# will the Apple Watch cause the watch industry to step up their game?



## valmak

based on early reviews (see A Watch Guy's Thoughts On The Apple Watch After Seeing It In The Metal (Tons Of Live Photos) - HODINKEE - Wristwatch News, Reviews, & Original Stories), it seems that apple has figured things out better than watch companies that have been around for many decades. do you think this will cause watch companies to step up their game and make better offerings? (just look how beautiful that watch is and how comfortable it looks to be. also, it is probably around just $600!)


----------



## Alex_TA

What does it mean 'step up their game and make better offerings'? 

I find it hard to understand the supreme philosophy of this post.


----------



## Watchbreath

:roll: For one, that's not a watch.


----------



## valmak

Alex_TA said:


> What does it mean 'step up their game and make better offerings'?
> 
> I find it hard to understand the supreme philosophy of this post.


definition of better: improve on or surpass


----------



## sticky

I doubt it as I see the Apple watch stealing market share from other smart watches or getting non watch wearers to try one. Traditional watch wearers will tend to stick with the "old" technology.


----------



## ilitig8

I doubt Patek is loosing much sleep. I think the vast majority of the customer base will be non-watch wearers and those that just grab what ever moves them at the mall.


----------



## OrangeSport

No,

Comparing it to a watch is like comparing a Segway to a bike IMO.


----------



## Alex_TA

valmak said:


> definition of better: improve on or surpass


Improve what? Surpass what?

I leave attempts to understand and humbly retreat.


----------



## John MS

Smart phone watches have been hashed over many times here on WUS. Indeed the topic is so popular there is a separate forum for them. It's clear to me that wrist borne communications devices that tell time will become very popular just as their bulkier close relative the smart phone has. Although Swatch made an early misstep I think that the major watch companies will have to include connected watches in their offerings. But that is not to say the stand alone watch is going to just disappear.

I don't know what you mean with the vaguely argumentative statement "step up their game". And what "things" has Apple "figured out". Rather than just linking to an article some blogger wrote perhaps you could be a little more precise. Also please visit the smart watch forum.

Smart Watches


----------



## Sinquil

I might try one, but I'll be keeping my old analog watches because I like them. I like having a little machine, full of little cogs and wheels all working together, on my wrist to tell me the time.


----------



## valmak

Alex_TA said:


> Improve what? Surpass what?
> 
> I leave attempts to understand and humbly retreat.


their current offerings, obviously


----------



## richnyc

Apple watch, despite its name, isn't in the watch market but in the personal-assistant-worn-on-the-wrist market.... Hahaha So, no watch maker, unless they are making smart watches, will lose a sleep over it... And yes, Apple watch will be hugely successful! Just my two pennies of opinion...


----------



## inhaus

this is about the third thread asking this question. the answer is very simple, nobody who wears nice watches is going to care at all about the apple watch... it will not replace anything on the market besides maybe a digital watch.


----------



## FernandoValenzuela

The target market for smart watches are the people who use their mobile phones to keep time. Since these people don't wear fancy mechanical timepieces, a "stepped up" watch offering won't get them to switch to a mechanical watch. In my view, the bigger problem for the watch industry is that more and more people are going without a watch. For example, I was in a business meeting with about 20 people and only 2 of us had on a watch and only mine was a mechanical.


----------



## monza06

Apple has nothing to do with watches, I think you need to visit the phones-strapped-around-wrists forum ;-)


----------



## NightScar

valmak said:


> definition of better: improve on or surpass


In what way? Are you expecting Rolex and Patek and VC, etc... to start making smart watches? Would you consider that an improvement? I don't. Would you consider a $10k Rolex smart watch that you have to replace every year (or two) because technology moves so fast that it becomes outdated quickly (look at smart phones and how you need to buy a new one every 2-3 years or else it becomes very slow and the OS updates stops being compatible with the hardware) surpassing the Apple smartwatch?

Sorry but the question kind of boggles the mind as you are asking mechanical watches to operate like smartwatches (which is practically a smartphone for your wrist)? Certainly sounds like that is what you are asking.

I am really curious what improvements you want to see? What you want to see these mechanical watches to do to "surpass" smartwatches? An "automatic" smartwatch that winds when worn so you don't have to charge it every 8 hours? lol Tourbillion smartwatch?


----------



## Alex_TA

valmak said:


> their current offerings, obviously


.


----------



## valmak

i'm not saying patek and rolex will start having to build smartwatches. i'm saying that apple has made a watch with beautiful and functional case, strap and bracelet designs at a very attractive price point. to compete, watch companies will likely have to create better watches at more attractive price points. or at least that is my hope.


----------



## NightScar

valmak said:


> i'm not saying patek and rolex will start having to build smartwatches. i'm saying that apple has made a watch with beautiful and functional case, strap and bracelet designs at a very attractive price point. to compete, watch companies will likely have to create better watches at more attractive price points. or at least that is my hope.


To be honest, they aren't that great and you really can't even compare it to the fit and finish of high-end brand, hell not even close to mid-tier brands.

And again you use "better" but if by "better" all you meant were more attractive strap/bracelet and case then you really need to look more into watches because the Apple watch is very generic with replaceable straps/bracelets that are will be disposable once the os becomes outdated.

I can probably name a hundred to a thousand other watches that I'd call more beautiful than the Apple watch.

And as mentioned before, Apple isn't threatening the mechanical watch market so there is no point in trying to compete/improve/surpass or match that price point.


----------



## valmak

NightScar said:


> To be honest, they aren't that great and you really can't even compare it to the fit and finish of high-end brand, hell not even close to mid-tier brands.
> 
> And again you use "better" but if by "better" all you meant were more attractive strap/bracelet and case then you really need to look more into watches because the Apple watch is very generic with replaceable straps/bracelets that are will be disposable once the os becomes outdated.
> 
> I can probably name a hundred to a thousand other watches that I'd call more beautiful than the Apple watch.
> 
> And as mentioned before, Apple isn't threatening the mechanical watch market so there is no point in trying to compete/improve/surpass or match that price point.


based on the Hodinkee review (which is pretty much all we have to go on at this point), the quality of the case/strap/bracelet are much higher than its price point. i didn't think much of the apple watch when it was first introduced but after reading that review and recalling apple's history of excellent high quality products i had a change of heart.


----------



## kf3506

When i was watching the launch with my colleagues, i thought about placing an order. But then i thought of where am i gonna put it? I just can't see myself wearing that instead of one of my watches. So there goes the thought of buying one.


----------



## Tclef

While I think apple has done the absolute best with the smart watch idea and I'm all about apple's products, I will not be getting one unless the price comes down dramatically. I simply can't justify spending that much on something that will be obsolete in 2-4 years. My $200 seiko will last a lifetime. I might consider a smart watch if it cost, say, $50.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NightScar

valmak said:


> based on the Hodinkee review (which is pretty much all we have to go on at this point), the quality of the case/strap/bracelet are much higher than its price point. i didn't much of the apple watch when it was first introduced but after reading that review and recalling apple's history of excellent high quality products i had a change of heart.


So what if quality is a bit higher for it's price point? It's a $600 watch that is still made and assembled in China? That really isn't saying much. lol I can also guarantee that if simply looking at the case, straps/bracelet and construction, you are still going to over pay for it.


----------



## Henry Krinkle

valmak said:


> ... i'm saying that apple has made a watch with beautiful and functional case, strap and bracelet designs...


That would be a matter of opinion, not fact. I am sure some do find it attractive, just like some do not. Rado, and other watch companies were making watches similar to that in the eighties. I don't see how they have to step up their game, maybe dig into their past for case design and give ana-digi another try. I don't think they have the technology to render it virtually useless without a telephone though. They may have to work on that.


----------



## BrentYYC

Did the Xbox impact baseball?

These recurring threads asking the same question are getting a bit tedious. There's a big difference between a fine, accessory timepiece and an electronic peripheral device for an oversized phone that (oh yeah) happens to tell time, too. If anything it will increase the demand for fine watches as a new market gets introduced to the concept of wearing a device on their wrist.


----------



## Orsoni

A watch is an extremely small, handmade engine. A smart watch is not.

Those who don't or can't appreciate that look elsewhere.


----------



## StufflerMike

Watchbreath said:


> :roll: For one, that's not a watch.


This.


----------



## John MS

valmak said:


> their current offerings, obviously


Lets have more than a vague phrase dropped here and there. How would you like them to improve their current offerings and why is the improvement needed?

Oh how fast...the thread has moved from Public to Smart Watches.


----------



## BarracksSi

Doesn't seem like most responses are about the original question, or even what Benjamin Clymer wrote in his Hodinkee article (the fact that Hodinkee received an invitation to the launch should tell you something about Apple's intentions).

For a moment, disregard the movements of your watches. Start with the bracelet. How do you resize it? Well, you get a pin tool, and hopefully the right one that's supposed to fit your brand's bracelet-I had a sales lackey hammer at my Citizen for five minutes before she thought to use a different tool-and push out a split pin, without splitting it all the way through and breaking it, and keep track of the collars if it uses them, then do another pin with the same risks, then reassemble, then try it on, and maybe you have to go to Step 1 again.

Now the Apple bracelet (since the OP included a pic) -- see those oval-shaped buttons in the links? You push on them to take out links. No tools. Push one out, snap the neighboring links together, and that's it.

This is the kind of stuff that Benjamin was getting at. Better ways to design the case, straps, bracelets, and even how smoothly the "digital crown" operates. There was no reason that any other watchmaker in the last hundred years couldn't come up with a similar design for a tool-free bracelet.

*So yeah, the better question is: Will other, established watch brands get over their dismissal of the "smart" in "smartwatch" and change the way they make cases, straps, or bracelets?*


----------



## Buzz224

If It's not waterproof, solar powered, and firmware upgradable for the foreseeable future, then forget it.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## harm3sh

No. That is ugly! iFail


----------



## wtma

OrangeSport said:


> No,
> 
> Comparing it to a watch is like comparing a Segway to a bike IMO.


This says it all. That's why I think all the Apple Watch vs traditional watch debates are rather pointless.


----------



## John MS

BarracksSi said:


> *So yeah, the better question is: Will other, established watch brands get over their dismissal of the "smart" in "smartwatch" and change the way they make cases, straps, or bracelets?*


Swatch put their toe in the water a few years back only to be burned by Microsoft. So I would expect technology savvy companies like Swatch, Seiko, Citizen and Casio will slowly lead the way. I think their involvement will go beyond case, strap and bracelet design.


----------



## MrDagon007

This is the first smartwatch I would conceivably wear. It is first a very accurate watch, with high quality materials and straps and bracelet that are more innovative than any out of the traditional industry. The user interface seems elegant. And the killer app is just at the beginning, it is known that Apple hired sensor specialists, for example to measure blood glucose. You can expect the sensor array to grow in future versions. Health functions are interesting to many people, I see this as the killer app.
The biggest threats are as discussed here not towards mechanical watches (though many of my collection suddenly seemed a bit... old after watching the apple watch demo). But the many lower midrange traditional quartz watches should feel very threatened. I can't see why I would still opt for a quartz Tissot or Seiko at a similar price level for example... Discuss!


----------



## BarracksSi

From Benjamin, in his review:


> This "loop" style [Milanese mesh] bracelet is just fantastic, and unlike the bracelet on my Omega, it just works. It's magnetized and you can close it at any size. It is light to wear, but substantial, and feels fantastic on the wrist. How does it compare to this nice Tissot with a similar bracelet? Switzerland, you don't want to know.




