# Apple Watch eating the Swiss watch industry, according to TechCrunch...



## alx007 (Jan 28, 2013)

Just read this article: http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/24/for-the-love-of-all-that-is-good-and-holy-please-buy-a-swiss-watch/

This article kind of surprised me - I am actually feeling I'm seeing less and less Apple Watches out in the open. A lot less than 2-3 months ago, at least.

Not that sales prices are not declining - I always assumed that was the case with the Swiss watch industry as a whole in the last few years (after the heyday of a few years ago). Is the Apple Watch, or smartwatches in general at all responsible for this trend, or is this just correlation, and not necessarily causatio?

Would love to hear you guys' takes on this?


----------



## edhchoe (Mar 2, 2010)

Apple propaganda?


----------



## badindianswamp (Nov 21, 2015)

My teenage son never wears a watch. Nor do any of his friends. They have the time on their phones they tell me. 

I think that when smart watches become a replacement for the cell phone ,not another auxiliary device, we will see a decline in new watch purchases. I wonder if ten years from now the mechanical wristwatch will have the same kind of usage and collectable market as pocket watches do today. ???


----------



## watchmego3000 (Jul 12, 2012)

The article, like most internet click-bait that passes as "journalism" these days, typically scrapes the surface of a few poorly-analyzed statistics and draws ill-conceived conclusions that are then trumpeted as hard facts.

For instance, "While I originally assumed that Swiss watches would survive the onslaught of smartwatches, I was wrong. “To suggest that the iWatch will influence Swiss watch buyers is like saying the market for a fine Bordeaux is affected by the advent of a new flavor of Vitamin Water,” I wrote in September. Boy do I feel silly. Here’s the real situation: watch sales are falling month over month at a startling rate. Sales were down 12.3% in October, one of the industry’s most important months, and it doesn’t look like November will be much better."

So, watch sales are falling "month after month" (for one month), and immediately the cause is the Apple watch, but the author provides no insight into the correlation, not to mention neglecting to prove causation. 

Personally I have no horse in the Swiss vs smartwatch race, but this article is, in a word, pitiful.


----------



## tigerpac (Feb 3, 2011)

Was that article written by a high school kid?

How about discussing China and the impact of the government gift crackdown?


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

badindianswamp said:


> My teenage son never wears a watch. Nor do any of his friends. They have the time on their phones they tell me.
> 
> I think that when smart watches become a replacement for the cell phone ,not another auxiliary device, we will see a decline in new watch purchases. I wonder if ten years from now the mechanical wristwatch will have the same kind of usage and collectable market as pocket watches do today. ???


+1
A paradigm shift is coming for the watch making industry that some watch makers will adapt to. And others won't.
I see fewer people wearing traditional wrist watches than 20 years ago and that trend will continue. Traditional stand-alone wrist watches won't just disappear in 20 years, but their numbers will continue to decline.


----------



## littleprince (Oct 16, 2015)

You can't sell millions of units over $400 and not have it impact other watch brands. Some of the dislocation is likely from people who have disposable watches (sub $50). Others could be displacing a Tissot, Movado, or even a Longines purchase. Who knows? It could even affect luxury brands. If I have 3 Omegas and 2 Rolexes, maybe I buy a smartwatch for the heck of it instead of another Seamaster and then find out it actually has some nifty everyday uses like counting my steps.

There will always be a place for watches as high-end jewelry/craftsmanship pieces and on the low-end as a functional time device that is really cheap ($15 digital watch). But functionally speaking, smart watches exceed a traditional watch in every way, except maybe battery. Historically speaking, when one product gets beaten by another across the board in functionality, the weaker one usually doesn't do very well.


----------



## Bradjhomes (Jun 18, 2011)

I'm still waiting for the prices to start tumbling (Swiss watch prices that is, not Apple watch prices)


----------



## Stelyos (Jun 23, 2015)

LOL!!!! i laugh at those articles.... it's like me saying "i rode a horse and my wife didn't buy cheerios this week"... one thing didn't cause the other, they both happened and their true, but they're unrelated.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

There's a lot more in that article worth mulling over.

I'll pick this out for now:


> &#8230;but it doesn't change the fact that a smartwatch is a commodity product available in stores around the world while watches are, historically, sold in specialized shops that *make the average consumer feel like an interloper.*


The last time I was in an Apple Store, one of the employees had installed a third-party bracelet on her AW. I asked about it, and she handed it to me so I could check it out.

It's the kind of welcoming, "Let me show you this," experience I've never had at any of the watch boutiques in the area. It's not _ex_clusivity, but _in_clusivity that they're "selling" at the Apple Store.

Now, of course, some people aren't going to buy into the enthusiasm. They want to feel like they're part of a special club, that they've earned the privilege of membership.

It's a very fine line that the Apple staff tread, too. I rarely hear a phrase like, "Which one do you want to buy today?" I don't get told to buy now and ask forgiveness from my wife later -- which has been said to me at every watch shop. I don't think anyone in the Apple store cares whether I buy something while I'm there.

