# Switzerland is in trouble: Apple watch is beautiful and useful



## valmak

I know lots of people get riled up about this but it's the truth. Switzerland is in trouble. Lots of watch companies are going to fold. I tried the demo of the Apple watch today and it's beautiful and can do so much (and only the Apple apps were installed so it can do much much more). Companies like Rolex, PP and Omega and a few others will stay afloat of course but probably over the next 10 years we will see lots of companies die out (I'm guessing about half or more). Sales of the main brands will decrease by a lot and there will be plenty of layoffs. It's just too much watch for ~$600 for any of these other brands to compete with it. I think eventually it will replace the smartphone at some level too. You can deny it all you want but it's going to happen. I saw the future today. Maybe in 10 years when the next wearable (maybe smart glasses?) come along then regular old mechanical watches will make a comeback. So companies are probably better off to take a loss for a while and stay in business.


----------



## AAMC

Personally I think it's going to be a really short life cycle product (shorter than the iPod) it will last for two/three years and that's it


----------



## Gazza74

Way to jump to unfounded conclusions.



valmak said:


> I know lots of people get riled up about this but it's the truth. Switzerland is in trouble. Lots of watch companies are going to fold. I tried the demo of the Apple watch today and it's beautiful and can do so much (and only the Apple apps were installed so it can do much much more). Companies like Rolex, PP and Omega and a few others will stay afloat of course but probably over the next 10 years we will see lots of companies die out (I'm guessing about half or more). Sales of the main brands will decrease by a lot and there will be plenty of layoffs. It's just too much watch for ~$600 for any of these other brands to compete with it. I think eventually it will replace the smartphone at some level too. You can deny it all you want but it's going to happen. I saw the future today. Maybe in 10 years when the next wearable (maybe smart glasses?) come along then regular old mechanical watches will make a comeback. So companies are probably better off to take a loss for a while and stay in business.


----------



## mvmt

Anything that gets younger people thinking about watches again will be good for Switzerland in the long term, no question about it.


----------



## Norm S

Thats what people said when quartz was introduced. But hey the watch industry is doing fine. 
I just think its a direct competitor to the low end level. Tissot and their t touch will feel it. Other lower price range watches too. But end of the day, proper luxury watches are exactly what they are. Luxury items. Theyre for people who can afford it and its completely unnecessary. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Victor Cruz

Interesting, and I'm sure the apple watch is truly impressive, but your premise may be a bit off. The one thing that needs to be considered is...who buys and wears mechanical watches nowadays?

If you're saying that those in the market for a single wristwatch purchase of say $400 - 1200 will instead go for an apple watch, I'd have to agree. But someone buying a single wristwatch for <$100 would probably not be interested in an apple watch costing $550+. Also, someone interested in buying a watch over $3K will not choose an apple watch instead.

Above, I am only talking about the general public.


----------



## valmak

When I was at the Apple store, I saw several people with very nice mechanical watches (in the $5,000 and over range) that were really impressed by the Apple Watch and seemed about ready to take off their mechanical and put them up for sale. some had already put in the order.


----------



## tiger roach

I really don't see the Apple Watch as a competitor with the nicer luxury mechanical watches. And I'm a goofball who was up at 2:00 this morning to order mine. ;-)


----------



## Drumguy

It's still unable to operate without your phone so it's basically a smartphone on your wrist(I'm not impressed) when they make one that can last as long as a watch then I might be worried for the watch industry, case in point, I have a 47 year old Timex manual wind(still runs) in the past ten years I've lost count of how many "smart phones" I've had because they need upgrades or just become obsolete. I just don't see me handing down a smart watch or apple watch(same difference) to my nephew or grandson but, I do see me passing my watch collection to them.


----------



## Bradjhomes

valmak said:


> When I was at the Apple store, I saw several people with very nice mechanical watches (in the $5,000 and over range) that were really impressed by the Apple Watch and seemed about ready to take off their mechanical and put them up for sale. some had already put in the order.


You could tell they were ready to put their $5,000 watches up for sale?

I'm probably not going to be buying a smart watch of any kind in the near future (never say never), but I would expect the kind of guys who have a very nice mechanical watch and who seem very interested in the Apple watch are going to be the kind of people who can happily have both types coexisting in their life. Just my opinion.


----------



## Thirdgenbird

Switzerland doesn't need to to worry. The normal swiss mechanical watch buyer isn't looking for the best value and they are not looking for the most features.

It's the $250-600 digital watch/GPS tracker market that needs to worry. The apple watch is pretty compelling next to a citizen Skyhawk, garmin, timex GPS, or polar.


----------



## doggbiter

Sorry.... I don't see much overlap in the market. It's not 22 year old neck- bearded hipsters that are wearing Patek.


----------



## hidden by leaves

valmak said:


> When I was at the Apple store, I saw several people with very nice mechanical watches (in the $5,000 and over range) that were really impressed by the Apple Watch and seemed about ready to take off their mechanical and put them up for sale. some had already put in the order.


lol I wouldn't have thought you could top your ridiculous opening post, but congratulations!


----------



## Drumguy

Victor Cruz said:


> Interesting, and I'm sure the apple watch is truly impressive, but your premise may be a bit off. The one thing that needs to be considered is...who buys and wears mechanical watches nowadays?
> 
> If you're saying that those in the market for a single wristwatch purchase of say $400 - 1200 will instead go for an apple watch, I'd have to agree. But someone buying a single wristwatch for <$100 would probably not be interested in an apple watch costing $550+. Also, someone interested in buying a watch over $3K will not choose an apple watch instead.
> 
> Above, I am only talking about the general public.


I am the general public and buy watches in the $400-$1200 range and can promise you I will not be buying one. I like watches, real watches. For emails,social media etc. I have a smart phone.


----------



## Victor Cruz

valmak said:


> When I was at the Apple store, I saw several people with very nice mechanical watches (in the $5,000 and over range) that were really impressed by the Apple Watch and seemed about ready to take off their mechanical and put them up for sale. some had already put in the order.


Yeah, but so what? Those people are not in the market for another mechanical in the $5K+ range, because they already have one. Your conclusion that that they "seemed about ready to take off their mechanical and put them up for sale" is pure and unsubstantiated speculation.


----------



## Drumguy

valmak said:


> When I was at the Apple store, I saw several people with very nice mechanical watches (in the $5,000 and over range) that were really impressed by the Apple Watch and seemed about ready to take off their mechanical and put them up for sale. some had already put in the order.


[email protected]#t read your post out loud, the one you started this thread with and the one I am quoting and then you will hear how ridiculous they sound.


----------



## clarken

I think it is interesting but I'm more inclined to call it a wrist gadget than a watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mannal

Apple watch is an expensive novelty item. They need to address the 18 hour (MAX) battery life before I would even consider an Apple watch.


----------



## valmak

OK I will revisit this thread in a few years and see how things turn out. You will be the ones looking like fools.


----------



## justbecauseIcan

I would not mind the fact that some of the companies get rattled up, always good to see something moving in an industry. The consumer will benefit.


----------



## valmak

hidden by leaves said:


> lol I wouldn't have thought you could top your ridiculous opening post, but congratulations!


you are not using your brain that is why what i'm saying doesn't make sense to you. try it. you might like it!


----------



## lorsban

In a word, no. 

In the first place the Apple Watch ONLY works with iOS. iOS is SECOND place next to Android. 

So to begin with the AWatch already has a limited market of Apple iOS 5+ users. And it's not as if 100% of iOS 5 users will be buying it. 

Compare that to the size of the luxury watch industry. Lol


----------



## mvmt

Do not feed the trolls.


----------



## NathanielGoodtimes

I don't expect any high end swiss companies to fold, maybe a couple midlevels, but very doubtful.


----------



## AAMC

clarken said:


> I think it is interesting but I'm more inclined to call it a wrist gadget than a watch.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 That line of thinking may be an issue regarding the iWatch. Some of Apple's consumers are "techies" but some are moved by the coolness, fashion, status...the latter group may think that wearing a gadget isn't cool nor fashion.


----------



## Okapi001

Norm S said:


> Thats what people said when quartz was introduced. But hey the watch industry is doing fine.


LOL, except the half that didn't survive.


----------



## Stellite

valmak said:


> I know lots of people get riled up about this but it's the truth. Switzerland is in trouble. Lots of watch companies are going to fold. I tried the demo of the Apple watch today and it's beautiful and can do so much (and only the Apple apps were installed so it can do much much more). Companies like Rolex, PP and Omega and a few others will stay afloat of course but probably over the next 10 years we will see lots of companies die out (I'm guessing about half or more). Sales of the main brands will decrease by a lot and there will be plenty of layoffs. It's just too much watch for ~$600 for any of these other brands to compete with it. I think eventually it will replace the smartphone at some level too. You can deny it all you want but it's going to happen. I saw the future today. Maybe in 10 years when the next wearable (maybe smart glasses?) come along then regular old mechanical watches will make a comeback. So companies are probably better off to take a loss for a while and stay in business.


----------



## EsbenOpen

OP has to be a troll, right? He can't possibly be serious!



lorsban said:


> st place the iWatch ONLY works with iOS.


Wow, I didn't know that. I wasn't really planning on getting an AW so I haven't really researched it, but I just kind of assumed it would work with android.

So I guess I just went from probably not getting one until 2nd or 3rd generation to not ever getting one until they make full android compatibility. I'm sure not buying an iphone. :think:


----------



## mvmt

Hey guys, remember how Google Glass drove Luxicotta out of business?


----------



## Stellite

mvmt said:


> Hey guys, remember how Google Glass drove Luxicotta out of business?


Right, exactly, I mean Luxotica is so gone now;-)



> *[SUP]2014[/SUP]* *Luxottica Group* *net sales* grew by 5.3% (+6.7% at constant exchange rates[SUP]2[/SUP]) to over Euro 7.6 billion.


----------



## lorsban

EsbenOpen said:


> OP has to be a troll, right? He can't possibly be serious!
> 
> Wow, I didn't know that. I wasn't really planning on getting an AW so I haven't really researched it, but I just kind of assumed it would work with android.
> 
> So I guess I just went from probably not getting one until 2nd or 3rd generation to not ever getting one until they make full android compatibility. I'm sure not buying an iphone. :think:


I doubt if Apple will ever make an Android compatible product.

But if you have an Android take a look at what Motorola, Samsung, Asus, Sony and LG have to offer.

Incidentally, the Asus watch looks a lot like the Apple watch and it came out last year 










Here's Apple...


----------



## Tomatoes11

Thirdgenbird said:


> Switzerland doesn't need to to worry. The normal swiss mechanical watch buyer isn't looking for the best value and they are not looking for the most features.
> 
> It's the $250-600 digital watch/GPS tracker market that needs to worry. The apple watch is pretty compelling next to a citizen Skyhawk, garmin, timex GPS, or polar.


Not really, I love my eco drive because I don't have to worry about it for about 8 years or longer. With my Moto 360 smart watch which I have since sold, I had to worry about battery life. Big difference.

That said, I will have at least one Smart watch in my collection again. Right now its either going to be the LG Urbane, Samsung's new round watch, or the Tag Smart watch. Definitely wont be the Apple watch, that thing is butt ugly. I won't even consider a nice rectangle watch like a reverso, no chance I try the ugly square Apple watch. I only have an Ipad for an Apple product though so I can't even get one if I wanted to without buying an iphone again, which I wont.

I might bite the bullet and get a macbook though once my Asus dies.


----------



## jkpa

Yes I'm dying to own another electronic product to rule my life. Like the laptop I'm on now, work computer and constant smart phone use is not enough. I'd rather be without a watch than wear a smart watch. We all have a phone for time checking (and checking of anything else we need) so wearing a gadget on your wrist is hardly appealing.


----------



## Victor Cruz

Drumguy4all said:


> I am the general public and buy watches in the $400-$1200 range and can promise you I will not be buying one. I like watches, real watches. For emails,social media etc. I have a smart phone.


Do you really think the general public buys multiple watches like you, and like real watches? Sorry but you're not the demographic that I am referring to.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Thirdgenbird

Tomatoes11 said:


> Not really, I love my eco drive because I don't have to worry about it for about 8 years or longer. With my Moto 360 smart watch which I have since sold, I had to worry about battery life. Big difference.
> 
> That said, I will have at least one Smart watch in my collection again. Right now its either going to be the LG Urbane, Samsung's new round watch, or the Tag Smart watch. Definitely wont be the Apple watch, that thing is butt ugly. I won't even consider a nice rectangle watch like a reverso, no chance I try the ugly square Apple watch. I only have an Ipad for an Apple product though so I can't even get one if I wanted to without buying an iphone again, which I wont.
> 
> I might bite the bullet and get a macbook though once my Asus dies.


Im in no way implying that it will consume the eco-drive market. I was a very happy nigthawk owner.

I was specifically talking about the Skyhawk. The people I know with these got them for some of their advanced features and radio setting. They wanted things like muti time zones, perpetual calendars and/or chronograph in a package that didn't look like a g-shock. The apple watch ( and other smart watches) will fit this bill in a much easier to use and more capable package. All at a similar price point.

It sounds like you bought your citizen with the solar charging in mind. I did as well, but I recognize many don't care. What would you buy if you didn't buy a smart watch?

I don't think this first generation will be an issue, but as smart watches develop, I do expect it to make an impact on some of these premium digital watches. More so than mechanicals and analog watches at least.

The apple watch is a Skyhawk, garmin GPS watch, and a fitness tracker all wrapped up into one package at the price of a garmin GPS watch. Swiss watches will probably continue to sell off stories and heritage be it real or fake.

I expect citizen to respond with more Bluetooth and phone integration. Garmin? Maybe a cleaner and more universal designed case. The smart watch fad will be a benifit for the consumer.


----------



## RuffRydas

I am currently wearing a Fitbit ChargeHR on my right wrist and wearing a Seiko SKX009 on my left wrist... I'm living proof they can co-exist...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Leonine

I can't wait to see online forums of people discussing their smart watch collections. Posting wrist shots and photos of watch boxes filled with year old Apple products that are already obsolete. "Cant wait to pass this 2015 apple watch down to my son" 
What kind of movement is it? Intel


----------



## jason952

RuffRydas said:


> I am currently wearing a Fitbit ChargeHR on my right wrist and wearing a Seiko SKX009 on my left wrist... I'm living proof they can co-exist...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am gonna give both a try too! Mostly want the apple sport for exercise and activity with some phone shortcuts...keeping the timepieces!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## valmak

have any of you actually seen the apple watch in person and tried it on? because i have. and i've also owned plenty of mechanical watches. the apple watch is remarkable. i'm not speaking out of my butt. go and try it for yourself before you dismiss it. it's going to be a game changer.


----------



## eblackmo

I enjoy your ideas.



valmak said:


> I know lots of people get riled up about this but it's the truth. Switzerland is in trouble. Lots of watch companies are going to fold. I tried the demo of the Apple watch today and it's beautiful and can do so much (and only the Apple apps were installed so it can do much much more). Companies like Rolex, PP and Omega and a few others will stay afloat of course but probably over the next 10 years we will see lots of companies die out (I'm guessing about half or more). Sales of the main brands will decrease by a lot and there will be plenty of layoffs. It's just too much watch for ~$600 for any of these other brands to compete with it. I think eventually it will replace the smartphone at some level too. You can deny it all you want but it's going to happen. I saw the future today. Maybe in 10 years when the next wearable (maybe smart glasses?) come along then regular old mechanical watches will make a comeback. So companies are probably better off to take a loss for a while and stay in business.


----------



## eblackmo

Shut up. Apple never rips off anyone. Except for xerox etc.



lorsban said:


> I doubt if Apple will ever make an Android compatible product.
> 
> But if you have an Android take a look at what Motorola, Samsung, Asus, Sony and LG have to offer.
> 
> Incidentally, the Asus watch looks a lot like the Apple watch and it came out last year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's Apple...


----------



## valmak

eblackmo said:


> I enjoy your ideas.


Thanks. People expect the world to remain static over time. But that's not how the world works.


----------



## alex79

Two words : no way...


----------



## eblackmo

valmak said:


> Thanks. People expect the world to remain static over time. But that's not how the world works.


Yep. Same thing could be said about life in general. Wonderful ain't it?


----------



## Bradjhomes

valmak said:


> Thanks. People expect the world to remain static over time. But that's not how the world works.


I don't think anyone is saying quite that. It's just that most people don't expect it to change in the same way you do.

Will the apple watch change the watch industry? Probably in some way, yes.

Will it bring down the Swiss luxury watch industry? Very unlikely.


----------



## Norms76

You do that, people who pay 5k for a watch will just buy one of these as a novelty piece. There's no comparison between watches in the 5k range and an Apple watch that comes in around £500. 

What at you are getting at sounds crazy, the whole mechanical wrist watch industry is in danger because Apple have made a version of a smart watch that others have been doing for a few years now ( Samsung & LG etc). I think Patak and the like will sleep easy at night.


----------



## Sloopjohnb

My apple watch is beautiful and Swiss. And I have already been wearing my future since last year. Switzerland will be fine, by the way...


----------



## WindMe

I'm huge on both technology and watches, I tend to buy every new and innovative piece of technology that comes out. The Apple watch does absolutely nothing for me, a watch that will be obsolete in 12 months won't do a thing to replace the watches I buy that will last a lifetime. Take that idea and put it into a skinner form factor that I can wear on my right wrist as a bracelet, and not replace my beloved watches? That would be game changing.


----------



## omegafan2015

The high end mechanical watch brands will be fine because they are becoming a classic luxury brand, however the middle and basic brands such as Swatch, Hamilton, Tissot... or those are using ETA, quartz movements will be dying out slowly and disappear in near future.

Have you seen any Swiss brand that has a sell out preorder product within a day? not hundreds, thousands or hundred thousand pieces, it's more than a million pieces.


----------



## Docwein

I saw the Apple watch today in the flesh. The screen images are extremely cool, but as a physical timepiece (case and strap) I was extremely disappointed. In fact it looks cheap. And that's the problem with smart watches none of them resembles watches. I like the look of dive watches, the Apple watch case style has little appeal to me. You cannot swim with an Apple watch. The sport model has a plastic screen which will scatch, moreover in a year it will be obsolete. So you purchase an Apple watch today for $400 and then in a year you will have to spend a more bucks to get a new Apple watch which will look the same just to get a faster processor. And as far as all the functions of the watch, well your iPhone has to be near or you have to be in a wifi zone. The true smartwatch is still a long time away.
I don't think the Swiss have much to fear.


----------



## BarracksSi

One minor correction:



Docwein said:


> The sport model has a plastic screen which will scatch, ...


Apple calls it "ion-strengthened glass", so at least it's not plastic on the Sport model. My guess is that it's more like Seiko's Hardlex, but I don't know for sure; others have thought it might be more like the Gorilla Glass used for iPhones.


----------



## Crunchy

The japanese are more in trouble than the swiss.


----------



## justbecauseIcan

so I just had a look at Apples website...

for the same case size/material, just the red band/buckle costs A$10,000 more than the black sports band. 

As it happens, I know how A$10k worth of gold look like, and it's certainly a lot more than the difference of the two buckles. By a rather large margin.

I don't mind them doing an exclusive thing with that gold edition, but that price difference for just a band and its difference in gold content is really taking people for a ride. 

How on earth....


----------



## doggbiter

valmak said:


> have any of you actually seen the apple watch in person and tried it on? because i have. and i've also owned plenty of mechanical watches. the apple watch is remarkable. i'm not speaking out of my butt. go and try it for yourself before you dismiss it. it's going to be a game changer.


So.. seriously... how is it so "remarkable" in comparison to the buttload of smart watches that have already been introduced to the market? My prediction is: it will sell well in the beginning as the I-sheeple embrace it, but as the novelty wears off, it will drop off the radar, just like has pretty much happened with the glut of other smart watches. I have a friend who jumped on the Galaxy Gear when it came out, told me it was a game changer and 3 months later, it's collecting dust in a drawer.


----------



## G. I.

Apple could sell a dog turd with their logo on it, the hype works and the brand is very strong, so a couple of millions of the Watch will go fast (I've just read on a blog _"My mom went with me and she has NEVER owned a watch. She later pre-ordered a 42mm w/milanese bracelet, she doesn't even know exactly what it does but she liked the way it looked"_ LOL). The question is that will the Apple/Android smartwatch become a necessity based on some use cases like digital payment, touchy-feely messages or something doesn't even exist yet. IF it will then the budgets and the wrist for daily wearers/fashion watches will go to smartwatches and mid- and low-tier brands will suffer.


----------



## BarracksSi

doggbiter said:


> I have a friend who jumped on the Galaxy Gear when it came out, told me it was a game changer and 3 months later, it's collecting dust in a drawer.


What's his reasons?


----------



## MrDagon007

I experimented with it last friday. I thought that it looks and feels quite premium, more so than pictures suggest and more so than other smartwatches I briefly tried. I expect it to inflict real pain on the quartz market, most of the fashion watches you see in malls, also Tissot and quartz Seikos. 
For a v1 it is quite impressive but I will wait for v2. Apple is usually interesting in v1 and in v2 they make their products really mature. I do expect extra sensors (they hired people with phds on this subject), like blood sugar sensors. Health will become a killer app in the coming versions, which will drive mass adoption. All in my opinion of course. And there will be interesting competition coming.
While I expect it to kill most but the cheapest quartz watches, I also do expect the apple watch to increase interest in pure mechanical watches. Many young people do not wear a watch. I can see ever more powerful smartwatches to become popular with them, and because of that it wouldn't surprise me it becoming a gateway for mechanical watches to wear during dressed moments for example.
Again all in my opinion.


----------



## zetaplus93

I'm one of those "entry-level" guys who got into mechanicals 2 years ago. Been mostly happy with Seikos and micro brands in the $500-$2000 range. 

I preordered the Apple Watch (AW) on launch day. 

My thought is that it's likely that in the short term, things will be fine and dandy with the current crop of Swiss and Japanese watches. Maybe the lower end mechanicals and quartz (say <$500) will see increased competition. 

The question is what happens in the long term? If the 10-20 year old gets used to and expect the level of functionality of watches like the AW, will they move to mechanicals when they hit their 30s and 40s?

If they don't buy as many mechanicals as the watch guys do today, will the Swiss and Japanese watch companies slowly stabilize (in size and units shipped) and even slowly shrink in 10-20 years time?


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> I'm one of those "entry-level" guys who got into mechanicals 2 years ago. Been mostly happy with Seikos and micro brands in the $500-$2000 range.
> 
> I preordered the Apple Watch (AW) on launch day.
> 
> My thought is that it's likely that in the short term, things will be fine and dandy with the current crop of Swiss and Japanese watches. Maybe the lower end mechanicals and quartz (say <$500) will see increased competition.
> 
> The question is what happens in the long term? If the 10-20 year old gets used to and expect the level of functionality of watches like the AW, will they move to mechanicals when they hit their 30s and 40s?
> 
> If they don't buy as many mechanicals as the watch guys do today, will the Swiss and Japanese watch companies slowly stabilize (in size and units shipped) and even slowly shrink in 10-20 years time?


If you're talking about ALL smartwatches (not just apple) then maybe in 10-15 years we'll be seeing a dent.

Apple alone will barely do anything to anyone. There are too many things limiting their footprint in the watch industry:

1. Limited user base
2. Short battery life
3. Needs pairing with at least iOS5 phone
4. Pricey compared to other smartphones

IF smartphones start becoming hot for some reason, the luxury watch brands and Japanese will likely join in. They won't sit back like they did for quartz.

Tag Heuer, for example, is already making an Android smartwatch. They have an Android phone already.


----------



## justbecauseIcan

MrDagon007 said:


> (they hired people with phds on this subject)


"wow"


----------



## Ajax_Drakos

If mechanical watches could survive the quartz crisis and the modern development of more and more young people simply not wearing watches, then somehow I'm sure that the industry will survive the iWatch, too. As a consumer, if not a watch fan, I would have no problem seeking a 70s-style collapse of the watch industry because it probably would make what's available cheaper, but I just don't think that's gonna happen.


----------



## shnjb

I totally agree that the industry will probably go through a new round of consolidation.
The march toward higher end, handmade artisanal products will continue.
However, this won't necessarily be a bad thing since we will get better watches both on low end (smart watches) and high end.

Middle end ($1000-4000) might disappear I guess.


----------



## BarracksSi

shnjb said:


> Middle end ($1000-4000) might disappear I guess.


Ah, possibly.

I just started guessing at this --

What if smartwatch owners, particularly those who haven't invested in multithousand-dollar watches already, want to have an inexpensive mechanical for times when they want to "unplug"?

Maybe the Seiko 5 market will get a boost, too.

(purely a guess!)


----------



## shnjb

BarracksSi said:


> Ah, possibly.
> 
> I just started guessing at this --
> 
> What if smartwatch owners, particularly those who haven't invested in multithousand-dollar watches already, want to have an inexpensive mechanical for times when they want to "unplug"?
> 
> Maybe the Seiko 5 market will get a boost, too.
> 
> (purely a guess!)


Actually on second thought, the Apple watch will probably put most pressure on the $150-1500 category more than the $2000-4000 category.
I suppose there should be enough men and women interested in accessories and jewelry to allow coexistence of smart watches and above $1000.
Certainly I'm not in a hurry to sell Rolex, Patek, breguet etc.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> If you're talking about ALL smartwatches (not just apple) then maybe in 10-15 years we'll be seeing a dent.


Yes, that's what I meant, smartwatches in general.



lorsban said:


> Apple alone will barely do anything to anyone. There are too many things limiting their footprint in the watch industry:
> 
> 1. Limited user base
> 2. Short battery life
> 3. Needs pairing with at least iOS5 phone
> 4. Pricey compared to other smartphones


If thinking in terms of all smartphones/watches, then most of these limitations will be sorted out. Battery life will improve, though may just be 2-3 days in a couple year's time.



lorsban said:


> IF smartwatches start becoming hot for some reason, the luxury watch brands and Japanese will likely join in. They won't sit back like they did for quartz.
> 
> Tag Heuer, for example, is already making an Android smartwatch. They have an Android phone already.


One question is whether the electronics companies will make better watches faster, or luxury watch companies make better electronics faster?

Granted that we're seeing these two types of companies partnering now, as with Tag Heuer. Would we see any electronics companies like Samsung acquire smaller luxury watch companies in a few year's time, or vice versa, in order to bring all expertise in-house a la Apple (well, they have a good design team, but may not be at the level of top luxury watch companies)?


----------



## BarracksSi

zetaplus93 said:


> One question is whether the electronics companies will make better watches faster, or luxury watch companies make better electronics faster?
> 
> Granted that we're seeing these two types of companies partnering now, as with Tag Heuer. Would we see any electronics companies like Samsung acquire smaller luxury watch companies in a few year's time, or vice versa, in order to bring all expertise in-house a la Apple (well, they have a good design team, but may not be at the level of top luxury watch companies)?


Hmm.