Looking at it as a wrist-borne object, he just gushes about how nicely it's built. The mesh, the ingenious bracelet, the slickly-integrated tang on the traditional buckle, the seamless transition between the crystal and the watch body... he can't get enough of it. Certainly no other smartwatch manufacturer has put this much on the table, but just as importantly, not many traditional watchmakers are doing anything differently, either, than they've been doing for decades.

Why should the Apple Watch use traditional springbars? Because then you can put on a $15 Hadley Roma imitation lizard strap? Forget that. Springbars suck. If some strap-changer guy at a mall kiosk doesn't scratch up the lugs, you'll eventually scratch them up yourself. Everyone here on WUS knows this. We tolerate it because that's just how it is.

Someone comes along and thinks about a different way to change a strap-and it looks easy enough for your mom or your eight-year-old kid to do it-and it's bad?


----------



## Foxglove

No 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## koolpep

In order to understand if a smart watch could thrill me, I just bought a $99 Pebble. And honestly, the watch makers should be scared, especially the low and mid tier. I still wear my other watches but boy having this little computer on your wrist is addictive. I am a geek though and I currently use a lot of Apple products, as I like my personal computing devices like my watches, very well made and long lasting.the Apple watch in its Sport form will start at $349 so - compare that to a Tissot T- Touch - duuuh.

Even the plastic - fugly Pebble gets quite some wrist time with me and I didn't expect that. So the Apple watch will be even more tempting for me and I truly love wristwatches. 

Cheers,
K


----------



## GTTIME

I am a huge Apple fan. I own almost everything they produce for the consumer market. I won't be touching the Apple Watch. I can't wear two and I'm not giving up my Omegas.


----------



## arejay101

Are you easily swayed by the opinions of of other? Then a smart watch may be for you.

I'll keep on ticking with my mechanicals. At least I can pass them down to my kids.


----------



## LuckyGlues

The last time I looked into smart watch technology, didn't you have to keep your phone close to you in order to establish a Bluetooth link anyway? Or has the technology upgraded now.
Because the thought of having to buy the watch (even tho I wouldn't, made in China I'd rather not) and the phone could be a costly duo for those purchasing it.


----------



## koolpep

arejay101 said:


> Are you easily swayed by the opinions of of other? Then a smart watch may be for you.
> 
> I'll keep on ticking with my mechanicals. At least I can pass them down to my kids.


Not so sure what you are implying? What do other people's opinions have to do with this? Did you say the same when a mobile phone came out? Some things are progress, there will ALWAYS be a place for mechanical watches and I don't think they are going anywhere - but wearable space is limited and the wrist is a prima location.

I think for some people (me for example) the Apple Watch is very tempting, but I don't just own one watch, I rotate quite frequently. However, having tried the Pebble, I can see the potential.

I think they will sell quite a few.

Cheers,
K


----------



## Canuck

What a ridiculous thread. If you had asked whether or not it might cause other smart watch makers to up their game then that would at least make a bit of sense.


----------



## koolpep

LuckyGlues said:


> The last time I looked into smart watch technology, didn't you have to keep your phone close to you in order to establish a Bluetooth link anyway? Or has the technology upgraded now.
> Because the thought of having to buy the watch (even tho I wouldn't, made in China I'd rather not) and the phone could be a costly duo for those purchasing it.


Yes, it needs an iPhone as companion. Not for every function but for the most. And the watch will most certainly be made in China, like your phone or PC/Mac as well. Since there is no Smartphone that is not made in China. ;-)

Cheers,
K


----------



## arejay101

You read way too much into it. Re-read the topic. The discussion is: does the watch industry need to step up it's game because of the iwatch.

I made a simple comparable. Just because mustang (scion fr-s etc) mass produces affordable sports cars doesn't mean that Porsche (etc.) needs to try to compete with them. Different buyers. Now, take that analogy and put it in the watch world. 

Sure there will be plenty of people with one. It's just serving a different market; therefore, there isn't a need for true watch companies to "step up." Those companies who develop smart watches will struggle though. 

It's also common sense that smart watches will be throw always in that you will not hold or continue to use the same one for the next 20 years.


----------



## koolpep

Canuck said:


> What a ridiculous thread. If you had asked whether or not it might cause other smart watch makers to up their game then that would at least make a bit of sense.


I don't find that ridiculous...

Just remember Palm the then king of the castle "smartphone" when Apple started -> Palm CEO: "We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone," he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in."

Well they did and Palm is now dead. All major smartphones are run by the "PC" guys. Google, Microsoft, Apple. The "old" smartphone guys. Blackberry, Palm, Nokia have all faded.

So I think Jean-Claude Biver, CEO of LVMH's watch division, is spot on in considering this: "There are some talks taking place about a partnership," said Jean-Claude Biver, president of LVMH's watch division. "Maybe in nine months, we will have a smartwatch."

Quote from this article: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/17/lvmh-it-may-be-time-for-a-smartwatch/

Very interesting read.

Again, I am not saying that all watches will be smartwatches. There will always be space for luxury timepieces that tick. I am still not convinced that the whole smart watch category might be a fad. But if so many companies focus their attention into that area, some disruptive ideas might pop up....

Who knows, I will buy some popcorn and watch the show (and might try an Apple Watch as well).

Cheers,
K


----------



## koolpep

arejay101 said:


> You read way too much into it. Re-read the topic. The discussion is: does the watch industry need to step up it's game because of the iwatch.
> 
> I made a simple comparable. Just because mustang (scion fr-s etc) mass produces affordable sports cars doesn't mean that Porsche (etc.) needs to try to compete with them. Different buyers. Now, take that analogy and put it in the watch world.
> 
> Sure there will be plenty of people with one. It's just serving a different market; therefore, there isn't a need for true watch companies to "step up." Those companies who develop smart watches will struggle though.
> 
> It's also common sense that smart watches will be throw always in that you will not hold or continue to use the same one for the next 20 years.


Yes, indeed. That's an issue if you apply normal "watch" standard to a smartphone. But would these standards apply to smart watches. Maybe people have no problem changing their watch with every 2 or 3 generations of phones.... Besides - the battery will be dead by that time too.


----------



## Wongsky

BarracksSi said:


> Doesn't seem like most responses are about the original question, or even what Benjamin Clymer wrote in his Hodinkee article (the fact that Hodinkee received an invitation to the launch should tell you something about Apple's intentions).
> 
> For a moment, disregard the movements of your watches. Start with the bracelet. How do you resize it? Well, you get a pin tool, and hopefully the right one that's supposed to fit your brand's bracelet-I had a sales lackey hammer at my Citizen for five minutes before she thought to use a different tool-and push out a split pin, without splitting it all the way through and breaking it, and keep track of the collars if it uses them, then do another pin with the same risks, then reassemble, then try it on, and maybe you have to go to Step 1 again.
> 
> Now the Apple bracelet (since the OP included a pic) -- see those oval-shaped buttons in the links? You push on them to take out links. No tools. Push one out, snap the neighboring links together, and that's it.
> 
> This is the kind of stuff that Benjamin was getting at. Better ways to design the case, straps, bracelets, and even how smoothly the "digital crown" operates. There was no reason that any other watchmaker in the last hundred years couldn't come up with a similar design for a tool-free bracelet.
> 
> *So yeah, the better question is: Will other, established watch brands get over their dismissal of the "smart" in "smartwatch" and change the way they make cases, straps, or bracelets?*


This, to me, has been the most cogent point in this debate.

I can't see that the usual suspects in terms of decent, mechanical watches will either be that bothered or feel much pain about either smart-watches in general, or Apple's offering.

Makes largely trading on quartz watches in the hundreds? Well quite possibly. Biggest point of innovation, to me, being the approach a company like Apple have brought to sizing the bracelet.

As to the other things, well to my mind, the most obvious demographic is people who are currently largely uninterested in wristwatches, and currently use their gadgets for such things.

Otherwise, I think it may be a white elephant (in Apple's case), really. Mobile phones are often funded on contract terms, and are a reasonable expense in their own right. Another semi-expensive device, in Apple's case with vendor-lock-in, it's an odd thing to expect a lot of the market to splurge on - whether they're easily led, or otherwise. Tablets were an easier sell - even if they were a bit of a fishing exercise at first. A semi-expensive Apple watch? I suspect a lot of the natural demographic aren't that interested in watches and may have abandoned them already.

The thing they'll have going is any cultural / celeb thing they seed with. Look at Beats headphones, and other similar things that create a desire far beyond the merits of the item.


----------



## itsajobar

BarracksSi said:


> Doesn't seem like most responses are about the original question, or even what Benjamin Clymer wrote in his Hodinkee article (the fact that Hodinkee received an invitation to the launch should tell you something about Apple's intentions).
> 
> For a moment, disregard the movements of your watches. Start with the bracelet. How do you resize it? Well, you get a pin tool, and hopefully the right one that's supposed to fit your brand's bracelet-I had a sales lackey hammer at my Citizen for five minutes before she thought to use a different tool-and push out a split pin, without splitting it all the way through and breaking it, and keep track of the collars if it uses them, then do another pin with the same risks, then reassemble, then try it on, and maybe you have to go to Step 1 again.
> 
> Now the Apple bracelet (since the OP included a pic) -- see those oval-shaped buttons in the links? You push on them to take out links. No tools. Push one out, snap the neighboring links together, and that's it.
> 
> This is the kind of stuff that Benjamin was getting at. Better ways to design the case, straps, bracelets, and even how smoothly the "digital crown" operates. There was no reason that any other watchmaker in the last hundred years couldn't come up with a similar design for a tool-free bracelet.
> 
> *So yeah, the better question is: Will other, established watch brands get over their dismissal of the "smart" in "smartwatch" and change the way they make cases, straps, or bracelets?*


Thank you for explanation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## watchvaultnyc

Cases, straps and bracelets: The Apple watch have upped the game in user-friendliness here. No tools required, lots of different styles. Compared to our nice thousand-dollar watches, our bracelets and straps are stuck in the stone age. No one should have to go to a watchmaker in order to size or change a bracelet. With regards to fit-and-finish, the Apple Watch looks incredibly well crafted. However, this may have more to do with the fact that they will produce the exact same watch millions of times. The economics of scale can afford better and more precise tooling.


----------



## Crunchy

Well I think many watchmakers will have another behemoth competing in the wristwatch industry so yes many mediocre players will have to up their game. Rolex and patek may not be affected much, because they are partly status symbols and are after different market segments. However, how about entry level brands like oris, hamilton, longines, tissot, tag, etc who are $500-$1k space. Sure they have die hard wis customers like you guys, but the majority of the 1-2million buyers are not all WIS. There will be some attrition to the apple watch, and this will cause intense competition on that price level.

Lesson: don't ask a film fanatic camera forum whether digital will eat the market share of camera wares.


----------



## jcbarnard

Will people start wearing iwatches to their weddings? God I hope not


----------



## BarracksSi

John MS said:


> Swatch put their toe in the water a few years back only to be burned by Microsoft. So I would expect technology savvy companies like Swatch, Seiko, Citizen and Casio will slowly lead the way. I think their involvement will go beyond case, strap and bracelet design.


Swatch's problem was letting Microsoft run the tech. Microsoft's problem was Swatch not wanting to cannibalize its own watches. I think they've both realized that they need to manage their own smartwatches.