Then there was the time I visited the Omega boutique at Tysons. I had said that I was just browsing, I wasn't there to buy, my wife would put me out, and I hadn't asked them to take anything from the case for me to try on. What happens? One of the salesmen -- really the only employee taller than myself -- steps up from behind the counter and pressures me with, "What are you looking for?"-style questions. Criminy. I was so put off that I walked out and haven't been back. I eventually unsubscribed from the Omega subforum here on WUS, too.

There's a lot more at work here than China's drop in luxury goods sales.


----------



## littleprince (Oct 16, 2015)

Virtually everyone I knew in 2007 dismissed smart phones as a gimmick. Ok, a touch screen is cool but I use my phone for talking and a few text messages. Remember all the Blackberry diehards who HAD TO HAVE a physical keyboard?? iPhone is too big. Battery sucks. If I want to surf the net, I'm not gonna do it on my phone, will do it on a computer. Blah Blah. Fast forward 8 years and smart phones have taken over the world.


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing (Jul 15, 2009)

I would think this article is a bit premature with its conclusions. 

Fact is the global economy is a bit soft, the Chinese are continuing with their anti-corruption drive (along with weak GDP growth numbers for the year), oil prices are also depressed. That along with yes, the intro of the Apple watch, could be driving Swiss watch sales down. 

I agree that Apple or Smart watches may have serious implications on the traditional watch industry - but that's something to conclude on maybe a few years down the road.


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

edhchoe said:


> Apple propaganda?


Well it is TechCrunch, fanboys who think Apple is going to take over the world.

I guess it'll work if Apple's smartphone share is 100%. Where I live, it's 16%. Lol.


----------



## darrengoh (Mar 31, 2014)

Actually the real impact of Swiss watch industry is in Asia. China has a massive corruption crack down. Expensive Swiss watches are currency there. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Perseus (Mar 25, 2010)

The article is total BS! For starters the only source he sites provides a single months worth of data. Where I live it snowed this week, do you think snow shovel sales are up or down this month? Only a fool is going to draw industry wide conclusions based on a single month. 

Second, it's erroneous to assume that watch sales for one month were down because of smart watches. The author doesn't have any information that says why the sales are down or that smart watches are being bought in lieu of mechanical watches. This is his opinion and 100% conjecture.

Watch enthusiasts understand that mechanical watches are a niche market. Someone who is passionate and willing to spend thousands of dollars on a mechanical watch is most likely not buying them every month and possibly not every year. If you have your heart set on something like a Omega or a Rolex etc. then I highly doubt you're cross shopping a smart watch. You may buy a smart watch in addition to your mechanical watch but it's not going to replace it.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the watch market but I do think I'm a fairly typical consumer. This time a year I put buying things on hold for two reasons. One, we all know the end of the year sales are coming. Two, I have a lot of Christmas presents to buy.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Perseus said:


> The article is total BS! For starters the only source he sites provides a single months worth of data. Where I live it snowed this week, do you think snow shovel sales are up or down this month? Only a fool is going to draw industry wide conclusions based on a single month.


The cited source is the Swiss watch industry itself.
FH - Watch industry statistics
http://www.fhs.ch/file/59/comm_151010_a.pdf

In the PDF, they say, "Swiss watch exports scraped past the two billion francs mark in October [2015], a level that has been traditionally *easily exceeded*."

The Chinese don't have Thanksgiving and "Black Friday" sales, either.

The PDF also contains a month-by-month chart showing the decline of sales over the past year.



> Second, it's erroneous to assume that watch sales for one month were down because of smart watches. The author doesn't have any information that says why the sales are down or that smart watches are being bought in lieu of mechanical watches. This is his opinion and 100% conjecture.


It's not a stretch to guess that the only wristwatch-like-object category that's seen an increase in the past year is smartwatches (possibly more if you include fitness watches and Fitbit-type bands).



> You may buy a smart watch in addition to your mechanical watch but it's not going to replace it.


If -- _if_ -- someone buys a smartwatch and ends up wearing it all the time, are they still going to consider spending so much money on another watch they'll rarely wear?


----------



## scentedlead (May 11, 2015)

alx007 said:


> Just read this article: For The Love Of All That Is Good And Holy, Please Buy A Swiss Watch | TechCrunch
> 
> 
> 
> > Why do I need a Patek to pass down to my grandchildren when I can own a few dozen Android Wear watches over an eighteen year period?


*snorts* This is not the argument I would've used argue the thesis-I agree with the thesis of this article, but it's not the best written. I would rewrite as: _Do I need a Patek to pass down to my grandchildren as much as a watch that will show me pictures of them and messages from them? The former is something you'll enjoy from six feet under whereas the latter is something you'll enjoy now, while still alive._



BarracksSi said:


> There's a lot more in that article worth mulling over.
> 
> I'll pick this out for now:
> 
> ...


