place under present conditions.


----------



## DustinC (Aug 21, 2013)

I lol'd at "at a reasonable price".


----------



## HerrNano (Apr 29, 2015)

I'm happy that there are people out there willing to try to build mechanical watches and please me, and I'm really not all that discriminating when it comes to the niggly details of watches. Many people on here will raise hell over a small design change or subtle grades of brushed stainless. But it has not been my experience that Apple aficionados are terribly discerning about those things. They seem to pretty much line up, pay their money, take what is handed to them by Apple and them fawn over it. If Apple made a mechanical, I would get the popcorn and the lawn chair and enjoy the evisceration.


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

watchRus said:


> For a multi-billion dollar company, spending 100K on a marketing project to influence the thoughts of WIS, with the intend of turning them over, can be considered as a very valid investment. Not to mention where advertisements and 'fashion people' change with time, the discussions on these forums are widely trapped in the cache of Google as if they are taking place under present conditions.


But why try to influence 1% of the population? If the 1% are influencers to the rest of the population, I can see the logic. Hence going after the fashion/trendy people (i.e. Beyonce, Kanye West, Karl Lagerfeld, and whoever else got the gold AW with the gold link bracelet). Even if they change, Apple has the resources to go after the next set of fashion/trendy people.

As much as I'm a lover of traditional watches, I doubt that Apple would spend much effort with WIS and WUS (and other watch sites).


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

zetaplus93 said:


> But why try to influence 1% of the population? If the 1% are influencers to the rest of the population, I can see the logic. Hence going after the fashion/trendy people (i.e. Beyonce, Kanye West, Karl Lagerfeld, and whoever else got the gold AW with the gold link bracelet). Even if they change, Apple has the resources to go after the next set of fashion/trendy people.
> 
> As much as I'm a lover of traditional watches, I doubt that Apple would spend much effort with WIS and WUS (and other watch sites).


Why try to influence the 1%? There is your answer right there. ;-)


----------



## scentedlead (May 11, 2015)

HerrNano said:


> I'm happy that there are people out there willing to try to build mechanical watches and please me, and I'm really not all that discriminating when it comes to the niggly details of watches. Many people on here will raise hell over a small design change or subtle grades of brushed stainless. But it has not been my experience that Apple aficionados are terribly discerning about those things. They seem to pretty much line up, pay their money, take what is handed to them by Apple and them fawn over it. If Apple made a mechanical, I would get the popcorn and the lawn chair and enjoy the evisceration.


You've never met a Daytona or Speedy owner who didn't know how to operate their chronograph, have you? At least iPhone owners know how to use their phones. Perhaps the brand loyalty comes from using the product and liking it?

(Also, I'm guessing you've never seen Apple users eviscerate a software dev over crap software. Apple users are quicker and harsher with criticism than Windows and Android users.)



zetaplus93 said:


> But why try to influence 1% of the population? If the 1% are influencers to the rest of the population, I can see the logic. Hence going after the fashion/trendy people (i.e. Beyonce, Kanye West, Karl Lagerfeld, and whoever else got the gold AW with the gold link bracelet). Even if they change, Apple has the resources to go after the next set of fashion/trendy people.
> 
> As much as I'm a lover of traditional watches, I doubt that Apple would spend much effort with WIS and WUS (and other watch sites).


I have no clue for marketing but I think that 100K to influence a person no one knows is a worse investment than 17K on a solid gold, can't even get in stores limited edition watch to Beyoncé who will post to her Instagram or Twitter giving the watch an instant visibility to millions of her fans.

I don't see why Apple should care about mechanical watch users when only a few percentage points of iPhone users means a few million Apple Watch users.


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

scentedlead said:


> I have no clue for marketing but I think that 100K to influence a person no one knows is a worse investment than 17K on a solid gold, can't even get in stores limited edition watch to Beyoncé who will post to her Instagram or Twitter giving the watch an instant visibility to millions of her fans.


Again with the Beyonce. Oh, and seems her husband wears one too. b-)


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

watchRus said:


> Why try to influence the 1%? There is your answer right there. ;-)


Yes, which is why Apple has gone after the fashion people and not WIS/WUS... which goes against your theory of Apple marketing guys on WUS!


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

zetaplus93 said:


> Yes, which is why Apple has gone after the fashion people and not WIS/WUS... which goes against your theory of Apple marketing guys on WUS!


I'm sorry, what? When I said 1%, I meant 1% of the world in terms of monetary value. The 1% do not care for 'fashion people'. Apple's $10K+ 'watches' are certainly not geared toward fans of Beyonce or 'fashion people'. So again, what is wrong of placing a marketing individual inside the biggest luxury watch forum that boasts over 14K active users at a given time?