What I'm not convinced about is whether any of the makers you mention are fully prepared to support the back end -- developer tools, app distribution, etc. Citizen's Proximity models started with some hassles in firmware and app support that took them a while to resolve, for example.

Seiko, Casio, and Citizen seem to be the most forward-thinking brands, and maybe they'll figure out this smartwatch thing. But, the targets in tech move faster than anything that watchmakers have chased before. Let's give them a few years to see what they can do.


----------



## BarracksSi

Crunchy said:


> Lesson: don't ask a film fanatic camera forum whether digital will eat the market share of camera wares.


There was an article a few years ago about the last -- the LAST -- film developer shop to have the last remaining supplies of chemicals needed to process Kodachrome slide photos. They had people from all over the world sending in their rolls of film, sometimes with a note like, "I can't remember when we shot it but can you develop it anyway?" or, "This was from our last trip to Yosemite, but my father died in an accident a month later, and we forgot about the film; it's our last memory of him."

Really interesting to read about the near-panic being experienced by these people.

Funny enough, I see Polaroid-type instant film and cameras being sold at Urban Outfitters stores. Maybe the young'uns aren't always keen to post everything on Facebook.


----------



## watchvaultnyc

Car analogy:

For decades Ferrari made exotic cars that were beautiful but unreliable with terrible ergonomics. No one complained because that was "part of the exotic car experience". Then Honda/Acura came with the NSX, arguably the first Japanese supercar. Ferrari looks and performance, with Honda Civic reliability. This forced everyone to up their game, there were no more excuses.


----------



## Wongsky

BarracksSi said:


> Swatch's problem was letting Microsoft run the tech. Microsoft's problem was Swatch not wanting to cannibalize its own watches. I think they've both realized that they need to manage their own smartwatches.
> 
> What I'm not convinced about is whether any of the makers you mention are fully prepared to support the back end -- developer tools, app distribution, etc. Citizen's Proximity models started with some hassles in firmware and app support that took them a while to resolve, for example.
> 
> Seiko, Casio, and Citizen seem to be the most forward-thinking brands, and maybe they'll figure out this smartwatch thing. But, the targets in tech move faster than anything that watchmakers have chased before. Let's give them a few years to see what they can do.


Another cogent point, there.

It'll be interesting to see if there's any collaborative efforts. Make like Seiko, Casio and Citizen know how to deal with things like power, solar charging, and optimise things for that environment - from what I read, Casio being behind Seiko's Astron - if the comments are true - was as much about being able to package it and run it with power demands they could deal with by solar charging. If that's true, they've not been afraid to wait a little bit, to get theirs right - that's not entirely congruent with the race-to-release that's more common in more general purpose tech - like smartphones, tablets et al.

Some may play the waiting game - it may be no more than niche, or burn brightly and briefly until some better wearable tech is a better prospect - no point in weighing in and betting the plantation, for something that may turn out to be a flash in the pan.

And there's the rub - mobile phones were ubiquitous before smartphones got to dominate. Watch ownership / wearing is a little different and more diverse.


----------



## jimiwilli

FernandoValenzuela said:


> The target market for smart watches are the people who use their mobile phones to keep time. Since these people don't wear fancy mechanical timepieces, a "stepped up" watch offering won't get them to switch to a mechanical watch. In my view, the bigger problem for the watch industry is that more and more people are going without a watch. For example, I was in a business meeting with about 20 people and only 2 of us had on a watch and only mine was a mechanical.


Good call out. A watch person will not give up their collection for this. I'm a huge Apple guy. However, I'm more than likely not going to by this watch as I would have to put it in my rotation, which defeats the purpose of this watch. This is a daily wearer. This is not targeted at anyone with a collection. Unless I wear this on my right hand everyday and wear a normal watch on my left (which would look stupid IMHO).

I say regular people don't wear watches a lot. And when I say regular, I mean non watch collectors. Every Now and then I run into the guy that loves his 1 timex or his 1 fossil watch he's had for years. This person thinks we are nuts for owning watched that cost more than $500+ (especially if it's in the $2k plus range. ). Nothing wrong with them, they just don't appreciate the craftsmanship of a fine automatic/mechanical watch.

Soooo this watch will not cost any of the major players any market share, nor will it cause them to loose sleep. As we all know we do not wear a watch to tell time (a vast majority of us own smart phones ) we purchase them for quality and craftsmanship.


----------



## koolpep

jimiwilli said:


> Good call out. A watch person will not give up their collection for this. I'm a huge Apple guy. However, I'm more than likely not going to by this watch as I would have to put it in my rotation, which defeats the purpose of this watch. This is a daily wearer. This is not targeted at anyone with a collection. Unless I wear this on my right hand everyday and wear a normal watch on my left (which would look stupid IMHO).
> 
> I say regular people don't wear watches a lot. And when I say regular, I mean non watch collectors. Every Now and then I run into the guy that loves his 1 timex or his 1 fossil watch he's had for years. This person thinks we are nuts for owning watched that cost more than $500+ (especially if it's in the $2k plus range. ). Nothing wrong with them, they just don't appreciate the craftsmanship of a fine automatic/mechanical watch.
> 
> Soooo this watch will not cost any of the major players any market share, nor will it cause them to loose sleep. As we all know we do not wear a watch to tell time (a vast majority of us own smart phones ) we purchase them for quality and craftsmanship.


Well. It's a market ripe for disruption. And I have the feeling that exactly the people you are describing (us) are not necessary a growing market. There is only so much money to be spend on watches and/or smart watches. And if apple takes a huge chunk out of it only so much is "new". I have the feeling some watch brands will be apple roadkill. Not a threat to the Rolexes, Patek's, Vacheron's and Bregeut's of the world but for the whole $300-800 range, the Hamiltons, the Tissots, Baume& Merciers, it might get tight. If (and that's a big IF) the smart watches are more than just a trend.


----------



## Wongsky

koolpep said:


> Well. It's a market ripe for disruption. And I have the feeling that exactly the people you are describing (us) are not necessary a growing market. There is only so much money to be spend on watches and/or smart watches. And if apple takes a huge chunk out of it only so much is "new". I have the feeling some watch brands will be apple roadkill. Not a threat to the Rolexes, Patek's, Vacheron's and Bregeut's of the world but for the whole $300-800 range, the Hamiltons, the Tissots, Baume& Merciers, it might get tight. If (and that's a big IF) the smart watches are more than just a trend.


I think the only thing that springs to mind about much doom saying about certain sectors of the watch market, is it's hard not to see smart-watches as something of a passing trend.

Not necessarily wearable tech, but smart-watches as a specific. I can't look at them and think "That, right there - that's long-term future".

People will always wear watches - it's not all based on function.

But will wearable tech always converge on the wristwatch? I'm just not buying it.


----------



## unpleasantness

broudie said:


> Car analogy:
> 
> For decades Ferrari made exotic cars that were beautiful but unreliable with terrible ergonomics. No one complained because that was "part of the exotic car experience". Then Honda/Acura came with the NSX, arguably the first Japanese supercar. Ferrari looks and performance, with Honda Civic reliability. This forced everyone to up their game, there were no more excuses.


And where is the NSX now?


----------



## koolpep

Wongsky said:


> I think the only thing that springs to mind about much doom saying about certain sectors of the watch market, is it's hard not to see smart-watches as something of a passing trend.
> 
> Not necessarily wearable tech, but smart-watches as a specific. I can't look at them and think "That, right there - that's long-term future".
> 
> People will always wear watches - it's not all based on function.
> 
> But will wearable tech always converge on the wristwatch? I'm just not buying it.


Good point.

I love my mechanical watches but I can also see the benefit of a smart watch. It will take over so many more functions of your life. Start your car, open your hotel room, pay for your shopping, etc. while still being a part of your personal expression if done right. It's just so convenient to not need carry a separate key, wallet, etc. I see it and think, only one wrist, who gets it, vanity or function.

Anyhow, let's revisit in a year and see how the market share changed or didn't change.

I don't like watches that I need to plug in to charge, I love interacting with my watch, wind them and hear them tick. But again, on the other hand I can see the benefits of a watch that has smart functions.....


----------



## watchvaultnyc

unpleasantness said:


> And where is the NSX now?


*You're asking the wrong question.*

The question should be: "Where are Ferrari interiors, quality control, and ergonomics now, after the NSX came out?"

Answer: much closer in quality and reliability to Honda


----------



## koolpep

Wongsky said:


> I think the only thing that springs to mind about much doom saying about certain sectors of the watch market, is it's hard not to see smart-watches as something of a passing trend.
> 
> Not necessarily wearable tech, but smart-watches as a specific. I can't look at them and think "That, right there - that's long-term future".
> 
> People will always wear watches - it's not all based on function.
> 
> But will wearable tech always converge on the wristwatch? I'm just not buying it.





Wongsky said:


> I think the only thing that springs to mind about much doom saying about certain sectors of the watch market, is it's hard not to see smart-watches as something of a passing trend.
> 
> Not necessarily wearable tech, but smart-watches as a specific. I can't look at them and think "That, right there - that's long-term future".
> 
> People will always wear watches - it's not all based on function.
> 
> But will wearable tech always converge on the wristwatch? I'm just not buying it.


Good point.

I love my mechanical watches but I can also see the benefit of a smart watch. It will take over so many more functions of your life. Start your car, open your hotel room, pay for your shopping, etc. while still being a part of your personal expression if done right. It's just so convenient to not need carry a separate key, wallet, etc. I see it and think, only one wrist, who gets it, vanity or function.

Anyhow, let's revisit in a year and see how the market share changed or didn't change.

I don't like watches that I need to plug in to charge, I love interacting with my watch, wind them and hear them tick. But again, on the other hand I can see the benefits of a watch that has smart functions.....


----------



## koolpep

unpleasantness said:


> And where is the NSX now?


If the others hadn't evolve who knows. But the NSX changed a few things, at the very least it showed the other manufacturers that they aren't invulnerable. So they upped their game, and retaining their position. While the NSX came and went....


----------



## BarracksSi

unpleasantness said:


> And where is the NSX now?


I'll bet they're running better than their Italian contemporaries.


----------



## arejay101

They are developing a new NSX. Brought back by popular demand I guess.


Sent from Japan.


----------



## BarracksSi

Wongsky said:


> I think the only thing that springs to mind about much doom saying about certain sectors of the watch market, is it's hard not to see smart-watches as something of a passing trend.
> 
> Not necessarily wearable tech, but smart-watches as a specific. I can't look at them and think "That, right there - that's long-term future".
> 
> People will always wear watches - it's not all based on function.
> 
> But will wearable tech always converge on the wristwatch? I'm just not buying it.


I've become more convinced that, yes, wearables will converge on the wristwatch. I'll "buy it", as they say. I'm not sure why I didn't realize it earlier, but maybe your post swayed me. I'll explain --

It's like what they say in Entrepreneurship 101: Location, location, location. It's really not the wrist_watch_ that's the target, it's the _wrist itself_. Wristwatches led the way, really. Apple's Jony Ive was right when he noticed that timekeeping devices spent hundreds of years evolving until they landed on the wrist -- and once they got there, they didn't move anywhere else.

Fitness bands, like the Fitbit or Nike's FuelBand, really aren't that different from pedometers, Nike+ shoe pods (remember those?), or even court-ordered ankle monitor bracelets. They just count your movements, and can't read texts, work as a TV remote, or pay for your coffee. Google Glass, which owns the only other major space for wearables, is a geeky curiosity at best, and a patently invasive piece of hardware at worst. Never mind that I don't want to add any bulk to the glasses I wear every day; I can't imagine wearing them to a restaurant, or simply while walking down the street, without everyone else being paranoid that I'm recording them. You'd look even sillier paying for your gas by tapping your Glass-equipped forehead on the cash register.