It helps that Apple Store employees are paid hourly or yearly, depending on the title. Of course, when your stores are the most profitable per square foot-$4,798.92 per square foot, compared to a retail average of $300/sq. ft.-then you don't need employees who are motivated by commission.

When I go to the mall, the Sephora stores have lots of customers in them whereas the makeup counters at department stores are mostly traffic free. Apple knows what Sephora knows-_people would rather buy a product that can sell itself without the help of a salesperson,_ in an environment that welcomes people to independently try the products.

If your product _needs_ a commissioned salesperson, either something is wrong with the marketing or something is wrong with the product or something is wrong with availability. That said, historically, all watches were sold at jewelry stores or department stores-something Timex broke out of in the 1950s, and was considered very radical for doing so-yet more than a half century after Timex showed the mold can be broken, watch companies still have not adapted to modern buyers' shopping preferences.



publandlord said:


> Well it is TechCrunch, fanboys who think Apple is going to take over the world.
> 
> I guess it'll work if Apple's smartphone share is 100%. Where I live, it's 16%. Lol.


Of the global smartphone market, Apple has 20% market share yet 92% profit share. That 80% buying not!iPhones contributed to only 8% of smartphone profits; how much do they value their smartphones?



BarracksSi said:


> The cited source is the Swiss watch industry itself.
> FH - Watch industry statistics
> http://www.fhs.ch/file/59/comm_151010_a.pdf
> 
> ...


Well, fitness bands range the spectrum from "good-looking pedometer" to a "smartwatch in all but name." The former people wear with a traditional watch and doesn't compete with traditional watches, while the latter people wear alone (if they don't mind the obviously sporty look) and does compete with traditional watches. Too bad these things aren't usually segmented out but that might be moot as smartwatches gain more health-related features.

As for spending money on another watch, well I still have my eye on a few watches, but I'd be less likely to be on this forum if I weren't. That said, the AW has made my interest in shopping for watches drop so much. I still really really miss my Timex and Seiko 5 watches-I loved mixing it up with my tasks for the day _and_ my outfit for the day. But I wear the AW almost exclusively now; as much as I love and miss choosing a watch to finish an outfit, now I wear a watch strictly for the tasks for the day, and the AW completes many more tasks than a traditional watch.

And this is me, who loves watches. But what about the average person who isn't? We're transitioning into a world where the average watch owner buys a smartwatch, and then buys traditional watches in addition to the smartwatch.

(I'm guessing those other watches are going to be things like G-Shocks and Pateks-things that really do well what a smartwatch doesn't do well at all such as be waterproof/_shockproof_, or really show off wealth.)


----------



## utzelu (Aug 17, 2015)

My feeling tells me that smartwatches are biting into the $100-$1000 traditional watch market, for the following reasons:
1. People in this market segment usually have a single watch and are not that much interested in horology
2. Many find the smartwatch useful enough not to wear other watches, so they loose interest in buying more traditional pieces. Since the smartwatches sales are growing, it must take the money from somewhere else
3. People using smartphone as watch
4. China's economy slowing down
5. Traditional watch market is in a bubble currently, with too many manufacturers - this is a statement from Roger Dubois

With all the above I am not sure that smartwatches will grow indefinitely in the near future. This is due to the particular business model, which is sort of a subscription based. People pay a "fee" when they buy their first smartwatch, then, after 2-3 years they have to pay another "fee", when they must upgrade the device due to it becoming obsolete. They get basically the same functionality but they pay the "fee" anyway. With AW, this fee seems to be too high IMO. I had one I have just sold yesterday after I decided that I prefer to pay this "fee" when I want to, on watches that will last for a long time and will retain some value. But once one is happy with paying the "subscription fee" on smartwatches, more likely he will be lost for the traditional watch market.


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

It's too early to tell, that's the simplest answer. 

Falling sales may be correlated with the current rise in AW, but the analysis isn't sufficient to prove causation. You need more data than just a few month's worth. 

Give it another year or two. Th trend will be much clearer then.


----------



## scentedlead (May 11, 2015)

utzelu said:


> With all the above I am not sure that smartwatches will grow indefinitely in the near future. This is due to the particular business model, which is sort of a subscription based. People pay a "fee" when they buy their first smartwatch, then, after 2-3 years they have to pay another "fee", when they must upgrade the device due to it becoming obsolete. They get basically the same functionality but they pay the "fee" anyway. With AW, this fee seems to be too high IMO. I had one I have just sold yesterday after I decided that I prefer to pay this "fee" when I want to, on watches that will last for a long time and will retain some value. But once one is happy with paying the "subscription fee" on smartwatches, more likely he will be lost for the traditional watch market.


Just because new models are released doesn't mean people will upgrade-an industry's upgrade cycle will always be more frequent than the consumer's upgrade cycle. New tablets come out every year but people upgrade these things almost as infrequently as they upgrade their computers.