Oh gee, an exclamation mark from zetaplus, I must have certainly hit a nerve.


----------



## HerrNano (Apr 29, 2015)

scentedlead said:


> You've never met a Daytona or Speedy owner who didn't know how to operate their chronograph, have you? At least iPhone owners know how to use their phones. Perhaps the brand loyalty comes from using the product and liking it?
> 
> (Also, I'm guessing you've never seen Apple users eviscerate a software dev over crap software. Apple users are quicker and harsher with criticism than Windows and Android users.)


You're guessing wrong. Apple users, overall, are about as compliant as consumers get. And the part about iPhone users knowing how to use their phones...wow, priceless. I guess they know as much as Apple wants them to know.


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

watchRus said:


> I'm sorry, what? When I said 1%, I meant 1% of the world in terms of monetary value. The 1% do not care for 'fashion people'. Apple's $10K+ 'watches' are certainly not geared toward fans of Beyonce or 'fashion people'. So again, what is wrong of placing a marketing individual inside the biggest luxury watch forum that boasts over 14K active users at a given time?
> 
> Oh gee, an exclamation mark from zetaplus, I must have certainly hit a nerve.


When I said 1%, I meant WIS who may be hanging out on WUS. We watch people are a very small percentage of the world.

I don't think Apple's going after the 1% richest people in the world. They're better served going after the bulk of the population, and within this very large pool, a smaller pool of people who have enough disposable income to purchase Apple products (and this pool is larger than 1% of the world). These target customers would be influenced by people like Beyonce and those who work in the fashion world, hence Apple's efforts with these folks.

No, Apple's target audience (most people) can't or won't purchase 10k+ AW. But the aluminum and SS options are available, and seeing it on these influential people (like Beyonce) will make them aware that the AW exists and perhaps make them curious enough to read about them, or go to their local Apple store to check them out.


----------



## scentedlead (May 11, 2015)

On Instagram, Twitter, and Tumblr, I saw lots of fans who wanted an AW after seeing Beyoncé post pics. (And I use Beyoncé as an example because it's her pics that got liked, retweeted, and reblogged around the most.) Sure lots of her fans can't afford an AW Edition, but that's still millions of people who want an AW after seeing her with one.

Are you arguing that a random, anonymous person here is going to have more influence in style and fashion and the consumer choices of millions of average people than any of the A-listers who got a solid gold AW? I doubt anyone here is going to benefit Apple more than Beyoncé has.

Also, Apple is a tech company. Why would any tech company, which strives to be a the fore of innovation, target a demographic of users who are technologically stuck a half century behind? Because these users have money? No. You want your spokespeople to have money yet be forward and progressive as a vision of what the future can be-not not stuck in the past reminiscing over glory days of past.

(Rolex can keep Justin Bieber.)


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

scentedlead said:


> *You want your spokespeople to have money yet be forward and progressive* as a vision of what the future can be-not *not stuck in the past* reminiscing over glory days of past.


I found this article just for you. Originally, I was looking for *progressive*(lol) 'fashion people' who wore an Apple Watch, but was rewarded with an even better, depressing one.

*7 Stylish Celebs Who Will Probably Wear An Apple Watch (And Here's What That's Going To Look Like)*

Forward thinkers come in all shapes and sizes, but those _following _these forward people because they wore an object, the term sheep is thrown around to describe them. I don't recall any forward thinking progressivists using an iPhone before everyone else. But then again, Apple had something with the iPhone, something credible that does not need to be promoted as a fashion object.

Bit too old for this sub-forum, so I must exit. Apple watch and other smart/fitness watches should have no problem in replacing digital watches.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

I'm as likely to buy an Apple mechanical watch as I would buy any other mechanical: not very likely at all.

I've got four now, and their dates (on the two that have date wheels) are all way, way behind. Until two months ago, I was keeping those two, a SKX009 and a Rado, on a good rotation, rarely letting either one run down. But since I got my AW, they've been on the cabinet, staring at the ceiling.

I don't like my mechanicals any _less,_ it's just that they're not as _useful._


----------



## dirtvictim (Mar 9, 2006)

watchRus said:


> You will find that a lot in this sub-forum. But be warned that some _may not _be just users of this site.
> 
> I wouldn't put it past any company to have marketing individuals making case, defending, arguing for a product line in one of the biggest discussion forum for that specific market.


oh I don't doubt that for even one second, hence the header "next giant leap in horology" which is so loosely applied it's an embarrassment to the watch world.