So, as a location for wearable tech, the face is out. So are single-purpose tracker devices, which will settle into the same niche as ten-dollar pedometers.

The great thing about wristwatches is that they're on the wrist. They can hide under a jacket sleeve, or stand proud like a pinky ring while you're drinking at the bar. At your whim, just turn your wrist, and you can read the time, maybe from a Meistersinger's single 24-hour hand, or get the time, date, temperature, elevation, and God-knows-what-else from a multifunction Casio. That's more than a Fitbit will ever do. Then, after just a few seconds, you turn your wrist back and the watch is put away -- which you can't do with a Google Glass.

Watches have already proven that the wrist is the best place for quickly reading bits of information. They've been proving it for a hundred years. I'll posit that wearable tech will find its home on the wrist as well.


----------



## koolpep

arejay101 said:


> They are developing a new NSX. Brought back by popular demand I guess.
> 
> Sent from Japan.


Who understands Honda. They had 2 amazing models. The S2000 and the NSX and then they decided for 10 years to do - nothing. Seems they are realizing their mistake and finally bringing them back.


----------



## Wongsky

BarracksSi said:


> I've become more convinced that, yes, wearables will converge on the wristwatch. I'll "buy it", as they say. I'm not sure why I didn't realize it earlier, but maybe your post swayed me. I'll explain --
> 
> It's like what they say in Entrepreneurship 101: Location, location, location. It's really not the wrist_watch_ that's the target, it's the _wrist itself_. Wristwatches led the way, really. Apple's Jony Ive was right when he noticed that timekeeping devices spent hundreds of years evolving until they landed on the wrist -- and once they got there, they didn't move anywhere else.
> 
> Fitness bands, like the Fitbit or Nike's FuelBand, really aren't that different from pedometers, Nike+ shoe pods (remember those?), or even court-ordered ankle monitor bracelets. They just count your movements, and can't read texts, work as a TV remote, or pay for your coffee. Google Glass, which owns the only other major space for wearables, is a geeky curiosity at best, and a patently invasive piece of hardware at worst. Never mind that I don't want to add any bulk to the glasses I wear every day; I can't imagine wearing them to a restaurant, or simply while walking down the street, without everyone else being paranoid that I'm recording them. You'd look even sillier paying for your gas by tapping your Glass-equipped forehead on the cash register.
> 
> So, as a location for wearable tech, the face is out. So are single-purpose tracker devices, which will settle into the same niche as ten-dollar pedometers.
> 
> The great thing about wristwatches is that they're on the wrist. They can hide under a jacket sleeve, or stand proud at the bar like a pinky ring. At your whim, just turn your wrist, and you can read the time, maybe from a Meistersinger's single 24-hour hand, or get the time, date, temperature, elevation, and God-knows-what-else from a multifunction Casio. That's more than a Fitbit will ever do. Then, after just a few seconds, you turn your wrist and the watch is put away -- which you can't do with a Google Glass.
> 
> Watches have already proven that the wrist is the best place for quickly reading bits of information. They've been proving it for a hundred years. I'll posit that wearable tech will find its home on the wrist as well.


Well thought-out and posited argument - and a logical take on it.

There's not much I'd quibble with - my only thoughts are - which are distinct from my own interest in them... I'm not convinced either smartwatches or wearable tech will succeed to anything like the degree that smartphones or tablets have. And whilst you make a good point - all factors considered, it's the most logical place for wearable tech - all the same, I think wearable tech may converge there. But I don't think that'll encompass the current convergent device - the smartphone.

The wrist thing is a point well made, though - when I was first considering an activity tracker, I looked into the Jawbone, Fitbit Flex, and a couple of other wrist based trackers. They all had their flaws or limitations. Seeing wearable tech on the wrist had piqued my interest - but when I looked at what I wanted, they were still all compromises. My overriding interest was sleep tracking, everything else would be value-add for me, really, since none of them were going to be convincing at tracking the activities I normally do.

So I bought a Fitbit One - as at the time, it was considered the best featured and best performing. Problem is, it's normally clipped onto clothing, or carried in a pocket. I knew that either would mean I'd either likely forget it plenty, or lose it, either by becoming unclipped / disturbed, falling out of a pocket or something like that. And the wrist straps to put it in, are only really for sleep tracking, otherwise it's not optimised for general tracking worn on the wrist. So I ended up wearing it on a lanyard under clothes. It doesn't get lost, it's always on, but easily something I remember to remove when showering or bathing (I'd take off my watch for that, too).

For me, it's still very much a compromise. It does the sleep tracking reasonably well, which was my main interest. It gives me some other details about my activities, too, and it provides a portal / repository for logging certain things.

All the same, if I'm honest, I'd like such a device to measure my heart rate when exercising (ideally without a chest strap), as well as providing more accurately modelled inferences from the activities I do. It also needs charging every so often - I tend to plug it in to charge weekly - that could probably be less frequently, but I tend to prefer things being maintained with decent levels of residual charge.

Accepting all of that, and yes, I would prefer it to be wrist based. Simply based on convenience of wearing, plus I suspect a lot of the activity I do would need to be on a limb (perhaps ideally the arm) to really be able to have a stab at inferring the demands of it. That said, I don't want to abandon the watches I wear - so I'd be quite happy for it to be "smart" tech, but not necessarily walk or talk like a wristwatch - and in accepting that, I recognise, I'm not necessarily representative of the prevalent demographic for such devices. All the same, I can see the advantages of it being worn on the wrist, for myself, I'd like that to be complementary / supplementary to normal watch wearing.

I like the watches I currently favour, they meet my needs - all the watches currently in my rotation are all solar atomics. So I can pick any of them up, they'll be with high levels of charge, and always have the accurate time, and have done any DST switchovers (relevent in my country, because it's this coming Sunday). Occasionally I'll wear one of my other watches, but that is more occasionally, mostly it's just about having the flexibility and confidence to pick up any of a number of watches and being able to be sure it's all good.

Apple's watch is unlikely to be something I get, for several reasons - price point is, to my mind, too high, for what is in effect addtional, disposable / relatively short-shelf-life tech, that would be on top of the cost of funding a mobile phone. And I've no plans to get an iPhone. So anything I consider will likely be Android based. And for me, all it's likely to replace - if indeed such a thing is good enought to replace anything I've currently got, is any existing wearable tech, my interests in watches aren't likely to be satiated by smart-watches for the foreseeable.

All the same, though, I have to recognise a change in my interests in watches in recent years. Going back a few years, I had a rotation of several Seiko Kinetics. I loved the styling, and the accuracy was good enough for me, lume was excellent, and I had the Seiko induction charger to keep them all charged up. Then, a couple of years back, I decided I wanted one of these new fangled, solar, atomic-clock syncing watches. I wanted this idea of not needing to do anything other than wear a watch - no need to worry about it being charged, or the battery having run out / failed (which is largely true, if you keep them topped up with ambient light), and they'll always have the accurate time - true for me, because I live in a region with a good signal for the time sync.

That criteria stuck with me, and has been my minimum requirements in all the watches I've bought in recent times, and I like the flexibility it gives - any of a number of watches I currently keep on my bedroom dresser, I can pick up and wear, and know that it's got plenty of charge, and has the accurate time. A smart-watch in comparison, has challenges, there - regularly needing charging, and in terms of time sync, I'm assuming it syncs with the clock on the smartphone it's paired with - well all of my smartphones have their clocks sync'd with the network. And some are reasonably accurate some are around a minute out. Best case scenario, it may be as accurately set as my solar atomic watches, but used with 2 out of 3 of my smartphones, is going to be out (and bearing in mind, those phones are syncing with their respective networks).

Things like this becoming fashionable, though, and semi-disposable - well I'm not sure I necessarily buy into Apple's approach, as being all that, that those who've been hyping them up, are realising. All the same, I think the whole brand, perception and marketing will see plenty of them bought. The last time I was aware of any significant trend in watches, being one I bought from my then wife, in 2006. It seemed, around then, plenty of times you saw any female celeb, they'd be sporting some variant of Chanel's J12. And a lot of what made them desirable was who was wearing them, and creating that prominence, as much as anything else. Now that watch I bought for her, just over 8 years back, cost a bit over £3k (UK pounds), and although we're no longer married, she still wears it daily, and still loves it - and just as importantly, due to the materials it's made from, it still looks as fresh, now, having had a good few years of daily wear, as it did when brand new.

There's been some poor analogies or logic based on the success of existing items, that to my mind, are often wrongly applied to something new like smart-watches - as if they're about to conquer the world. But I just can't see them succeeding as being all things to all people, based on the "isn't it cool?" argument about how the tech could be used, and / or it's potential. I can see certain demographics for who they look interesting. What I can't imagine, is that most who would be about to purchase a semi-expensive mechanical watch, would be swayed - conversely, I think those swayed by a certain degree of cost, and image, may be swayed with Apple's watch. And some people who collect various different kinds of watch, may include one in their collection - either on the basis of GAS, or merely experimentation and interest.

I think I'm a warm, soothing blend, of, cynical, interested, conservative and gadget-loving on the matter. I'm truly sceptical about much of the hype, yet I'm open to the notion that some developments in this area may be of some use / interest to me. I just don't think they're going to be as revolutionary as made out. There's a lot of existing relatively high-tech watches out there, that haven't set the world alight. Now true enough, perhaps they're not offering quite the same interconnectivity with smartphones, that smartwatches are - but all the same, the notion of "isn't it cool?" in terms of the tech, and step forwards, is rarely that generally persuasive outside of geeks. It's not that concept that made smartphones prevalent - that was more about removing the need (for most, as being "good enough") for things like point-and-shoot cameras, sat navs, music (and video) players, internet / email on the move.


----------



## watchvaultnyc

The wrist will be where the the smartphone will go once they find solutions to the following:

- where to display a large screen? Will the watch and phone switch functions, and the current phone will now be the "connected display"? 3D projection?
- higher capacity batteries that can fit inside a smartwatch
- earpieces! Talking to your watch is almost as crazy/nerdy as Google Glass.


----------



## Wongsky

broudie said:


> The wrist will be where the the smartphone will go once they find solutions to the following:
> 
> - where to display a large screen? Will the watch and phone switch functions, and the current phone will now be the "connected display"? 3D projection?
> - higher capacity batteries that can fit inside a smartwatch
> - earpieces! Talking to your watch is almost as crazy/nerdy as Google Glass.


Thing is, though - there's always going to be a case for a reasonably sized screen. Smartphones have shown that, and tablets have reinforced the case.

So what's more plausible - a larger device, with larger demands having the power, and for those that want, an inferior proxy (smartwatch), or shunt the grunt to the smaller, more challenged, device? That has more expectations of robustness, water resistance, and either self-sufficiency, or reasonable period without needing charging?


----------



## boeing767

I really believe that the Smartwatch can and will change the future of watches (if it's not just a one day fly, will have to wait for that). There are some nice options available which a normal watch can't offer at the moment (like health check, GPS with map etc.). 2 Years ago I never believed in this product, but even my dad decided to sell his remaining watches (from 400 till 2500 euro), he is a watch freak (or maybe he was :think: ). He is wearing the Smartwatch all the time and can't stop talking about it. And it's just a normal Pebble, he is waiting for this Apple watch. So yeah, even a watch freak can change his mind!