We'll see in a few years what the consumer upgrade cycle for smartwatches will be.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

scentedlead said:


> Just because new models are released doesn't mean people will upgrade-an industry's upgrade cycle will always be more frequent than the consumer's upgrade cycle. New tablets come out every year but people upgrade these things almost as infrequently as they upgrade their computers.


Ain't that the truth. We've had our iPad 2 for _four years_ and have hardly felt the need to upgrade.


----------



## deleonj (Jun 17, 2012)

Traditional watches will disappear nooo!!!! I guess better get the watches I want now then 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## utzelu (Aug 17, 2015)

BarracksSi said:


> Ain't that the truth. We've had our iPad 2 for _four years_ and have hardly felt the need to upgrade.


Well, I have an iPad 3 and the HD movies don't play anymore in VLC for quite some time, because of the hardware. So if you wanna watch them on the tablet, what options do we have?
in 2-3 years, the battery on the watch will drop dramatically in performance and who knows how long will Apple offer new ones? Quite few uncertainties for a such a high price.
It is early to say something for sure. I don't think even Apple has a long term plan with the watch.


----------



## watchfanatic100 (Sep 20, 2015)

I have to disagree there is no way traditional watches will ever disappear,they are in a different league from apple watches!!


----------



## rgb66rgb (Jun 30, 2014)

littleprince said:


> Virtually everyone I knew in 2007 dismissed smart phones as a gimmick. Ok, a touch screen is cool but I use my phone for talking and a few text messages. Remember all the Blackberry diehards who HAD TO HAVE a physical keyboard?? iPhone is too big. Battery sucks. If I want to surf the net, I'm not gonna do it on my phone, will do it on a computer. Blah Blah. Fast forward 8 years and smart phones have taken over the world.


Just returned to blackberry with the Priv and so pleased I did. I can actually read the screen. Like you said, the standard sized iPhone is ok for calls and perhaps even texting, but little more. Seriously, those looking for a larger screen (and who can stomach Android) will be pleasantly surprised.

And the iPhone battery does suck - big time. My sister can't go more than six hours without it needing a charge. It seems permanently tethered to some power source or another. (Is it any wonder then that iphoneites are also called as wall-huggers?) And sadly there is no Apple roadmap to improve this; in fact, the fruit plans an even thinner phone which means thinner battery.

But returning to the topic ... I see the AW and other similar doodads as little more than today's generation go-to watch. Ours used to be Timex, Seiko and g-shock. Everyone matures in taste eventually, and aspires to own a better representation of the product in question. In watches, those will migrate to the other real watch brands. No smartwatch conveys success, self assurance or wealth.


----------



## rgb66rgb (Jun 30, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Ain't that the truth. We've had our iPad 2 for _four years_ and have hardly felt the need to upgrade.


I have a LTE iPad Air 2 that I bought over a year ago and that has - at most - 3 hours of use. My Surface tablet gets much more, but its a Surface Pro 2; no need as you say to upgrade to 3 or now 4.

And my main box remains my desktop, and its from 2007. Albeit a HP Blackbird 002 liquid cooled with two SSDs and four Raptor drives, so nothing shabby spec-wise, but still an eight year old today.


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

utzelu said:


> People pay a "fee" when they buy their first smartwatch, then, after 2-3 years they have to pay another "fee", when they must upgrade the device due to it becoming obsolete. They get basically the same functionality but they pay the "fee" anyway.


Well, you're assuming that the newest AW in 2017-2018 will basically do what the AW does in 2015. If it is, then yeah, the AW won't do so well. But I would wager it'll get better and do more over time.

One thing though--what people value with smartwatches will be different from what they value with phones.

It really comes down to value for your money. Consumers are sane people. If the smartwatch provides value for their money (whether value is functionality, form, beauty, cool factor, etc), then they will continue buying smartwatches going forward. If it doesn't, then they won't.

So the question is, do smartwatches like the AW provide value that justifies people to continue buying them?


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

utzelu said:


> Well, I have an iPad 3 and the HD movies don't play anymore in VLC for quite some time, because of the hardware. So if you wanna watch them on the tablet, what options do we have?
> in 2-3 years, the battery on the watch will drop dramatically in performance and who knows how long will Apple offer new ones? Quite few uncertainties for a such a high price.
> It is early to say something for sure. I don't think even Apple has a long term plan with the watch.


Given Apple's track record, I'd say you would be able to replace the battery on your first gen AW in 3 year's time. 2011's iPhone 4S battery can still be replaced for a fee from Apple.


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

rgb66rgb said:


> Just returned to blackberry with the Priv and so pleased I did. I can actually read the screen. Like you said, the standard sized iPhone is ok for calls and perhaps even texting, but little more. Seriously, those looking for a larger screen (and who can stomach Android) will be pleasantly surprised.
> 
> And the iPhone battery does suck - big time. My sister can't go more than six hours without it needing a charge. It seems permanently tethered to some power source or another. (Is it any wonder then that iphoneites are also called as wall-huggers?) And sadly there is no Apple roadmap to improve this; in fact, the fruit plans an even thinner phone which means thinner battery.