----------



## dirtvictim (Mar 9, 2006)

HerrNano said:


> I'm happy that there are people out there willing to try to build mechanical watches and please me, and I'm really not all that discriminating when it comes to the niggly details of watches. Many people on here will raise hell over a small design change or subtle grades of brushed stainless. But it has not been my experience that Apple aficionados are terribly discerning about those things. They seem to pretty much line up, pay their money, take what is handed to them by Apple and them fawn over it. If Apple made a mechanical, I would get the popcorn and the lawn chair and enjoy the evisceration.


Buttered popcorn?


----------



## dirtvictim (Mar 9, 2006)

zetaplus93 said:


> Well, if you talk to kids today, I doubt they think of calling someone through the existing copper-wire telephony network being the primary function of an iPhone (or other smartphone). It's much more likely that things like Snapchat, Instagram, camera, etc are the primary functions of their phone.
> 
> Another possibility is that these companies are even more ambitious. They're looking to redefine what words like "phone" and "watch" mean to the next generation.
> 
> ...


you are funny that's for certain, giving them a lot of credit considering the apple typical MO. Phone still means communication device so communicator is still a better term for their AW. Never has the term "watch" been interpreted as any type of communication device so why do it? It's just ignorant when more than adequate terminology already exists.


----------



## scentedlead (May 11, 2015)

watchRus said:


> I found this article just for you. Originally, I was looking for *progressive*(lol) 'fashion people' who wore an Apple Watch, but was rewarded with an even better, depressing one.
> 
> *7 Stylish Celebs Who Will Probably Wear An Apple Watch (And Here's What That's Going To Look Like)*
> 
> ...


That's not a list of people Apple gave early release watches to. That's not even a list of people who wear the product. That's a list of people some blogger thinks are going to eventually own the product.

People aren't automatically sheep for deciding whom they want to emulate. The person who wants to be like Beyoncé is completely different from the person who wants to be like Miley Cyrus. The person who wants to be like Neil Degrasse Tyson is completely different from the person who wants to be like Richard Dawkins. The person who wants to be Warren Buffet is completely different from the person who wants to be like Donald Trump (I hope, otherwise, some people are very misinformed about Warren Buffet). People don't follow celebrities for the sake of following celebrities. People put thought into who they are, and maybe it's confirmation bias but they also tend to seek out celebrities who already reflect their values.

Likewise, it's important for branding whom a company chooses as spokespeople. And, contracts outstanding, dropping celebrity spokespeople for clashing in some way with branding is something that's not uncommon.

As much as mechanical watch users want to believe that they are the be-all and end-all of all watches, Apple's marketing is proving that, no, the company has other consumers in mind for their watch and therefore has specific spokespeople-people who are not fanatical mechanical watch users-in mind.



BarracksSi said:


> I'm as likely to buy an Apple mechanical watch as I would buy any other mechanical: not very likely at all.
> 
> I've got four now, and their dates (on the two that have date wheels) are all way, way behind. Until two months ago, I was keeping those two, a SKX009 and a Rado, on a good rotation, rarely letting either one run down. But since I got my AW, they've been on the cabinet, staring at the ceiling.
> 
> I don't like my mechanicals any _less,_ it's just that they're not as _useful._


I'm glad Apple didn't try to make a better mechanical watch. Apple is a technology company. That means chasing the latest and greatest technologies-not technologies that peaked half a century ago.

I haven't worn my Seiko 5 ever since I got my Apple Watch. I still love it. And I loved watching that video of the Philippe Patek being made-what a marvel of craftsmanship. But mechanical watches do less than my AW.



dirtvictim said:


> Phone still means communication device so communicator is still a better term for their AW. Never has the term "watch" been interpreted as any type of communication device so why do it? It's just ignorant when more than adequate terminology already exists.


A few weeks ago, I bought a new camera. It also makes phone calls.

When you look at a smartphone, you're greeted with an array of apps-the phone app is one of many-and they all equally vie for your attention. A smartphone is literally a computer where, if someone wanted to, they might never use the phone app and still get tremendous usage out of it whether it's taking and editing photos, taking and editing videos, recording sound, making notes, keeping track of appointments, playing games, tracking their workouts, reading books or magazines or newspapers, surfing the internet. And-in any of those apps, there is no interface to make a phone call. You have to leave the app to make a phone call.