For the first point, it isn't likely that multi-partnering-can't think of another way to say it, where in the case of TH, at least three companies try to coordinate the software, electronics, and exterior design-will result in success for the manufacturer. The installed base for Android is big, but that includes junk devices, too. The idea that Android Wear can be adapted for many platforms is cool, but on the developer side, it can be a real headache as they won't be able to guarantee that every platform has the same capabilities.

Your second idea is interesting, too. Samsung, and others, may want to go that route, but they also could just hire talent or do their own copies outright (see Xioami and, of course, Samsung themselves). Apple made their own hires with Burberry's CEO and TH's marketing exec, and Jony Ive probably didn't have to twist Marc Newson's arm very hard to get him to join Jony on the Watch, either.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> Yes, that's what I meant, smartwatches in general.
> 
> If thinking in terms of all smartphones/watches, then most of these limitations will be sorted out. Battery life will improve, though may just be 2-3 days in a couple year's time.


Oh sorry. I thought you were just talking about Apple.

But yeah, if we're talking about the whole industry, I think we'll be seeing a shift in thinking.

In the far future, I think smartwatches and other wearable tech will replace cellphones and maybe watches. Luxury watches will probably be relegated to occasional use (parties, weddings etc...).

Flexible screens and batteries need to be perfected still. I'm thinking modern smartwatches will look more like cuffs. Kinda like a tennis wrist band.



> One question is whether the electronics companies will make better watches faster, or luxury watch companies make better electronics faster?
> 
> Granted that we're seeing these two types of companies partnering now, as with Tag Heuer. Would we see any electronics companies like Samsung acquire smaller luxury watch companies in a few year's time, or vice versa, in order to bring all expertise in-house a la Apple (well, they have a good design team, but may not be at the level of top luxury watch companies)?


I think electronics companies, especially screen/processor manufacturers, will have a huge advantage. Samsung, LG, Sony, Toshiba etc...

The gadget marketplace is also prerty much the opposite of the luxury market. Low margins, bulk orders etc...

That said, I don't think the tech giants would bother partnering up/taking over smaller luxury companies for the purpose of smartwatches. They're more likely to do what Nokia did with Vertu.

Thing is, we're seeing some design differentiation now only because the smartwatch is still very limited at the moment. So, most of them still have small screens. Like old cellphones with sub 2 inch screens haha! Remember how different cellphones looked before?

In the future, when use expands, so will screens. And we'll end up with a smartwatch-cuff that's mostly screen. In essence, all smartwatches will look the same (like laptops, smartphones) What's the use of partnering up with a luxury watch company if the designs all look alike?


----------



## doggbiter

BarracksSi said:


> What's his reasons?


He basically just realized that the functionality wasn't compelling enough to justify the continual charging headache. Plus, he likes wearing REAL watches.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> That said, I don't think the tech giants would bother partnering up/taking over smaller luxury companies for the purpose of smartwatches. They're more likely to do what Nokia did with Vertu.


Interesting. One thought is, if other tech giants start doing more wearables (not just watches--think glasses, bands, etc) and they seek to market this from a fashionable perspective (to appeal to regular consumers and not just tech enthusiasts), perhaps partnership with luxury brands like Coach etc could be a meaningful combination for both sides.



lorsban said:


> Thing is, we're seeing some design differentiation now only because the smartwatch is still very limited at the moment. So, most of them still have small screens. Like old cellphones with sub 2 inch screens haha! Remember how different cellphones looked before?
> 
> In the future, when use expands, so will screens. And we'll end up with a smartwatch-cuff that's mostly screen. In essence, all smartwatches will look the same (like laptops, smartphones) What's the use of partnering up with a luxury watch company if the designs all look alike?


I think luxury brands do bring their expertise in selling luxury goods. The brands/perception by the public, retail reach, approach to sales, etc could be quite beneficial to tech giants.

I do wonder about whether design will converge as much as they have with phones today (basically black rectangles). Phones aren't as personal as wearables since they aren't worn--not-so-attractive phones can be stuffed in bags or put into more likable cases. So, have not-so-likeable phones aren't as detrimental to sales as it would with wearables (relatively speaking, of course).

Perhaps watches will come down to either rectangular shapes or the more traditional round shapes in the future. But I would think there's meaningful differentiation with fit and finish, different bands, etc. Basically, all these things we care about on the outside of mechanical watches.

There's also the potential for wearables that do not have a screen. These could provide less function than modern smartwatches (and hence be relegated to accessories), but these have the benefit of being differentiated based on physical appearance (as fashion accessories are today). Perhaps this is an area of grow as well with the rise of smartwatches, wearables, Internet of Things, etc etc.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> Interesting. One thought is, if other tech giants start doing more wearables (not just watches--think glasses, bands, etc) and they seek to market this from a fashionable perspective (to appeal to regular consumers and not just tech enthusiasts), perhaps partnership with luxury brands like Coach etc could be a meaningful combination for both sides.
> 
> I think luxury brands do bring their expertise in selling luxury goods. The brands/perception by the public, retail reach, approach to sales, etc could be quite beneficial to tech giants.
> 
> I do wonder about whether design will converge as much as they have with phones today (basically black rectangles). Phones aren't as personal as wearables since they aren't worn--not-so-attractive phones can be stuffed in bags or put into more likable cases. So, have not-so-likeable phones aren't as detrimental to sales as it would with wearables (relatively speaking, of course).
> 
> Perhaps watches will come down to either rectangular shapes or the more traditional round shapes in the future. But I would think there's meaningful differentiation with fit and finish, different bands, etc. Basically, all these things we care about on the outside of mechanical watches.
> 
> There's also the potential for wearables that do not have a screen. These could provide less function than modern smartwatches (and hence be relegated to accessories), but these have the benefit of being differentiated based on physical appearance (as fashion accessories are today). Perhaps this is an area of grow as well with the rise of smartwatches, wearables, Internet of Things, etc etc.


I think now is the time when design differentiation will be key and luxury brands may be competitive. Because the screen is still small, the case, strap, shape, feel will all factor in the design.

But once it becomes all screen, there's really little you can do.

The main difference will also be the interface, which is just software. And even then, we're still just looking at 2: iOS and Android. And for all non-apple, it'll likely be Android.

But I get what you're saying. There will always be a high end line of tech. But like Vertu, we're looking at a very tiny piece of the pie. And I don't know how "premium" you can make a wearable when we're already dealing with a super slim product.

There might be more opportunities for design in Google Glass - lots of differentiation in eyewear...until of course the trend moves to contact lenses thereby making bulky eyewear obsolete haha


----------



## Blancpain

valmak said:


> OK I will revisit this thread in a few years and see how things turn out. You will be the ones looking like fools.


I predict in a few years Android wear will be dominating the Apple watch by an order of 10 to 1 just like in the smartphone market.


----------



## 93EXCivic

I will agree that Apple watch is actually fairly well made (certainly a lot nicer then the Moto360 which was terrible IMO) but I don't think it looks that good and having played with it I am not convinced on functionally.


----------



## jimiwilli

AAMC said:


> Personally I think it's going to be a really short life cycle product (shorter than the iPod) it will last for two/three years and that's it


It will only be short live if Apple cannibalize it with something else. The netbook was a flop with every company, yet Apple took the idea and reinvented it with the MacBook Air. iPads had their critics at launch, and people thought it was a laptop replacement, now many people own laptops for work and iPads (with an iPhone on the side) for play. It's amazing how many I see in airports while traveling.

The iPod was cannibalized by the iPhone. However, they are not obsolete yet. I still see a lot of nanos and they still sell well. I think this apple product will be just like all the others. It will stand the test of time.


----------



## gagnello

valmak said:


> I know lots of people get riled up about this but it's the truth. Switzerland is in trouble. Lots of watch companies are going to fold. I tried the demo of the Apple watch today and it's beautiful and can do so much (and only the Apple apps were installed so it can do much much more). Companies like Rolex, PP and Omega and a few others will stay afloat of course but probably over the next 10 years we will see lots of companies die out (I'm guessing about half or more). Sales of the main brands will decrease by a lot and there will be plenty of layoffs. It's just too much watch for ~$600 for any of these other brands to compete with it. I think eventually it will replace the smartphone at some level too. You can deny it all you want but it's going to happen. I saw the future today. Maybe in 10 years when the next wearable (maybe smart glasses?) come along then regular old mechanical watches will make a comeback. So companies are probably better off to take a loss for a while and stay in business.


Oh brother.....


----------



## AAMC

jimiwilli said:


> It will only be short live if Apple cannibalize it with something else. The netbook was a flop with every company, yet Apple took the idea and reinvented it with the MacBook Air. iPads had their critics at launch, and people thought it was a laptop replacement, now many people own laptops for work and iPads (with an iPhone on the side) for play. It's amazing how many I see in airports while traveling.
> 
> The iPod was cannibalized by the iPhone. However, they are not obsolete yet. I still see a lot of nanos and they still sell well. I think this apple product will be just like all the others. It will stand the test of time.


Stand the test of time? you don't know the peak sales concept, right?
Even the iPad, reached peak sales in what? in five years or so...the watch will achieved it in 2/3 years, like I said way short life cycle

the iPod are still selling well? lol...ye right with peak sales like in 10 year ago...ok it was cannibalized by the iPhone, so what could cannibalize a digital watch with some features?...I know...I know...a watch with features that also makes/receives phone calls and that you keep in your pocket/purse. Great idea!

Oh wait! it already exists...it's called a smart phone...


----------



## bigclive2011

Rubbish!!

How can the OP come on a watch website and tell everyone the watch industry is in trouble because someone has invented an I pad that you can strap on the wrist.

Never on my wrist thanks.


----------



## gouverneur

The key question for me is, what demographics or markets will be threatened if the Apple Watch or smartwatches in general become widely adopted? (I reserve judgment on whether they will be--personally I suspect it'll take 2-3 generations of improvement to determine whether the product is really worthwhile and becomes widely embraced by the market.) Nonetheless, I agree with the OP that the watch poses a fairly serious threat to the watch industry, and really even to the major players. Are the majority of purchasers of mechanical watches like us, i.e., passionate about the hobby, or are they people who just buy a nice watch because it's a standard thing for well-to-do people to do (particularly in professions like banking/finance, consulting, law, and medicine)? If the answer is the latter, then I think the Apple Watch is a real threat. If lots of people ordinarily would buy a Rolex as a symbol of success but don't appreciate it for its own sake, they may choose to forego that purchase if they now have an Apple Watch that they'll be wearing 90%+ of the time. It's one thing to drop $8k on a nice watch that you'll then wear every day (most of these casual purchasers being largely one-watch owners); it's another thing to drop $8k on a watch to wear once a week.


----------



## jimiwilli

AAMC said:


> Stand the test of time? you don't know the peak sales concept, right?
> Even the iPad, reached peak sales in what? in five years or so...the watch will achieved it in 2/3 years, like I said way short life cycle
> 
> the iPod are still selling well? lol...ye right with peak sales like in 10 year ago...ok it was cannibalized by the iPhone, so what could cannibalize a digital watch with some features?...I know...I know...a watch with features that also makes/receives phone calls and that you keep in your pocket/purse. Great idea!
> 
> Oh wait! it already exists...it's called a smart phone...


Don't get me wrong, I don't think the watch industry is in trouble. But I very well understand the peek sales concept. Since no one knows for sure if this will flop or not, there is really no need to argue. However, I disagree with the 2-3 year opinion. Apple has enough fans to keep it going a while longer. Eventually, everything is going to reach peek sales. Blu-Ray players reached peek sales in 6 or so years, however they still sell enough to make a profit off making units. The smart TV peeked very fast, however I haven't heard people calling them failures.

Rather it makes it 2-3 years is irrelevant also. We don't know what Apple goals are for the device anyway. Maybe they will be happy with a 2-3 year life and come out with a new version. You have to admit they are the master of product launches. People still go crazy for iPads when new versions are launched. I do admit the releases are not as grand as when Steve was still alive, but spectacular to say the least.


----------



## waynelam83

Apple watch is very well made, but I don't think it will be a threat to the watch industry at all. Cellphone is everywhere now. People who still wear watches today, are likely to have multiple watches in their collection, especially in price range of $400-$1500. People simply just get bored to wearing same watch every day. Apple watch will just be another addition to the collection. Wrist time will be for fitness or daily fashion. I don't see people will be wearing Apple watch on special occasion(own wedding or important family event) or utilitarian function (going to beach or going on the boat or camping for several days). To me, Apple watch has two disadvantages, 1) battery life is sucks and the fact that you need a charger to charge it when it is dead is a killer. you can wind your mechanical watch anywhere anytime you want and it will be working as usual. And to be honest, a dead Apple watch on a wrist isn't so appealing. 2) Unless apple honor the repair and support of their vintage piece like an any of the high-end watchmaker, life of Apple watch will be limited. I don't think they even honor to repair their old computer or old iPod(1st or 2nd gen). Without the memory of significant event and maker's life time support, I don't think it is a contender to current watch maker. It will just be an iPhone on the wrist. I guess the cell phone revolution have already killed off some weaker watch maker because more and more people do not wear watch anymore. Apple watch could be an opportunity to get people wearing watches again.


----------



## valmak

The Apple Watch sold in less than one day what Rolex claims to sell in one year (one million watches). Everything about the launch points to it being a huge success. The only negative thing that can be said about it is that there weren't enough watches to meet demand. The haters fail to understand that the Apple Watch will evolve and become exponentially better over time. Every one of their gripes about the Apple Watch will be resolved in future iterations. But of course they will defend their original claim that the Apple Watch won't hurt the watch industry because it has evolved to something different and there was no way they could've known that ahead of time. The truth is you could have known but you didn't have the vision to. So put your fun little mechanical toys up for sale now while you can still get some money for them.


----------



## AAMC

valmak said:


> The Apple Watch sold in less than one day what Rolex claims to sell in one year (one million watches). Everything about the launch points to it being a huge success. The only negative thing that can be said about it is that there weren't enough watches to meet demand. The haters fail to understand that the Apple Watch will evolve and become exponentially better over time. Every one of their gripes about the Apple Watch will be resolved in future iterations. But of course they will defend their original claim that the Apple Watch won't hurt the watch industry because it has evolved to something different and there was no way they could've known that ahead of time. The truth is you could have known but you didn't have the vision to. So put your fun little mechanical toys up for sale now while you can still get some money for them.


McDonald's sell way much more meals than the Apple Watch will ever sell, irrelevant, one it's a burger, one it's a digital gadget to wear on the wrist and Rolex is a luxury product. 
The AW watch will sell billions and the swiss watch industry will be fine.


----------



## GHobbs

I have a MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, iPod, Apple TV, iPad, and 3 iPhones you could call me a obsessive however replacing my mechanical watch with a iwatch calls into question my watch hobby.. So not a chance 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## RLC

The next Apple product is the mac-i-chip that is implanted behind your left ear, it replaces your brain and will do everything....;-)

Point being.....progress will relegate the iwatch to obscurity within three years. I'm sure Switzerland can hold out 'til then. 

Bob


----------



## Minimalist1972

Don't forget, most people have two wrists!


----------



## arogle1stus

IMO I Watches will have a short shelf life.
Theyll do well for 1 maybe 2 years then tank.
Im ex RR I bought my 1st Accutron quartz but soon it ended up in my watch box.
Why? Because I owned 2 iconic RR grade pocketwatches. Hamilton 992b and 950b
Still wear em. but admittedly less than my mechanicals.

IWatches will be shunned by real watches with pallet forks, balance wheels.

X traindriver Art


----------



## lorsban

Blancpain said:


> I predict in a few years Android wear will be dominating the Apple watch by an order of 10 to 1 just like in the smartphone market.


Right.

And like PC vs Mac before that.


----------



## Okapi001

AAMC said:


> McDonald's sell way much more meals than the Apple Watch will ever sell, irrelevant, one it's a burger, one it's a digital gadget to wear on the wrist and Rolex is a luxury product.
> The AW watch will sell billions and the swiss watch industry will be fine.


Not really, because both products compete for the same limited real estate on your wrist.


----------



## mannal

Why would I wear a watch that can't run for a full day? I could buy a third-party battery-pack watch-band but I don't have the same requirement for any of my other watches. 

Once Apple can actually keep time for a full day (my first requirement for a watch), I will add one to my collection. I do "mobility" for a living and will be forced to get one anyway.


----------



## OSUMBA2003

I find the entire premise of this thread to be absurd.

And OP...don't represent your opinions as facts.


----------



## Mr.V1984

I'm all for cool tech and I understand fully that in today's world "smart" devices play a huge part in our lives but where does the line get drawn? Realistically, doesn't the Ipod, Iphone, Ipad and now Apple Watch for the most part all do the same thing? Do individuals need to be that connected to a device all the time? I understand that some might but personally speaking, I don't. Sometimes I leave the phone in the house, shut down the tablet and call a couple of buddies to enjoy a beverage and a cigar in the back yard to talk about family, sports, current events and of course, watches. To me, that's living not having my face looking at a device the majority of the day. Just my two cents.....


----------



## zetaplus93

Mr.V1984 said:


> Realistically, doesn't the Ipod, Iphone, Ipad and now Apple Watch for the most part all do the same thing?


Another way to think about this is that, doesn't the pocket watch do what the wristwatch does? And yet, pocket watches became a niche and the wristwatch dominates decades after.

The same can be said for all these electronic gadgets. There's likely to be a market for wristworn computers, *provided* there's a tangible benefit to it. If what smartwatches provide is only novel and gimmicky, these will disapear in 2-3 years.

The ultimate test for whether a product is useful (in whatever dimension is applicable to the user) is if it sells, and continues to sell, for years and years. Mechanical and luxury watches survived the Quartz crisis because it homed in on several raison d'être, one of which is its simple beauty in its all mechanical masterpiece. It's a thing to admire, to show off your wealth or sense of fashion, to gift to those you care or love, etc etc.

The Apple Watch (and other products like it) will go through the same tests. Look beyond the tech features like screen size and battery life. Look for benefits, especially ones that changes the behavior of people, that may be extremely valuable to the youngsters of today. Will it be a new way to be part of the cool crowd at school? Will it be a way to flirt with others? Will it make you be more mindful of how much physical activity you're doing, and perhaps help push you to be more fit as a result? There are a million things that this wrist-sized computer can potentially do. It's an exciting time to see where this will take us.


----------



## zetaplus93

mannal said:


> Why would I wear a watch that can't run for a full day? I could buy a third-party battery-pack watch-band but I don't have the same requirement for any of my other watches.


Remember when the iPhone came out, and it was ridiculed for its 1-2 day battery life vs the industry norm for 3-5 days with feature phones like the Razr and others from Nokia?

People put up with the short iPhone battery life because they got enough value to justify going through the hassle of recharging everyday.

So daily recharging of the watch won't be a dealbreaker if it provides enough value to justify the hassles.


----------



## BarracksSi

Mr.V1984 said:


> Do individuals need to be that connected to a device all the time? I understand that some might but personally speaking, I don't.


Call it unfortunate, but I'm expected to be that connected all the time. I didn't find out for sure about today's work schedule until an email was sent out yesterday morning. I've also had to go out at 3 AM to pick up one of my junior guys who was found wandering around in a drunken stupor.

In the past, I could probably have gotten away with only a land line. But, since the early 2000's, we've all gotten cell phones, and the transition to smartphones really took off about six or seven years ago.

Maybe, in the future, I could get away with not having the phone on me all the time. That's not gonna happen for a while, though.


----------



## valmak

OSUMBA2003 said:


> I find the entire premise of this thread to be absurd.
> 
> And OP...don't represent your opinions as facts.


They're not opinions, they're predictions. Get over it.


----------



## AAMC

Okapi001 said:


> Not really, because both products compete for the same limited real estate on your wrist.


OK. Didn't know that once you put on a AW you can't ever unstrapped it from you wrist ever

Polo shirts killed the t-shirts market or it was the other way around? Or it was bottom shirts?

I'm not wearing sneakers since they invented British made shows...oh no wait! I'm not wearing boots anymore because someone invented sneakers.

For real, does any one believe that the AW will kill the swiss watch industry? Even at a lower end...does anyone believe that a girl dressing for a night out will wear the AW or a purse/clothes matching designer brand quartz watch?
Some guy that made an effort to buy a Longines or even and Hamilton really wanted to buy it due to several reasons, he might add an AW but not as a replacement.


----------



## Okapi001

AAMC said:


> OK. Didn't know that once you put on a AW you can't ever unstrapped it from you wrist ever
> 
> Polo shirts killed the t-shirts market or it was the other way around? Or it was bottom shirts?
> 
> I'm not wearing sneakers since they invented British made shows...oh no wait! I'm not wearing boots anymore because someone invented sneakers.
> 
> For real, does any one believe that the AW will kill the swiss watch industry? Even at a lower end...does anyone believe that a girl dressing for a night out will wear the AW or a purse/clothes matching designer brand quartz watch?
> Some guy that made an effort to buy a Longines or even and Hamilton really wanted to buy it due to several reasons, he might add an AW but not as a replacement.


Unlike shoes or shirts most people have only one watch. And with smart watches you will want to buy a new one every 2-4 years, like we are buying new phones every couple of years. Smart and Swiss made mechanical watches not only compete for the same wrist, but also for the same part of the person's budget. More money for smart watches means less money for "dumb" watches. Swiss (and Japan) watch industry will survive, for sure, like it survived quartz crisis, but not intact. There will be victims of the smartwatch revolution.


----------



## AAMC

Okapi001 said:


> Unlike shoes or shirts most people have only one watch. And with smart watches you will want to buy a new one every 2-4 years, like we are buying new phones every couple of years. Smart and Swiss made mechanical watches not only compete for the same wrist, but also for the same part of the person's budget. More money for smart watches means less money for "dumb" watches. Swiss (and Japan) watch industry will survive, for sure, like it survived quartz crisis, but not intact. There will be victims of the smartwatch revolution.


Maybe, problem is that who spends money on "dumb" watches do that for a reason other than telling time...mainly for showing it's personality, fashion, status, wealth display, mechanical/history allure....basically a range of criteria that the AW may not fulfill.

I don't know if the "most people have only one watch" is true for the majority of people buying swiss watches from Tissot's range and above but even if it's true, they will still have one watch and several versions (every 2/4 years) of a gadget to wear on the wrist.


----------



## zetaplus93

AAMC said:


> Maybe, problem is that who spends money on "dumb" watches do that for a reason other than telling time...mainly for showing it's personality, fashion, status, wealth display, mechanical/history allure....basically a range of criteria that the AW may not fulfill.


The reverse is also true. Luxury watches will not fill many roles that the AW and similar products provide.

And the problem is that young people will be able to purchase the AW earlier in their lives than luxury watches.



AAMC said:


> I don't know if the "most people have only one watch" is true for the majority of people buying swiss watches from Tissot's range and above but even if it's true, they will still have one watch and several versions (every 2/4 years) of a gadget to wear on the wrist.


Consider, though, the college grad who finishes school, gets their AW, and sticks with it going forward (replacing as necessary).

As their disposable income increases, will they find luxury watches attractive enough to buy even though it won't fill in the roles of the AW (with the accompanying capabilities)?


----------



## AAMC

zetaplus93 said:


> The reverse is also true. Luxury watches will not fill many roles that the AW and similar products provide.
> 
> And the problem is that young people will be able to purchase the AW earlier in their lives than luxury watches.
> 
> But then what happens when the college grad finishes school, gets their AW, and sticks with it going forward (replacing as necessary)?
> 
> As their disposable income increases, will they find luxury watches attractive enough to buy even though it won't fill in the roles of the AW (with the accompanying capabilities)?


Yes, very true luxury watches can't replace the AW, the former it's pretty much a niche product.

Let's just not forget that the hysterical pre-orders and AW early adopters as nothing to do with the capabilities of the device but the effect of exclusivity regarding having Apple's last gadget. After that phase what part of the market will stick to the product based on it's capabilities? 
And if the "adults" market starts perceiving the AW as a college grads product? 
And if the style/fashion/trendy market starts perceiving it as a nerd thing?

I telling you, if after 2 years the high visibility "trend setters", like music artists, actors, athletes, etc stopped using the AW there's a huge part of the market that will follow them.

The big question here is that if the AW features will be perceived as essential vs a smart phone when the Apple's latest gadget allure fade


----------



## zetaplus93

AAMC said:


> I telling you, if after 2 years the high visibility "trend setters", like music artists, actors, athletes, etc stopped using the AW there's a huge part of the market that will follow them.
> 
> The big question here is that if the AW features will be perceived as essential vs a smart phone when the Apple's latest gadget allure fade


Certainly, your points make sense. Let's see if the AW sticks or not.

One thing though. The watch may not replace it, but rather supplement it. The iPad didn't replace the laptop, nor the iPhone replace the iPad. The amount of time spent on each, though, may change as new devices are introduced. Personally, I use the iPad more than the iPad at home because it's better than the desktop at certain tasks. The watch may be used when it's a better option vs the iPhone.


----------



## AAMC

zetaplus93 said:


> Certainly, your points make sense. Let's see if the AW sticks or not.
> 
> One thing though. The watch may not replace it, but rather supplement it. The iPad didn't replace the laptop, nor the iPhone replace the iPad. The amount of time spent on each, though, may change as new devices are introduced. Personally, I use the iPad more than the iPad at home because it's better than the desktop at certain tasks. The watch may be used when it's a better option vs the iPhone.


Will see but there's one thing, the watch will not replace the iPhone ever because it has to be paired with it? Right?


----------



## zetaplus93

AAMC said:


> Will see but there's one thing, the watch will not replace the iPhone ever because it has to be paired with it? Right?


It could have its own cellular connection in the future. They'd have to deal with power consumption though.

But assuming that's possible, will a standalone watch replace the iPhone?

I don't think so because of the lack of a bigger screen, camera, etc. The iPhone is a better camera, quicker way to read and write on the forums, etc. But then, the watch may be better at tracking the stock market, checking the weather, being notified of things, etc.

If they do different thing, then they won't really replace one another. But we may continue to use the phone less and less going forward, relying on the watch since it's more convenient.


----------



## OSUMBA2003

valmak said:


> They're not opinions, they're predictions. Get over it.


I suggest you re-read your original post and see how many claims of absolute truth you made.

You make some pretty outrageous claims, using absolute terms like "it's the truth," "is," "will" and "it's going to happen." If you were making a prediction, you would be using softer, less absolute terms like "may," "could" or "I believe."

The fact of the matter is that the smart watch and luxury watches are in completely different markets. They are not direct competitors. Smart watches may compete with affordable digitals (Tissot T-Touch, Suunto, Garmin, and the already existing smart watches) but will not affect luxury mechanicals. I don't think anyone is going to decide between an Apple and an Omega. They are at different price points, serve different purposes, and are purchased for very different reasons. One is not a substitute for the other. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

A new $25K Honda will not cannibalize the market for $200K Ferraris.
A new $2 hamburger at McDonalad's isn't going to cannibalize the market for $40 filet mignon.
A $600 digital watch isn't going to cannibalize the market for a $8K Rolex.