Just upgraded from a 5S to a 6S Plus and agreed about much less strain when reading on the phone. Been reading much more on he phone over the past year or so--I think I'm doing more stuff (especially reading) in my phone nowadays. Great products change your behavior and all that.

The 6S Plus also has terrific battery. Used to need to charge my 2 year old 5S (which probably has less than 80% charge of a new battery given its 2 year life) in the late afternoon--the Plus lasts about 1.5 days now.

But I do miss the smaller form factor of the 5S for things like taking photos. The massive 6S Plus is a bit more difficult to use in this capacity.



rgb66rgb said:


> But returning to the topic ... I see the AW and other similar doodads as little more than today's generation go-to watch. Ours used to be Timex, Seiko and g-shock. Everyone matures in taste eventually, and aspires to own a better representation of the product in question. In watches, those will migrate to the other real watch brands. No smartwatch conveys success, self assurance or wealth.


Depends on what your mean by "better", and what one "hires" the watch to do. For us WIS, it's mostly things like you listed, conveying success, self assurance, wealth. There're also those who look for simplicity, a rugged tool, a tool that sticks with you for a long time, and perhaps something to pass down to future generations, or at least something that would remind others of you.

But then again, if you're looking for something to notify you, quickly look up info, direct you with taps, remote control stuff, and all other sort of other functionality, I don't think the next generation will "mature" and switch to traditional watches.

It's like those back at the turn of the 1900s who though the young ones would mature and return to a gentleman's pocket watch. That of course didn't happen--the "feminine" wristwatches took over and relegated pocket watches to be a part of history books. And the only added functionality of wrist watches was to enable the wearer to use both hands when checking the time. Imagine what the current crop of smartwatches, with its added functionality, will do to traditional watches...


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

rgb66rgb said:


> I have a LTE iPad Air 2 that I bought over a year ago and that has - at most - 3 hours of use. My Surface tablet gets much more, but its a Surface Pro 2; no need as you say to upgrade to 3 or now 4.
> 
> And my main box remains my desktop, and its from 2007. Albeit a HP Blackbird 002 liquid cooled with two SSDs and four Raptor drives, so nothing shabby spec-wise, but still an eight year old today.


You should really sell that iPad... 3 hours of use over a year?!

I haven't used a desktop since the early 2000s. Laptops like the Thinkpads have been great through the late 2000s. The great usability of the iPhones, then the iPads, convinced me to migrate to Macs and I haven't looked back. That and the fact that I hate being IT support for my family also helped me to migrate away from Windows. Unless the Mac ecosystem dramatically goes downhill, we should be using Apple products for a long time.


----------



## rgb66rgb (Jun 30, 2014)

zetaplus93 said:


> You should really sell that iPad... 3 hours of use over a year?!
> 
> I haven't used a desktop since the early 2000s. Laptops like the Thinkpads have been great through the late 2000s. The great usability of the iPhones, then the iPads, convinced me to migrate to Macs and I haven't looked back. That and the fact that I hate being IT support for my family also helped me to migrate away from Windows. Unless the Mac ecosystem dramatically goes downhill, we should be using Apple products for a long time.


Yea, I use it pretty well solely to deposit cheques to my bank account. And its the 128gb model. In a Tumi case to boot. Looks wonderful on the desk, thought. 

I tried to move to a laptop but found I detested trackpads, and if I'm going to use a mouse and rodent might as well stick with the desktop. Got a Sony carbon frame laptop in the cupboard I charge every so often to keep the battery somewhat alive. Besides I have a 30" apple cinema display w/the blackbird, so it's not exactly lame. And Win10 on it absolutely screams. I also tried a Samsung tablet when they first came out, and used it incessantly while watching TV, so figured the ipad was a good move. But in the meantime I'd gotten the Surface Pros, and they are my go-to tablet primarily because of windows integration. I really do need to reduce (including traditional watches to clean out to make way for incoming).

But we digress, I fear.


----------



## bluefoam (May 5, 2011)

The way that I see it is that the watch is only a way to house the technology in the short term. Tech will move forward and the smart watch format will become obsolete... If you're asking me what it's going to be replaced by, I can't tell yet, but there are already various other concepts for managing information. As it is, the format is already proving it has limitations, and while smart watches will improve they will also reach those limits eventually.

Mechanical watches will always hold intrigue for a certain portion of society & will always have a market whether niche or mainstream.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

bluefoam said:


> As it is, the format is already proving it has limitations, and while smart watches will improve they will also reach those limits eventually.


Every other electronic device has limitations, too. You're not going to power a multi-display gaming rig without at least a car battery, so it's hardly going to be "portable". Neither are you going to have an easy time creating large Excel spreadsheets on your phone -- it's got plenty of computing power, but the screen will never be big enough. A Garmin GPS dashboard unit has a touchscreen, too, but it doesn't do email.