Whereas, when you look at a smartphone, time-telling is the primary interface-not the other apps. And the smartwatches that annoy the least are the ones that always have the time on the screen-even if only a small line of text somewhere on the screen. In other words, the watch that annoys the least is a watch that was designed with the understanding that when people look at a watch, they want to see the time, whether or not they want or need the time. On my AW, the only apps that don't display the time are Camera (a remote for the camera) and Photos (a photo album). It's interesting that for all 3rd party apps, and for all but two of its own apps-the photo apps-Apple has made off limits to devs a section of the top line where the time is displayed.

Just because a smartwatch is a computer doesn't mean it's deviating from what the bulk of wrist-worn devices have historically done-tell time.


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

dirtvictim said:


> you are funny that's for certain, giving them a lot of credit considering the apple typical MO.


This applies not only for Apple, but every major consumer electronics company out there today, from Google/Alphabet to Samsung to Huawei to Sony.


----------



## dirtvictim (Mar 9, 2006)

scentedlead said:


> That's not a list of people Apple gave early release watches to. That's not even a list of people who wear the product. That's a list of people some blogger thinks are going to eventually own the product.
> 
> People aren't automatically sheep for deciding whom they want to emulate. The person who wants to be like Beyoncé is completely different from the person who wants to be like Miley Cyrus. The person who wants to be like Neil Degrasse Tyson is completely different from the person who wants to be like Richard Dawkins. The person who wants to be Warren Buffet is completely different from the person who wants to be like Donald Trump (I hope, otherwise, some people are very misinformed about Warren Buffet). People don't follow celebrities for the sake of following celebrities. People put thought into who they are, and maybe it's confirmation bias but they also tend to seek out celebrities who already reflect their values.
> 
> ...


are you trying to tell people how a smart phone works? You spend a lot of effort deviating from the simple facts. Sounds like you are practicing your lawyer speak. "When presented with just the facts a sane person will agree with the truth"
Using the definition of horology a watch is a mechanical device that tracks time. 
Everything electronic falls under chronometry those are the facts. 
Would you really attempt to alter the definition to suit the wants of such a trivial venture as applying the term watch to a communication device or worse yet be the sheeple that follows that line of thinking.
Any phone is a communications device in form and function, that is the truth regardless of an extraneous functions such as time or apps.
A watch is a device for tracking time and in form and function is mechanical in nature therefore is not a communication device.
A smart phone in my pocket is as much a pocket watch as a smart phone strapped to your wrist makes it a watch, by your own
volution you would be relegated to using only the term smart pocket watch for any phone kept in your pocket. 
"when you have eliminated all other possibilities then whatever remains must be the truth" in this case it is not "however unlikely"

In the case of a Watch V the AW;
The court finds in favor that the AW is simply a communication device and not a watch by all definition including those possibilities that the opposition helped to eliminate. The court thanks you for your help in determining the truth. Any other rebuttal will be considered supposition with no bearing on the decision of this court. It is the courts decision that this case cannot be re tried based on double jeopardy since it has also been proven that a phone in your pocket is not a pocket watch.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Bickering over the definition of "watch" is pretty stupid. Thank goodness this is over the Internet instead of on sheets of paper -- we'd have used up a dozen trees by now.


----------



## valmak (May 29, 2010)

watchRus said:


> I wouldn't put it past any company to have marketing individuals making case, defending, arguing for a product line in one of the biggest discussion forum for that specific market.


oh come on no way Apple would waste their time on this forum to sell ten more watches to a couple of watch nerds.


----------



## douglasf13 (Aug 17, 2013)

I've been a watch guy since grade school in the 80s, and I picked up an Apple Watch for fun the other day. Let me tell ya, my mechanicals (Omega, Rolex, Squale, Seiko, etc.,) are getting nervous. This silly little Apple Watch offers enough functional improvement that, despite my interest in the hobby, my mechanical days may be numbered. It's a bit like owning a bunch of classic cars, and then driving a Tesla Model S. It's not a terrible trade off to some, especially considering that amount of money coming in, should I flip my mechanicals.


----------



## dirtvictim (Mar 9, 2006)

BarracksSi said:


> Bickering over the definition of "watch" is pretty stupid. Thank goodness this is over the Internet instead of on sheets of paper -- we'd have used up a dozen trees by now.


you are in dc maybe not in politics but it is important to keep definitions intact otherwise you get people trying to re write things like the constitution. Just saying.


----------



## Ajax_Drakos (Aug 20, 2014)

There is a zero percent chance that this will happen.


----------



## dirtvictim (Mar 9, 2006)

My final thoughts on the idea of Apple having a mechanical watch made for them. 
Since they already use Apple watch what would they call it? Apple time? Apple tic toc? Apple wrist o'clock? Apple not a communicator on my wrist? Ok I'll quit I know the applites are getting mad. Just breathe guys slow in slow out deep breath.