----------



## shnjb

It seems rather inevitable that the AW will disrupt low end of the market.

High end may not compete with the AW but like others have said, the sales and attractiveness may decline.

Once wearables such as AW become indispensable the way the smartphones are (AW is currently a totally dispensable gadget), then it may actually hurt the high end market directly because the buyers can only wear one watch.

However, I think the most likely route is that in 3-7 years, we will see wearables evolve to different form factors as internet of things become more common and embedded in many things around us.
As long as the watch form factor is not the final dominant form factor, there will be room for high end watches, since AW in the future may evolve to allow using it with other watches.


----------



## valmak

Apple watch has its own forum one day after being released... so what were all you haters saying?


----------



## lorsban

valmak said:


> Apple watch has its own forum one day after being released... so what were all you haters saying?


You should've started this topic there instead of here.


----------



## G. I.

valmak said:


> Apple watch has its own forum one day after being released... so what were all you haters saying?


How old are you? 12? LOL


----------



## Robotaz

G. I. said:


> How old are you? 12? LOL


I think that quote should go down as an example of what a fanboy might say in the dictionary.


----------



## Morrisdog

shnjb said:


> It seems rather inevitable that the AW will disrupt low end of the market.
> 
> High end may not compete with the AW but like others have said, the sales and attractiveness may decline.
> 
> Once wearables such as AW become indispensable the way the smartphones are (AW is currently a totally dispensable gadget), then it may actually hurt the high end market directly because the buyers can only wear one watch.
> 
> However, I think the most likely route is that in 3-7 years, we will see wearables evolve to different form factors as internet of things become more common and embedded in many things around us.
> As long as the watch form factor is not the final dominant form factor, there will be room for high end watches, since AW in the future may evolve to allow using it with other watches.


An important point is made here.. We can only wear one watch and if the apple watch in someway becomes indispensable in everyday life then all mechanicals will be threatened.

The way I see this might happen is if phones or watches replace credit cards as a methods of payment. Imagine waving your watch over a scanner / reader for all purchases, train tickets, hospital admissions etc.

However the iwatch will not essentially be able to do anything more than the phone so there is always the option for people to use their phones for these transactions and still wear their mechanical watch.. But it will be more convenient to use the watch and may herald the slow change.


----------



## valmak

lorsban said:


> You should've started this topic there instead of here.


what???



G. I. said:


> How old are you? 12? LOL


the best you can do is call me names because I was right and you were wrong? who's the child?



Robotaz said:


> I think that quote should go down as an example of what a fanboy might say in the dictionary.


actually i'm just a watch lover that knows a great watch when he sees it. nice try though!


----------



## lorsban

valmak said:


> what???


You're better off posting Apple-centric questions at apple forums like the one you mentioned. Or even a generic smartwatch forum. Just make sure it's not an ANDROID forum (they're not too receptive of Apple-bias either lol)

We're mostly mechanical watch fans here.


----------



## BarracksSi

Morrisdog said:


> An important point is made here.. We can only wear one watch and if the apple watch in someway becomes indispensable in everyday life then all mechanicals will be threatened.


Certainly. Using only myself as an example:

Let's say I was planning to purchase a couple Omegas in the near future, like an AT for everyday/dressy and the Speedy Pro for free time and weekends.

A big part of my decision, as you might guess, is based on what roles they would play. I wouldn't use the Speedy every day because it doesn't have a date, and I don't see the AT dressing down as much as I would like. Heck, I might choose the new SM300 over the Speedy here, too.

Now, throw the Apple Watch into my plans. I could splurge and get the bracelet for everyday, the leather buckle strap for dressier times, and the sport band for weekends/workouts. I could even just leave the sport band in my gym bag and swap it onto the watch in the locker room; that'd be pretty cool, right? By this time next year, too, I'll bet that even the family-owned corner store will have the new credit card machines that'll run NFC.

Next, let's say that the Apple Watch becomes as indispensable as its most ardent fans say.

What role is left for those Omegas? Well, _possibly_, there's space for the SM300/Speedy, maybe for those times that I want to disconnect from the rest of the world as much as possible. That'd mainly be for vacations and, honestly, not many other times; for better or worse, my job expects me to be accessible as often as humanly (or technologically) possible. What about the AT? It'd end up sitting in a box, and because I don't like to spend that much money on something I don't use, I probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

In my own little universe, then, a big brand like Omega would only sell me half, or probably less, than it would have otherwise.

If the whole smartwatch thing takes off, you could extrapolate that to a lot of people (not just the hoarders... I mean, collectors who have a bunch of watches). Are all the watch brands ready for their revenues to be cut by half?


----------



## G. I.

valmak said:


> the best you can do is call me names because I was right and you were wrong? who's the child?


You're right and I was wrong about what? There was a debate whether there will be a separated Apple forum here or not? I can't recall it. So once again how old are you? 13? (I'm very generous here.)


----------



## dawiz

mvmt said:


> Anything that gets younger people thinking about watches again will be good for Switzerland in the long term, no question about it.


I was just going to say the same thing: most of my students don't even own a watch. With the target market clearly being the younger buyers, there really isn't anything to cannibalize here - they're selling the Apple Watch to an audience that wouldn't otherwise buy a time piece anyway.


----------



## shnjb

dawiz said:


> I was just going to say the same thing: most of my students don't even own a watch. With the target market clearly being the younger buyers, there really isn't anything to cannibalize here - they're selling the Apple Watch to an audience that wouldn't otherwise buy a time piece anyway.


I don't think so.

There is this popular thought that the Apple Watch will be the gateway watch to luxury timepieces but the reality is that there is only room for a few watches in a man's wardrobe (except for hoarders... I mean collectors) and if and when the Apple Watch becomes as indispensable as the smart phone, it will be difficult for any man to justify purchasing too many watches for those "special occasions."

Another possibility is that the Apple watch is one of many form factors that will be available and future form factors for wearables will allow for a traditional timepiece.
That's certainly possible and as a watch lover I hope this happens, but the wrist is a pretty natural place to wear something for humans so im not so sure.


----------



## valmak

OK


----------



## denmanproject




----------



## lorsban

dawiz said:


> I was just going to say the same thing: most of my students don't even own a watch. With the target market clearly being the younger buyers, there really isn't anything to cannibalize here - they're selling the Apple Watch to an audience that wouldn't otherwise buy a time piece anyway.


I agree.

Different market.

So, the only groups the iwatch will affect will really just be Swatch, sports watch guys like Garmin, non-Gshock digitals.

But again, this is only for EXISTING iPhone users. iOS users worldwide are only about 18% compared to Android's 83%.

Casio already has GShocks/Edifice with bluetooth to smartphone pairing. Swatch/Garmin could also pair up with Android like what Tag Heuer is doing and make their own.


----------



## lorsban

The main difference between mechanical watch fans and smartwatch fans is this:

Smartwatch fans are essentially gear heads or gadget guys. Gadget guys want cutting edge. So upgrading is part of the game. Once version 2 comes out, the gadget guy will want that. 

Mechanical watch fans are the exact opposite. We want timelessness and longevity. We're looking for watches that we'll keep forever. 

So, there really is no competition here. The markets are in opposite ends of the spectrum.


----------



## MrDagon007

I agree that smarwatches and mechanical watches will likely live peacefully together. But most watches being sold are quartz watches, and their future looks oretty grim in my opinion.


----------



## lorsban

MrDagon007 said:


> I agree that smarwatches and mechanical watches will likely live peacefully together. But most watches being sold are quartz watches, and their future looks oretty grim in my opinion.


I don't think it will be that bad.

They'll just make their own. Casio has a few watches out already. There's a Gshock out and I like this one for sure:










Matter of time before everybody else follows suit.


----------



## secfincorp

Well i just stumbled on this post and wish I found it sooner. Sorry if this has been mentioned before but my God do we need another thing to take away our attention from maybe, communicating with people face to face or maybe like driving down the road....... I know it wont be, but i hope this is a short lived fad. Not to mention is it just me or does anyone care how amazing it is that a mechanical watch can keep time the way it does and how some movements are technical marvels. Not to mention dont we already have a phone..... And quite frankly I dont need a computer telling me how many steps i took today...


----------



## dawiz

secfincorp said:


> Well i just stumbled on this post and wish I found it sooner. Sorry if this has been mentioned before but my God do we need another thing to take away our attention from maybe, communicating with people face to face or maybe like driving down the road....... I know it wont be, but i hope this is a short lived fad. Not to mention is it just me or does anyone care how amazing it is that a mechanical watch can keep time the way it does and how some movements are technical marvels. Not to mention dont we already have a phone..... And quite frankly I dont need a computer telling me how many steps i took today...


It's definitely not a fad, but I won't be getting one for the same reasons as you. I had a Moto 360 and found it to be highly distracting - ended up selling both the "watch" and the android phone (because Google was getting too creepy for my taste).


----------



## lorsban

dawiz said:


> It's definitely not a fad, but I won't be getting one for the same reasons as you. I had a Moto 360 and found it to be highly distracting - ended up selling both the "watch" and the android phone (because Google was getting too creepy for my taste).


Yeah not a fad. It's just really really early to tell at this point. Functions, screen, battery tech still aren't up to par.


----------



## dawiz

lorsban said:


> Yeah not a fad. It's just really really early to tell at this point. Functions, screen, battery tech still aren't up to par.


True, version 1 is for enthusiasts and fashionistas. It'll take years until a version is developed, that can fulfill demands in terms of battery life etc.


----------



## Morrisdog

dawiz said:


> It's definitely not a fad, but I won't be getting one for the same reasons as you. I had a Moto 360 and found it to be highly distracting - ended up selling both the "watch" and the android phone (because Google was getting too creepy for my taste).


I agree.. Google is definately getting a bit creepy. I still have an android phone but will change when this one dies.

The main thing that goes against the apple watch is its cost.. Quite pricey for the average joe. You also need to factor in the cost of the iphone which is allready 2 to 3 times the cost of a basic android smart phone.


----------



## Thirdgenbird

Morrisdog said:


> I agree.. Google is definately getting a bit creepy. I still have an android phone but will change when this one dies.
> 
> The main thing that goes against the apple watch is its cost.. Quite pricey for the average joe. You also need to factor in the cost of the iphone which is allready 2 to 3 times the cost of a basic android smart phone.


Here in the U.S. at least, resale is much better on iPhones.

I paid $100 for my 4s in contract and got $150 in trade. My 5s was $100 in contract and I got 140 trade.

the Galaxy I had before that was $200 and I got something like $30 in trade. All of my wife's android phones have had no trade value after 2 years. Over 6 years, we spent considerably less money on my phones than we did her androids. She has since switched.

Condition was similar on all devices. Others may have different experiences


----------



## EnderW

Just read this on WSJ
Apple Watch: Faulty Taptic Engine Slows Roll Out - WSJ
same article on marketwatch (WSJ requires subscription) - Faulty taptic engine slows Apple Watch roll out - MarketWatch
Looks like problems in some batches w taptic engine (creates tap sensation on the wrist). Apple is moving production of that component from Chinese to Japanese supplier.

Also read earlier on how wrist tatoos can interfere w Apple iWatch ability to sense pulse.

Neither is a major issue, but they are demonstrative of new technology and concerns that early adopters have to deal with. I suspect more issues will come out - hopefully addressable w software patches. Regardless, Swiss don't have much to worry about here.


----------



## lorsban

EnderW said:


> Just read this on WSJ
> Apple Watch: Faulty Taptic Engine Slows Roll Out - WSJ
> same article on marketwatch (WSJ requires subscription) - Faulty taptic engine slows Apple Watch roll out - MarketWatch
> Looks like problems in some batches w taptic engine (creates tap sensation on the wrist). Apple is moving production of that component from Chinese to Japanese supplier.
> 
> Also read earlier on how wrist tatoos can interfere w Apple iWatch ability to sense pulse.
> 
> Neither is a major issue, but they are demonstrative of new technology and concerns that early adopters have to deal with. I suspect more issues will come out - hopefully addressable w software patches. Regardless, Swiss don't have much to worry about here.


Version 1 always has bugs and it's tougher for Apple because they outsource every part.

Another problem for them is they're still on Version 1 while Samsung is on 3rd or 4th gen, LG/Sony are 2nd or 3rd. And these guys make most of the parts themselves. So it's a lot easier to make changes.

Won't make a difference tho. Apple users have no choice but to buy what Apple sells them. So it'll sell no matter what bugs or issues it has.


----------



## rationaltime

EnderW said:


> ...
> Looks like problems in some batches w taptic engine (creates tap sensation on the wrist). Apple is moving production of that component from Chinese to Japanese supplier.


It appears Apple addressed that issue prior to selling the first watches.



EnderW said:


> Also read earlier on how wrist tatoos can interfere w Apple iWatch ability to sense pulse.
> 
> Neither is a major issue, but they are demonstrative of new technology and concerns that early adopters have to deal with. I suspect more issues will come out - hopefully addressable w software patches. ...


I definitely do not consider that to be a bug.

Though we might expect some start up issues, in my opinion we are waiting
for a real issue other than availability issue to be reported. I will be reading
the reviews here to see what the users report.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## watch-newbie

I doubt that the swiss watch makers, especially the luxury brands have anything to worry about. But Casio/citizen/seiko and other digital watch companies had better be on their toes I think. 

What I like from my citizens and casio pathfinders is atomic time keeping, the ABC functions, and the solar abilities. If the tech ever gets to the point where an apple watch could partially keep going on solar, if they made them modular (I shouldn't have to toss the watch for ever product cycle, make it so you can just upgrade the guts and the screen) and added a radio controlled function/ABC I would abandon my casio as my daily driver in favour of an apple watch. IMHO alot of the folks who buy into the solar/atomic/ABC watches are gadget geeks who likely love their iphones, IMHO that market has the most to fear from apple. 

If an apple watch could be made to do those things, and if I knew I could just take it into the apple store once every four years and upgrade the guts and maybe the screen and not have to trashcan the whole thing then I would adopt it.


----------



## rationaltime

This is my opinion.

The solar powered and generator (Kinetic) powered watches can exist because
the watch companies worked hard to reduce the power draw of their movements.
Those Eco-Drive watches get light through the dials. The display on an Apple
Watch can't pass visible light through to a solar cell. Nor could a solar cell be
transparent to the light from the display. The Apple Watch draws at least 100x
more power on average than the Eco-Drive. I guess some display area could be
cut out to make space for a solar cell, but it would not be enough. Perhaps it
would be possible to charge the Apple Watch, but it would have to be in the 
sun most of the time. It seems impractical for this generation technology.
I guess customers will prefer more features over longer battery life. Those
features will likely draw even more power until technology catches up. I would
not be expecting solar powered soon.

The cellular base stations need to keep accurate time and frequency for 
synchronization and network communications. The time and frequency are 
distributed on the network and by the GPS system. The base stations pass 
the time to the cell phones. The cell phone can pass the time to the smart
watch. While the phone is polling the network the smart watch should be
able to have the time at least as accurate as broadcast time. For people
beyond the range of broadcast time signals this is a big improvement.

You can read the Apple Watch tear down reports. It seems unlikely the 
hardware can be upgraded. Perhaps the code that runs on the Apple
Watch can be revised and passed down through the iPhone. It seems
like that is how it works, but I don't know for sure.


Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## watch-newbie

Yeah, I know the technology that would allow a smart watch to run on solar power simply does not exist yet. As of today, a $400+ watch that will go obsolete in two years that will run out of power in 12 hours time is just a no go on so many levels.


----------



## lorsban

watch-newbie said:


> Yeah, I know the technology that would allow a smart watch to run on solar power simply does not exist yet. As of today, a $400+ watch that will go obsolete in two years that will run out of power in 12 hours time is just a no go on so many levels.


Exactly this.

That's why early adopters are mostly gadget guys. They're used to the nightly charging routine with the usual mid-day wall socket top up. Haha


----------



## valmak

lorsban said:


> Exactly this.
> 
> That's why early adopters are mostly gadget guys. They're used to the nightly charging routine with the usual mid-day wall socket top up. Haha


The nightly charging is really not a big deal at all. I have my charger flat on my dresser. I just lay down my watch on top of it at the end of the day. It's the same routine as when I had mechanicals.


----------



## MrDagon007

watch-newbie said:


> Yeah, I know the technology that would allow a smart watch to run on solar power simply does not exist yet. As of today, a $400+ watch that will go obsolete in two years that will run out of power in 12 hours time is just a no go on so many levels.


It seems that usually it will last for 18 hours or so, of course initially people will keep on playing with it which will stress the battery more.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> That's why early adopters are mostly gadget guys. They're used to the nightly charging routine with the usual mid-day wall socket top up. Haha


Apple seems to be doing something different in this case. The AW has been heavily advertised in fashion magazines like Vogue, and I doubt gadget guys are reading Vogue:

http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2015/2/27/apples-initial-watch-ad-in-vogue-is-nearly-perfect


----------



## zetaplus93

rationaltime said:


> I guess customers will prefer more features over longer battery life. Those features will likely draw even more power until technology catches up. I would not be expecting solar powered soon.


I agree. If you look at Apple's focus on new versions of the iPhone, MacBook, and iPad, you'll notice they try to get the hardware as slim and light as possible before they try to improve battery life.

Solar power doesn't strike me as very feasible. In the winter time, or when dressed in a long sleeve shirt (at work etc), it wouldn't charge. Also, the power consumption of a microprocessor would likely require so much charge that solar power wouldn't add enough benefits to offset the pain of putting solar power on a watch.

My guess is that gen 2 & 3 would likely focus on building slimmer and lighter watches (plus loads of accessories, i.e. new bands) plus expanded features (in the software and possibly new sensors in the hardware for fitness uses) while battery life is where it's at today (i.e. charge it every night). We also will likely see new designs on the exterior of the watch.


----------



## watch-newbie

One day it might be feasible for a solar apple watch. It isn't today though. And charging is no big, unless I'm on the road and forget my charger. I've got like 5 for my iPhone because I get on the road and realize I have no charger and have to buy another. If I did that today with an apple watch I'd have to buy two chargers. 

Its a beat toy but not for me at the juncture. Maybe I'll buy a used one in two years and see how I like it.


----------



## seacow2001

Just my 2 cents,

I think that it would be very good for the watch industry. The apple watch will get people interested in watches, and they will yearn for an automatic if not a quality automatic once people start to dive into it more. I know that most of my friends (thanks to me) are wearing automatics and at this point have no interested in apple watch. While that might change, I feel that the apple watch will not supplant automatic watches especially if they are from quality manufacturer such as rolex, JLC, the big 3 and ALS, etc.


----------



## dirtvictim

Thirdgenbird said:


> Switzerland doesn't need to to worry. The normal swiss mechanical watch buyer isn't looking for the best value and they are not looking for the most features.
> 
> It's the $250-600 digital watch/GPS tracker market that needs to worry. The apple watch is pretty compelling next to a citizen Skyhawk, garmin, timex GPS, or polar.


except the iwatch doesn't compete in the level of water resistance of most others by a long shot so it will not be practical
for true sports use.


----------



## jbg7474

I hear people say that this will be obsolete in two years, but I really don't think that is going to be the case. The screen is already retina, so they are not going to make the screen resolution any higher. That has been a big driver for processing power in smartphones. And the screen is really small, so it is not going to lend itself to processor hungry applications. Future generations will come, and perhaps battery life or external design may change, but I really expect this thing to still be running current software for the next 5, maybe 10 years. It's going to be a lot more like the Apple TV refresh cycle than the iPhone refresh cycle. I'm looking forward to a used Apple Watch about this time next year.


----------



## Thirdgenbird

dirtvictim said:


> except the iwatch doesn't compete in the level of water resistance of most others by a long shot so it will not be practical
> for true sports use.


Not practical for water sports but plenty fine for running, cycling and gym workouts. Ipx7 is plenty good for sweat, rain, water splashes and cleaning.


----------



## BarracksSi

jbg7474 said:


> I hear people say that this will be obsolete in two years, but I really don't think that is going to be the case. [snip]...


I've been thinking the same thing, and for the same reasons you mentioned. I've also said before that because the AW only has two radios, (Bluetooth and wifi) it doesn't need to be updated to keep up with cellular data standards.

Also, because it uses a magnetic puck for charging, it is basically power-agnostic. It doesn't matter what the other end of the cable is plugged into, really, just as long as the socket fits. This is unlike the early iPods that only ran on FireWire and could not be synced or charged via USB. (plus, the inductive charging surely saves space and avoids yet another water/sweat entry point)

The only major upgrade left, IMO, would be battery technology that allows faster charging, more capacity, and longer lifespan, and that's still years away.


----------



## dirtvictim

Do not call the AW a watch, there is no comparison between the AC Apple Communicator electronic device and a Timepiece. A Timepiece is a micro mechanical device comprised of a hundred and even more micro sized gears, screws, springs, plates and various other parts all interfacing in a precision matched configuration to afford a fine level of timekeeping. There is nothing electronic that can compare to all these finely crafted parts of which can be as small or smaller than the tip of a pencil. Finer watches have these parts made by a human hand and yet still produce very accurate timekeeping, this is the pinnacle of watchmaking and nothing will ever replace that, don't even kid yourselves, people wait years to have one made for them by top watchmakers. Even the most rudimentary mechanical watches keep good time and use micro machinery as with any mechanical watch and even quartz watches use some of these micro parts for their clock works. Nothing will ever replace the mechanical timepiece that adorns my wrist aside from another one from my collection. Watchmaking technology as we know it for the most part has been in use for hundreds of years and even today those early timepieces have been repaired and made to work again by skilled watchmakers hands, that will not be the case with the AC mainly because it is by all standards a replace parts or trash it electronic device, I highly doubt anyone will be able to repair the micro connections inside the modules nor would it be cost effective to attempt. As long as it's tethered and not a stand alone device it is in my opinion worthless. AC you call yourself a watch well hundreds of years of watchmakers may disagree, You are simply an electronic device, a "communicator" and you are not doing that very well, I will admit your technology is viable but not perfected so call me when you are a stand alone phone with a high level of water resistance and extended battery life so I can use you as a smaller version of the I5 in my pocket where you belong and no you're not a pocket watch either.


----------



## Chibatastic

dirtvictim said:


> so call me when you are a stand alone phone with a high level of water resistance and extended battery life so I can use you as a smaller version of the I5 in my pocket where you belong and no you're not a pocket watch either.


This is probably not that far off.. I think Apple is off to a great start on their first generation. Revisit this post in 5 years then again in 10.

Chibatastic


----------



## valmak

Well it looks like the people at IWC are worried: News and Events | IWC Schaffhausen Announces IWC Connect | IWC


----------



## dirtvictim

valmak said:


> Well it looks like the people at IWC are worried: News and Events | IWC Schaffhausen Announces IWC Connect | IWC


looks like they are on the right track incorporate the best of both worlds. Now that might work.
*Schaffhausen, 5 May 2015 - Continuing the company's long tradition of engineering innovation, Swiss luxury watch manufacturer IWCSchaffhausen is announcing the launch of a new device: IWC Connect. This intelligent tool, which will be embedded in the straps of mechanical timepieces from IWC, is designed to give wearers control over certain devices connected to the Internet of Things (IoT) and provide fully fledged activity tracking. The idea behind this new innovation is to enable owners of IWC timepieces to control their connected environment directly from the wrist while also maintaining the integrity of a handcrafted mechanical. *


----------



## valmak

dirtvictim said:


> looks like they are on the right track incorporate the best of both worlds. Now that might work.
> *Schaffhausen, 5 May 2015 - Continuing the company's long tradition of engineering innovation, Swiss luxury watch manufacturer IWCSchaffhausen is announcing the launch of a new device: IWC Connect. This intelligent tool, which will be embedded in the straps of mechanical timepieces from IWC, is designed to give wearers control over certain devices connected to the Internet of Things (IoT) and provide fully fledged activity tracking. The idea behind this new innovation is to enable owners of IWC timepieces to control their connected environment directly from the wrist while also maintaining the integrity of a handcrafted mechanical. *


it's an interesting idea and possibly has some potential but just comes off as really desperate.


----------



## lorsban

dirtvictim said:


> looks like they are on the right track incorporate the best of both worlds. Now that might work.
> *Schaffhausen, 5 May 2015 - Continuing the company's long tradition of engineering innovation, Swiss luxury watch manufacturer IWCSchaffhausen is announcing the launch of a new device: IWC Connect. This intelligent tool, which will be embedded in the straps of mechanical timepieces from IWC, is designed to give wearers control over certain devices connected to the Internet of Things (IoT) and provide fully fledged activity tracking. The idea behind this new innovation is to enable owners of IWC timepieces to control their connected environment directly from the wrist while also maintaining the integrity of a handcrafted mechanical. *


Good move! Gets their feet wet with connectivity.

Montblanc was 1st tho: http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/03/heres-a-closer-look-at-the-montblanc-smart-band-for-fancy-watches/

I still credit Tissot as being the 1st to embrace multifunctionality with traditional watch design with their T-Touch tho. So I see them joining in soon.


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> The only major upgrade left, IMO, would be battery technology that allows faster charging, more capacity, and longer lifespan, and that's still years away.


There's also a potential for more health related sensors to be incorporated. Of course, faster hardware could be helpful as he software advances to make he user experience snappy and top notch.

A slimmer case would also not be a bad thing. The current side profile reminds me of the first iPhone whenever I glance down at it...


----------



## zetaplus93

dirtvictim said:


> Do not call the AW a watch, there is no comparison between the AC Apple Communicator electronic device and a Timepiece


Keep in mind that the definition of words are defined by the majority of people who use it. Just as the definition of a phone has changed in the past few decades (i.e. When you say phone, no one thinks about what are today called rotary phones), if the AW and other similar products become a hit, the definition of a watch may also change.


----------



## zetaplus93

Chibatastic said:


> This is probably not that far off.. I think Apple is off to a great start on their first generation. Revisit this post in 5 years then again in 10.
> 
> Chibatastic


Somehow I don't think the AW will replace the iPhone. Look at all of Apple's products. Aside from the iPod, people continue to use a range of products together, from laptops to iPhones to iPads. The iPhone hasn't replaced the laptop (even though it's becoming ever more powerful). But certainly, using the iPhone and iPads may reduce the amount of time spent on laptops. The same may be true of the AW (in that it reduces the use of the iPhone). I'm seeing that happen to me.

Each of these serve a vital part of our lives, if one so chooses.


----------



## lorsban

valmak said:


> The nightly charging is really not a big deal at all. I have my charger flat on my dresser. I just lay down my watch on top of it at the end of the day. It's the same routine as when I had mechanicals.


Like I said, you seem to be used to it.

It's fine if you mostly stay at home.

But it's just a weird thing to bring a charger for your watch on a trip, for example. It seems like another thing to forget or potentially lose abroad.