Why is it that a smartwatch is dismissed as being hopelessly crippled, then?


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

The one person I know that consistently wears/uses an Apple watch also purchased the bracelet, it looks better that way. It also replaced an Omega, and he seems to really like the Apple watch functionality.

Everybody else I know that purchased one has stopped wearing them. Either they would rather just use their phone, the screen is too small (again, falling back to their phone), or they got frustrated with the short charge intervals for a watch.


----------



## lawrence1972sg (Mar 2, 2008)

Would watch lovers like us really buy an apple watch? We might. 
But would buying an apple watch put me off the idea or the plan to buy a rolex, an AP, a PP? Unlikely.
Why? Because I buy a swiss watch for the legacy, for the reliability and for the quality of the movement. When I buy an Apple watch (if I ever were to buy one), it would likely for the sake of feeling what kind of electronic functions of the watch can help me in my daily life (measure steps taken in a day, give me calendar alerts and etc).
Essentially, swiss and apple watches addresses different "functions" and "needs". The target market segments are different.


----------



## flybynight70 (Feb 21, 2008)

Lots of good discussion in this thread. In fact, just got an AW sport 42mm this evening. BUT, I'll never lose my interest in my mechanicals. Two completely different beasts.

That being said, when I want quality journalism on tech I invariably got to Ars Technica


----------



## lawrence1972sg (Mar 2, 2008)

If I want to be intrigued by tech, I would browse thru my Audermars Piguet Collection magazine/booklet


----------



## scentedlead (May 11, 2015)

bluefoam said:


> The way that I see it is that the watch is only a way to house the technology in the short term. Tech will move forward and the smart watch format will become obsolete... If you're asking me what it's going to be replaced by, I can't tell yet, but there are already various other concepts for managing information. As it is, the format is already proving it has limitations, and while smart watches will improve they will also reach those limits eventually.
> 
> Mechanical watches will always hold intrigue for a certain portion of society & will always have a market whether niche or mainstream.





BarracksSi said:


> Every other electronic device has limitations, too. You're not going to power a multi-display gaming rig without at least a car battery, so it's hardly going to be "portable". Neither are you going to have an easy time creating large Excel spreadsheets on your phone -- it's got plenty of computing power, but the screen will never be big enough. A Garmin GPS dashboard unit has a touchscreen, too, but it doesn't do email.
> 
> Why is it that a smartwatch is dismissed as being hopelessly crippled, then?


Because people are used to thinking of small things as having limits while forgetting that every form factor has its limits.

It's obvious you wouldn't use a smartwatch to analyze large spreadsheets or read a book or even a long email.

But it's also obvious you wouldn't use a large desktop computer with a 21" screen-even if it were an all-in-one unit-to analyze said spreadsheet in a hotel room, read a book on the bus, check the weather for the next twelve hours in the middle of a park, collect your heart rate data in the middle of the gym.

As the smartwatch is limited by its size, so too is the desktop computer limited by its size.

The Inside Story of Apple's New iMacs



> Schiller, in fact, has a grand philosophical theory of the Apple product line that puts all products on a continuum. Ideally, you should be using the smallest possible gadget to do as much as possible before going to the next largest gizmo in line.
> 
> "They are all computers," he says. "Each one is offering computers something unique and each is made with a simple form that is pretty eternal. The job of the watch is to do more and more things on your wrist so that you don't need to pick up your phone as often. The job of the phone is to do more and more things such that maybe you don't need your iPad, and it should be always trying and striving to do that. The job of the iPad should be to be so powerful and capable that you never need a notebook. Like, _Why do I need a notebook? I can add a keyboard! I can do all these things!_ The job of the notebook is to make it so you never need a desktop, right? It's been doing this for a decade. So that leaves the poor desktop at the end of the line, What's _its_ job?"
> 
> ...


The point of having devices of varying sizes is that each one fills different niches-none of them replace each other; they complement each other and anyone who has any combination of desktop, laptop, and tablet already knows this. By making each one as powerful as can be, you reduce the friction between the capabilities of the hardware vs. what the users and developers want to do with it.

Desktop computers have become more powerful over the last half century. Laptops, too, over the last few decades. Smartphones and tablets, too, over the last decade. The smartwatch too will follow.

But even if you take the smartwatch as is right now, they're already an engineering marvel. They are already many times more powerful than digital watches. And comparing them to mechanical watches is like comparing a desktop computer to (well not the old vacuum tube computers of the 1940s - 1960s but . . . ) an abacus.



lawrence1972sg said:


> If I want to be intrigued by tech, I would browse thru my Audermars Piguet Collection magazine/booklet


If I wanted to be intrigued by old tech, I would visit museums and haunt the old folks I know.

Something I read on Tumblr, to paraphrase: All the technology in the world doesn't matter; an invention isn't revolutionary unless it's accessible to the masses. Lifestyles and entire cultures don't change in relevantly significant ways unless the masses can stress test something and push it to its limits to change their lives.