----------



## valmak (May 29, 2010)

douglasf13 said:


> I've been a watch guy since grade school in the 80s, and I picked up an Apple Watch for fun the other day. Let me tell ya, my mechanicals (Omega, Rolex, Squale, Seiko, etc.,) are getting nervous. This silly little Apple Watch offers enough functional improvement that, despite my interest in the hobby, my mechanical days may be numbered. It's a bit like owning a bunch of classic cars, and then driving a Tesla Model S. It's not a terrible trade off to some, especially considering that amount of money coming in, should I flip my mechanicals.


Same here. As much as I love mechanicals, I just can't justify paying more to get a mechanical when the Apple Watch is so functional. I have the exact time, date, messages, temperature, stop watch, email, music, etc... available to me with such ease in a beautiful package at an affordable price.


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

An Apple mechanical watch will never happen.

But imagine Ive creating a mechanical watch design for some good cause project. Like that drop dead gorgeous one off Leica he once redesigned.
How would it look?

I think the outcome would understated in an elegant way. I would expect something in the style of a Nomos or certain Rado watches to come our of his pen. But, still applying the wonderful innovative details of the Apple watch like the lugs that are dedicated to and come with the strap. Or the interesting leather loop etc.

If he were to work together with Newsom on a mechanical watch then perhaps design would be more playful. After all Newsom already designed unique mechanical watches in the past, and he invented a very similar strap as the much loved sport strap on the Apple watch.


----------



## Fer Guzman (Feb 10, 2012)

I love my AW but would never get a mechanical AW. That would be ludicrous.


----------



## TraditionFan (Sep 22, 2015)

The thing with Apple Watch is that the true apple followers will buy everything that they will produce. It doesn't matter if it will be extreamly expensive or ugly. Those people look on apple as a religion. I think that there is a lot of space for classic and smart watches. What is more not we will be changing our habits to them. They will be changing products for us. Look what Tag Heuer is doing with google and Intel or Frederique Constant. In this kind of collaboration I see a great opportunity!


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

Well Traditionfan, that comment didn't add to this specific discussion. It would best be reserved for a generic whining thread that those interested in the product can easily skip...


----------



## valmak (May 29, 2010)

TraditionFan said:


> The thing with Apple Watch is that the true apple followers will buy everything that they will produce.


A lot of people do this simply because Apple makes great products.


----------



## flybynight70 (Feb 21, 2008)

TraditionFan said:


> The thing with Apple Watch is that the true apple followers will buy everything that they will produce. It doesn't matter if it will be extreamly expensive or ugly. Those people look on apple as a religion. I think that there is a lot of space for classic and smart watches. What is more not we will be changing our habits to them. They will be changing products for us. Look what Tag Heuer is doing with google and Intel or Frederique Constant. In this kind of collaboration I see a great opportunity!


I can understand where you're coming from, but portraying Apple-users as uneducated computer users is off the mark, imho.

Yes, there are very ardent fans of the brand, but most of the devs and other IT-types swear by their Macs; easy to install other OS's (Windows, Linux).

I know that the common perception that Macs are 'dumbed-down' for the end user. And there's nothing wrong with that. But to categorize Mac users as neophytes is woefully inaccurate; take a gander at what computers you see most at IT conferences.

*posted from my Win10 laptop.


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

flybynight70 said:


> I know that the common perception that Macs are 'dumbed-down' for the end user. And there's nothing wrong with that. But to categorize Mac users as neophytes is woefully inaccurate; take a gander at what computers you see most at IT conferences.


Personally, I see Apple products having more polished and be more usable, with the higher prices in support of that. No sense for companies to spend the extra effort without making more money.

Better usability and user experience by a non-IT person has never been valued much by the Wintel products over the years (though of course they're much better now) since most computers were sold to companies where the finance guy approving purchases doesn't care about UX--money was primarily the deciding factor.

It really took until 2007 or so, with the iPhone and its simple user interface, for simplicity and usability to become important for makers of consumer electronics and computers. Hell, I'd say that OS X is too complex for most of my needs, having migrated from the world of Windows. Been spoiled by iOS-like interfaces that just gets things done without the complexity.


----------



## Em1224 (Oct 31, 2015)

It somehow doesn't sit right. Mechanical watches are about the beauty of horology, the heritage of the brands, the craftsmanship and man hours that go into creating the watch- there's something quite nostalgic about the process which doesn't feel on brand with what Apple do...but you never know!


----------