And 18 hours of battery is just enough to get you through a long flight BUT that means rushing to your nearest outlet to charge BOTH your phone and watch lol

But at least your phone lets you plug in one of those external batteries.

Companies should try getting their batteries to last at least 48 hours on a charge for them to gain more traction with watch purists.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> But it's just a weird thing to bring a charger for your watch on a trip, for example. It seems like another thing to forget or potentially lose abroad.
> 
> And 18 hours of battery is just enough to get you through a long flight BUT that means rushing to your nearest outlet to charge BOTH your phone and watch lol
> 
> But at least your phone lets you plug in one of those external batteries.


Agreed. I was just on a long cross continental flight and experienced this. I did bring a portable charger and the magnetic cable to make it through the 30 or so hour "day". For now this works reasonably well; I would really like it if the iPhone and AW both use the same chargers (but this likely won't happen because of technical issues).



lorsban said:


> Companies should try getting their batteries to last at least 48 hours on a charge for them to gain more traction with watch purists.


Well, for watch purists, I think everyone wants one week long batteries (or more)!

My guess is that the majority of consumers would be fine with 1.5 day batteries. Look at the iPhone; back in 2006, the average phones lasted 4-6 days. Nowadays, phones last 1-2 days. We got enough functionality out of it to justify the shorter battery life.


----------



## jbg7474

dirtvictim said:


> A Timepiece is a micro mechanical device comprised of a hundred and even more micro sized gears, screws, springs, plates and various other parts all interfacing in a precision matched configuration to afford a fine level of timekeeping. There is nothing electronic that can compare to all these finely crafted parts of which can be as small or smaller than the tip of a pencil.


Oh really? So all digital watches are not watches to you? That seems like kind of a ridiculous position to take in the smart watch forum.


----------



## dirtvictim

jbg7474 said:


> Oh really? So all digital watches are not watches to you? That seems like kind of a ridiculous position to take in the smart watch forum.


Not really the point here but they are just data processors and for the most part disposable, call it what you like but it will never be a timepiece and I hesitate to call it a watch. People call them a watch because they could never come up with a better term like wearable multifunction device, WMD. In the case of the newly renamed AC Apple Communicator well you can put lipstick on a pig.


----------



## Chibatastic

dirtvictim said:


> Not really the point here but they are just data processors and for the most part disposable, call it what you like but it will never be a timepiece and I hesitate to call it a watch. People call them a watch because they could never come up with a better term like wearable multifunction device, WMD. In the case of the newly renamed AC Apple Communicator well you can put lipstick on a pig.


Wow, a data prosessor? What an interesting point of view 

Since I just replied to your post over on the Omega forum I'll just copy and paste that here.



> Mechanical watch = watch
> Quartz watch = watch
> smart watch = watch
> 
> The definition of watch = N_oun - A small timepiece worn typically on a strap on one's wrist.
> 
> Simply put, of course it's a watch!
> 
> Chibatastic_


Additionally, your point on the apple watch never being a timepiece is just as much of a stretch.

*time·piece
**ˈtīmˌpēs/
noun - *an instrument, such as a clock or watch, for measuring time. 

The apple watch is a bloody timepiece because It tells time !! (within 50 milliseconds)

Look, I understand that there's a *huge* difference between the apple and a mechanical watch. I even get a bit of the pertinacious disapproval it's getting by some in the watch community. It's new, it's Apple, it seemingly threatens part of the watch industry. Similar to the way quartz "data processors" did back in the 80's. I just see no reason why we can't appreciate all of this as progress. The smart watch does so much more than even the most advanced digital watches have done in the past. I still love my mechanical watches but this new tech is exciting!

Chibitastic


----------



## dirtvictim

Chibatastic said:


> Wow, a data prosessor? What an interesting point of view
> 
> Since I just replied to your post over on the Omega forum I'll just copy and paste that here.
> 
> Additionally, your point on the apple watch never being a timepiece is just as much of a stretch.
> 
> *time·piece
> **ˈtīmˌpēs/
> noun - *an instrument, such as a clock or watch, for measuring time.
> 
> The apple watch is a bloody timepiece because It tells time !! (within 50 milliseconds)
> 
> Look, I understand that there's a *huge* difference between the apple and a mechanical watch. I even get a bit of the pertinacious disapproval it's getting by some in the watch community. It's new, it's Apple, it seemingly threatens part of the watch industry. Similar to the way quartz "data processors" did back in the 80's. I just see no reason why we can't appreciate all of this as progress. The smart watch does so much more than even the most advanced digital watches have done in the past. I still love my mechanical watches but this new tech is exciting!
> 
> Chibitastic


my phone displays time I can strap it to my wrist but that don't make it a wristwatch and definitely doesn't make it a timepiece. The AC is just a wannabe iPhone strapped to your wrist. You can strap a sundial to your wrist doesn't make it a, well if you don't get the point you never will. Just cause something has two wheels doesn't make it a motorcycle. And it's not new tech by a long shot if you want to be technical. Apple is good at marketing and getting consumers to double and triple pay for tech, that is what they are good at, if that's what you want to do then have at it. One last note:
Buying the AC Apple communicator is like buying a new car knowing the air doesn't work and the radio only works half the time but you hope someday they will fix it, and in the mean time you find out the only way you can drive it is by hauling a trailer with a spare engine that also has to stay running all the time. But you keep driving it anyway so you feel good about buying another one when they finally fix everything that's wrong.


----------



## Chibatastic

dirtvictim said:


> my phone displays time I can strap it to my wrist but that don't make it a wristwatch and definitely doesn't make it a timepiece. The AC is just a wannabe iPhone strapped to your wrist. You can strap a sundial to your wrist doesn't make it a, well if you don't get the point you never will. Just cause something has two wheels doesn't make it a motorcycle. And it's not new tech by a long shot if you want to be technical. Apple is good at marketing and getting consumers to double and triple pay for tech, that is what they are good at, if that's what you want to do then have at it. One last note:
> Buying the AC Apple communicator is like buying a new car knowing the air doesn't work and the radio only works half the time but you hope someday they will fix it, and in the mean time you find out the only way you can drive it is by hauling a trailer with a spare engine that also has to stay running all the time. But you keep driving it anyway so you feel good about buying another one when they finally fix everything that's wrong.


Dirtvictim, it seem you have a problems understanding actual defined words.

By definition your phone is in fact a timepiece. Strap it to your wrist if you feel the need, I think that's a bit weird but enjoy.
Now drawing parallels between the Apple watch not being a watch / a bicycle not being motorcycle is just ridiculous. At no point has anyone tried to pass a bicycle off as motorcycle. One has a motor while the other uses peddles and our own energy instead.

The Apple watch was released to the public on April 24th and is in fact new tech.

Your opinion is something you're entitled to but you can't argue against the definition of a word. The analogy you used makes no sense to me. It appears that your experience with your car is not universal. If I were to have a problem with a new car than I would make sure it would be fixed under warranty. The same goes with the AW. I won't make excuses, if it's not working it gets fixed or I get refunded. Having owned the watch since April 24th, I'm happy to report that it has worked as advertised and I quite enjoy it! A final note, you seem dead set against the apple watch and this is apparent in your multi cut and past campaign throughout various fora. Thats fine but I feel like this is getting to be disruptive here and would appreciate a little restraint.

Thanks,
Chibatastic


----------



## bigvatch

zetaplus93 said:


> Somehow I don't think the AW will replace the iPhone. Look at all of Apple's products. Aside from the iPod, people continue to use a range of products together, from laptops to iPhones to iPads. The iPhone hasn't replaced the laptop (even though it's becoming ever more powerful). But certainly, using the iPhone and iPads may reduce the amount of time spent on laptops. The same may be true of the AW (in that it reduces the use of the iPhone). I'm seeing that happen to me.
> 
> Each of these serve a vital part of our lives, if one so chooses.


Smartwatches are limited by what they can do, by their inherent size, in terms of processing power and screen size, battery size etc so they are marketed to be an accessory to a smartphone, a smartphone than can do everything the smartwatch can and more.


----------



## Thirdgenbird

dirtvictim said:


> except the iwatch doesn't compete in the level of water resistance of most others by a long shot so it will not be practical
> for true sports use.





dirtvictim said:


> Not really the point here but they are just data processors and for the most part disposable, call it what you like but it will never be a timepiece and I hesitate to call it a watch. People call them a watch because they could never come up with a better term like wearable multifunction device, WMD. In the case of the newly renamed AC Apple Communicator well you can put lipstick on a pig.


Speaking in absolutes for all people doesn't help your argument.

I have no interest in buying Apple Watch because it doesn't solve any problem or add any value to my life. That doesn't make it make it a bad product however.

Break it down and an Apple watch is:
Wrist worn
Redundant
Limited in functionality
a high margin luxury good
Irrational

Guess what? A mechanical watch is:
Wrist worn
Redundant
Limited in functionality
A high margin luxury good
Irrational

continung this trend of similarities, mechanical watches don't solve a problem in my life. They do add value however. The value is found in my appreciation for the mechanics and workmanship. While it isn't for me, I understand others value the tech side of smart watches.

Your water resistance comment is similar. The apple watch won't replace a watch in watersport applications but it's water resistance rating shouldn't hold it back from replacing sport watches and trackers for land based sports. You don't need 50m+ to run/bike/lift/stretch/climb/hike. My ipx7 rated garmin has survived plenty of sweat, rain and rinses.

Quartz... Again, a product I'm no longer interested in, but with only a few hours of use, most of society wouldn't know the difference between a mechanical watch and a Quartz watch. Given extended use, they will. Why? Because the quart watch won't stop if unworn/wound and it will keep better time. I would almost dare say a simple Quartz watch is the most pure timepiece out of the three. It's not a fabricated story, it's not a fashion accessory, a status symbol or a mechanical achievement. It's simply a device that tracks time with a high level of accuracy.

im thankful I am in a position to waste money on a few mechanical watches and I'm equally thankful I don't have to waste money on an apple watch. I know people that feel the opposite. More power to them.


----------



## shnjb

I say that unless it's a handmade watch with a custom movement with a rotor cut in fine metal, it's not a watch. It's just some garbage wrist wearable that emulate a real watch, like my Patek.


I'm of course kidding because I find these so called purists objections to the Apple watch getting hung up over semantics rather pathetic.


----------



## dirtvictim

Moderated.


----------



## dirtvictim

Thirdgenbird said:


> Speaking in absolutes for all people doesn't help your argument.
> 
> I have no interest in buying Apple Watch because it doesn't solve any problem or add any value to my life. That doesn't make it make it a bad product however.
> 
> Break it down and an Apple watch is:
> Wrist worn
> Redundant
> Limited in functionality
> a high margin luxury good
> Irrational
> 
> Guess what? A mechanical watch is:
> Wrist worn
> Redundant
> Limited in functionality
> A high margin luxury good
> Irrational
> 
> continung this trend of similarities, mechanical watches don't solve a problem in my life. They do add value however. The value is found in my appreciation for the mechanics and workmanship. While it isn't for me, I understand others value the tech side of smart watches.
> 
> Your water resistance comment is similar. The apple watch won't replace a watch in watersport applications but it's water resistance rating shouldn't hold it back from replacing sport watches and trackers for land based sports. You don't need 50m+ to run/bike/lift/stretch/climb/hike. My ipx7 rated garmin has survived plenty of sweat, rain and rinses.
> 
> Quartz... Again, a product I'm no longer interested in, but with only a few hours of use, most of society wouldn't know the difference between a mechanical watch and a Quartz watch. Given extended use, they will. Why? Because the quart watch won't stop if unworn/wound and it will keep better time. I would almost dare say a simple Quartz watch is the most pure timepiece out of the three. It's not a fabricated story, it's not a fashion accessory, a status symbol or a mechanical achievement. It's simply a device that tracks time with a high level of accuracy.
> 
> im thankful I am in a position to waste money on a few mechanical watches and I'm equally thankful I don't have to waste money on an apple watch. I know people that feel the opposite. More power to them.


Actually I am only speaking for myself absolutely.


----------



## Thirdgenbird

dirtvictim said:


> Actually I am only speaking for myself absolutely.


That's not how a statement like this comes across:



dirtvictim said:


> except the iwatch doesn't compete in the level of water resistance of most others by a long shot so it will not be practical
> for true sports use.


I currently use a competing device with the same water resistance rating in a true sports application. Many people do. It's totally practical. A higher water resistance rating would provide no further value for my applications. There are other products for divers, surfers and swimmers. I'm guessing they know what those devices are.


----------



## dirtvictim

Thirdgenbird said:


> That's not how a statement like this comes across:
> 
> I currently use a competing device with the same water resistance rating in a true sports application. Many people do. It's totally practical. A higher water resistance rating would provide no further value for my applications. There are other products for divers, surfers and swimmers. I'm guessing they know what those devices are.


i am only the author of the statements herein, the reader takes ownership if they assume that The author is speaking for them. I can only use my experience with true sports watches and wrist worn electronic devices that have a water resistant level of 200 plus meters, for sports use I have never and would never use anything less. Given that the wr ratings are in my experience based on very short term water submersion for electronic devices I would be willing to guess the low rating on the AC would afford maybe washing hands but likely never in the shower and almost certainly never under water swimming therefore I wouldn't call the AC sports anything, based on what I have read here the durability of the Crystal would likely not be up to par for anything much more than desk diving. If anyone out there wants to take a video of themselves swimming with thier AC I would love to see the outcome. Disclaimer: I do not take responsibility if anyone decides to try swimming with anything at all. I am a watchmaker and I would not call the AC a watch or timepiece it is simply a wrist worn electronic device that I would call Apple Communicator and the sad part is Apple missed their opportunity to term it as such. As a watchmaker I will never work on the AC EVER I will leave that to the electronic techs and they can leave the watches and timepieces to me.


----------



## Thirdgenbird

dirtvictim said:


> *I can only use my experience with true sports watches and wrist worn electronic devices that have a water resistant level of 200 plus meters, for sports use I have never and would never use anything less.* Given that the wr ratings are in my experience based on very short term water submersion for electronic devices I would be willing to guess the low rating on the AC would afford maybe washing hands but likely *never in the shower* and almost certainly *never under water swimming* therefore I wouldn't call the AC sports anything, *based on what I have read here the durability of the Crystal would likely not be up to par for anything much more than desk diving.*


if you have never, and would never, use a device with less than 200m of water resistance, how do you know ipx7 is not enough? There are a lot of devices with an ipx7 rating that survive in sports environments. well established fitness trackers, GPS devices, action cameras, two way radios and other electronic devices carry an ipx7 rating. The ones that I own have all survived rain, sweat, and rinsing under a faucet. Passing the ipx7 test requires full submersion under 1m of water for 30min.

Is showing a sport? Is a watch nesisary for your shower? I would rather clean the skin under the watch, especially after a workout. I did look, and several shower radios and speakers also hold the ipx7 rating.

There are a lot of sports beyond swimming. It's not a product for every sport, but it should be very suitable for many.

Again, crystal strength is very sport dependent. In my own experience, my wrist touches way more things around an office setting than I ever have running or cycling. No desk, no door frames, no filing cabinets and no drawers. I can't name anything the watch would ever come in contact with while running or cycling. Time will tell if owners have issue.


----------



## zetaplus93

bigvatch said:


> Smartwatches are limited by what they can do, by their inherent size, in terms of processing power and screen size, battery size etc so they are marketed to be an accessory to a smartphone, a smartphone than can do everything the smartwatch can and more.


Certainly. A smartwatches won't be as powerful as smartphones, if you measure it on the same dimensions (such as processing power etc).

The same can be said when comparing smartphones to laptops. Laptops are much more powerful. But, smartphones can exist side by side with laptops because phones are ever more portable. They serve as cameras, GPS, etc, use cases that laptop could serve, but not as well.

By the same token, watches can exist side by side with phones.

Watches are with you ever more so than phones. They're strapped to your wrist and can go with you in the shower. They have sensors like heart rate sensors and haptic feedback (phones also vibrate, but I miss those often because the haptic feedback isn't vibrating against my skin, but rather in the pocket). There're are certainly many more things that watches will evolve to as the revisions come out in the next few years.

So, phones can do things that watches can do. But watches can do things that phone cannot for the simple reason that it isn't strapped to your wrist. It's a migration like pocket watches to wristwatches about a century ago.

Look beyond the limitations of the current AW to see its potential. Ask yourself, what would you want a computer with multiple sensors strapped to your wrist to do for you? The possibilities are truly fascinating and exciting!


----------



## dawiz

20 Minuten - Die Apple Watch - meine erste Uhr seit 25 Jahren - News (Google translate: http://www.20min.ch/digital/dossier/apple/story/Die-Apple-Watch---meine-erste-Uhr-seit-25-Jahren-29649251 )

Good article, IMHO - the title translated to English: "My first watch in more than 25 years". To make it short: he's not convinced about smartwatches in general and the Apple watch in particular. But the final sentence is great: "Twice over the last 7 days I caught myself looking for watches online. Analog ones, to be more specific".

20 Minuten is Switzerland's largest tabloid


----------



## zetaplus93

dirtvictim said:


> Given that the wr ratings are in my experience based on very short term water submersion for electronic devices I would be willing to guess the low rating on the AC would afford maybe washing hands but likely never in the shower and almost certainly never under water swimming therefore I wouldn't call the AC sports anything, based on what I have read here the durability of the Crystal would likely not be up to par for anything much more than desk diving. If anyone out there wants to take a video of themselves swimming with thier AC I would love to see the outcome.


Check out Consumer Report's testing of the AW, including videos of water resistance and using various sharp and hard objects on the Ion-X and sapphire crystals:

http://www.macrumors.com/2015/05/06/consumer-reports-apple-watch-test/

Also note the comments towards the bottom of the Macrumors page by people who report using the AW for showers and swimming with no ill effects.


----------



## dawiz

zetaplus93 said:


> Check out Consumer Report's testing of the AW, including videos of water resistance and using various sharp and hard objects on the Ion-X and sapphire crystals:
> 
> http://www.macrumors.com/2015/05/06/consumer-reports-apple-watch-test/
> 
> Also note the comments towards the bottom of the Macrumors page by people who report using the AW for showers and swimming with no ill effects.


While it might not break the watch, it might trigger the humidity sensors inside, voiding your warranty - so if you absolutely need to wear it in the shower (I even take off my divers for that), better buy AppleCare+, which covers water damage / won't void if the sensors are triggered.


----------



## BarracksSi

Since it needs repeating --

Apple CEO Tim Cook told store employees earlier this year that he wears his Watch in the shower:
http://www.redmondpie.com/tim-cook-i-wear-my-apple-watch-in-the-shower-charge-it-every-night/

Some Aussies immediately took their new Apple Watch into the pool to test its water resistance:
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/04/24/apple-watch-waterproof-new-test/

I know that a lot of AW info is scattered around here and can take a while to find and digest. Maybe a FAQ sticky is needed (not that anyone reads stickies anyway).


----------



## dirtvictim

Thirdgenbird said:


> if you have never, and would never, use a device with less than 200m of water resistance, how do you know ipx7 is not enough? There are a lot of devices with an ipx7 rating that survive in sports environments. well established fitness trackers, GPS devices, action cameras, two way radios and other electronic devices carry an ipx7 rating. The ones that I own have all survived rain, sweat, and rinsing under a faucet. Passing the ipx7 test requires full submersion under 1m of water for 30min.
> 
> Is showing a sport? Is a watch nesisary for your shower? I would rather clean the skin under the watch, especially after a workout. I did look, and several shower radios and speakers also hold the ipx7 rating.
> 
> There are a lot of sports beyond swimming. It's not a product for every sport, but it should be very suitable for many.
> 
> Again, crystal strength is very sport dependent. In my own experience, my wrist touches way more things around an office setting than I ever have running or cycling. No desk, no door frames, no filing cabinets and no drawers. I can't name anything the watch would ever come in contact with while running or cycling. Time will tell if owners have issue.


Just to be clear I am not poking at you. 3 feet under water inspires no confidence for me, I have timex from the 60's with better WR ratings. The watch industry banned the use of the term "waterproof" in 1970 for good reason, I don't see anywhere that they changed that requirement. If ipx7 is claiming their standard "waterproof" to 3 feet for up to 30 minutes then after 30 minutes it is no longer waterproof? I personally wouldn't give credence to a system claiming "waterproof" anything.


----------



## dirtvictim

BarracksSi said:


> Since it needs repeating --
> 
> Apple CEO Tim Cook told store employees earlier this year that he wears his Watch in the shower:
> Tim Cook: I Wear My Apple Watch In The Shower, Charge It Every Night | Redmond Pie
> 
> Some Aussies immediately took their new Apple Watch into the pool to test its water resistance:
> Apple Watch Proves 'More Waterproof Than Anticipated' in New Test - Mac Rumors
> 
> I know that a lot of AW info is scattered around here and can take a while to find and digest. Maybe a FAQ sticky is needed (not that anyone reads stickies anyway).


Just to be clear I am not poking at you. Looks like it might be viable but I wouldn't call that a swimming test I'd call that a 3 ft deep pool test to keep it well within it's suggested depth rating. As for the shower I don't see where he lathers it up and really gets it into the actions of real bathing. It all appears too well guarded. This doesn't compel me at all.


----------



## BarracksSi

dirtvictim said:


> Just to be clear I am not poking at you. Looks like it might be viable but I wouldn't call that a swimming test I'd call that a 3 ft deep pool test to keep it well within it's suggested depth rating. As for the shower I don't see where he lathers it up and really gets it into the actions of real bathing. It all appears too well guarded. This doesn't compel me at all.


At least it fared better than people expect, since they seem to be afraid that they can't even let water splash in it while washing their hands (which was true of the watch-sized iPod Nano, though).


----------



## dirtvictim

BarracksSi said:


> At least it fared better than people expect, since they seem to be afraid that they can't even let water splash in it while washing their hands (which was true of the watch-sized iPod Nano, though).


Again not poking at you just love making fun of crapple. i saw the consumer reports and as for water resistance if one in three fail then that's a fail, if any company factors in 1/3 of its product to fail maybe they need to rethink their business plan. As for this being a sports anything, (I refuse to use the term watch for this device), I would say maybe a fitness or lifestyle device because I don't see it fitting into true sports use like football, hockey, mountain biking, volleyball etc. working out at the gym, walking, light exercise is not what I'd call a sport. As for calling it a watch, that term seems to be very loosely applied, just because it can be worn on the wrist and displays time doesn't make it a watch. Hold on I gotta check my hot point micro, new version just replaced the hot point mini, this baby has a timer for my workout and I can cook a snack while I'm riding my bike.


----------



## Thirdgenbird

dirtvictim said:


> Again not poking at you just love making fun of crapple. i saw the consumer reports and as for water resistance if one in three fail then that's a fail, if any company factors in 1/3 of its product to fail maybe they need to rethink their business plan. As for this being a sports anything, (I refuse to use the term watch for this device), I would say maybe a fitness or lifestyle device because I don't see it fitting into true sports use like football, hockey, mountain biking, volleyball etc. working out at the gym, walking, light exercise is not what I'd call a sport. As for calling it a watch, that term seems to be very loosely applied, just because it can be worn on the wrist and displays time doesn't make it a watch. Hold on I gotta check my hot point micro, new version just replaced the hot point mini, this baby has a timer for my workout and I can cook a snack while I'm riding my bike.


You can't (and wouldn't) use a watch for football, hockey or volleyball. There is no need for a watch in these sports. Wearing a watch would violate the rules , cause a safety concern, or jut be plain obnoxious.

Mountain biking? Electronic equipment for cycling typically use the same ratings. I own these devices. They work fine.

You might enjoy making fun of apple but you don't seem to do it effectively. I don't even like the apple watch but it has nothing to do with the points you raise. Apple does a lot of dumb things. Focus on theses. Football? Seriously?


----------



## zetaplus93

Trolls get off on getting a rise out of you. 

The best way to deal with trolls is to simply disengage.


----------



## Thirdgenbird

zetaplus93 said:


> Trolls get off on getting a rise out of you.
> 
> The best way to deal with trolls is to simply disengage.


so far, I've enjoyed the responses. The deleted on after my last might have been the best.


----------



## itsajobar

Casio i.e. Gshock will be affected, not mechanical watch brands. If anything, The iwatch will bring the masses back to wearing wristwatches again. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ThomG

In my opinion the Apple watch has a few compelling features, like the heart monitor for instance. I would not however even consider supplanting one of my beautiful mechanical watches with this SmartPhone extension. That said, were this a device that didn't pretend to be a timepiece, and instead focused on some of the other potential attributes it could have, I might find a place for it on my other wrist.


----------



## valmak

itsajobar said:


> Casio i.e. Gshock will be affected, not mechanical watch brands.


are you sure about that?


----------



## lorsban

ThomG said:


> In my opinion the Apple watch has a few compelling features, like the heart monitor for instance. I would not however even consider supplanting one of my beautiful mechanical watches with this SmartPhone extension. That said, were this a device that didn't pretend to be a timepiece, and instead focused on some of the other potential attributes it could have, I might find a place for it on my other wrist.


I feel the same way. Smart-whatevers are gadgets masquerading as something else.

They're add-on items. Not replacements. Especially for traditionalists.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> I feel the same way. Smart-whatevers are gadgets masquerading as something else.




Masquerade?

Smartphones are computers that can be held in the hand with a phone app. But most people don't think of their smartphone as a gadget that "masquerades" as a phone because the phone app works as well as a cell phone, and even better than a corded phone.

Likewise, smartwatches are computers that are worn on the watch and they have a watch app. Most smartwatch users don't think of their devices as "masquerading" as watches because the watch app is as good as any clock at telling the time.

If you mean that the AW masquerades as jewelry, and doesn't do a good job at that, then I won't argue; everyone has different preferences in aesthetics.

Smart gadgets aren't "add-on items,"-they are the item. And what they do, what apps they have, are the add-ons. Also, they are only replacements when they work as well as or better than the thing they are replacing. Smartphone cameras aren't yet replacing dSLRs because there's no competing with the effects switchable lenses do, but they've replaced digital point-n-shoot cameras because they're smaller and take pictures just as well plus added bonus of connection to the internet-instant editing, instant sharing or backing up. Smartphone GPS apps replaced GPS navigators because they work just as well, can use cell-phone towers for backup to determine location just in case, are smaller with sharper screens, and meant having one less thing to lose.

If enough people were traditionalists who shunned replacements, we'd still be using rotary phones and luggable box cameras that use film.


----------



## scentedlead

ThomG said:


> In my opinion the Apple watch has a few compelling features, like the heart monitor for instance. I would not however even consider supplanting one of my beautiful mechanical watches with this SmartPhone extension. That said, were this a device that didn't pretend to be a timepiece, and instead focused on some of the other potential attributes it could have, I might find a place for it on my other wrist.


The AW is an extension of the iPhone the same way a watch is an extension of an atomic clock. And once upon a time, they were extensions of clock towers-remember when bigger = more precise and accurate? because hermetically sealed time pieces didn't exist until after WWI. And if your city/town didn't have a clock tower your watch was an extension of the sun and high noon.