In 19th century, dollar watches were revolutionary because then time-keeping became accessible to the ordinary man on the street. At the turn of the 20th century, pocket watches strapped to the wrist and wrist watches were revolutionary because once men got over their fragile masculinity, they could keep time on the battlefield, and then during peacetime on the playing field. Quartz watches in the mid 20th century were revolutionary because it made _precise_ time-keeping accessible to the masses-people could set their watches once or twice a year and still be as sure of the time as a person with an expensive Rolex. Networked time in the late 20th century was revolutionary because it made _accurate_ time-keeping available to anyone-and anything-hooked up to the internet. Why are young people less likely to buy watches? Because they trust their cell phone more.

For all the design that goes into a mechanical watch, when-in any living person's memory-have mechanical watches been revolutionary? As a luxury item, that's a strike against them. There will be advances in materials and manufacturing that will enhance mechanical watches. But let's be real. Quartz pushed mechanical watches outside of the sub $100 price range making it the domain of a very few select niches. Smart watches will do the same to mechanical watches in the sub $1,000 price ranging, dropping its appeal to fewer, smaller, more select, and probably more exclusive niches. The smartwatch has potential; the mechanical watch doesn't.

But this is all moot because mechanical watches and smartwatches serve completely different needs. A smartwatch has no place in a jewelry box whereas a mechanical watch has no place in a lineup of computers.


----------



## bluefoam (May 5, 2011)

scentedlead said:


> Because people are used to thinking of small things as having limits while forgetting that every form factor has its limits.
> 
> It's obvious you wouldn't use a smartwatch to analyze large spreadsheets or read a book or even a long email.
> 
> ...


Not sure you got my point. The limitations of the watch format will be exceeded by new technology... Stuff that's waiting in the sidelines. There will be ways around the 1.4" screen limitation & the housing requirement... The format of the watch design for smart tech has a limited lifespan... basically, you will have far better technology, smart functions etc. without having to strap them onto your wrist.


----------



## flybynight70 (Feb 21, 2008)

You make some very good and perceptive points; re: technology.

As for "when-in any living person's memory-have mechanical watches been revolutionary?" I would say the Seiko Spring Drive has advanced things, horologically speaking. Yes, some might say it's just 'artificial' power to the movement, but it is nonetheless a wonder of ingenuity and many, many years of research (from the 70s, if my google-fu is correct.)

That being said, I think I get where your coming from, scented. A mechanical watch holds a special 'something' that can't be replicated. It literally depends upon the wearer to either wear it or wind it. I love that aspect.

Whether the watch be a Patek or a Seiko 5, we love them for what they _are._


----------



## zetaplus93 (Jul 22, 2013)

Good points scentedlead.



scentedlead said:


> As the smartwatch is limited by its size, so too is the desktop computer limited by its size.


Right, a lot of people focus on the disadvantages of smaller form factors. They don't consider the advantages of smaller form factors, and also the disadvantages of larger form factors like desktops and laptop, for certain tasks/jobs.



scentedlead said:


> The Inside Story of Apple's New iMacs


I like the ideas presented there. I think you can go further and say that a person tries to use the smallest and also most accessible device possible first, then jump to the next bigger/less accessible device. For example, checking weather in addition to time on my watch is now second nature. No need to pull out the phone (or tablet or laptop!) to get this job done. The traditional wristwatch won over the pocket watch precisely because it's more accessible (does not require taking it out of the pocket to see).



scentedlead said:


> The point of having devices of varying sizes is that each one fills different niches-none of them replace each other; they complement each other and anyone who has any combination of desktop, laptop, and tablet already knows this. By making each one as powerful as can be, you reduce the friction between the capabilities of the hardware vs. what the users and developers want to do with it.
> 
> Desktop computers have become more powerful over the last half century. Laptops, too, over the last few decades. Smartphones and tablets, too, over the last decade. The smartwatch too will follow.
> 
> But even if you take the smartwatch as is right now, they're already an engineering marvel. They are already many times more powerful than digital watches. And comparing them to mechanical watches is like comparing a desktop computer to (well not the old vacuum tube computers of the 1940s - 1960s but . . . ) an abacus.


To bluefoam's point, I think the question is, will wrist-watch-form-factor devices (including bracelets) eventually disappear, with other products/services replacing it due to cost, accessibility, etc reasons? There are always advantages to having one less item to buy/maintain.



scentedlead said:


> Something I read on Tumblr, to paraphrase: All the technology in the world doesn't matter; an invention isn't revolutionary unless it's accessible to the masses. Lifestyles and entire cultures don't change in relevantly significant ways unless the masses can stress test something and push it to its limits to change their lives.


+1

Innovations have impact precisely because it's either used by the masses or it affects a significant number of people.


----------



## scentedlead (May 11, 2015)

bluefoam said:


> Not sure you got my point. The limitations of the watch format will be exceeded by new technology... Stuff that's waiting in the sidelines. There will be ways around the 1.4" screen limitation & the housing requirement... The format of the watch design for smart tech has a limited lifespan... basically, you will have far better technology, smart functions etc. without having to strap them onto your wrist.