My opinion changed about Smartwatches from "Neehh" to "hmmm interesting but not for me" to "I want one" in less then 1,5 years time. I'm now thinking about buying the new LG G R in the near future... I think that watchmakers should be worried about this rappid change. The all should design a Smartwatch. Let's be honest, most Smartwatches aren't really handsome (for now), so this is where branches like Tissot, Hamilton etc. can excel, and make the different!

If they wait for a couple of years there probably already to late.... The future is changing, watchmakers can't relax and thinking "but people are buying are watch for decades and the will continue to do so", this is were big companies are lossing (like Nokia). I think that this is the next big thing like Quartz was a couple of decades ago... Some friend of mine are now wearing watches like Fossil and thinking about changing them for a Smartwatch... There will always be a market for mechenical watches, but I'm sure that a lot of watchmakers won't survive this decade if the don't change the way of thinking....

I think that a couple of years ago, nobody was really interested or thinking about buying an iPad/tablet, but nowedays almost every home in Holland has at least one of them! In 2/3 years time!!! No the watchmakers better have a good strategy because there going to loss customers if they don't do something fast! They can't stop the future, they should move with the future or accept the risk of missing the next 'big' thing...


----------



## watchvaultnyc

boeing767 said:


> I think that a couple of years ago, nobody was really interested or thinking about buying an iPad/tablet, but nowedays almost every home in Holland has at least one of them! In 2/3 years time!!! No the watchmakers better have a good strategy because there going to loss customers if they don't do something fast! They can't stop the future, they should move with the future or accept the risk of missing the next 'big' thing...


This is one thing that I bite my tongue not to mention, but now that you've started it I 'll continue.

All the naysayers about smartwatches sound very similar to the iPad naysayers when the tablet first came out. And of course in just a couple of years, everyone and their dog has a tablet.

In my analysis, the reason for such naysaying is a complete lack of imagination. People thought the iPad was just a big iPhone, but they are wrong because iPads with big screens allow people to interact more easily with what's on the screen, creating brand new use cases. Stuff that was a hassle like watching videos on an iPhone, is quite natural on an iPad. If I had a list of everyone who ever said the iPad would be a flop and quote back to them what they said way back in 2011(?), there would be many, many people to embarrass today.

Same thing with smartwatches. Smartwatches are not just your phone on your wrist. Because you don't need to pull it out of your pocket every time you want to interact with it, the smartwatch creates whole new use cases; such as always-on heart monitoring, walking navigation, etc etc. People will get used to the conveniences provided by their smartwatches, that in normal days they will not be willing to remove it for a mechanical, this is the real threat of the smartwatch to mechanicals. It is not beauty vs beauty, or quality vs quality. It will be usefulness vs beauty, usefulness vs quality.


----------



## Wongsky

broudie said:


> This is one thing that I bite my tongue not to mention, but now that you've started it I 'll continue.
> 
> All the naysayers about smartwatches sound very similar to the iPad naysayers when the tablet first came out. And of course in just a couple of years, everyone and their dog has a tablet.
> 
> In my analysis, the reason for such naysaying is a complete lack of imagination. People thought the iPad was just a big iPhone, but they are wrong because iPads with big screens allow people to interact more easily with what's on the screen, creating brand new use cases. Stuff that was a hassle like watching videos on an iPhone, is quite natural on an iPad. If I had a list of everyone who ever said the iPad would be a flop and quote back to them what they said way back in 2011(?), there would be many, many people to embarrass today.
> 
> Same thing with smartwatches. Smartwatches are not just your phone on your wrist. Because you don't need to pull it out of your pocket every time you want to interact with it, the smartwatch creates whole new use cases; such as always-on heart monitoring, walking navigation, etc etc. People will get used to the conveniences provided by their smartwatches, that in normal days they will not be willing to remove it for a mechanical, this is the real threat of the smartwatch to mechanicals. It is not beauty vs beauty, or quality vs quality. It will be usefulness vs beauty, usefulness vs quality.


The thing you miss, though, is how things played out for tablets.

They'd already capitalised on the fact that smartphones were ubiquitous. And as a superior proxy - were an easier sell. Yes, there were naysayers - in fairness, completely reasonably. Because when tablets were brought to the market they weren't doing so to fill a need - they were doing so to seed a need.

But the fulfilled a good gap, because so many people have smartphones, it was easy to parlay the benefits of something so very related, but with a different and larger form-factor. It mean that for casual internet usage, people didn't have to bother so much with things like laptops.

The thing about the smartwatches and use-cases - well that's all well and good for the people already wanting to do such things, or susceptible to being marketed on such things - but all the same, things like activity tracking are hardly mainstream. Active people - runners, cyclists et al - perhaps. People who go off hill-walking or climbing, maybe. But there's huge swathes of people who couldn't care less about things like either watches or activity tracking.

Now I'm not a naysayer - I can see some value in some things. I see myself as a pragmatist over them. What I don't buy, is that they will necessarily succeed like tablets have, or that the masses are really screaming out for - or even easily led by - wearable tech.

I think it's very much not clear cut. And whilst I have views on them in relation to convergence and smartphones, I also see the value of them for people currently interested in either trackers, or augmenting their use of their smartphone.

Here's the thing, though, my parents are in their 70s. They saw / see the value of tablets, they've got an iPad and another tablet, and when they're away from home, they get some value from them - perhaps not as much as either you'd imagine, or perhaps they'd like, but all the same, they get some use.

Smartwatches? I can't see anyway in hell they'd be bothered, they don't have use smartphones, now. Tablets were an easy sell - a compact device, a bit like their laptop, that they can use to check the news, weather, and email when they're away from home.

So it's easy to see, how an age group can have one bit of tech that could be an easy win, yet another that would be completely irrelevant to them. And they won't be the only demographic that smartwatches will be entirely irrelevant for, either.

I think the next 2 years will be interesting - and the inclusion of Apple into this space - even if a bit confounding - will add some momentum. All the same, I think it's far from being cut and dried in terms of them becoming prevalent, but then they are still very immature devices, yet.


----------



## BarracksSi

Back to the original topic for a minute --

As I posted here yesterday:

https://www.watchuseek.com/f513/whe...into-your-rotation-1083734-3.html#post9016970


BarracksSi said:


> That's funny -- my wife just made a new deal with me last night that if I meet my fitness goals next spring, I can get (specifically in my case) an Apple Watch.
> [snip]


I've started to put the cart before the horse and imagine which model I would get. If I go for the entry-level Sport in aluminum and glass, I'd probably only get to use the elastomer strap. But, if the steel-and-sapphire version isn't too costly, I'd want to get it along with at least one other strap, so maybe I'd get the link bracelet and modern buckle leather strap. Maybe the mesh loop, too. I'll have to try the leather loop to see what it's really like.

*The point* I'll make here is that I don't expect to have any problems swapping these straps. You've seen the video by now -- push a button and slide the strap out of the watch head. I've already broken an admittedly cheap springbar tool while changing straps on my current watches. With Apple's Watch, however, I could start with the watch itself, then go over to the accessory wall and snag two or three other straps. Maybe I could even go to another store and get some third-party straps. Or maybe also a third-party springbar adapter so I could use the other straps I have sitting around now, and the result could still be easier than, say, finagling a NATO onto a G-Shock.

Sounds pretty cool, doesn't it?


----------



## Wongsky

BarracksSi said:


> Back to the original topic for a minute --
> 
> As I posted here yesterday:
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f513/whe...into-your-rotation-1083734-3.html#post9016970
> 
> I've started to put the cart before the horse and imagine which model I would get. If I go for the entry-level Sport in aluminum and glass, I'd probably only get to use the elastomer strap. But, if the steel-and-sapphire version isn't too costly, I'd want to get it along with at least one other strap, so maybe I'd get the link bracelet and modern buckle leather strap. Maybe the mesh loop, too. I'll have to try the leather loop to see what it's really like.
> 
> *The point* I'll make here is that I don't expect to have any problems swapping these straps. You've seen the video by now -- push a button and slide the strap out of the watch head. I've already broken an admittedly cheap springbar tool while changing straps on my current watches. With Apple's Watch, however, I could start with the watch itself, then go over to the accessory wall and snag two or three other straps. Maybe I could even go to another store and get some third-party straps. Or maybe also a third-party springbar adapter so I could use the other straps I have sitting around now, and the result could still be easier than, say, finagling a NATO onto a G-Shock.
> 
> Sounds pretty cool, doesn't it?


The one thing I do think is a breath of fresh air - is Apple taking this approach to sizing and changing bracelets / straps.

It's the sort of thing we all should be asking "Why has nobody done that sooner?"


----------



## BarracksSi

Wongsky said:


> The one thing I do think is a breath of fresh air - is Apple taking this approach to sizing and changing bracelets / straps.
> 
> It's the sort of thing we all should be asking *"Why has nobody done that sooner?"*


Exact-a-mundo.


----------



## watchvaultnyc

Sorry, bit OT, but needs to be said!



Wongsky said:


> Here's the thing, though, my parents are in their 70s. They saw / see the value of tablets, they've got an iPad and another tablet, and when they're away from home, they get some value from them - perhaps not as much as either you'd imagine, or perhaps they'd like, but all the same, they get some use.
> 
> Smartwatches? I can't see anyway in hell they'd be bothered, they don't have use smartphones, now. Tablets were an easy sell - a compact device, a bit like their laptop, that they can use to check the news, weather, and email when they're away from home.


I give you deserved kudos for your open-mindedness. Your post did not need a reply, but something about the part I have quoted just reminded me of something that I read recently.

There was a report put out by some organization or another about the "Use Cases of Smart Watches in 2020", and one of the interesting uses is that smartwatches could be used by the elderly to supplement aides and doctors. For example, there already exists products like external cameras, bracelets, and necklaces like "Life Alert" and such that monitor the activity of the elderly. If for example your (or my) elderly mom starts moving during the day in a way that was inconsistent with customary movements around the house, then it would send out txt messages to their aide or doctor if it were some sort of emergency (not getting up, a fall, slow movements). The idea was that if cameras and bracelets were monitoring the elderly, it would reduce the need and costs for aides. Now with just apps, you can do the same without hardware and other investments.

Same goes with the constant monitoring of heart rate. Admittedly now what is available is quite primitive (I believe my smart watch only samples my heart rate every now and then), but more and better sensors will surely become cheap and available such as body temperature, blood sugar as sensed through sweat, etc etc. Obviously all of this is not yet available, but GPS, accelerometers and other sensors are already standard fare.

When my parents start to wane in their faculties, even now I can easily see that a $300 investment each to keep tabs on each of them will be well-spent. It would likely pay for itself the first month just from delaying the need for personal aides.


----------



## Wongsky

broudie said:


> Sorry, bit OT, but needs to be said!
> 
> I give you deserved kudos for your open-mindedness. Your post did not need a reply, but something about the part I have quoted just reminded me of something that I read recently.
> 
> There was a report put out by some organization or another about the "Use Cases of Smart Watches in 2020", and one of the interesting uses is that smartwatches could be used by the elderly to supplement aides and doctors. For example, there already exists products like external cameras, bracelets, and necklaces like "Life Alert" and such that monitor the activity of the elderly. If for example your (or my) elderly mom starts moving during the day in a way that was inconsistent with customary movements around the house, then it would send out txt messages to their aide or doctor if it were some sort of emergency (not getting up, a fall, slow movements). The idea was that if cameras and bracelets were monitoring the elderly, it would reduce the need and costs for aides. Now with just apps, you can do the same without hardware and other investments.
> 
> Same goes with the constant monitoring of heart rate. Admittedly now what is available is quite primitive (I believe my smart watch only samples my heart rate every now and then), but more and better sensors will surely become cheap and available such as body temperature, blood sugar as sensed through sweat, etc etc. Obviously all of this is not yet available, but GPS, accelerometers and other sensors are already standard fare.
> 
> When my parents start to wane in their faculties, even now I can easily see that a $300 investment each to keep tabs on each of them will be well-spent. It would likely pay for itself the first month just from delaying the need for personal aides.