For all the advances in precision, most watches today-if they are going to be accurate-still need someone to look at another timepiece that somehow gets its time from an atomic clock, and set the watch against that. Unless your watch has an atomic radio, it might exist independently as an inaccurate timepiece, but it doesn't exist independently as an accurate timepiece.

Also, there are already fitness trackers that track heart rate. The ones that do track heartrate, also do lots of other things. For example, Fitbit makes two that track heart rate and both have watch functions-one does it with a big screen and tries to look like a watch while the other does it with a small screen and is not meant to look like a watch but like a fitness wearable.

At this point, Apple is doing what computer companies do-converging multiple items into one item, the computer-and the company decided that computers can be small enough and the appropriate sensors can be small enough, therefore, the wearable computer will be small enough, especially if the heavy duty processing can be transferred onto a bigger computer, like a smartphone. And then, as this tiny, wearable computer is very glance-able, why not have also have the larger computer push onto it the data you want to glance at?

The AW is for people who want their watch and fitness tracker to merge into one, and also have a lot of tasks on their iPhones that are more productively done with short glances (receiving game scores, skipping a song, moving the slideshow forward one slide, receiving a one-word SMS) instead of long looks (surfing the web, reading a book, watching a movie).

If the AW isn't for you, the oh well. There are products, or combinations of products, that can do what you need them to do.


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> Masquerade?


Heh.

Remember this bit floating around last year? The old newspaper ad for Radio Shack from 1991?

Everything from 1991 Radio Shack ad I now do with my phone | Trending Buffalo



> So here's the list of what I've replaced with my iPhone.
> 
> All weather personal stereo, $11.88. I now use my iPhone with an Otter Box
> AM/FM clock radio, $13.88. iPhone.
> In-Ear Stereo Phones, $7.88. Came with iPhone.
> Microthin calculator, $4.88. Swipe up on iPhone.
> Tandy 1000 TL/3, $1599. I actually owned a Tandy 1000, and I used it for games and word processing. I now do most of both of those things on my phone.
> VHS Camcorder, $799. iPhone.
> Mobile Cellular Telephone, $199. Obvs.
> Mobile CB, $49.95. Ad says "You'll never drive 'alone' again!" iPhone.
> 20-Memory Speed-Dial phone, $29.95.
> Deluxe Portable CD Player, $159.95. 80 minutes of music, or 80 hours of music? iPhone.
> 10-Channel Desktop Scanner, $99.55. I still have a scanner, but I have a scanner app, too. iPhone.
> Easiest-to-Use Phone Answerer, $49.95. iPhone voicemail.
> Handheld Cassette Tape Recorder, $29.95. I use the Voice Memo app almost daily.
> BONUS REPLACEMENT: It's not an item for sale, but at the bottom of the ad, you're instructed to 'check your phone book for the Radio Shack Store nearest you.' Do you even know how to use a phone book?
> You'd have spent $3054.82 in 1991 to buy all the stuff in this ad that you can now do with your phone. That amount is roughly equivalent to about $5100 in 2012 dollars.


And 1991 was before consumer-grade GPS, too, so not only have the GPS navigators you mentioned already been assimilated, but also handheld video conferencing, arcade gaming, on and on and on...


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> Masquerade?
> 
> Smartphones are computers that can be held in the hand with a phone app. But most people don't think of their smartphone as a gadget that "masquerades" as a phone because the phone app works as well as a cell phone, and even better than a corded phone.
> 
> Likewise, smartwatches are computers that are worn on the watch and they have a watch app. Most smartwatch users don't think of their devices as "masquerading" as watches because the watch app is as good as any clock at telling the time.
> 
> If you mean that the AW masquerades as jewelry, and doesn't do a good job at that, then I won't argue; everyone has different preferences in aesthetics.


Put in another way, the AW can become anything, much in the same way as the iPhone. The iPhone becomes a GPS when you launch maps. It becomes an excellent camera with the camera app. And of course, it's a great way to find the best restaurants around when you're traveling in a foreign land on vacation, as I am right now, when you use Yelp or its equivalent.

Likewise, the AW is a great *silent* timer (count down, up, alarms) (can't say that about any traditional watches, the silent part), great way to remind and motivate me to get up and walk around every hour, and very handy way to check the weather. It becomes whatever the app makes it to be.

So, I'd say it's a watch and much, much more.



scentedlead said:


> Smart gadgets aren't "add-on items,"-they are the item. And what they do, what apps they have, are the add-ons. Also, they are only replacements when they work as well as or better than the thing they are replacing. Smartphone cameras aren't yet replacing dSLRs because there's no competing with the effects switchable lenses do, but they've replaced digital point-n-shoot cameras because they're smaller and take pictures just as well plus added bonus of connection to the internet-instant editing, instant sharing or backing up. Smartphone GPS apps replaced GPS navigators because they work just as well, can use cell-phone towers for backup to determine location just in case, are smaller with sharper screens, and meant having one less thing to lose.


In this case, I'd have to agree that the AW is an add-on to the phone in its current iteration. It doesn't do many compelling tasks well without the iPhone.

However, it likely will become more powerful as a standalone in a few iteration's time. That's the exciting part.


----------



## scentedlead

zetaplus93 said:


> In this case, I'd have to agree that the AW is an add-on to the phone in its current iteration. It doesn't do many compelling tasks well without the iPhone.
> 
> However, it likely will become more powerful as a standalone in a few iteration's time. That's the exciting part.


It can do enough without an iPhone including tell time: What can your Apple Watch do without your iPhone? | Macworld :-!

As for it being a stand-alone, have you seen a tear-down? The computer is a sliver of a thing under the battery and taptic engine.

When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, a notebook teardown revealed a COMPUTER + battery-just like any other laptop of its time. Over time, Apple laptops and smartphones have evolved so if you look at a teardown of one now, you see BATTERY + computer. A very extreme example of this is the new Macbook. You don't even need to look for a teardown, just go to Apple's latest keynote, they show this off beautifully. How does the Macbook achieve a longer than workday battery life? It's in the battery to computer ratio (and the removal of a few ports).

Back to the AW: How long before computer minaturization is good enough so that a computer that size is powerful enough to process everything you want it to, independent of an iPhone?

Fitness watches have been huge because they have processing power in them. Then come along fitness wearables which are svelte things because all they need are the sensors and only enough computing power in them to pass that data onto another computer.


----------



## BarracksSi

Good first posts; you've been paying attention out there beyond WUS.



scentedlead said:


> Back to the AW: How long before computer minaturization is good enough so that a computer that size is powerful enough to process everything you want it to, independent of an iPhone?


It'll be able to _process_ a whole lot, but I think the question everyone asks (and Apple's been asking themselves, too) is, how much of that processed data should it _display_? And, if some of that data isn't worth displaying at such a tiny size, can it be left out of the processing requirements?

I'd point at examples like streaming video and web browsing. Somebody, I think it was Seiko, made a watch with a video input for a TV receiver -- but would it be good for anything beyond watching the news? Apple rightly took video playback out of the watch-sized iPod Nano because it would have been pointless. The AW has also been hacked to run a Web browser, but all it proves (besides the ability to run arbitrary code) is the same thing that Google knows with Android Wear: browsing the Web on a tiny touchscreen is a terrible experience.

The size of a smartwatch-really, the size of the wrist-is self-limiting, and I think that's a good thing. People will settle down and accept smartwatches for what they can do properly, and they'll stop being so disappointed because of their sky-high expectations.


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> Good first posts; you've been paying attention out there beyond WUS.


Honestly, I came to this forum to talk about the AW and the past few weeks have been such a shocker to me. Both in and out of WUS, there has been so much analysis of the AW so void of 1) how watch users use their watches and 2) the tech industry.

I love all my watches. I also love all the watches out there that have potential to be a watch of mine in the future.



> It'll be able to _process_ a whole lot, but I think the question everyone asks (and Apple's been asking themselves, too) is, how much of that processed data should it _display_? And, if some of that data isn't worth displaying at such a tiny size, can it be left out of the processing requirements?
> 
> I'd point at examples like streaming video and web browsing. Somebody, I think it was Seiko, made a watch with a video input for a TV receiver -- but would it be good for anything beyond watching the news? Apple rightly took video playback out of the watch-sized iPod Nano because it would have been pointless. The AW has also been hacked to run a Web browser, but all it proves (besides the ability to run arbitrary code) is the same thing that Google knows with Android Wear: browsing the Web on a tiny touchscreen is a terrible experience.
> 
> The size of a smartwatch-really, the size of the wrist-is self-limiting, and I think that's a good thing. People will settle down and accept smartwatches for what they can do properly, and they'll stop being so disappointed because of their sky-high expectations.



WIRED Logo iPhone Killer: The Secret History of the Apple Watch



> As the testing went on, it became evident that the key to making the Watch work was speed. An interaction could last only five seconds, 10 at most.


I can't find the link but, iirc, when designing the iPhone, they decided the valuable yet limited resource was space, so obviously, they've been asking the size and space questions for at least a decade. Even though smartphones are now mini-tablets, I think Apple were on the right track when defining space as THAT THING to work with or around-you can't just take a computer and shrink it down. Likewise, you can't take a smartphone and shrink it down to a watch, but this prolly has always been obvious to the AW engineers.

And now it seems like they've again defined the pressing design issue with the AW. Of course space is very limited, even more limited than on the iPhone. But time, or rather the user's patience, is in much shorter supply with the AW than with an iPhone. And that goes back to how we use our watches-for glancing. Except for using the chronograph, you are going to be glancing. And even then, you might not be looking your watch when you are timing something.


----------



## scentedlead

itsajobar said:


> Casio i.e. Gshock will be affected, not mechanical watch brands. If anything, The iwatch will bring the masses back to wearing wristwatches again.


If the AW is going to affect anything by Casio, I seriously doubt it will be the G-Shock. They're built to survive hell and back, have a WR of 200m and most of them have matte black, plastic cases and straps. There's a reason why when you go to a military base, the watch wearers are going to have a G-Shock. Sure there are some people on a military base for whom an AW is going to be fine, but there are a lot of occupations there where the AW could not even be a consideration, better to get a G-Shock or Suunto.


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> Honestly, I came to this forum to talk about the AW and the past few weeks have been such a shocker to me. Both in and out of WUS, there has been so much analysis of the AW so void of 1) how watch users use their watches and 2) the tech industry.


Amazing, isn't it? Some of these guys would go back to hand-cranking their wall-mounted house phones if they could.


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> Amazing, isn't it? Some of these guys would go back to hand-cranking their wall-mounted house phones if they could.


Seeing tech pundits get watch users wrong, I thought a watch forum would have people who understood watch users? Ooops. I should've known better after seeing tech pundits with questionable analysis on tech companies. It's not even the lack of understanding watch users or the tech industry-even the basic approaches to questions like, "Who is the AW for?" and "Is Switzerland in trouble?" are fundamentally flawed. People are comparing apples to oranges without bothering to figure out what's an apple and what's an orange.

Why do people wear watches?
1. Jewelry.
2. To know the time without having to dig the cell phone out of a pocket or bag, turn on a computer or tablet, walk around a train station to find the wall clock, etc. In short: Knowing the time without wasting time to find out.

Will it replace red-carpet worthy watches? *shrugs* Who knows. What's considered an acceptable watch is a construct created by culture. Fifty years ago, it was considered a faux pas to wear a chronograph with a tuxedo. "And what exactly was he expecting to do at a black tie event, hm?" Whereas today, the brand name and price count more towards a watch being tuxedo-worthy. "Oh, your chronograph is a $$$$$$ Rolex Daytona? What an excellent accessory for your bespoke english cut tuxedo." Though, I will say that right now, most people wouldn't consider even the AW Edition to be red-carpet worthy. Even USD $2,000 quartz Cartier Tank would be considered a better choice to wear to the Met Gala. But who knows how this will evolve after smartwatches change and their customers buy them in larger numbers.

When the iPhone first came out, I thought, "Oh, this is a smartphone for kids. This will kill the Danger Sidekick." And then when it supported Microsoft Exchange, "Oh, _now_ it's a smartphone for adults. _ Now_ it will kill the Blackberry."

Likewise, you have to look at what the AW is and isn't. It's a dress watch. It's a fitness wearable. It's a computer. It costs $350 - $1,100 (unless you go Edition then it's $10,000 - $17,000). It's curated into a mostly gender-neutral selection. Its fun stuff requires an iPhone. It's not going to appeal watch users who don't use iPhones, want to disconnect completely from their smartphone, need a watch to survive hell and back, have a severe case of fragile masculinity, can't afford even the entry $350, or think that $17,000 is too cheap for a watch. It's going to be a watch for a lot of people, but it's also going to not be a watch for a lot of people.

That said, I think mechanical watches should go the way of the fountain pen-a very rare sight as they are not for most people but most lovingly appreciated by aficionados. Oh wait, that's where mechanical watches already are.


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> Masquerade?
> 
> If you mean that the AW masquerades as jewelry, and doesn't do a good job at that, then I won't argue; everyone has different preferences in aesthetics.


Yup this is what I mean.

Aesthetics is the main reason why most of us mechanical watch collectors buy watches.

Smartwatches are gadgets that are trying to look like mechanical watches.



> Smart gadgets aren't "add-on items,"-they are the item.


At this point the only smartwatch that can really be called anywhere near "standalone" is the Samsung Galaxy Gear S, which has a sim slot for some phone function. All the rest Need a smartphone for connectivity.

Smartwatches are being sold as add ons to smartphones.



> If enough people were traditionalists who shunned replacements, we'd still be using rotary phones and luggable box cameras that use film.


Yeah I understand that technology drives progress. But mechanical watches are mainly jewelry. Basically the only jewelry a guy can wear besides his wedding ring.

I mean, I know guys who wear watches just for the look and don't even bother setting the time.

There's always gonna be a traditional market: watches, fountain pens, vinyl records, v-twin Harleys, 57 Chevy's etc...


----------



## valmak

scentedlead said:


> The AW is an extension of the iPhone the same way a watch is an extension of an atomic clock. And once upon a time, they were extensions of clock towers-remember when bigger = more precise and accurate? because hermetically sealed time pieces didn't exist until after WWI. And if your city/town didn't have a clock tower your watch was an extension of the sun and high noon.
> 
> For all the advances in precision, most watches today-if they are going to be accurate-still need someone to look at another timepiece that somehow gets its time from an atomic clock, and set the watch against that. Unless your watch has an atomic radio, it might exist independently as an inaccurate timepiece, but it doesn't exist independently as an accurate timepiece.
> 
> Also, there are already fitness trackers that track heart rate. The ones that do track heartrate, also do lots of other things. For example, Fitbit makes two that track heart rate and both have watch functions-one does it with a big screen and tries to look like a watch while the other does it with a small screen and is not meant to look like a watch but like a fitness wearable.
> 
> At this point, Apple is doing what computer companies do-converging multiple items into one item, the computer-and the company decided that computers can be small enough and the appropriate sensors can be small enough, therefore, the wearable computer will be small enough, especially if the heavy duty processing can be transferred onto a bigger computer, like a smartphone. And then, as this tiny, wearable computer is very glance-able, why not have also have the larger computer push onto it the data you want to glance at?
> 
> The AW is for people who want their watch and fitness tracker to merge into one, and also have a lot of tasks on their iPhones that are more productively done with short glances (receiving game scores, skipping a song, moving the slideshow forward one slide, receiving a one-word SMS) instead of long looks (surfing the web, reading a book, watching a movie).
> 
> If the AW isn't for you, the oh well. There are products, or combinations of products, that can do what you need them to do.


Scentedland knows what he's talking about. I suspect he's not part of this small WIS bubble since he just registered here so he is easily able to separate himself from their thinking.


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> It can do enough without an iPhone including tell time: What can your Apple Watch do without your iPhone? | Macworld :-!
> 
> As for it being a stand-alone, have you seen a tear-down? The computer is a sliver of a thing under the battery and taptic engine.


I have, good stuff.

But I was approaching "standalone" from the perspective of a user (and not the maker of the device). While the AW can do several things like time/timer/play music/measure calories, it cannot do very appealing things like send iMessages, use Siri, etc.

These are the attractive features that will set the AW on fire.



scentedlead said:


> When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, a notebook teardown revealed a COMPUTER + battery-just like any other laptop of its time. Over time, Apple laptops and smartphones have evolved so if you look at a teardown of one now, you see BATTERY + computer. A very extreme example of this is the new Macbook. You don't even need to look for a teardown, just go to Apple's latest keynote, they show this off beautifully. How does the Macbook achieve a longer than workday battery life? It's in the battery to computer ratio (and the removal of a few ports).


Yup noted. Hence my general enthusiasm with computers (and specifically software) "eating up the world".



scentedlead said:


> Back to the AW: How long before computer minaturization is good enough so that a computer that size is powerful enough to process everything you want it to, independent of an iPhone?


I think when people say they want the AW to be standalone, they mean that they want the AW to replace the iPhone for the reasons we all use iPhones today.

So even if we make the assumption that the AW gains the ability, without requiring an iPhone, to use Siri, make calls, and send messages, it still wouldn't replace the iPhone.


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> Amazing, isn't it? Some of these guys would go back to hand-cranking their wall-mounted house phones if they could.


Agreed. It's great to have discussions with people who seems to understand both the watch world and tech.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> Aesthetics is the main reason why most of us mechanical watch collectors buy watches.
> 
> Smartwatches are gadgets that are trying to look like mechanical watches.





lorsban said:


> Yeah I understand that technology drives progress. But mechanical watches are mainly jewelry. Basically the only jewelry a guy can wear besides his wedding ring.
> 
> I mean, I know guys who wear watches just for the look and don't even bother setting the time.
> 
> There's always gonna be a traditional market: watches, fountain pens, vinyl records, v-twin Harleys, 57 Chevy's etc...


Let's do a thought experiment:

Imagine a world 10-20 years in the future. Assume (and a big assumption at this point in time) the AW and similar products catch on, becomes more beautiful (in its own sense) and compels millions of people (especially the younger ones) to wear it day in and day out. And it also has compelling features.

Would the youngsters, now older and with more disposable income, find old world mechanicals compelling as a jewelry?

Keep in mind that they have to *not* wear their AW (or equivalent) to wear mechanicals (assuming two-wrist-watches don't become a thing). So they lose the ability to do all the compelling things that they've been used to for years and years now.

My thought is that, yes, there will continue to be those who will find mechanicals compelling. But this will become a niche, perhaps like pocket watches today...

Thoughts?


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> Let's do a thought experiment:
> 
> Imagine a world 10-20 years in the future. Assume (and a big assumption at this point in time) the AW and similar products catch on, becomes more beautiful (in its own sense) and compels millions of people (especially the younger ones) to wear it day in and day out. And it also has compelling features.
> 
> Would the youngsters, now older and with more disposable income, find old world mechanicals compelling as a jewelry?
> 
> Keep in mind that they have to *not* wear their AW (or equivalent) to wear mechanicals (assuming two-wrist-watches don't become a thing). So they lose the ability to do all the compelling things that they've been used to for years and years now.
> 
> My thought is that, yes, there will continue to be those who will find mechanicals compelling. But this will become a niche, perhaps like pocket watches today...
> 
> Thoughts?


Oh I definitely agree that in 2-3 decades, wearables will dominate and traditional watches will be relegated to occasional-use jewelry for most people.

Few will probably still use them exclusively but very few. Much like fountain pen collectors and traditional typewriter users.

When smartwatches start looking like this, I'll probably have it on my wrist (the right one haha):


----------



## qrocks

I just heard on the radio that 5% of the U.S. now owns a smart watch. That # seems high to me. Assuming that estimate is reasonably accurate, I anticipate the % to be closer to 15% a year from now with continual growth. At this time, I don't envision most people wearing two types of watches. I do expect that the legacy watch market will be disrupted and suffer contraction over the next decade or so.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> Yup this is what I mean.
> 
> Aesthetics is the main reason why most of us mechanical watch collectors buy watches.
> 
> Smartwatches are gadgets that are trying to look like mechanical watches.


Yes and no. Some try harder than others to look like mechanical watches. To me, a round dial and "shadows and light" on the watch face are the epitome of trying too hard to look old school. Round faces bug me with digital watches where there's no need for the round shape around rectangle numbers. So round faces bug me even more with smart watches; you want to scroll through text messages on a round screen? Sure. (That said, I do wish the AW had a square face.)

I think the Moto 360 and LG G Watch R try too hard to mimic traditional watches. Whereas, Pebble watches don't hide that they are computers-the Pebble Time is unapologetic about being a cute computer. I think the AW is clearly trying to be a computer in a really nice metal case with a really nice strap, albeit with cues from and nods to traditional horology.

There's a difference between appropriation and homage. Iggy Azalea is an appropriation of black culture and music-she likes to pretend black people and rap music aren't intertwined and shows only the most shallow understanding of rap music. Adele is an homage to black culture and music-she acknowledges the history soul and R&B came out of and what she's learned from them and never tries to pretend to be black. The Moto 360 is an appropriation of analog watches with only a shallow understanding of the form and its function. The Pebble is a computer, no ifs ands or buts. The AW too is a computer but with one that's deeply learned in horology and pays homage to that.



> At this point the only smartwatch that can really be called anywhere near "standalone" is the Samsung Galaxy Gear S, which has a sim slot for some phone function. All the rest Need a smartphone for connectivity.
> 
> Smartwatches are being sold as add ons to smartphones.


When I was talking about smart devices, I was also talking about smart phones, and what I said about smart phones also applies to tablets. How many devices does the smart phone replace? There's a post on this thread that answers that. Ditto tablets, and they're also replacing books, magazines, and notebooks. (And my pens are changing from fountain pens to bluetooth pens.)

As for the AW, it's true that all the fun stuff requres an iPhone but it does enough on its own. I linked to a Macworld link covering what the AW can do without a phone. That list alone does more than my mid-range Polar fitness watch that I bought a decade ago, and that needed an external heart rate sensor.



> Yeah I understand that technology drives progress. But mechanical watches are mainly jewelry. Basically the only jewelry a guy can wear besides his wedding ring.
> 
> I mean, I know guys who wear watches just for the look and don't even bother setting the time.
> 
> There's always gonna be a traditional market: watches, fountain pens, vinyl records, v-twin Harleys, 57 Chevy's etc...


I have no problem with watches as jewelry. I myself tell people these things are the only jewelry I wear.

What I take issue with is how here and outside WUS, men will twist themselves to say that watches are jewelry but without saying that outright that watches are jewelry. You could say, watches are jewelry in, oh, three words. When it takes a few paragraphs? And it's never explicit? Something's going on. My first clue to what that something is, is that wearing jewelry (in this culture) is coded feminine. My second clue is the phrase, "Women will like the AW," as a negative.

If you say, "Women will like the AW," as a positive, then congratulations, you recognize the dearth of quality products the watch industry produces for women. Have you tried shopping for a womens GMT watch smaller than a Michael Kors MK5960? The selection is disappointing, right?

However, if you say, "Women will like the AW," as a negative, then something is going on.

Watches are jewelry. I get it. So just say it. Say it out loud and bluntly in the most certain terms. If the AW's gender neutral case with no gender or features or aesthetic differentiation between the two case sizes (when the watch industry would rather clearly have a smaller and under-featured one more strongly coded as feminine-more strongly coded than Apple does it anyways-and a larger more powerful one as more strongly coded masculine) leave a man cold to it, then that's okay, just be honest about it.

Back to topic: Switzerland. Switzerland and women who wear watches. Well, there's really not much there for the AW to decimate is there? No trouble there for Switzerland, right? :-!

(That said, the same can be said of the smart watch industry and women customers. Only Apple has made one as small as 38mm. Only the Pebble Time comes close at 40.5mm which is pushing the boundaries of what size a woman with a slim 6" (150mm) wrist would go for with a "boyfriend watch.")


----------



## jbg7474

This has become quite the wide ranging conversation. I think the Apple Watch and other smart watches like it are going to kill the idea of the watch that merely tells time as a mainstream product. I doubt that it will threaten mechanical watch companies: there is always going to be a market for them, though it may shrink a bit. Rolex is always going to be a thing. Seiko will still be around, though I could see them making a smart watch. Casio, I think, will gradually evolve their digital watches to smart watches. But companies making regular watches that people use simply as appliances today? They are going away. In maybe 15 years, people will either not wear a watch, will wear a smart watch, or will wear an expensive mechanical, or something that looks like an expensive mechanical. Regular Quartz and digital watches are, I think, going to be subsumed by smart watches.


----------



## rationaltime

scentedlead said:


> ...
> There's a difference between appropriation and homage. Iggy Azalea is an appropriation of black culture and music-she likes to pretend black people and rap music aren't intertwined and shows only the most shallow understanding of rap music. Adele is an homage to black culture and music-she acknowledges the history soul and R&B came out of and what she's learned from them and never tries to pretend to be black. The Moto 360 is an appropriation of analog watches with only a shallow understanding of the form and its function. The Pebble is a computer, no ifs ands or buts. The AW too is a computer but with one that's deeply learned in horology and pays homage to that.


That is an interesting perspective. However, as you are implying, smart watches
are computers and the watch functions are just an application. I don't see an
"appropriation" in the developers' attempts to make the displays look familiar to
the users.



scentedlead said:


> I have no problem with watches as jewelry. I myself tell people these things are the only jewelry I wear.
> 
> What I take issue with is how here and outside WUS, men will twist themselves to say that watches are jewelry but without saying that outright that watches are jewelry. You could say, watches are jewelry in, oh, three words. When it takes a few paragraphs? And it's never explicit? Something's going on. My first clue to what that something is, is that wearing jewelry (in this culture) is coded feminine. My second clue is the phrase, "Women will like the AW," as a negative.
> 
> If you say, "Women will like the AW," as a positive, then congratulations, you recognize the dearth of quality products the watch industry produces for women. Have you tried shopping for a womens GMT watch smaller than a Michael Kors MK5960? The selection is disappointing, right?
> 
> However, if you say, "Women will like the AW," as a negative, then something is going on.
> 
> Watches are jewelry. I get it. So just say it. Say it out loud and bluntly in the most certain terms. If the AW's gender neutral case with no gender or features or aesthetic differentiation between the two case sizes (when the watch industry would rather clearly have a smaller and under-featured one more strongly coded as feminine-more strongly coded than Apple does it anyways-and a larger more powerful one as more strongly coded masculine) leave a man cold to it, then that's okay, just be honest about it.