Like the movie _Her,_ starring ScarJo's voice? There's a smartphone-like thing, glasses, and an ear piece.

That movie's been talked about in various threads in f586, and it's an interesting concept. But I think the real-life reaction to Google Glass-do you know how many places in San Francisco have banned them?-prove how strongly people react to being recorded without their consent. Whatever the next format will be, its inventors will need to be mindful of what the public perceives as invasive-whether invasive to their privacy or their body.

But anyways, my point is, the different formats don't really replace each other as much as they complement each other. Also, the wrist watch has had a long history-starting with the armlet that Robert Dudley gifted to Queen Elizabeth. Despite being initially associated with the feminine, the form has survived and overcome misogyny to become a staple of modern timekeeping. You raise your wrist, it's there, and then you lower your wrist, you've put it away-convenient! Sure eventually there may be a more convenient form factor, but it'll have to be more convenient than the wrist.



flybynight70 said:


> You make some very good and perceptive points; re: technology.
> 
> As for "when-in any living person's memory-have mechanical watches been revolutionary?" I would say the Seiko Spring Drive has advanced things, horologically speaking. Yes, some might say it's just 'artificial' power to the movement, but it is nonetheless a wonder of ingenuity and many, many years of research (from the 70s, if my google-fu is correct.)
> 
> ...


The Spring Drive might be an ingenious movement to watches, but it doesn't really change the world? Timex made a movement that could survive being hit with a bat, and the watches were sold at drugstores for less than $20-well within the reach of any working person. The Timex V-Conic movement was as revolutionary as the dollar watch a century before it. It's relatively simple technology but it changed the public's expectations of what a watch should endure at what price.

But yes, I love my watches-even if they are merely Timex, Casio, and Seiko 5. I recently bought another Timex, and have my eye on some Casio. And my Seiko 5 has an exhibition caseback and I do stare at and meditate on it for periods of times.



zetaplus93 said:


> I like the ideas presented there. I think you can go further and say that a person tries to use the smallest and also most accessible device possible first, then jump to the next bigger/less accessible device. For example, checking weather in addition to time on my watch is now second nature. No need to pull out the phone (or tablet or laptop!) to get this job done. The traditional wristwatch won over the pocket watch precisely because it's more accessible (does not require taking it out of the pocket to see).
> 
> To bluefoam's point, I think the question is, will wrist-watch-form-factor devices (including bracelets) eventually disappear, with other products/services replacing it due to cost, accessibility, etc reasons? There are always advantages to having one less item to buy/maintain.


As I point out above, whatever the next thing will be, it'll have to beat the convenience of a watch, but without offending people. People are ingenious inventors yet, that's a tall order to beat. (But I love tech, and if it happens, I'll be first on board.)


----------



## Henraa (Jan 17, 2014)

I know 4 people with the Apple Watch now, but must admit I haven't seen too many out in the wild. I own quite a few Apple products, iPhone, iPad, MacBook Pro, but having played around with the Apple Watch it hasn't really tempted me. I can't see the point of having an iPhone if you are going to do many of the regular tasks through a watch, but maybe that is just me.

My boss might be a little unusual as he wears an Apple Watch on one wrist and a Rolex Sub on the other lol.


----------



## pr1uk (Sep 25, 2012)

Henraa said:


> I know 4 people with the Apple Watch now, but must admit I haven't seen too many out in the wild. I own quite a few Apple products, iPhone, iPad, MacBook Pro, but having played around with the Apple Watch it hasn't really tempted me. I can't see the point of having an iPhone if you are going to do many of the regular tasks through a watch, but maybe that is just me.
> 
> My boss might be a little unusual as he wears an Apple Watch on one wrist and a Rolex Sub on the other lol.


I am an Apple guy to with a Macbook, iPad, iPad mini and iPhone but the Apple so called watch does nothing for me i have to admit the notifications i find useful the rest that it does i see no need for at all. My iPhone is the 5s i just like the size so never wanted to upgrade to a 6 i like standing out from my friends with a nice size phone not like some of them with huge things like iPad mini's. Just read that Apple as shipped 7 million since the launch and allowing big discounts but i wonder how many of the 7 million have been sold there seems a large stock in the shops. Only know one man who owns one and that was a present from his wife but there again in the real world i have not met many who have a smartwatch on at all i know i have been ask about what i have been wearing when i have my Vector Luna on. My friend with the Apple as admitted to me that most of the tasks the watch will do he now does on his phone as he finds it easier and more natural and faster but notifications are helpful. What will happen in years to come we know that the swiss high end makers are looking at smartwatches so i can see more being released in the coming year for people who love watches but have got addicted to notifications. It's exciting times for the world of wearable wristwatches and tech but for me i like the tech to be limited to usable tech i do not want to replace my iPhone altogether.


----------