See now right there is the benefit of discussion...

I've had several relatives that have had the alert fobs in case of falls or emergencies.


----------



## BarracksSi

The activity tracking that Apple is already talking about includes walking, running, and just plain standing (with the idea that getting out of one's chair is already beneficial).

It's not much of a stretch, then, to write the software to be aware of a fall (say, a quick "bang" followed by zero motion, especially if the watch is upside down), and maybe it can self-activate its microphone to listen for either groans or unconscious silence. Add heart rate to that, too.

Yeah, it's sounding better and better.


----------



## Memphis1

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susankalla/2014/10/31/apple-watch-what-rolex-dealers-say/


----------



## BarracksSi

Memphis1 said:


> Apple Watch: What Rolex Dealers Say - Forbes


I read two things, primarily, from that piece:

- A master's degree does not guarantee that someone is capable of writing an article with good grammar (we're far from perfect here on WUS, but come on, a writer with a major business publication is this bad?).

- The jeweler that she interviewed really wants to maintain a veneer of exclusivity and craftsmanship for his luxury watch business.


----------



## T-Mak

It's not a watch, despite being called a watch. No one who appreciates watches will stop wearing them to make room for this POS on their wrist.


----------



## T-Mak

broudie said:


> This is one thing that I bite my tongue not to mention, but now that you've started it I 'll continue.
> 
> All the naysayers about smartwatches sound very similar to the iPad naysayers when the tablet first came out. And of course in just a couple of years, everyone and their dog has a tablet.
> 
> In my analysis, the reason for such naysaying is a complete lack of imagination. People thought the iPad was just a big iPhone, but they are wrong because iPads with big screens allow people to interact more easily with what's on the screen, creating brand new use cases. Stuff that was a hassle like watching videos on an iPhone, is quite natural on an iPad. If I had a list of everyone who ever said the iPad would be a flop and quote back to them what they said way back in 2011(?), there would be many, many people to embarrass today.
> 
> Same thing with smartwatches. Smartwatches are not just your phone on your wrist. Because you don't need to pull it out of your pocket every time you want to interact with it, the smartwatch creates whole new use cases; such as always-on heart monitoring, walking navigation, etc etc. People will get used to the conveniences provided by their smartwatches, that in normal days they will not be willing to remove it for a mechanical, this is the real threat of the smartwatch to mechanicals. It is not beauty vs beauty, or quality vs quality. It will be usefulness vs beauty, usefulness vs quality.


Except the tablet craze is over, everyone who bought one is wondering what to do with it, not waiting for next ipad to be released.


----------



## Buzz224

T-Mak said:


> Except the tablet craze is over, everyone who bought one is wondering what to do with it, not waiting for next ipad to be released.


The tab' is the perfect tool for Internet access without the redundant baggage of a full fledged computer. That's it's base app and the reason I have one as do so many others. Like a computer, just because one perfectly meets your needs and purpose doesn't mean that you will immediately rush out to buy 5 more or upgrade a perfectly functional one for no good reason.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## watchvaultnyc

I didn't know that people stopped using tablets, you must tell me where you got that bit of amazing information. As far as I know, people stopped buying tablets because everyone already has one, and the tablets they have are already so good there's no need to replace them every year.


----------



## watchvaultnyc

T-Mak said:


> It's not a watch, despite being called a watch. No one who appreciates watches will stop wearing them to make room for this POS on their wrist.


Wrong on all counts


----------



## watchvaultnyc

Buzz224 said:


> The tab' is the perfect tool for Internet access without the redundant baggage of a full fledged computer. That's it's base app and the reason I have one as do so many others. Like a computer, just because one perfectly meets your needs and purpose doesn't mean that you will immediately rush out to buy 5 more or upgrade a perfectly functional one for no good reason.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


Yep, it's like saying your Rolex or Omega sucks because you didn't buy the same model very year.


----------



## Buzz224

broudie said:


> Yep, it's like saying your Rolex or Omega sucks because you didn't buy the same model very year.


Yeppers, my early 1980's Datejust still makes me smile.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## T-Mak

broudie said:


> I didn't know that people stopped using tablets, you must tell me where you got that bit of amazing information. As far as I know, people stopped buying tablets because everyone already has one, and the tablets they have are already so good there's no need to replace them every year.


As far as I know you're wrong, people aren't lining up to buy the next new tablet, like they do for phones. The need to have the next new tablet doesn't exist. The vast majority of people who own one realize it isn't convenient to carry around and doesn't do much more than their cell phone does. Maybe you can tell me why people are lining up for weeks to upgrade a phone but the tablet manufacturers made them so great that no one will ever need a new one? Don't you think that Apple would apply the same philosophy of adding improvements and features to their new tablet in order to generate billions of dollars in sales every few years like the iphone? Sales of tablets are flat, those are the facts whether you know it or not!


----------



## watchvaultnyc

T-Mak said:


> As far as I know you're wrong, people aren't lining up to buy the next new tablet, like they do for phones. The need to have the next new tablet doesn't exist. The vast majority of people who own one realize it isn't convenient to carry around and doesn't do much more than their cell phone does. Maybe you can tell me why people are lining up for weeks to upgrade a phone but the tablet manufacturers made them so great that no one will ever need a new one? Don't you think that Apple would apply the same philosophy of adding improvements and features to their new tablet in order to generate billions of dollars in sales every few years like the iphone? Sales of tablets are flat, those are the facts whether you know it or not!


You must be blind then, because phones like the iPhone are still changing. See how big they are now from last year? That's why people want the new ones.

Tablets are pretty good the way they are now, and people already have bought what they want, that's why sales are slowing. Screen sizes are not changing because they are already the ideal size. Not because they are less useful for what they do or are a fad.

Based on your logic TVs are fads because you don't buy new ones every year.


----------



## Buzz224

I have a Galaxy Note 3 for most interneting and on the go WiFi vids, but like to take my tab to the Internet cafe to enjoy watch related and Jay Leno car vids over gourmet coffee for a couple hours with the larger screen and earphones. 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## T-Mak

broudie said:


> You must be blind then, because phones like the iPhone are still changing. See how big they are now from last year? That's why people want the new ones.
> 
> Tablets are pretty good the way they are now, and people already have bought what they want, that's why sales are slowing. Screen sizes are not changing because they are already the ideal size. Not because they are less useful for what they do or are a fad.
> 
> Based on your logic TVs are fads because you don't buy new every year.
> 
> I'm not blind but you are clueless! The simple fact that you are comparing a television with an ipad is proof of that. For somone who considers themself an entrepreneur you don't have any idea about marketing. FYI - losers have been lining up for iphones long before they changed the size of the screen. Your post about arguing with myself didn't last long, too bad I was looking forward to responding to that too.


----------



## watchvaultnyc

T-Mak said:


> I'm not blind but you are clueless! The simple fact that you are comparing a television with an ipad is proof of that. For somone who considers themself an entrepreneur you don't have any idea about marketing. FYI - losers have been lining up for iphones long before they changed the size of the screen. Your post about arguing with myself didn't last long, too bad I was looking forward to responding to that too.


Your main argument is all about tablets being fads because sales are slowing, completely ignoring the fact that people are treating tablets as durable goods (like TVs and computers) which means people don't buy new ones every year. Either the idea that "tablets are like durable goods" thus the comparison is going completely over your head, or you are just ignoring this for the sake of continuing your flimsy argument which does not even have any bearing on smartwatches. It's like you're thinking "I hate smartwatches, and I hate tablets, therefore both must be related and both must suck".

Your arguments sir, are a total waste of the 5 seconds of brainpower it takes to counter and you have now officially entered my ignore list.


----------



## T-Mak

broudie said:


> Your main argument is all about tablets being fads because sales are slowing, completely ignoring the fact that people are treating tablets as durable goods (like TVs and computers) which means people don't buy new ones every year. Either the idea that "tablets are like durable goods" thus the comparison is going completely over your head, or you are just ignoring this for the sake of continuing your flimsy argument which does not even have any bearing on smartwatches. It's like you're thinking "I hate smartwatches, and I hate tablets, therefore both must be related and both must suck".
> 
> Your arguments sir, are a total waste of the 5 seconds of brainpower it takes to counter and you have now officially entered my ignore list.


Thanks for ignoring me, that is good news! I don't need some clown telling me "It's like you're thinking" when I never said any such thing. Probably using too much of that brainpower.


----------



## wtma

^^ Chill out guys...


----------



## koolpep

@t-mak the way you argue here is totally unacceptable. You just try to steamroll people with your sledge hammer argument that is not correct and personally insult people. That's very bad style, childish in fact. Sales of tablets have gone down that is a fact. But so has the innovation in that area. You could argue that a saturation point was reached for the form factors on offer. No new form factors or groundbreaking innovation was offered hence people are not rushing to upgrade. 

The iPad was only introduced in 2010 so long term usage stats are not so common. I believe the update cycles of tablets are probably more in line as the ones for PCs/Macs and that is not every 2 years when you get a new subsidized phone on contract. People have to pay full price for their iPads and that difference is huge for most.

Anyhow, back to watches. After using the pebble for some time instead of my more luxurious watches, I must say that it has definitively its charm. But the pebble is what you describe POS in regards of quality and finish. Functionally though I really like it. The Apple watch is on a whole different level in fit and finish and even functionality. Will it prevent a die hard fan of VC or PP to flip? No. But I argue that any serious watch enthusiast should be curious of what these future watch concepts are about.

The amount of black/white, love/hate, polarization is very strange to me. Seems that fanboism is the new norm. Why can't people be a bit more open minded, curious and interested?

Cheers,
K


----------



## watchvaultnyc

I tend to believe business analysis rather than random rants on the internet, as the former put their money where their mouth is - their living is determined by their being more right than wrong.

That being said, BusinessInsider predicts that there will be 91M smartwatches sold in 2018, 5X more than what will be sold in 2014 and is an incredible number for a category that is what, 5 years old?

Global Smartwatch Sales Set To Explode - Business Insider

At this volume they are bound to compete with traditional watches, if on the low end of the scale. The Apple watch will probably make a good percentage of these sales and like smartphones, will be the design and build quality leader. What will confuse people is how they are marketing the Apple Watch. The high end looks like jewelry, some with even a gold (or gold plated) case? Well, jewelry is not meant to be discarded after 2 years like phones but obviously the technology in an Apple watch will be obsoleted by that time.