I am not convinced. For me a watch is never "jewelry". A watch is an instrument
that provides time of day and timing information. If I didn't want to know the time
I would not wear a watch. I appreciate the visual appeal or style of a watch, but
that is primarily for ease of reading the time. Perhaps we can call the design "art",
something I like to see. Even when it is visible I think others rarely notice whether
I am wearing a watch. I can't be only one like this.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## dirtvictim

valmak said:


> I know lots of people get riled up about this but it's the truth. Switzerland is in trouble. Lots of watch companies are going to fold. I tried the demo of the Apple watch today and it's beautiful and can do so much (and only the Apple apps were installed so it can do much much more). Companies like Rolex, PP and Omega and a few others will stay afloat of course but probably over the next 10 years we will see lots of companies die out (I'm guessing about half or more). Sales of the main brands will decrease by a lot and there will be plenty of layoffs. It's just too much watch for ~$600 for any of these other brands to compete with it. I think eventually it will replace the smartphone at some level too. You can deny it all you want but it's going to happen. I saw the future today. Maybe in 10 years when the next wearable (maybe smart glasses?) come along then regular old mechanical watches will make a comeback. So companies are probably better off to take a loss for a while and stay in business.


It will be interesting to see what the future holds, thankfully I will always be able to fix my watches until the end of my time or until my hands don't work any longer. 
Well I decided to take time to step back from this subject and give all the info I've read an objective analysis to the degree so much that I actually picked up a Tissot t touch titanium 30m WR to try out the electronic world. I must say that the t touch is a cool watch, it fits the watch category because it is electromechanical in nature, and given the features it would be useful for mountain biking, hiking and similar use and I do love titanium anything, although when I used it for workout it made no difference to me, anything I needed to time had a timer built in anyway. The fact that it is battery op makes it far more practical than a chargeable device that might not stay charged over a day in field use, of course if used in the field I would install a fresh battery before a long trek to be safe. Thankfully as a watchmaker I never pay much for watches or related electronic devices so I will just flip it on the bay for a profit
I don't wear electronic devices on my wrist I only wear purely mechanical watches so this Tissot or other electronic devices would never really fit my criteria. I don't see an advantage for me to having one device of this type that must be tethered to another device that is within a few feet and even if it were standalone I wouldn't have one. For practical use my iphone takes one hand to use the AC apple communicator takes 2 hands although some apps may be hands free as with my iPhone. 
In regard to some concerns about the AC.
Sapphire crystal is 9 on the MOHs scale unless someone created a new 9.1 sapphire mineral no sapphire is harder than another except with added thickness comes more durability, sapphire is marginally more shatter resistant than mineral crystal and in both materials domed is more durable than flat, my advise don't do a drop test on anything you value, that video was hilarious by the way and doesn't prove anything except that something with a protective bezel assembly should be more durable than with an exposed crystal. Water resistance is important and should be improved beyond 1m that is not enough 30m min for swimming in my experience and the AC should be better rated. I am disappointed they didn't wait to introduce it until it was a standalone communicator. 
As I have read from several articles including comments from watchmakers of purely mechanical watches is that the AC Isn't a watch, with only a very small portion of its application dedicated to time displaying, some opinion is that this and similar electronic devices very loosely fits into the watch category, as a watchmaker myself I must concur very loosely, maybe it takes being a watchmaker to understand what that means. Given that, technicians that work on the AC would likely never be referred to as watchmakers and would not have to take the required training of a watchmaker. 
So why call it a watch? theory that I have read is simply so Apple can ride the shirt tails of the category in hopes to propel the device forward, which in some opinion may bring the idea of wearing real watches to more people, so good if that is the ultimate outcome. 
Nothing will be done to restrict the use of the term watch from being applied to the AC, the good news is we as individuals can call the AC anything we want and no one can be forced to call it a watch if they don't want to, at least not in my free country. 
So my final thoughts, I buy what I want so I don't need to be sold on the AC, I respect others right to buy what they want so I won't try to talk anyone out of buying the AC.
On that note my online sales dropped significantly when the AC came out and remained slow until last Saturday at which time sales returned to normal and seem to be continuing again at the average rate to date. So it appears the initial hit is likely over only time will tell.
I will leave this on going debate to the rest of you. -- *Moderated.*


----------



## zetaplus93

dirtvictim said:


> Water resistance is important and should be improved beyond 1m that is not enough 30m min for swimming in my experience and the AC should be better rated. I am disappointed they didn't wait to introduce it until it was a standalone communicator.


If this doesn't at least make you reconsider, I don't know what will:

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/05/apple-watch-waterproofing.html

The man has been showering and swimming with his AW without adverse effects.


----------



## ThomG

Im not sure if this has been previously stated, but the AW aficionados arguments would fair much better outside the WUS environment. The reason is that this site and others like it are populated by watch collectors, be they mechanical, electrical, quartz, etc. Our brand of choice, including it's history are of significant importance to those who consider themselves collectors. I'm primarily a Zenith collector, and enjoy learning about this historically significant brand and product line since it's inception in 1865. Still, there has been some thought-provoking dialog as to what future technology might bring.


----------



## Thirdgenbird

zetaplus93 said:


> If this doesn't at least make you reconsider, I don't know what will:
> 
> The Apple Watch Waterproofing Extravaganza: Swim, High Diving, Test Chamber | DC Rainmaker
> 
> The man has been showering and swimming with his AW without adverse effects.


Some people care more about spec sheets than actual application. Some "need" 4wd for rainy commutes, others "need" 20atm for their daily run.


----------



## scentedlead

rationaltime said:


> That is an interesting perspective. However, as you are implying, smart watches are computers and the watch functions are just an application. I don't see an "appropriation" in the developers' attempts to make the displays look familiar to the users.


_ Cultural appropriation_ is never ever ever a good thing. At its core, appropriation is trying to be something you're not, with only a superficial understanding of what you're trying to be, and usually while pretending that other thing you're pretending to be doesn't exist-nothing about this is okay. Look it up in Google Scholar if you have to.

To me, a smartwatch that appropriates from traditional watches is a bad thing; don't try to pretend to be something you're not because that's just basic and tacky. A smartwatch that straight up says, "I am a computer, on your wrist," is a neutral thing to me. A smartwatch that is a computer but takes cues from and makes homages to horology is also a neutral thing. But, I will say that the latter, when done right, will push my emotional buttons harder.

The AW just happens to be a computer on the wrist made by people who unapologetically make computers but who also love their (collections of) mechanical wristwatches and-very important, because this seems rare for smartwatch designers and engineers-have put a lot of thought into the why and how of their relationships with their watches.



> I am not convinced. For me a watch is never "jewelry". A watch is an instrument that provides time of day and timing information. If I didn't want to know the time I would not wear a watch. I appreciate the visual appeal or style of a watch, but that is primarily for ease of reading the time. Perhaps we can call the design "art", something I like to see. Even when it is visible I think others rarely notice whether I am wearing a watch. I can't be only one like this.


But if you want precision, a quartz does just fine. And if you want precision and accuracy, few things will beat a quartz paired with an atomic radio. You can get a Casio Wave Ceptor or G-Shock with an atomic radio and solar battery for USD $100 - $150. If all you want is the time on your wrist, why get anything else? Heck, why buy more than one of anything else?

All my watches tell time. They're quartz, so they're precise enough that I set the time only twice a year. I want a Seiko 5 SNX809K so bad; that thing is so gorgeous to me; you have no idea. But I don't get one because, as an automatic, keeping that thing as accurate as I want my watches to be is going to drive me batty.

Also, I want a watch to coordinate with my tasks for the day and outfit and moods. If watches weren't jewelry, I would've bought one and only one atomic and solar watch-prolly a Wave Ceptor chronograph but I haven't bought one yet because reasons (other than money).

That said, the AW will keep time almost as well as a watch with an atomic radio because it pulls the time from the iPhone which gets its time from either a cell tower or computer, either of which get the time indirectly from an atomic clock. As someone who wants both precision and accuracy that approaches an atomic clock on their wrist, the AW will be the last-nail-in-the-coffin reason why I don't buy that Wave Ceptor after all.

But, again, jewelry, because if I get an AW, it will be because of the accuracy in a good looking package and yeah I'd get a few straps for it as well as rotate between a few dials. And also keep the other watches I already have for those times when a AW won't do.


----------



## scentedlead

ThomG said:


> Im not sure if this has been previously stated, but the AW aficionados arguments would fair much better outside the WUS environment. The reason is that this site and others like it are populated by watch collectors, be they mechanical, electrical, quartz, etc. Our brand of choice, including it's history are of significant importance to those who consider themselves collectors. I'm primarily a Zenith collector, and enjoy learning about this historically significant brand and product line since it's inception in 1865. Still, there has been some thought-provoking dialog as to what future technology might bring.


Where would AW aficionados go? Do you know how much tech punditry gets Apple so horribly wrong? Not just the AW but _everything_ Apple. The bloggers and analysts I follow for Apple commentary are so few I can count them with only fingers. The AW was doomed to be misunderstood.

Tech analysts don't understand Apple's core values and design ethics. Tech geeks view the world through how they use gadgets and not now non-engineers use gadgets; tech geeks want a device that will make them fall in love with it so much that they'll want to use it all the time despite the fact that's not how you use a watch. A big chunk of the general public doesn't use watches, "What would I use this for?" And-as I learned from lurking here-a lot of watch users don't think about the future of tech. That leaves only a few people-inside and outside WUS-who are going to appreciate the AW for what it is and isn't.


----------



## jbg7474

scentedlead said:


> That said, the AW will keep time almost as well as a watch with an atomic radio because it pulls the time from the iPhone which gets its time from either a cell tower or computer, either of which get the time indirectly from an atomic clock. As someone who wants both precision and accuracy that approaches an atomic clock on their wrist, the AW will be the last-nail-in-the-coffin reason why I don't buy that Wave Ceptor after all.


I just want to point out that the Apple Watch will actually be MORE accurate than a typical watch with an atomic radio, which usually corrects itself once a day. My atomic G is off by about half a second at the end of the day. The Apple Watch will correct itself using some special Network Time Protocol (NTP) to keep itself within 50 milliseconds. That's about ten times better accuracy.


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> Where would AW aficionados go? Do you know how much tech punditry gets Apple so horribly wrong?
> ...
> Tech analysts don't understand Apple's core values and design ethics. Tech geeks view the world through how they use gadgets and not now non-engineers use gadgets; tech geeks want a device that will make them fall in love with it so much that they'll want to use it all the time despite the fact that's not how you use a watch.


+1

I'll add that techies, in general, are obsessed with speeds and feeds--i.e. specs. A bigger screen thrills them more than usability or how these tools can fit in the user's life.

I tried engaging in the Macrumors forum and was sorely disappointed in the level of discussions. Reminds me of why I stopped reading user posts at those sites, including those at The Verge.


----------



## 93EXCivic

jbg7474 said:


> I just want to point out that the Apple Watch will actually be MORE accurate than a typical watch with an atomic radio, which usually corrects itself once a day. My atomic G is off by about half a second at the end of the day. The Apple Watch will correct itself using some special Network Time Protocol (NTP) to keep itself within 50 milliseconds. That's about ten times better accuracy.


I don't know. My wife's iPhone is horribly inaccurate like it is running 3-4 minutes fast. No idea how that happens.


----------



## rationaltime

93EXCivic said:


> I don't know. My wife's iPhone is horribly inaccurate like it is running 3-4 minutes fast. No idea how that happens.


On some phones you can disable the update of the phone time display
that makes it agree with network time. For example, when you want
the phone to display the time at home when changing time zones.

Is it possible this mode is selected on your wife's phone?

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## BarracksSi

rationaltime said:


> On some phones you can disable the update of the phone time display
> that makes it agree with network time. For example, when you want
> the phone to display the time at home when changing time zones.
> 
> Is it possible this mode is selected on your wife's phone?
> 
> Thanks,
> rationaltime


Here's the setting on iOS:


----------



## jbg7474

93EXCivic said:


> I don't know. My wife's iPhone is horribly inaccurate like it is running 3-4 minutes fast. No idea how that happens.


Using time.is, or an app called Time, both of which use NTP and average responses from multiple servers, my iPhone is within a few milliseconds every single time I check, since iOS 8.2 or 8.3. I believe Apple did something to make it very accurate to support the watch. I totally believe the watch can be kept within 50 ms.


----------



## Memphis1

93EXCivic said:


> I don't know. My wife's iPhone is horribly inaccurate like it is running 3-4 minutes fast. No idea how that happens.


if you sync a lot, your computer might be wrong.... if you dont' sync a lot then it's time to hard reset your phone


----------



## jhe888

I might consider a smart watch when you don't have to carry the handheld around in your pocket. In other words, when the watch IS the phone/computer. But even then, the screen will be so tiny that some functions won't be useful on a "watch." 

I agree, the smart watch might run a lot of sub $500 watches off the market, but it won't be a competitor for the luxury watch.


----------



## Toothbras

I saw one today "in the flesh" for the first time, pretty cool I must say.


----------



## Ticonderoga

justbecauseIcan said:


> so I just had a look at Apples website...
> 
> for the same case size/material, just the red band/buckle costs A$10,000 more than the black sports band.
> 
> As it happens, I know how A$10k worth of gold look like, and it's certainly a lot more than the difference of the two buckles. By a rather large margin.
> 
> I don't mind them doing an exclusive thing with that gold edition, but that price difference for just a band and its difference in gold content is really taking people for a ride.
> 
> How on earth....


How on earth?

justbecauseTheycan


----------



## Ticonderoga

valmak said:


> The Apple Watch sold in less than one day what Rolex claims to sell in one year (one million watches). Everything about the launch points to it being a huge success. The only negative thing that can be said about it is that there weren't enough watches to meet demand. The haters fail to understand that the Apple Watch will evolve and become exponentially better over time. Every one of their gripes about the Apple Watch will be resolved in future iterations. But of course they will defend their original claim that the Apple Watch won't hurt the watch industry because it has evolved to something different and there was no way they could've known that ahead of time. The truth is you could have known but you didn't have the vision to. So put your fun little mechanical toys up for sale now while you can still get some money for them.


What you fail to understand is that people don't buy Swiss watches to know what time it is when they look at their wrist. If all anyone wanted to know was what time it was, they would buy a $20 Timex. Is Timex going to see a dent in sales? Perhaps. Some people *only* want to own one watch. If their smart watch has a time display, why buy the Timex?

People buy Swiss watches so that they can look at their wrist and feel pleased by the beautiful aesthetics of the horological device strapped to their wrist. Maybe in 20 years, EVERY 20 year old will own a smart watch. And the same percentage of people today, who own multiple watches, who own Swiss watches, will continue to own them in the future at the same percentage that they do today. And, as the population of the planet will have grown by 10 or 20%, that just means 20% more business for Patek, Rolex, Omega and Tissot.


----------



## BarracksSi

Memphis1 said:


> if you sync a lot, your computer might be wrong.... if you dont' sync a lot then it's time to hard reset your phone


Hopefully the computer is set to automatically get the time, too. It shouldn't matter with an iPhone, however, because the phone would get its time from the cell network.


----------



## thrillseeker

Ticonderoga said:


> What you fail to understand is that people don't buy Swiss watches to know what time it is when they look at their wrist. If all anyone wanted to know was what time it was, they would buy a $20 Timex. Is Timex going to see a dent in sales? Perhaps. Some people *only* want to own one watch. If their smart watch has a time display, why buy the Timex?
> 
> People buy Swiss watches so that they can look at their wrist and feel pleased by the beautiful aesthetics of the horological device strapped to their wrist. Maybe in 20 years, EVERY 20 year old will own a smart watch. And the same percentage of people today, who own multiple watches, who own Swiss watches, will continue to own them in the future at the same percentage that they do today. And, as the population of the planet will have grown by 10 or 20%, that just means 20% more business for Patek, Rolex, Omega and Tissot.


Exactly. Not sure how people on a watch forum would not understand this. A mechanical watch by all means, is an outdated device that is inferior to quartz. But thats not why we wear them.

The watch for men is an accessory. For many, it is the only accessory we wear.

If the only reason people wore watches was for functionality, then we would all have been wearing Timexs or some kind of sport watch and we would all be wearing smartwatches.

But the reality is that we don't all wear watches for that reason. And the men I see wearing the Apple watch are not making a statement. They are wearing a cell phone compliment on their wrist. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. It is just not why many of us wear watches.


----------



## dawiz

I had the chance to try one out for a day today and I'm not impressed at all. Terrible UI, terrible usage concept, not a fan of the design, either. Plus half of the 3rd party apps that came loaded didn't work. This thing is very much unlike Apple! Seems rushed, like an early beta.


----------



## thrillseeker

dawiz said:


> I had the chance to try one out for a day today and I'm not impressed at all. Terrible UI, terrible usage concept, not a fan of the design, either. Plus half of the 3rd party apps that came loaded didn't work. This thing is very much unlike Apple! Seems rushed, like an early beta.


Thats my problem with it. It's very slow in terms of UI and needs a few years of revisions before it offers day to day value for me. It would take a lot for me to pull of my Rolex or the new Helson I have coming to wear this thing instead.


----------



## mav

There's several way to look at this...

In the short term, some of the sub-$1,000 brands and fashion watches will definitely feel the pinch from Apple Watch, especially if the AW becomes popular. Brands like Nixon, Swatch, Seiko, G-Shock and Suunto will be hurting. The major Swiss brands, Rolex, Omega, Swatch Group and Richemont watch companies are certainly paying attention but I highly doubt that they will be affected for now.

The biggest question mark is what will the long term future bring? As the AW evolves, becomes better, more mainstream and even a status symbol, it will definitely be competing for wrist space with the big Swiss brands. A number of non-WIS people may decide on buying an AW 3 versus a Rolex or Omega as their one watch. For us WIS, some people will buy one, use it for a specific purpose, dual-fist their Swiss watch on one wrist and the AW on the other, or as part of their rotation while others will continue to hate on it.

If anything, the AW might actually be a good thing for the Swiss brands, as younger people will go back to wearing watches, instead of checking the time on their phones, which may eventually lead to them to become interested in higher end timepieces.


----------



## scentedlead

mav said:


> There's several way to look at this...
> 
> In the short term, some of the sub-$1,000 brands and fashion watches will definitely feel the pinch from Apple Watch, especially if the AW becomes popular. Brands like Nixon, Swatch, Seiko, G-Shock and Suunto will be hurting. The major Swiss brands, Rolex, Omega, Swatch Group and Richemont watch companies are certainly paying attention but I highly doubt that they will be affected for now.


Why do people keep thinking that G-Shock and Suunto are gonna hurt because of the AW? A G-Shock is a watch you take with you to hell and back. An AW? Not so much for what is essentially, compared to the G-Shock, a very dressy fitness watch. All those people in the military, police, swat, search and rescue, etc, are so gonna trade in their G-Shocks for AWs? I doubt it. These two things have completely different use cases.



> The biggest question mark is what will the long term future bring? As the AW evolves, becomes better, more mainstream and even a status symbol, it will definitely be competing for wrist space with the big Swiss brands. A number of non-WIS people may decide on buying an AW 3 versus a Rolex or Omega as their one watch. For us WIS, some people will buy one, use it for a specific purpose, dual-fist their Swiss watch on one wrist and the AW on the other, or as part of their rotation while others will continue to hate on it.
> 
> If anything, the AW might actually be a good thing for the Swiss brands, as younger people will go back to wearing watches, instead of checking the time on their phones, which may eventually lead to them to become interested in higher end timepieces


Why would someone who hasn't already been wearing watches take a wrist wearable that is accurate within 50 milliseconds and put it away for another wearable that is _inaccurate_ by at least a few seconds per day _and _can't deliver notifications or anything else a smart watch does? That reason isn't going to be, "checking the time, but not on their phone."

The smartphone allowed fitness watches to evolve into fitness wearables. I think fitness watches and wearables along with $250 - $1,000 watches are going to be the first products to be disrupted by the AW. Everything else it disrupts will be a combination of it, plus something else.

I actually don't think sub $100 watches will be affected much. If you can't afford a smartwatch-and a smartphone to really make it shine-then you can't afford it. As for $1,000+ watches, read on to the very end for my thoughts on that.

You can say that fountain pens survived ballpoint pens but how many fountain pen companies either went out of business or switched to ballpoints? And yet, in this day and age of computers, people still buy fountain pens, albeit a very small niche of people-writers, artists, scientists (especially engineers), old men with fragile masculinity. People outright ask me, "Why do you use fountain pens? Ballpoint pens have been invented." (Or, lately, "You still use paper notebooks? Can't you use a notes app or take a picture with your cell phone?")

Mechanical watches are like that, a small niche product that-even with market growth-is not going to get any more mainstream.


----------



## Thirdgenbird

scentedlead said:


> Why do people keep thinking that G-Shock and Suunto are gonna hurt because of the AW? A G-Shock is a watch you take with you to hell and back. An AW? Not so much for what is essentially, compared to the G-Shock, a very dressy fitness watch. All those people in the military, police, swat, search and rescue, etc, are so gonna trade in their G-Shocks for AWs? I doubt it. These two things have completely different use cases.


Those are not the only people wearing g shocks. I'm guessing a large percentage of g shock owners wouldn't have any durability issues with an apple watch. G shocks have become fashionable.


----------



## mav

scentedlead said:


> Why do people keep thinking that G-Shock and Suunto are gonna hurt because of the AW? A G-Shock is a watch you take with you to hell and back. An AW? Not so much for what is essentially, compared to the G-Shock, a very dressy fitness watch. All those people in the military, police, swat, search and rescue, etc, are so gonna trade in their G-Shocks for AWs? I doubt it. These two things have completely different use cases.


The military, police use case is valid but a limited one. G-Shock's target demographic are 18 to 25 year olds, who are trendy and fashionable. Guess what their computer, tablet and phone of choice are?



scentedlead said:


> Why would someone who hasn't already been wearing watches take a wrist wearable that is accurate within 50 milliseconds and put it away for another wearable that is _inaccurate_ by at least a few seconds per day _and _can't deliver notifications or anything else a smart watch does? That reason isn't going to be, "checking the time, but not on their phone."


My point is that the AW will get people to be interested in watches again, and that's a good thing for the entire industry. Some, not all, but some may become interested in watches enough to start their own watch collection, with an AW and some mechanicals.

And people who buy a watch for several thousand dollars or more, is not to just simply to tell time. Sometimes, it's an investment, it's a tangible object that you could pass down to the next generation, it's fine art that you wear your wrist.


----------



## shnjb

Nobody knows if the AW will lead to an increase in interest in mechanical watches or decrease.

It could go the way of horse carriages after cars or typewriters after computers.

Or it could go the way of art after photographs.


----------



## zetaplus93

shnjb said:


> Nobody knows if the AW will lead to an increase in interest in mechanical watches or decrease.
> 
> It could go the way of horse carriages after cars or typewriters after computers.
> 
> Or it could go the way of art after photographs.


Agreed.

Though I'm tempted to say it'll swing toward not increasing interest for mechanicals. The difference in functionality is so great that you'll give up a lot to go from smartwatches to mechanicals.

I.E. Going from ball point pens to fountain pens isn't a huge lose of functionality. It's more like going from iPhones back to the first mobile phones where you could only make or receive calls, and nothing else...


----------



## dawiz

http://www.macrumors.com/2015/05/22/apple-watch-orders/

Off to a good start, now fizzling out. Not one of Apple's strongest product launches and interest is moderate at best. Right now, with the current model, there's little danger this thing will even put a dent in the watch industry.

We'll see what the future has in stock, but for now: crisis averted. The watch is pretty lousy in terms of adding additional value to mobile experience. The only thing it does well is phone calls.


----------



## Robinoz

Maybe if the traditional watchmakers reduced their profit margins, they'd sell more. The Apple watch is very cheap compared with most decent watches. One watch company, I think IWC has produced a watch band with an integrated smart screen.


----------



## Polke45

Robinoz said:


> Maybe if the traditional watchmakers reduced their profit margins, they'd sell more. The Apple watch is very cheap compared with most decent watches. One watch company, I think IWC has produced a watch band with an integrated smart screen.


IWC added a fitness tracker on the strap and few companies like Tag Heuer has partnered with Google.

Personally, I don't think the luxury Swiss watch (5k+) will be affected by the smartwatch industry. Yes, many people will buy smartwatch especially in 10-20 year, but by the end of the day, smartwatches are just part of the affordable watch category. In business with formal wear environment, it is laughable if you wear a smartwatch to a meeting with the higher ups. Seconds, unless you are getting the AW for casual fun, it is not a good long term investment since the watch itself may not be compatible with the iphone that comes out 4+ yrs later. In addition, if you are going to spend 1+ minute on a watch, is it really that difficult to take your phone out and use it instead.

When I buy a watch, I want to get something that is timeless and can be treated as a heirloom, not something that will be a paperweight in few years


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> The watch is pretty lousy in terms of adding additional value to mobile experience. The only thing it does well is phone calls.


Not sure I'd agree with the watch being lousy in terms of adding additional value to mobile experiences...

Apple's V1 new products don't usually seem all that evolutional. But keep in mind that Apple relentlessly iterates on (at least) an annual cycle, for both hardware and software.

Have a read through a review of the V1 iPhone back in 2007, and mentally compare it with the current generation iPhone (you had to sync contacts with a PC! And no cameras, FaceTime, Siri, or apps!). It's an evolution when compared year to year, but an absolute revolution when compared over years.


----------



## zetaplus93

Robinoz said:


> Maybe if the traditional watchmakers reduced their profit margins, they'd sell more. The Apple watch is very cheap compared with most decent watches. One watch company, I think IWC has produced a watch band with an integrated smart screen.


The problem, though, isn't price. It's the stark difference in functionality.

Apple is attacking traditional watches in terms of functionality, not price... It's trying to redefine what a watch is, much in the same way it redefined what a phone or music player is.


----------



## zetaplus93

Polke45 said:


> When I buy a watch, I want to get something that is timeless and can be treated as a heirloom, not something that will be a paperweight in few years


I wonder if this sentiment (of passing down watches as heirlooms) will continue to exist, as a mainstream idea/practice, for people born of this generation (say, 2010 onward).

The AW will, of course, not be passed down as heirlooms simply because they won't last so long.

But, if you accept (maybe just for the sake of argument) the assumption that the AW (and others like it) renders traditional watches obsolete because of the sheer difference in functionality, will people continue to try to pass down watches as heirlooms, or will they search for other objects (say, bracelets, rings, pendants, etc) to serve the purpose of heirlooms to be passed down?

Pocket watches used to be what traditional wristwatches are. Useful, jewelry (or show of status), passed down as heirlooms in some cases. But wristwatches came along and essentially obsoleted pocket watches. And wristwatches themselves became the object of heirlooms.

Will AW do to traditional wristwatches (for the purpose of heirlooms) what the wristwatches themselves did to pocket watches decades ago?


----------



## Fer Guzman

dawiz said:


> Apple Watch Orders Estimated to Average 30,000 Per Day in U.S. After Initial Surge - Mac Rumors
> 
> Off to a good start, now fizzling out. Not one of Apple's strongest product launches and interest is moderate at best. Right now, with the current model, there's little danger this thing will even put a dent in the watch industry.
> 
> We'll see what the future has in stock, but for now: crisis averted. The watch is pretty lousy in terms of adding additional value to mobile experience. The only thing it does well is phone calls.


It's doing better than the first iPhone and almost as good as first iPad I'd say that's a pretty good launch. They probably already sold more than 1 billion worth and will probably sell 5-10%, based on revenue, what the entire Swiss watch apparatus does in a year. That is, at the least, decent. Anything sub 1k should be worried.


----------



## dawiz

Fer Guzman said:


> It's doing better than the first iPhone and almost as good as first iPad I'd say that's a pretty good launch.


The difference being that when the first iPhone launched, the smartphone market was tiny. If you project those sales figures to today's market, the iPhone 1 would have sold almost 30 times more. In relation to that, the Apple Watch is a moderate seller and the momentum is already crumbling. If V2 is just a small iteration, as would be typical for Apple, the product will remain niche. The iPad is a bad example for sales as its sales first stagnated and then started to collapse.


----------



## Fer Guzman

^ The smartwatch market is tiny. I think Apple sold more during the first couple of days of pre-order than android watches sold in all of 2014 so the market will increase substantially. But I agree it won't be as popular as the iPhone is now or the iPad is. And I also agree the apple watch might follow a similar sales curve to the iPad and stagnate later. It's expected that on launch or pre-order a product will sell more than in subsequent days, if the report is correct and apple is selling 30k watches a day, I think that's pretty good.


----------



## BarracksSi

Fer Guzman said:


> But I agree it won't be as popular as the iPhone is now or the iPad is.


In case people forget: the Watch doesn't _have_ to be as popular as the iPhone. If "just five percent" of iPhone owners get an Apple Watch, which is a pessimistic estimate even worse than the naysayers proclaim, that's millions and millions of watches.

Nobody, not even Apple, expect that every single iPhone* owner will get an Apple Watch. I'm surprised that so many think that it would be a failure if it somehow sells fewer than one for every iPhone.

*of course, that's speaking of iPhone 5 and newer&#8230; and the 5 has been discontinued already&#8230; and the 6/6+ will pass the total sales of the 5 pretty soon&#8230;


----------



## unpleasantness

I love this talk of functionality. This new device is a sign of the times, i.e. all kinds of solutions to problems that don't exist, and instead of being the beautiful, durable, enduring machine the mechanical watch is it's a constantly nagging, attention-seeking extension of your phone that will take device addiction to a whole new level. You will have to plug it in every night, take another charger with you when you travel and have a new way to make you feel indespensible, as you must be available to communicate at all times. Hopefully, we'll get to point that people will realize that new technology has it's limits, and must be employed intelligently and not become a slave to marketing. Or is it too late?


----------



## dawiz

Fer Guzman said:


> ^ The smartwatch market is tiny. I think Apple sold more during the first couple of days of pre-order than android watches sold in all of 2014 so the market will increase substantially.


You can't compare Android users to iPhone buyers. The average Android user is running around with a 149$ phone with Android 4.x on it and is perfectly happy with it (and I can't blame him / her). That person isn't going to buy a 250$ smart watch companion. 
On the other hand, if you have the cash for an iPhone 6 Plus, you probably won't mind paying extra for an iPhone 6 Plus accessory, no matter whether it's useful or not. Whether you're going to do that again next year is an entirely different question. The current Apple Watch doesn't exactly have me craving for more. Unless they somehow manage to double the screen size without adding bulk, this was my first and last Apple Watch (or any smart watch for that matter) that I looked at more closely. The same thing happened with the iPad: people bought it in scores initially, but after half of the iPads had just been lying around at home, collecting dust, not many people bought the newer versions.


----------



## scentedlead

Polke45 said:


> When I buy a watch, I want to get something that is timeless and can be treated as a heirloom, not something that will be a paperweight in few years





zetaplus93 said:


> I wonder if this sentiment (of passing down watches as heirlooms) will continue to exist, as a mainstream idea/practice, for people born of this generation (say, 2010 onward).
> 
> The AW will, of course, not be passed down as heirlooms simply because they won't last so long.
> 
> But, if you accept (maybe just for the sake of argument) the assumption that the AW (and others like it) renders traditional watches obsolete because of the sheer difference in functionality, will people continue to try to pass down watches as heirlooms, or will they search for other objects (say, bracelets, rings, pendants, etc) to serve the purpose of heirlooms to be passed down?
> 
> Pocket watches used to be what traditional wristwatches are. Useful, jewelry (or show of status), passed down as heirlooms in some cases. But wristwatches came along and essentially obsoleted pocket watches. And wristwatches themselves became the object of heirlooms.
> 
> Will AW do to traditional wristwatches (for the purpose of heirlooms) what the wristwatches themselves did to pocket watches decades ago?


Most families I know? Buys new computer-passes old one down to kids. Buys new smartphone-passes old one down to kids. Buys new tablet-passes old one down to kids. I know toddlers who have iPads and iPhones this way. Heck, I know cats and dogs who have iPads this way.

(Then again, once a tablet goes from parent to kid to younger kid and maybe another younger kid and finally to cat or dog, it's depreciated too much to be worth it to try to sell on Ebay or Craigslist-you might as well just repurpose it somehow. Thank the powers that be for time-waster apps for cats and dogs . . . that also work with frogs though this might not be a good idea as they swat their tongues and faces at the screen.)

What's to say that when a person buys a new smartwatch, it won't get passed down to the kids-especially if said kid has a wrist big enough and they find use for it.

Or did you mean you want a watch to pass down in your will? Okay then . . . If that makes you feel better.

I don't care about inheriting my mom's jewelry or my dad's watches-I want to inherit the house I grew up in. Watches vs real estate, which one appreciates more, hm . . . ? Or, which one can generate income as rental property or will give me shelter in tough times, hm? (Then again, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area-try to imagine a watch to compete with _that._)


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> Or did you mean you want a watch to pass down in your will?


Yes, I meant passing down as heirlooms.



scentedlead said:


> I don't care about inheriting my mom's jewelry or my dad's watches-I want to inherit the house I grew up in. Watches vs real estate, which one appreciates more, hm . . . ? Or, which one can generate income as rental property or will give me shelter in tough times, hm? (Then again, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area-try to imagine a watch to compete with _that._)


Well, watches passed down can be valuable in at least two ways--price and sentiment. I think you touched in the first part (and yes, real estate will appreciate much more). But what about the sentimental value?


----------



## zetaplus93

unpleasantness said:


> This new device is a sign of the times, i.e. all kinds of solutions to problems that don't exist, and instead of being the beautiful, durable, enduring machine the mechanical watch is it's a constantly nagging, attention-seeking extension of your phone that will take device addiction to a whole new level.
> ...
> Hopefully, we'll get to point that people will realize that new technology has it's limits, and must be employed intelligently and not become a slave to marketing.


These devices are just tools. It depends a lot on how you use them. You can be a master of your tools, or a slave to it.



unpleasantness said:


> ... and have a new way to make you feel indespensible, as you must be available to communicate at all times.


The same thing was surely talked discussed (and pushed back) when new communication devices came out. Landlines, faxes, pagers, first gen mobile phones, modern phones. Each of these encroached more and more of our time (and privacy).

And yet, we've found ways to use devices in ways that we find most useful. Some people like all the constant connections. Others found them annoying. It all depends on how we use these tools.


----------



## BarracksSi

dawiz said:


> The same thing happened with the iPad: people bought it in scores initially, but after half of the iPads had just been lying around at home, collecting dust, not many people bought the newer versions.


I can't speak for anyone else, but we're still using our iPad 2 every day. It's, what, at least three generations old, and it's still perfectly useful for us. My work iPad is a first-gen model, and even _that_ is good enough. We'll probably get an iPad Air 2 (or Air 3, depending on the timing) so I can finally leave my laptop at home for all the traveling I do at work.

As far as whether it's dropping off a cliff, I think not. Its installed base is still expanding as most iPad buyers are still first-time buyers. This is what Cook had to say in the last quarterly earnings call:



> iPad future?
> 
> I'm still very optimistic and bullish on iPad over the long run, as I've indicated before. When you measure it in these 90 day clips as we do, in the short run I don't think you're going to see a miraculous change or improvement in the year over year.
> 
> But here's what I see when I look at it, and the reason I'm so optimistic: I see that the first-time buyer rates are very high. By "very high," I mean that if you look at some of the developed markets, like the US, Japan, the UK, you would find that 50 percent of the people are buying an iPad for the first time. If you look in China it's over 70 percent. And so when you have that kind of first-time buyer rates, you don't have a saturated market.
> 
> When I look at the customer sat on iPad it's literally off the charts, in some cases 100 percent, which is unheard of in surveys to get these kind of customer sat ratings. When I look at the usage, the usage is six times our nearest competitor. Usage measured in web browsing is like 71 percent of total tablets. Also the commerce taking place across the iPad is enormous. Essentially over 80 percent of the commerce on tablets is taking place on iPad.
> 
> And so when I back up and look at all of these, and I believe that over the long arc of time, the iPad is a great business. I also have visibility obviously to what's in the pipeline and feel very, very good about that. That said, I'm not projecting something very different next quarter or the next. I'm thinking over the long run.
> 
> In terms of what I think is going on, I think that the upgrade cycle is longer than an iPhone, probably between an iPhone and a PC. We haven't been in the business long enough to say that with certainty, but that's what we think. There's probably some level of cannibalization that's going on, with the Mac on one side and the phone on the other, and so you probably have a little bit of that that's shaking out. How much, very hard to tell in the early going, particularly since we just shipped the new phones a few months ago.
> 
> And so I think there's some things like that that are going on. On the other side, I think the partnership with IBM and the work that we have going on in the Enterprise is profound. I think we're really going to change the way people work. I'm really excited about the apps that are coming out, and how fast that partnership is getting up and running, so I think that can move the dial there. So I'm not predicting the 90 day clips, but over the long arc of time I really believe that iPad is a great space, a great product, and also coupled with the product innovation we've got, I think there's a very bright future for it.


http://sixcolors.com/post/2015/01/tim-cook-transcript-what-apples-ceo-said-to-analysts/


----------



## Ticonderoga

scentedlead said:


> I don't care about inheriting my mom's jewelry or my dad's watches...


IMHO that is a sad proposition. I see a lot of Victorian jewelry going for sale and inside is the inscription of some lovely couple from 140 years ago. Certainly, among their kids, grand-kids, great grand-kids and maybe even g-g grand-kids, there is a descendant who would appreciate and value that piece of jewelry.

Don't discount your Mom's jewelry or your Dad's watch, one of your kids or grand-kids may one day really (and I mean really) appreciate them. I just inherited my Great Grandmother's Elgin (lady's sized) pocket watch from my Mother. Mom had no idea that you could open the back and she was quite surprised to see that the internals of the watch were near flawless. The watch doesn't wind but may be a quick repair; sending it off to a trusted watchsmith next month.

Not sure of your age, but when was in my 20's (even 30's) I couldn't care less about the family jewelry. A little later in life, with kids of my own and a decade researching the family tree, I cherish every little memento left over from centuries past.

Enjoy the house, but safeguard the watch and jewelry.


----------



## zetaplus93

unpleasantness said:


> This new device is a sign of the times, i.e. all kinds of solutions to problems that don't exist, and instead of being the beautiful, durable, enduring machine the mechanical watch is it's a constantly nagging, attention-seeking extension of your phone that will take device addiction to a whole new level.
> ...
> Hopefully, we'll get to point that people will realize that new technology has it's limits, and must be employed intelligently and not become a slave to marketing.





zetaplus93 said:


> These devices are just tools. It depends a lot on how you use them. You can be a master of your tools, or a slave to it.


I will concede the point that some people have become slaves to these devices.

Just having lunch and I observed one couple just staring at their iPhones as their meal comes up. Really odd! I would've thought that they'd enjoy each other's company more than their iPhones...

But then again, plenty of other couples and families seem to not have their iPhones take over their lunch. Guess these are the more well adjusted ones. There's hope yet for the human race (chuckle).


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but we're still using our iPad 2 every day. It's, what, at least three generations old, and it's still perfectly useful for us. My work iPad is a first-gen model, and even _that_ is good enough. We'll probably get an iPad Air 2 (or Air 3, depending on the timing) so I can finally leave my laptop at home for all the traveling I do at work.
> 
> As far as whether it's dropping off a cliff, I think not. Its installed base is still expanding as most iPad buyers are still first-time buyers.


+1

The comparison to the iPad isn't as strong of a comparison simply because the reason for the flatted and slightly lower growth rate for the iPad over the past 2 or so years isn't due to a lack of interest in the device.

One current branch of thinking, as mentioned, is that the upgrade cycle for iPads is far longer than we imagined. It's definitely not 2 years like the iPhone.

I think the iPad upgrade cycle may be closer to 4-5 years, based on my only usage and reading about other's thoughts online. These devices are used primarily at home, and so they don't suffer screen cracks as often as our phones. And as long as you sit upgrade the software beyond a certain point (updates bring great new features but definitely slows things down), it's likely these devices continue to do the same things we love using these for, for years and years.

I currently have an iPad Mini 2. I use it everyday, and it's replaced 90% of the tasks I would've used my laptop for. I don't anticipate upgrading this one for at least 3 years.


----------



## zetaplus93

Ticonderoga said:


> Not sure of your age, but when was in my 20's (even 30's) I couldn't care less about the family jewelry. A little later in life, with kids of my own and a decade researching the family tree, I cherish every little memento left over from centuries past.
> 
> Enjoy the house, but safeguard the watch and jewelry.


+1. I'm appreciating "older" things more as I "grow up" (chuckle).

Wish I had a cool heirloom to inherit. The sentimental value would be priceless.

The closest is a watch given to my father-in-law from his mother about 40 years ago. A nice gentlemen's Titoni, hand-wound, white dialed and about 34mm. He hasn't worn it in years, but recently had it serviced so it's in working condition. I've asked to have it one day. I hope to be able to pass that down to my kids in the decades to come.


----------



## scentedlead

zetaplus93 said:


> Well, watches passed down can be valuable in at least two ways--price and sentiment. I think you touched in the first part (and yes, real estate will appreciate much more). But what about the sentimental value?


But sentimental value doesn't come from monetary value, it comes from meaning.

That watch you bought with your first paycheck so you could get to your job and appointments on time. That pen you used to write your first novel. That quilt you made from clothes you no longer needed when you moved to a new location-and climate. That scrapbook you made of your last camping trip featuring lovingly curated photos and leaf samples.

And the tricky thing with meaning is that the sentimental value can be positive or negative. That Rolex you bought to fit in with your coworkers at that high-paying job you hated and quit is prolly going to have a negative sentimental value for you _and_ your family.

Honestly, _the house I grew up in_ is going to have a lot more positive sentimental value than my dad's watches which I would never have chosen for myself and have never worn. *shrugs*

My aunt and uncle, when they die, they can pass down the Rolexes they have but never wear because they don't want to get mugged, or they can pass on the house my cousins grew up in. I wonder which one will have more sentimental value to them. Just a thought.

If a watch is going to be passed down with sentimental value, it has to have meaning, and that meaning has to come from individuality.


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> But sentimental value doesn't come from monetary value, it comes from meaning.
> 
> That watch you bought with your first paycheck so you could get to your job and appointments on time. That pen you used to write your first novel. That quilt you made from clothes you no longer needed when you moved to a new location-and climate. That scrapbook you made of your last camping trip featuring lovingly curated photos and leaf samples.
> 
> And the tricky thing with meaning is that the sentimental value can be positive or negative. That Rolex you bought to fit in with your coworkers at that high-paying job you hated and quit is prolly going to have a negative sentimental value for you _and_ your family.
> 
> Honestly, _the house I grew up in_ is going to have a lot more positive sentimental value than my dad's watches which I would never have chosen for myself and have never worn. *shrugs*
> 
> My aunt and uncle, when they die, they can pass down the Rolexes they have but never wear because they don't want to get mugged, or they can pass on the house my cousins grew up in. I wonder which one will have more sentimental value to them. Just a thought.
> 
> If a watch is going to be passed down with sentimental value, it has to have meaning, and that meaning has to come from individuality.


Good points. I suppose our assumption is that the watch-to-be-passed-down would be something worn everyday for some time by the wearer (and perhaps bought by another important-to-the-wearer person on a special occassion), hence it'd be of sentimental value. An artifact to remember the original wearer by.

And a watch (or some personal wearable artifact), by virtue of being wearable, could be considered to be "closer" to the original wearer, hence more sentimental value. That and also that I could wear the same thing that my father-in-law wore for many years, that has value too.

But yes, agreed that the house where your family and relatives grew up in has tremendous value. That's undisputed.

The solution is, of course, to have both the watches and other personal artifact passed down along with the houses


----------



## T-Mak

These are two completlely different markets. I doubt that Switzerland or any large watch manufactorer is to concerned about a device that won't serve a useful purpose unless it is paired with an iPhone. Apple doesn't even own the phone market anymore, they share it with Samsung. The vast majority of iPhone users are teens who aren't even interested in pairing their phone with a watch.


----------



## BarracksSi

T-Mak said:


> The vast majority of iPhone users are teens who aren't even interested in pairing their phone with a watch.


Using a small sample size -- my workplace -- iPhones outnumber all others (not just Samsung; more like "whatever my carrier gave to me for cheap") by at least three to one.

[/tangent]


----------



## lorsban

T-Mak said:


> These are two completlely different markets. I doubt that Switzerland or any large watch manufactorer is to concerned about a device that won't serve a useful purpose unless it is paired with an iPhone. Apple doesn't even own the phone market anymore, they share it with Samsung. The vast majority of iPhone users are teens who aren't even interested in pairing their phone with a watch.


Apple is I think the largest INDIVIDUAL smartphone seller worldwide but iOS is ONLY 18% of the world market. But it only manages to slightly edge out Samsung.

Android simply mops the floor with iOS in terms of market share.

http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp

So I still don't see why the Apple Watch would have even a slight effect on the Luxury Watch market.


----------



## Blancpain

lorsban said:


> Apple is I think the largest INDIVIDUAL smartphone seller worldwide but iOS is ONLY 18% of the world market. But it only manages to slightly edge out Samsung.
> 
> Android simply mops the floor with iOS in terms of market share.
> 
> http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp
> 
> So I still don't see why the Apple Watch would have even a slight effect on the Luxury Watch market.


Even in the US market, IOS is only 42% of the market share. Android is hovering around 57%.

Still....if Apple sold a watch to every iPhone user....that's a lot of watches. Of course realistically, I think market penetration for the watch will top out at 2% of all iPhone users.


----------



## Blancpain

Tim Cooke expects to sell 2 million watches.... Is that alot of Apple watches? 

Consider in 2014 all the Swiss manufacturers sold 29 million watches...which is 1.7% of the total number of watches sold (quartz and non Swiss brands)


----------



## jbg7474

Blancpain said:


> Even in the US market, IOS is only 42% of the market share. Android is hovering around 57%.
> 
> Still....if Apple sold a watch to every iPhone user....that's a lot of watches. Of course realistically, I think market penetration for the watch will top out at 2% of all iPhone users.


1% of all iPhone users would be a huge number of watches. I have the feeling that would make Apple one of the largest watch producers in the watch industry.


----------



## BarracksSi

Blancpain said:


> Even in the US market, IOS is only 42% of the market share. Android is hovering around 57%.


To muddy the numbers even more, premium Android devices like the Galaxy and HTC One series aren't a large part of the Android installed base, never mind the number of devices running the latest Android builds.


----------



## Blancpain

jbg7474 said:


> 1% of all iPhone users would be a huge number of watches. I have the feeling that would make Apple one of the largest watch producers in the watch industry.


At first glance you may think so. The iphone user base is about 375 million. Lets be generous and say 2% of those users buy the Apple watch too. That is 7.5 million Apple watches.

The Swiss watch makers make up 1.7% of all watches sold in 2014...that was 29 million. That makes all other watches sold at almost 2 Billion. 7.5 million is a drop in the bucket.
The Swiss have nothing to worry about. Hell, Casio, Citizen, Seiko, Swatch etc. Have nothing to worry about either. Besides, they will get into the smartwatch market probably with Android on board that will be standalone or work with both Android and IOS.


----------



## Blancpain

BarracksSi said:


> To muddy the numbers even more, premium Android devices like the Galaxy and HTC One series aren't a large part of the Android installed base, never mind the number of devices running the latest Android builds.


We can muddy even more... All iphones aren't on the latest build either. Many are still on iPhone 3s, 4s...which cannot work with the Apple watch.


----------



## jbg7474

Blancpain said:


> At first glance you may think so. The iphone user base is about 375 million. Lets be generous and say 2% of those users buy the Apple watch too. That is 7.5 million Apple watches.
> 
> The Swiss watch makers make up 1.7% of all watches sold in 2014...that was 29 million. That makes all other watches sold at almost 2 Billion. 7.5 million is a drop in the bucket.
> The Swiss have nothing to worry about. Hell, Casio, Citizen, Seiko, Swatch etc. Have nothing to worry about either. Besides, they will get into the smartwatch market probably with Android on board that will be standalone or work with both Android and IOS.


I agree that most of the established watch companies have nothing to worry about. But, how many watches does any individual company sell? I found something online that puts Seiko's watch sales in a recent year at $1.5B. Let's assume the average selling price of a Seiko watch is $200. That may be on the low side. I don't know. But a little division says that's about 7.5M watches. Apple could very easily hit that number this year. This makes Apple one of the largest watch manufacturers in the world. Instantly. Apple is so big their farts cause hurricanes in other industries.


----------



## Blancpain

jbg7474 said:


> I agree that most of the established watch companies have nothing to worry about. But, how many watches does any individual company sell? I found something online that puts Seiko's watch sales in a recent year at $1.5B. Let's assume the average selling price of a Seiko watch is $200. That may be on the low side. I don't know. But a little division says that's about 7.5M watches. Apple could very easily hit that number this year. This makes Apple one of the largest watch manufacturers in the world. Instantly. Apple is so big their farts cause hurricanes in other industries.


Yeah Apple from California (yeah!) had the golden touch, but I see their foray into wearables as the tide lifting all boats. With more interest in watches, maybe Seiko will makr more $$$$ too.


----------



## jbg7474

Blancpain said:


> Yeah Apple from California (yeah!) had the golden touch, but I see their foray into wearables as the tide lifting all boats. With more interest in watches, maybe Seiko will makr more $$$$ too.


I hope so!!


----------



## brianedm

Blancpain said:


> Yeah Apple from California (yeah!) had the golden touch, but I see their foray into wearables as the tide lifting all boats. With more interest in watches, maybe Seiko will makr more $$$$ too.


That's what happened to me. Started looking at apple watches, wanted to see what I could get in comparable price range, and now I've bought a Hamilton, Oris, and Seiko


----------



## Fer Guzman

^ I think companies will see a noticeable hit in the sub 1k segment and even if regularly the impact wouldn't be too bad, this year is different. Some companies were already experiencing watch sales stagnation in late 2014, a decrease this year in large part due to sales in Asia, and the negative impact of the Swiss currency. The apple watch is another thing that will make an impact on the sub 1k market. If you go talk to a regular person in the street, especially non watch aficionados like us, and ask them would you rather buy the apple watch, a Swiss watch, or a Japanese watch that's around the same price. I think a good chunk of people would choose the apple watch. My mom was leaning towards buying a Citizen watch from Costco and after looking at the apple watch bought that instead even though the citizen was cheaper. High end watches have nothing to worry about but the Swiss and Japanese export a lot of sub 1k watches. Even a hit worth a couple of % points in this climate will be felt in my opinion. Is it going to run them out of business, of course not.


----------



## Blancpain

I think that is all speculative so far. We really don't know the sales figures of the Apple watch yet. Supposedly they are sold out...but we don't know hard numbers as Mr. Cooke hasn't release those....Sold out of how many? 50k? 1 mil? 2 mil? 10 mil?

You may be right about the sub $1000 cost point, but I think to be more precise, Apple watch will impact only the watches in the $250 to $1000 range. No company can stop the flow of those cheap under $100 watches, especially once they start creating "homage" watches of the Apple watch. Something these companies already do in a large scale. 

Watches are way different than the smart phone. Sure there are clone iphones, but try getting one at Walmart. You can't...you have to deal with the illegal online market. 
And there is no guarantee those phones will work on your carrier.

Watches, on the other hand isn't reliable upon a big Corp like the wireless carriers. There is no patent on case shapes or materials. Apple watch could just be another piece that another company can make a "homage" to and sell it for $50 at Wal-Mart. Sure it will be garbage but many people are happy with garbage if they think they can look the part IMHO.

The fake watch industry is a $2billion a year industry already, how much will it be once Apple Watch homages or even outright fakes are commonplace?


----------



## BarracksSi

Blancpain said:


> We can muddy even more... All iphones aren't on the latest build either. Many are still on iPhone 3s, 4s...which cannot work with the Apple watch.


App developer David Smith is tracking usage of his Audiobooks app and has about 75% on iPhone 5 and newer.

http://david-smith.org/iosversionstats/

25% of iPhones being Watch-incompatible is no small number, yes, but it's just getting smaller and smaller while current iPhone sales get stronger.


----------



## Blancpain

BarracksSi said:


> App developer David Smith is tracking usage of his Audiobooks app and has about 75% on iPhone 5 and newer.
> 
> http://david-smith.org/iosversionstats/
> 
> 25% of iPhones being Watch-incompatible is no small number, yes, but it's just getting smaller and smaller while current iPhone sales get stronger.


That's great and all....except 100% of Pebble works on Android, IOS and even Windows phone. Also Android wear watches (non Samsung of course) works on Android phones with version 4 and higher which is actually 95% of all Android.

So 1% of 75% of 18% of people who may or may not even want the Apple watch is not a very big number....when you consider there are more people just in California than there are worldwide iPhone users.

Apple watch could be considered a huge runaway hit...but the Swiss really have nothing to worry about when you actually look at the numbers.


----------



## Blancpain

BarracksSi said:


> App developer David Smith is tracking usage of his Audiobooks app and has about 75% on iPhone 5 and newer.
> 
> http://david-smith.org/iosversionstats/
> 
> 25% of iPhones being Watch-incompatible is no small number, yes, but it's just getting smaller and smaller while current iPhone sales get stronger.


And lets not forget the fact that Apple only came out with the watch because the smartphone market and even the tablet market is pretty much saturated by now. 
They wanted a new revenue stream, and it remains to be seen if this is going to be the next iPod or the next Newton.

Best case, I think Apple will make a huge splash with the media, but it will be hollow, as the traditional watch makers will quietly continue and keep the majority of sales.

As it always is with Apple, it will be a media darling, but the actual numbers show that they have never dominated any product for long or if at all...save for the iPod.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> Yeah Apple from California (yeah!) had the golden touch, but I see their foray into wearables as the tide lifting all boats. With more interest in watches, maybe Seiko will makr more $$$$ too.


I think this is quite doubtful assumption.

The appeal of the Apple Watch is its functionality. The appeal of traditional watches is its beauty and simplicity.