It could be that used smartwatches will occupy the same niche as used tablets. Here's what an IDC report says about how tablets are being reused :



> He noted that consumers are keeping their current tablets, especially more expensive models like recent 9.7-in. iPads and the iPad Air, for "far longer than originally anticipated."
> 
> Mainelli added via email: "A $500 iPad tends to have a longer lifetime than an $80 Android tablet."
> 
> IDC analyst Jitesh Ubrani said via email that while some consumers were expected to replace an older tablet after perhaps two years, "in some cases, we're seeing [tablets kept for] three to 3.5 years."
> If a family does buy a second tablet, the original one is kept in use by another member of the family, Mainelli said. "We've found that a huge percentage of people who buy a new tablet go on to hand down their existing tablet to someone else in their household so that a three-year-old device doesn't get recycled out of the installed base," he said. "Instead, it starts a new life with a new owner and all of this is impacting shipment growth."


So it could be that used higher-end smartwatches like the "gold" Apple watch, will actually be resold used like how you see them sold on Gamestop, or even in the "Refurbished" section of the Apple store instead of scrapped like phones.


----------



## Wongsky

broudie said:


> I tend to believe business analysis rather than random rants on the internet, as the former put their money where their mouth is - their living is determined by their being more right than wrong.
> 
> That being said, BusinessInsider predicts that there will be 91M smartwatches sold in 2018, 5X more than what will be sold in 2014 and is an incredible number for a category that is what, 5 years old?
> 
> Global Smartwatch Sales Set To Explode - Business Insider
> 
> At this volume they are bound to compete with traditional watches, if on the low end of the scale. The Apple watch will probably make a good percentage of these sales and like smartphones, will be the design and build quality leader. What will confuse people is how they are marketing the Apple Watch. The high end looks like jewelry, some with even a gold (or gold plated) case? Well, jewelry is not meant to be discarded after 2 years like phones but obviously the technology in an Apple watch will be obsoleted by that time.
> 
> It could be that used smartwatches will occupy the same niche as used tablets. Here's what an IDC report says about how tablets are being reused :
> 
> So it could be that used higher-end smartwatches like the "gold" Apple watch, will actually be resold used like how you see them sold on Gamestop, or even in the "Refurbished" section of the Apple store instead of scrapped like phones.


The problem with any speculation on such things, is that it IS speculation.

Now to a certain degree, with tech and gadgets, there's been a burgeoning aspect that the market will largely do as they've been told / marketed to / seeded. That's certainly happened with several prominent chunks of technology in recent times. And tablets being the obvious choice of creating, rather than filling, a need.

The problem I have with this notion of where they're going, is that most don't tend to get excited about watches, these days. Well only things with prestige that they see worn by celebs. Many people have largely foregone watches - or at least to the degree that they'd spend a notable chunk of money on one.

So yes, there's always the notion that consumers are willing sheep - which may well account for initial take-up. But for the masses, what's going to encourage them to keep coming back - say 5 years down the line? Unless we're talking about true paradigm shift in their relationship with smartphones, and some significant leap forward in display technology, I just struggle to see this as anything like the huge / convergent market that is the smartphone.

Yes, wearable tech has a place, and that genie isn't going to go back in the lamp. But is wearable tech for the masses? Or simply those that are drawn to gadgets, and / or see value in existing wearable tech?

For myself, I've been sceptical of a lot of the hype and the "change the world" rhetoric. As somebody who already has a fitbit, I've now become interested in their entrance into this market. But what I'd really like is for the mid-range model (Charge HR) to include the GPS tracking like the surge, but not have all the display / normal watch form-factor. That said, the heart-rate thing is the more interesting thing, but if I'm going to splurge, I'd like the GPS tracking too, I'm just not necessarily struck on having to wear it as a watch, rather than the smaller form-factor Charge HR.

But then I recognise, I'm not representative of the market for these things. But then, I'm not necessarily convinced those doing the analysing are truly thinking of the market of customers, it's more about trust in the numbers and paradigm (ie consumers will do as they're told, and buy what they're told).


----------



## T-Mak

koolpep said:


> @t-mak the way you argue here is totally unacceptable. You just try to steamroll people with your sledge hammer argument that is not correct and personally insult people. That's very bad style, childish in fact. Sales of tablets have gone down that is a fact. But so has the innovation in that area. You could argue that a saturation point was reached for the form factors on offer. No new form factors or groundbreaking innovation was offered hence people are not rushing to upgrade.
> 
> The iPad was only introduced in 2010 so long term usage stats are not so common. I believe the update cycles of tablets are probably more in line as the ones for PCs/Macs and that is not every 2 years when you get a new subsidized phone on contract. People have to pay full price for their iPads and that difference is huge for most.
> 
> Anyhow, back to watches. After using the pebble for some time instead of my more luxurious watches, I must say that it has definitively its charm. But the pebble is what you describe POS in regards of quality and finish. Functionally though I really like it. The Apple watch is on a whole different level in fit and finish and even functionality. Will it prevent a die hard fan of VC or PP to flip? No. But I argue that any serious watch enthusiast should be curious of what these future watch concepts are about.
> 
> The amount of black/white, love/hate, polarization is very strange to me. Seems that fanboism is the new norm. Why can't people be a bit more open minded, curious and interested?
> 
> Cheers,
> K


 I will respectfully disagree with everything you said, which is the correct way to respond to ANYONE that has an OPINION that you don't share. I do not appreciate someone, anyone, who may not agree with me (broudie) to curtly respond by saying "you are wrong" with not a single word to back-up his assertion. I will not sit idly by and allow some clown I have never met or shared a single dialog with, tell me in no uncertain terms, that I am wrong. That, is totally acceptable. If you believe that is steamrolling or sledgehammering people that's too bad! If you chose to let people walk all over you that is your choice. If anyone is childish it is broudie, there is nothing more childish than bouncing from topic to topic telling people they are wrong and not offering any argument why you are challenging them. I think you should spend some time reading all the posts before you single out someone as the problem. I have recently run into a few people like this here, people who like to tell everyone how smart they think they are, how they believe their opinion is the only one that matters. These folks would be much better served by writing a blog that no one reads rather than attempting to force their uninformed opinion on people.

Best regards,


----------



## BarracksSi

broudie said:


> I didn't know that people stopped using tablets, you must tell me where you got that bit of amazing information. As far as I know, people stopped buying tablets because everyone already has one, and the tablets they have are already so good there's no need to replace them every year.


Just to be on this tangent, but it'll reconnect with smartwatches (and Apple Watch in particular) --

We're still using our iPad 2 at home, and I'm plugging away with a first-generation iPad at work that we dug out of a surplus warehouse. They really are good enough at their assigned tasks that we don't _need_ to upgrade them.

Remember, they're simple, at least on the outside -- just a screen, really. All the cool stuff happens in software, which is all the apps. The hardware itself pretty much gets out of the way.

How do they relate to the Apple Watch? The Watch is a lot more like an iPad, or even an iPod Touch, than an iPhone. I'm postulating that the Watch will see slower upgrade cycles like the iPod line has been doing. It won't need to upgrade quickly because there isn't much in the hardware to change anyway.

All this carrying on about how "the tablet market is doomed" is shortsighted and pointless, IMO. Tech heads who expect to see their gadgets get revisions every six months don't know what to think anymore. Give it a rest.


----------



## Wongsky

BarracksSi said:


> Just to be on this tangent, but it'll reconnect with smartwatches (and Apple Watch in particular) --
> 
> We're still using our iPad 2 at home, and I'm plugging away with a first-generation iPad at work that we dug out of a surplus warehouse. They really are good enough at their assigned tasks that we don't _need_ to upgrade them.
> 
> Remember, they're simple, at least on the outside -- just a screen, really. All the cool stuff happens in software, which is all the apps. The hardware itself pretty much gets out of the way.
> 
> How do they relate to the Apple Watch? The Watch is a lot more like an iPad, or even an iPod Touch, than an iPhone. I'm postulating that the Watch will see slower upgrade cycles like the iPod line has been doing. It won't need to upgrade quickly because there isn't much in the hardware to change anyway.
> 
> All this carrying on about how "the tablet market is doomed" is shortsighted and pointless, IMO. Tech heads who expect to see their gadgets get revisions every six months don't know what to think anymore. Give it a rest.


I think there is a difference in the tablet and smartphone market - at least where vendor lock-in is a factor.

Whether it's the realised synergy from controlling the OS and the hardware, but tablets like the iPad do seem to stay valid and usable for longer, with relatively modest spec.

On the other hand, the open-source counterpart - Android, where they essentially take google's code and make it their own, is a different thing - lots of different makes and hardware suppliers trying to make their mark, leverage the situation and assert some advantage - and much the same with implementations of the software. Coming from an IT background, I'm not convinced there's anything hugely superior / inferior across the divide of IOS vs Android - I think they're both in different situations with differing amounts of control on the final solution.

Whereas, in effect, Apple are really only competing against Apple. The expectations are a little different when comparing, say, an Apple device, with an Android device.

Some of it is evident in other vendors in this market segment - look at BlackBerry, they had a small hand in the tablet market - in fact I still have two of their PlayBooks. By far - and I mean by far - easily the best build-quality, and quality bar none, I've seen in a tablet (but that has it's own negatives - they're also a little on the heavy side), slick OS, with a reasonable degree of innovation.

Problem is, that outside of business users, and those with a healthy interest in security, it let it's customer base down in not delivering all they wanted. It wasn't enough of anything - although could run some Android apps, that side wasn't perfect, and not a big enough player for it's ecosystem to truly deliver in making it all things for all people. Simple and easy to use, though, performant, and clearly, there was an advantage to them, in terms of control, in being in control of the OS and the hardware.

It failed, though, because it wasn't enough of anything to truly win sufficient people over, and the apps let people down in terms of some of the main things people wanted to use not being available.

I think the main difference, though, in comparing how the tablet market was seeded - and before it, the smartphone market - compared with smartwatches (be they Apple's, Android, or evolutions of other wearable tech), is that I don't think the paradigm is universally persuasive.

With smartphones, huge numbers of people already had mobile phones. Also many had point-and-shoot digital cameras, car sat navs, mp3 players - convergence was an easy sell - it had been something that should have been delivered on a little sooner, really - but perhaps needed the standalone fragmentation, first, for it to be as persuasive.

With tablets, it was a lot less clear. Already from the outset, Amazon had stolen a good march with their Kindles as ebook readers. Some users had already downsized from laptops to netbooks. Many people were saying, when tablets were first being hyped - "Why do I need this?"

How did so many get persuaded? Well the smartphone, whilst convergent, was in some cases, hampered by it's already increased, but still relatively modest, for some of the uses it was put to, screen-size. Basically, consumers were told: "Why bother having an unwieldy laptop for casual use - especially when they can run a bit warm..." - "Get a tablet, you'll be able to use it for internet usage, games, ebooks, video..."

Smartwatches? Whilst the offer some things, they're nothing like as persuasive. They're not offering greater convergence, or the prospect of being a superior proxy. They're offering limited standalone functionality, potential vendor lock-in (with Apple), and to cut a long story short, and inferior proxy.

That doesn't mean I think they'll fail - I just don't think they'll necessarily succeed in the same way, or for the same reasons, or to the same degree that other tech has done in recent years. Many people already see little point in wearing watches - and don't currently. Many will see it as an over-complication of something they want to be simple and easy to use. Some just won't get the point of having that functionality, on a wristwatch.

On the other hand, there are plenty that will splurge - either just because they're easily led, and GAS is so very prevalent, or because they already have an interest in wearable tech, and it offers some people a degree of convergence.

I just don't see them as changing the world, yet, or being anything like as prevalent as smartphones or tablets. Sure, having Apple wade notably into this market will almost create some axiomatic interest. I think the hype is a little misplaced - both modelled on the success of smartphones and tablets, and also in seemingly being quite selective in understanding people as a whole ("We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are...")


----------



## XOPKC

In few years if they can get the sensor technology right the smartwatch might increase life expectancy +5-10 years.It can help with hearth desease, diabetes, obesity you name it.This has the potential of becoming the greatest thing in personal healthcare, ever.How can this possibly fail?


----------



## Wongsky

XOPKC said:


> In few years if they can get the sensor technology right the smartwatch might increase life expectancy +5-10 years.It can help with hearth desease, diabetes, obesity you name it.This has the potential of becoming the greatest thing in personal healthcare, ever.How can this possibly fail?


I'm not necessarily sure it will fail, per se - but I do doubt it will be as ubiquitous as some are hyping them.

I look at my parents, now - both will be around early 70s in age. Still perfectly capable of using some bits of tech (they have an iPad and a BlackBerry PlayBook, and regularly use a laptop for email and internet usage, they also both have a Kindle e-reader).

A year or two back, they both decided to get a smartphone (they already had an iPad at that point) - largely based on us as a family, spending time in the far east, and both me and my brother, had smartphones (uncannily, the same type of smartphone - which wasn't an iPhone, or an Android phone) and used them for things like email and for me, keeping in touch with my family at home. They saw the benefits of having access to things like email and the internet (news and weather, mainly) whilst on our travels.

So when they returned, they decided to get one each - and they chose relatively wisely, but were still committed to using pay-as-you-go sims, as opposed to contracts, with decent data allowances. Neither of them really gelled with their smartphones, they didn't find them particularly easy to use - not helped by the screen being a lot smaller than even their tablets. They didn't really want to be having to spend more than they already did on very modest pay-as-you-go fees in order to just be able to use their mobiles for calls.

They've since abandoned their smartphones, in favour of a new-ish, simplistic, flip-phone, with large buttons (it looks specifically designed to appeal to the older generation). All they really want to do, is be able to make and receive calls easily, and not have to get too tied-up with, or confused with the technology.

And the reason for their choice? The advice and seeing others of the friends and acquaintances that have done the same thing.

So for people like that, although a smartwatch may offer some benefits (as indeed do smartphones) the relative cost, the complexity to their life of having to, or largely being forced to have to interact with technology they don't find natural or intuitive, I can't see it being much of a draw. They've decided to simplify over time, not make things more complex.

And for some older people that's been a progression - some of these people in their working years, had quite inquisitive minds, that had to deal with some aspects of technology. I don't think that each generation naturally becomes more tech savvy as they age. I think some in society get to the point where as they get older, they are much more pragmatic about the things they choose to buy, own, have to live with. For myself, I hope that doesn't happen - but I've seen it happen, countless times, in people I never would have thought it would. I've always tinkered with things and explored technology - I've exploited that sense of inquisitiveness, and I see that need to understand as being key to my personality. As I've got to my mid 40s, though, I'm less swayed by the shiny-shiny, and more pragmatic about not simply accepting hype about things.

I'll come back to this point - a lot of people who seem to be of the view that smartwatches will change the world, I think are making this mistake: "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are."

Now I don't necessarily think they'll fail - that will likely come down to level of investment versus return on investment - and most things tend to have a shelf-life. I just think that the supposed axiomatic - "Surely factor X will see them as hugely successful" isn't necessarily an axiom.


----------



## XOPKC

They don't need to be complicated really.You can just strap one on and forget it's there untill one day you see a message on it, like - "Lie on your back and enjoy your first hearth attack, you fat POS.Ambulance will be here shortly".


----------



## Wongsky

XOPKC said:


> They don't need to be complicated really.You can just strap one on and forget it's there untill one day you see a message on it, like - "Lie on your back and enjoy your first hearth attack, you fat POS.Ambulance will be here shortly".


No they don't necessarily have to be complicated - but they are, as are smartphones, relatively, at present.

And as currently they're not standalone and require a smartphone, they have that going against them, for people who'd choose to veer away from smartphones, anyway, for whom there's speculation that a subset of their functionality may benefit.

I'm not a hater. I'm not against them. I'm just not convinced they're going to rock my world, yet. Although I'm considering the Fitbit surge once it's released.

The one thing I would say is, I remain unconvinced they're going to be the huge revelation that some of their advocates spout hyperbole about. But I think there's certain aspects of the technology that may find some groundswell, and I also think there's chance for convergence for people already leaning towards, or using wearable tech.

There's a big raft of occluded middle, in all of this, that I can see that I suspect won't give a damn, and won't likely be swayed, unless they have money to spend, or credit to use, and are really tempted by some celeb endorsement of the shiny-shiny.


----------



## XOPKC

I think wearable tech has the potential to be huge.It's inevitable, forget smartphones it's about starting to improve on our bodies, adding functionality.Morphing into the intelligent machines we are destined to become


----------



## Wongsky

XOPKC said:


> I think wearable tech has the potential to be huge.It's inevitable, forget smartphones it's about starting to improve on our bodies, adding functionality.Morphing into the intelligent machines we are destined to become


I think the mistake comes right there in the "It's inevitable" comment.

It might burgeon. It might be very big.

But all that's to be proven.

I don't think anything is necessarily inevitable about how prevalent wearable tech will be, though. There really is a lot of people in society that won't care in the slightest, and already think tech is too invasive.

A lot of this functionality already exists, one way, or another. There's plenty of people who haven't nor won't rush out and buy, and that isn't just because there's not one, convenient, convergent device for it all.


----------



## XOPKC

Yes, I see your point.It's "inevitable" only in my opinion, which doesn't mean a lot really.


----------



## watchvaultnyc

So many points since I last checked into this thread!

Re: Playbook - I have one, and it was an excellent physical device. Linked usefully with my Blackberry. But the apps! What apps?

Re: Elderly and smartphones - I bought both my father and my mother iPhones last year. My father only uses them for stocks. But my mom is on Facebook 24hr/day. 50% success rate ain't so bad

Re: Elderly and smartwatches - I personally see both as a means for the elderly to increase their autonomy. Everyone must have seen those "Life Alert" pendant ads by now. The device that you put around your neck and press on if you have a fall and can't get up? Well just as fitness trackers can figure out how healthy you sleep just by the accelerometer, smartwatches have the potential to monitor the elderly, alleviating (or postponing) the need for personal aides. And it requires no interaction on their part. The Microsoft Band has a UV sensor and a 24-hour heart rate monitor. I can see a sweat sensor that determines blood sugar in the near future.

"Inevitable" may not be the correct word. For me it's "promising", and I hope some form of it succeeds.


----------



## Wongsky

broudie said:


> So many points since I last checked into this thread!
> 
> Re: Playbook - I have one, and it was an excellent physical device. Linked usefully with my Blackberry. But the apps! What apps?
> 
> Re: Elderly and smartphones - I bought both my father and my mother iPhones last year. My father only uses them for stocks. But my mom is on Facebook 24hr/day. 50% success rate ain't so bad
> 
> Re: Elderly and smartwatches - I personally see both as a means for the elderly to increase their autonomy. Everyone must have seen those "Life Alert" pendant ads by now. The device that you put around your neck and press on if you have a fall and can't get up? Well just as fitness trackers can figure out how healthy you sleep just by the accelerometer, smartwatches have the potential to monitor the elderly, alleviating (or postponing) the need for personal aides. And it requires no interaction on their part. The Microsoft Band has a UV sensor and a 24-hour heart rate monitor. I can see a sweat sensor that determines blood sugar in the near future.
> 
> "Inevitable" may not be the correct word. For me it's "promising", and I hope some form of it succeeds.


I have to say, I'm quite drawn to the idea of the Microsoft Band - although admittedly, I suspect my interests are more atypical.

I want some of the enhanced features - constant HR monitoring, GPS tracking, to improve on the activity tracker I currently use. I also like the notion that it's not meant to replace a normal watch. This is all music to my ears, as I'd rather not abandon my current watches, and such an activity tracker isn't that useful unless you wear it all the time.

The indications on charge life aren't great (about 2 days, I think, from what I read) but then my Fitbit one doesn't last a long time between charges - although you'd probably easily get a week - possibly 2 - but then it's doing less. I'm a little surprised that Fitbit aren't catering for that niche - seeing as that's where they've currently placed themselves - but there fully featured (HR and GPS tracking) wrist device is only in the watch form factor.

The thing about the elderly - well I get the notion of how something that works as one of those pendants may be a good sell - especially if they work everywhere (as opposed to just in / around the home). But all the same, most people when they get to those sorts of ages, are less and less bothered about anything complex - an implementation that they could wear constantly, that would send alerts if they fell anywhere, I think would probably do well with that demographic. But market it as general purpose, AND covers that role as well? I suspect most of them would be disinterested.


----------



## DrTandoori

Does anybody know the specs of the mesh strap that will be sold by Apple? 

I like it, it's called a Milanese Loop Band. Searched for something similar online but just found regular mesh straps. Would love to use one on some divers I got.


----------



## BarracksSi

DrTandoori said:


> Does anybody know the specs of the mesh strap that will be sold by Apple?
> 
> I like it, it's called a Milanese Loop Band. Searched for something similar online but just found regular mesh straps. Would love to use one on some divers I got.


No idea, but remember, it's one of the only "watch straps" we've ever seen that uses a magnet to hold itself together. Not sure how that'll work with most mechanical watches.


----------



## DrTandoori

BarracksSi said:


> No idea, but remember, it's one of the only "watch straps" we've ever seen that uses a magnet to hold itself together. Not sure how that'll work with most mechanical watches.


You're right. I'm willing to try it though. If it doesn't mess up the mechanics within the watch itself, it shouldn't be that bad for mechanical watches I guess.


----------



## BarracksSi

I'd try it with a Seiko 5, then maybe one of the new antimagnetic Omegas, and maybe a Milgauss, etc. 

Speaking of which -- I wonder how strong the magnet is on that bracelet. I was able to stop my Timex quartz (now deceased) with a centimeter-wide neodymium magnet, but I think it was okay with the magnets in my iPad's cover.


----------



## deadsync

I love all watches. I prefer quartz watches for accuracy and I cannot resist solar power watches for their Perpetuum Mobile qualities. Having said that, I think we cannot predict the future and we are not capable of stopping the progress: light bulb, television, personal computer, Internet, smart phones, and ....... Anyone asserting that Omega and Rolex need not to worry are rather in denial and don't want to admit, that they simply have no idea which way the future will take them - I can attest with all honesty that myself - I don't. We cannot assuredly state, that the luxury, as understood Today, will hold any value in the future, which in return is no guarantee for the traditional watch value. Let's not forget the fate of Singer sawing machines, pocket watches, typewriters, fountain pens (I love them too) Kodak film, and many other impossible to disappear every day necessities, which with time could not avoid sudden deaths.The same thing can happen to anything we hold as permanent.
I, for one, am not sold on the Apple watch yet as I also ended up not using my iPad - some things I simply do not want or need. But saying now how it will fare in the future is fortune telling at best.


----------



## ZIPPER79

WHAAT,

Step up, you're kidding right.
The only way to step up is to manufacture a mechanical watch.


----------



## Lokifish

I'd have to disagree. There are a number of improvements to be made, and not just for the Apple Watch but for almost the entire smartwatch industry. But seeing it's taken the industry ten years to get this far, We'll probably have holo-contacts for our eyes before they get it right.


----------



## Crunchy

Just had an apple watch, biggest problem: having to charge it everynight. I dont want to bring it travelling, yet another gadget to fuss about.


----------