The interest in AW is in getting a tool that looks good on my wrist and help with things like health. Traditional watches don't fill that need.


----------



## Blancpain

zetaplus93 said:


> I think this is quite doubtful assumption.
> 
> The appeal of the Apple Watch is its functionality. The appeal of traditional watches is its beauty and simplicity.
> 
> The interest in AW is in getting a tool that looks good on my wrist and help with things like health. Traditional watches don't fill that need.


Maybe, but then again after a day, are people going to care about sending heartbeats? Playing games on a 1 inch screen? How many times does the average person need airline schedules? 
I've NEVER seen anyone purchase anything with a phone, let alone a watch. How much infrastructure is there right now that even accepts applepay? I personally think anyone talking to a Bluetooth headset or worse, their wrist looks just plain silly art best, or a d-bag at worst. What is so useful about these smartwatches?

Functionality is really limited to basic notifications but any watch can ad that, ala Cookoo watch. Hell, even my Fitbit can do that as well as very good health applications.

Beauty is also in the eye of the beholder.... Apple watch (like the other smart watches) is just plain ugly. Sorry, but it just is, no matter how many people say it is....it's ugly to me.

Maybe in a fewyears when they actually make a good looking smart watch, i will change my mind, but Apple Watch 1.0 aesthetically leaves me cold.


----------



## shnjb

Haha the opinions on watch forums are so different from the opinions on other forums.

In general, people don't really care about watches and watches are kind of a niche product.
Ultimately the Apple Watch is aimed more at the non watch buyers than the current watch buyers (although many current watch buyers like me will buy one).


----------



## MrDagon007

Anecdotical evidence: my sister in law and a female colleague now wear it. They are NOT Wis. Before they wore a standard watch. They find the apple watch great since now they don't need to take the phone from their handbag when they get a message, and they like the calendar as well. They say that they will not return to a traditional watch.
Indeed anectodical evidence but it wouldn't surprise me if many others will share this attitude.


----------



## Fer Guzman

Blancpain said:


> I've NEVER seen anyone purchase anything with a phone, let alone a watch. How much infrastructure is there right now that even accepts applepay?
> 
> Functionality is really limited to basic notifications but any watch can ad that, ala Cookoo watch. Hell, even my Fitbit can do that as well as very good health applications.


I just purchased some pillows at Macy's with my watch and it was awesome. Commonly use it at Subway and walgreens. Even a liquor store and taco shop took it. Everywhere I've used it the cashiers thought it was awesome. It's not widely available but I think you will see more and more places allow it especially since business are being forced to upgrade their credit card terminals for the chip credit cards.

I use a briefcase to work. iPhone is always in it. I can respond to messages super easily w/o having to look for the phone. In my office and home, sometimes I'm not at the desk but since the watch has wifi I can receive and answer messages from anywhere the wifi signal gets picked up by both devices. Calls are limited to bluetooth range but just Friday I got a semi important call picked it up on the watch and then went back to the get my phone so it does have its utility.

Also, there's no way this will be iPod or iPhone popular. Maybe somewhere between Apple TV and iPad popular.



MrDagon007 said:


> Anecdotical evidence: my sister in law and a female colleague now wear it. They are NOT Wis. Before they wore a standard watch. They find the apple watch great since now they don't need to take the phone from their handbag when they get a message, and they like the calendar as well. They say that they will not return to a traditional watch.
> Indeed anectodical evidence but it wouldn't surprise me if many others will share this attitude.


+1


----------



## scentedlead

Blancpain said:


> Maybe, but then again after a day, are people going to care about sending heartbeats?


A fast heartbeat sends a different message than a slow heartbeat. Also: When your significant other cuddles up to you, it's usually to your face or your heart. . . . I hope. ;-)



> Playing games on a 1 inch screen?


You have no clue for the glory of playing Tamagotchi on the wrist in full HD glory. It's a lot better than on a cell phone or a cheap keychain.



> How many times does the average person need airline schedules?


The person I know who's on an airplane every few days of course would find that more useful than you.



> What is so useful about these smartwatches?


Well, of the apps I have on my phone, let's look at their watch apps:

Camera is a remote for the camera in my iPhone. I'm so glad I didn't buy that bluetooth selfie stick.

Maps has haptic feedback to tell me when to turn. Very useful when walking around.

iTunes and Pandora are remotes. No more needing to pull my watch out of my phone just to skip a song.

GrubHub is an order tracker. Perfect for when you order food but wanna pass the time by checking out something else in the neighborhood.

Keynote-Apple's equivalent to Microsoft Powerpoint-is a slideshow remote. No more hiding behind a lectern-mounted laptop, yay for walking around! Of course I could achieve the same thing with my iPhone or iPad, but a watch is lighter. This is a mere convenience for me, but for someone with mobility issues in the upper extremities, this could be a huge burden lifted.

Actually, for anyone with mobility issues, anything that reduces the need to pull out the phone could be a burden lifted.



> Functionality is really limited to basic notifications but any watch can ad that, ala Cookoo watch. Hell, even my Fitbit can do that as well as very good health applications.


Can a Fitbit tell me when my GrubHub order is ready? Can a Fitbit snap a picture or skip a song or forward a slideshow?

And where's the SDK for for the Cookoo? If there's not one, then that means that it's not a matter of your favorite apps supporting the watch but a matter of your watch supporting your favorite apps. The latter is a lot more limiting than the other because no one company can do it all, or even a fraction of what you want it to do.


----------



## jbg7474

Blancpain said:


> So 1% of 75% of 18% of people who may or may not even want the Apple watch is not a very big number....when you consider there are more people just in California than there are worldwide iPhone users.
> 
> Apple watch could be considered a huge runaway hit...but the Swiss really have nothing to worry about when you actually look at the numbers.


More people in California than total iPhone users? There could be something like 500M iPhone users worldwide. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ap...-as-iphone-installed-base-balloons-2015-05-11
That's more than the population of the U.S., let alone California. What numbers are you looking at?


----------



## shnjb

jbg7474 said:


> More people in California than total iPhone users? There could be something like 500M iPhone users worldwide. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ap...-as-iphone-installed-base-balloons-2015-05-11
> That's more than the population of the U.S., let alone California. What numbers are you looking at?


I thought those numbers looked suspect.
There's gotta be more iPhone users just in China, let alone the word, than in California.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> Maybe, but then again after a day, are people going to care about sending heartbeats? Playing games on a 1 inch screen? How many times does the average person need airline schedules?


Try not to think of the AW as a mini iPhone. Games on the AW isn't appealing (yet).

If you wear the AW, you'll understand a bit more about the appeal of the watch.

One design goal of the AW is to use it as little as possible. It's a tool that gets out of your way so you can get on with your day.

Little things like Apple Pay goes a long way (and yes, limited locations now, but it's the future). I now wonder why my house, car, rental car, office, college, safe, etc etc keys cannot use secure wireless keys like Apple Pay. Also, using passwords on computers, ATMs, etc seem really old fashion to me. I'd rather not memorize so many numbers/alphanumerics/etc to get at my things and keep others out.

Looking at the time, checking the weather, timing things (count down and up, alarms) are more intuitive to do on the watch.

Also, the health tracking feature has a lot of appeal and is one major reason for keeping the AW on the wrist. Other health sensors can be added in future generations, and, combined with better water resistance, can have a big impact.



Blancpain said:


> I've NEVER seen anyone purchase anything with a phone, let alone a watch. How much infrastructure is there right now that even accepts applepay?




It's likely you won't see someone use Apple Pay because it's so fast, you'll miss it. It literally takes me 3 seconds at Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, McDonald's, and Panera Bread to pay. The cashiers have usually said something to the effect of, "that's cool. I want one of those".

But yes, the infrastructure needs to be built out. Apple and Google and Samsung are doing digital payments. Now, there's a good chance these infrastructure will be built out in the next few years.




Blancpain said:


> I personally think anyone talking to a Bluetooth headset or worse, their wrist looks just plain silly art best, or a d-bag at worst. What is so useful about these smartwatches?




You'll have to try it out to know. It's one of those products that you need to use for several weeks to understand and see what's so useful. I will say that the busier you are, the more you'll find it useful (i.e. students, working people, world travelers, etc).

BTW, the AW has been a great walky-talkie of sorts for me. A quick 3 sec voice message on my watch saves me 10s or so to type out a text message.



Blancpain said:


> Functionality is really limited to basic notifications but any watch can ad that, ala Cookoo watch. Hell, even my Fitbit can do that as well as very good health applications.


Fitbits are a bit like the iPod, and the AW a bit like the iPhone. The iPhone has the ability to play music, and so much more. The AW has the health tracking aspect, plus so much more.



Blancpain said:


> Beauty is also in the eye of the beholder.... Apple watch (like the other smart watches) is just plain ugly. Sorry, but it just is, no matter how many people say it is....it's ugly to me.


Agreed beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally like it. It's the first smartwatch that I wouldn't be embarrassed to wear in the open (i.e. Pebble, Galaxy Gear).

Of course, my mechanicals like the GS is much more beautiful. That's something the AW will likely never match. But it's beautiful in its own language. And again, the functionality blows any traditional watches out of the water.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> And lets not forget the fact that Apple only came out with the watch because the smartphone market and even the tablet market is pretty much saturated by now.


Quick sidenote about smartphone saturation:

Updated US Smartphone Saturation Forecast | Asymco

We're at about 75% penetration, but have 2-3 more years before saturation (assuming somewhere in the 90% range).


----------



## zetaplus93

shnjb said:


> In general, people don't really care about watches and watches are kind of a niche product.


I had the same thought. But walking around busy areas like malls and airports and Time Square, I notice that a good chunk of people are wearing a watch of some sort. Maybe it's like 20-30%? It's definitely not a niche though (which I would say is < 10%).

But agreed that most of the competition is on non-consumers.


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> Can a Fitbit tell me when my GrubHub order is ready? Can a Fitbit snap a picture or skip a song or forward a slideshow?
> 
> And where's the SDK for for the Cookoo? If there's not one, then that means that it's not a matter of your favorite apps supporting the watch but a matter of your watch supporting your favorite apps. The latter is a lot more limiting than the other because no one company can do it all, or even a fraction of what you want it to do.


+1 to all of your points.

The AW is a computer whereas the others like FitBits are more like iPods. Limited functionality.

Computers like the AW can get several software upgrades for years going forward (though I'd stop upgrading after 1-2 years because the software would run too slow after that due to old hardware). FitBits and Cookoos will not get many relevant software upgrades going forward because of its software/hardware design. It's just not in the same class.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> At first glance you may think so. The iphone user base is about 375 million. Lets be generous and say 2% of those users buy the Apple watch too. That is 7.5 million Apple watches.
> 
> The Swiss watch makers make up 1.7% of all watches sold in 2014...that was 29 million. That makes all other watches sold at almost 2 Billion. 7.5 million is a drop in the bucket.
> The Swiss have nothing to worry about. Hell, Casio, Citizen, Seiko, Swatch etc. Have nothing to worry about either. Besides, they will get into the smartwatch market probably with Android on board that will be standalone or work with both Android and IOS.


The perceived danger to Swiss watchmakers is that Apple is potentially taking away their future customers.

Let's make the assumption that the AW is successful as, say, the iPad. The young ones are getting it for Christmas. They use it and like it, and stop buying Swatches, Nixen, Timex, and the like. No biggie, right? Those are just inexpensive (<$100) watches.

But move forward a few years. They start working and get a decent salary. Perhaps they get a nice "you're working now!" watch (Hamilton, Seiko, maybe Omega) from their parents. But by this time, the AW, because of its functionality, becomes indispensable (again, another assumption here). They wear the nice traditional watch for a few days, then go back to the AW and similar watches for their functionality.

When they hit their late 20s, 30s, or 40s, will they move up and buy nice traditional watches? Or will the AW and other modern watches take up the same wrist real estate?

One of the reasons that we buy or gift traditional watches is to celebrate occassions. If the wrist is taken up by an AW or similar watch (and it becomes indispensable like an iPhone, and we upgrade every few years), perhaps the need to celebrate will move onto buying other things, perhaps fountain pens or things of that nature.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> At first glance you may think so. The iphone user base is about 375 million. Lets be generous and say 2% of those users buy the Apple watch too. That is 7.5 million Apple watches.


Assuming the AW is successful. Push this out 2-3 years. Let's say we reach 500 million iPhones (those with 4S and older will upgrade), and AW reaches 10%. That'd be 50 million AW users.

Remember too that the Android vendors will push forward too, so perhaps another 50 million Android Wear customers.

Still a drop in the bucket compared to the 2 billion watches sold worldwide. But remember the ASP (average selling price) of these modern smartwatches will be $350+ for AW and $200+ for Android Wear.

What will the world look like in 2020?


----------



## dawiz

zetaplus93 said:


> One of the reasons that we buy or gift traditional watches is to celebrate occassions. If the wrist is taken up by an AW or similar watch (and it becomes indispensable like an iPhone, and we upgrade every few years), perhaps the need to celebrate will move onto buying other things, perhaps fountain pens or things of that nature.


I'll buy an Omega for my son and my daughter once they turn 18 not matter if they have an Apple Watch by then or not.

With watches it's like with books: if a kid grows up in a household that values nice watches, he or she will have an inherent connection to them that'll last a lifetime. Will our kids buy Apple Watches? maybe. But nobody even knows if apple will still be around in 18, 20 years. Blackberry was awesome some 5 years ago, now the company's almost gone. The likelihood of this happening to traditional watches is tiny. There are a gazillion of watch companies doing whatever they can to sell their stuff. Will they all survive? Probably not. Would they survive without the Apple Watch? Not sure, either.

Im not sure why everyone's making such a big deal. Apple killed Blackberry and Palm because those didn't make good products, it's that simple. It's somewhat strange to conclude from hat that Apple will kill the traditional watch all of a sudden. Traditional watches don't suck. The Palm Pilot did.


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> I'll buy an Omega for my son and my daughter once they turn 18 not matter if they have an Apple Watch by then or not.
> 
> With watches it's like with books: if a kid grows up in a household that values nice watches, he or she will have an inherent connection to them that'll last a lifetime. Will our kids buy Apple Watches? maybe. But nobody even knows if apple will still be around in 18, 20 years. Blackberry was awesome some 5 years ago, now the company's almost gone. The likelihood of this happening to traditional watches is tiny. There are a gazillion of watch companies doing whatever they can to sell their stuff. Will they all survive? Probably not. Would they survive without the Apple Watch? Not sure, either.


I doubt my Apple Watch will last more than 3-4 years.

But then again, I think of it like my iPhone. I get a new one every couple of years.

So the AW isn't for inheritance nor will it last a lifetime. But it may become as indispensable as my iPhone is today, which I also don't expect to last a lifetime and will upgrade every couple of years.



dawiz said:


> Im not sure why everyone's making such a big deal. Apple killed Blackberry and Palm because those didn't make good products, it's that simple. It's somewhat strange to conclude from hat that Apple will kill the traditional watch all of a sudden. Traditional watches don't suck. The Palm Pilot did.


Nope, agreed that traditional watches don't suck. If they do, WUS and other forums wouldn't exist!

And actually, Blackberry and Palm made killer phones. But they were obsoleted because the iPhone and other modern phones became even better and more mainstream.

The danger is that traditional watches become irrelevant for mainstream. What if traditional watches become as niche as pocket watches or rotary phones? Sure, they're cool and retro, but not that useful anymore... Can you imagine using rotary phones that don't even have a contacts list or speakerphone?


----------



## Blancpain

jbg7474 said:


> More people in California than total iPhone users? There could be something like 500M iPhone users worldwide. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ap...-as-iphone-installed-base-balloons-2015-05-11
> That's more than the population of the U.S., let alone California. What numbers are you looking at?


Read the article you stated...1st it is a forecast, not hard numbers. And it is a forecast for the end of 2015.

Hard numbers to date is less that 375 million iphone users. I mispoke about the pop of California.. I regretfully got the pop of Cali (38 million) mixed up with US, 318 mil.

But let's take your 500 mil forecast as hard numbers.

75% on iphone users able to use your grubhub app (woopefindoo) on a watch.

375 mil able to pair up iphone to watch.

Say 2% (given how long the iPhone to reach the 500 hypothetical user base) is an extremely optomistic number.

That still only comes to 7.5 million apple watches....far short of the 50 million sold (pulled out of thin air or somewhere else  )

Numbers dont lie. 1.7 billion watches sold last year (hardly a niche product).

Maybe less will be sold this year....say minus 7 million of the Apple watch (extremely unlikely even 3 million awatches sold this year)

I'm not even mentioning the 7 companies (4 traditional watch makers) signed on to use Android wear that will also flood the market with better or on par functionality.

I still maintain Apple will not kill the watch industry like it did not kill the TV with appletv or kill off Playstion or Xbox or even Nintendo with its awesome Pippen!

I am not a WIS...or an Apple hater. I currently use Macbook pros in my business as well as ipads at home. My wife even has had an iphone from the 4S up so I am definitely not an Apple hater, but I am also not an Apple cheer leader either.

I just don't think the Swiss has anything to worry about when it comes to their core industry. Remember when the iPhone came out in 2007, it was a wide open market for the smartphone. Same with when the iPod came out or even when the iPad came out. Sure there were competing products like 500mb mp3 players or Windows tablet PCs or Blackberry phones....but not 2 BILLION units of them.

The Apple watch is fighting an uphill battle more akin to Mac vs PC than iPhone vs Blackberry.


----------



## Blancpain

Fer Guzman said:


> I just purchased some pillows at Macy's with my watch and it was awesome. Commonly use it at Subway and walgreens. Even a liquor store and taco shop took it. Everywhere I've used it the cashiers thought it was awesome. It's not widely available but I think you will see more and more places allow it especially since business are being forced to upgrade their credit card terminals for the chip credit cards.
> 
> I use a briefcase to work. iPhone is always in it. I can respond to messages super easily w/o having to look for the phone. In my office and home, sometimes I'm not at the desk but since the watch has wifi I can receive and answer messages from anywhere the wifi signal gets picked up by both devices. Calls are limited to bluetooth range but just Friday I got a semi important call picked it up on the watch and then went back to the get my phone so it does have its utility.
> 
> Also, there's no way this will be iPod or iPhone popular. Maybe somewhere between Apple TV and iPad popular.
> 
> +1


Maybe its where we live? Here in So OC, Cali no one uses a phone or watch to pay for stuff.

And Newport Beach is right next to Irvine a tech area almost like Silicon Valley....shrug.


----------



## Fer Guzman

I'm in San Diego. It's not widespread but people use it.


----------



## Blancpain

zetaplus93 said:


> The perceived danger to Swiss watchmakers is that Apple is potentially taking away their future customers.
> 
> Let's make the assumption that the AW is successful as, say, the iPad. The young ones are getting it for Christmas. They use it and like it, and stop buying Swatches, Nixen, Timex, and the like. No biggie, right? Those are just inexpensive (<$100) watches.
> 
> But move forward a few years. They start working and get a decent salary. Perhaps they get a nice "you're working now!" watch (Hamilton, Seiko, maybe Omega) from their parents. But by this time, the AW, because of its functionality, becomes indispensable (again, another assumption here). They wear the nice traditional watch for a few days, then go back to the AW and similar watches for their functionality.
> 
> When they hit their late 20s, 30s, or 40s, will they move up and buy nice traditional watches? Or will the AW and other modern watches take up the same wrist real estate?
> 
> One of the reasons that we buy or gift traditional watches is to celebrate occassions. If the wrist is taken up by an AW or similar watch (and it becomes indispensable like an iPhone, and we upgrade every few years), perhaps the need to celebrate will move onto buying other things, perhaps fountain pens or things of that nature.


That is actually a plausible scenario. Apple watch by itself will not do it, but smartwatches in general might kill off the traditional watches. I think companies like Fossil and Tag sees this too, and are coming out with their own versions of the smart watch.

Let me say that I have revised my thinking. The traditional watch companies will only be ok if they adapt to the new paradigm. I still maintain the Apple watch is just a drop in the bucket and I can say for certain that it will never dominate in this market as it has failed to dominate in any other market since the iPod over 10 years ago.


----------



## philskywalker

mvmt said:


> Anything that gets younger people thinking about watches again will be good for Switzerland in the long term, no question about it.


yes I agree


----------



## Blancpain

Ok, I travel to S. Korea and Japan at least 3 to 4 times a year where they do and have been using phones for payments for quite awhile now. I still have no reason to see my schedule on my watch when I have it on my phone. I am not going to buy an iPhone AND awatch when I already get same functionality (and customization) on my S6.

Everything you said you can do with the iPhone and Apple watch has been done already for several years. Those places are highly connected unlike here in the US. Hell broadband here is not even considered fast over there.

I come from a culture where gaming is 10 more popular than it is here and no self respecting gamer will ever play with tomogotchi which is for little children. Real games are not on phones much less a watch.

My point is, there is no compelling killer app yet and until someone creates one, the Apple watch as all other smart watches so far, is and will always be a niche product.

Also the SDK for the Cookoo? Are you kidding me? By your logic why would anyone write software for iphones when they are only 18% of the market? Why not only concentrate on Android?

If small companies like Pebble can get developers and traditional watch companies can partner up with Android (and that's the beauty isn't it? They make the hardware and Google the software) they will most likely compete and not only stay alive but prosper.

they can stay in business with their smart watches and continue to make watches for the rest of us old fossils 

Like Porsche...they make the profit on the Cayenne while still making the 911GT3 for us enthusiasts.


scentedlead said:


> A fast heartbeat sends a different message than a slow heartbeat. Also: When your significant other cuddles up to you, it's usually to your face or your heart. . . . I hope. ;-)
> 
> You have no clue for the glory of playing Tamagotchi on the wrist in full HD glory. It's a lot better than on a cell phone or a cheap keychain.
> 
> The person I know who's on an airplane every few days of course would find that more useful than you.
> 
> Well, of the apps I have on my phone, let's look at their watch apps:
> 
> Camera is a remote for the camera in my iPhone. I'm so glad I didn't buy that bluetooth selfie stick.
> 
> Maps has haptic feedback to tell me when to turn. Very useful when walking around.
> 
> iTunes and Pandora are remotes. No more needing to pull my watch out of my phone just to skip a song.
> 
> GrubHub is an order tracker. Perfect for when you order food but wanna pass the time by checking out something else in the neighborhood.
> 
> Keynote-Apple's equivalent to Microsoft Powerpoint-is a slideshow remote. No more hiding behind a lectern-mounted laptop, yay for walking around! Of course I could achieve the same thing with my iPhone or iPad, but a watch is lighter. This is a mere convenience for me, but for someone with mobility issues in the upper extremities, this could be a huge burden lifted.
> 
> Actually, for anyone with mobility issues, anything that reduces the need to pull out the phone could be a burden lifted.
> 
> Can a Fitbit tell me when my GrubHub order is ready? Can a Fitbit snap a picture or skip a song or forward a slideshow?
> 
> And where's the SDK for for the Cookoo? If there's not one, then that means that it's not a matter of your favorite apps supporting the watch but a matter of your watch supporting your favorite apps. The latter is a lot more limiting than the other because no one company can do it all, or even a fraction of what you want it to do.


----------



## Blancpain

Fer Guzman said:


> I'm in San Diego. It's not widespread but people use it.


I guess I haven't been paying attention then, but I do notice many people do wear traditional watches around here.

Side note: I lived in La Jolla for a bit. Near UCSD. Damn good times!


----------



## Blancpain

It appears the Apple watch release has mellowed expectations of it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...ke-a-dent-in-the-luxury-watch-business-2015-6


----------



## scentedlead

Blancpain said:


> Ok, I travel to S. Korea and Japan at least 3 to 4 times a year where they do and have been using phones for payments for quite awhile now. I still have no reason to see my schedule on my watch when I have it on my phone. I am not going to buy an iPhone AND awatch when I already get same functionality (and customization) on my S6.


By your logic then, no one needs a wristwatch because a cell phone already tells the time. And yet, I still have a number of wristwatches. For some people, watches are jewelry. For others, it's a tool that tells time that's more convenient than pulling out the phone. When I first got a cell phone, I stopped wearing wristwatches. And then I got annoyed and went back to wearing them. To quote Tim Cook: The wrist is interesting.



> I come from a culture where gaming is 10 more popular than it is here and no self respecting gamer will ever play with tomogotchi which is for little children. Real games are not on phones much less a watch.


Oh. You and those in your culture are those kinds of gamers. Okay then. Good luck promoting gaming in its changing landscape with that kind of elitist and snobby attitude.



> My point is, there is no compelling killer app yet and until someone creates one, the Apple watch as all other smart watches so far, is and will always be a niche product.


The smartphone's killer app is the internet in your hand. The smartwatch's killer app is the internet on your wrist.

I like having the time on my wrist. I'm going to like having other pieces of info on my wrist. I'm going to like having remotes on my wrist. I'm going to like having all these things, _in small one device,_ on my wrist. And I'm going to like it for the same reason I already like my wristwatch-the wrist is convenient.

If you're talking about the one killer specific app, then that's going to be different for everyone. I've already given you mine. The retiree I know who travels every week? The killer apps to them are going to be different.



> Also the SDK for the Cookoo? Are you kidding me? By your logic why would anyone write software for iphones when they are only 18% of the market? Why not only concentrate on Android?


I'm not kidding, really. Where is the SDK for the Cookoo?

And you completely misunderstand the point in releasing SDKs. SDK = Software Development Kit. People write apps for Android phones and watches because there are SDKs that Google has made available. People write apps for iPhone and Apple Watch because of the SDKs Apple has made available.

If there is no SDK for the Cookoo, then no one else outside of Cookoo will write apps for it because no one else will be able to write apps for it. If you are an app developer and you have the perfect killer app idea but can't get your app onto the device, then too bad, oh well, you'll just move on to another device. Goodbye Cookoo.

What makes a smartphone so versatile is that third-party app developers can develop for it and users can choose which ones are useful to them, making each phone uniquely useful to and representative of its owner. And the same is going to be true for smartwatches. A smartwatch that developers can't develop for is going to die in the market.


----------



## Blancpain

scentedlead said:


> By your logic then, no one needs a wristwatch because a cell phone already tells the time. And yet, I still have a number of wristwatches. For some people, watches are jewelry. For others, it's a tool that tells time that's more convenient than pulling out the phone. When I first got a cell phone, I stopped wearing wristwatches. And then I got annoyed and went back to wearing them. To quote Tim Cook: The wrist is interesting.
> 
> Oh. You and those in your culture are those kinds of gamers. Okay then. Good luck promoting gaming in its changing landscape with that kind of elitist and snobby attitude.
> 
> The smartphone's killer app is the internet in your hand. The smartwatch's killer app is the internet on your wrist.
> 
> I like having the time on my wrist. I'm going to like having other pieces of info on my wrist. I'm going to like having remotes on my wrist. I'm going to like having all these things, _in small one device,_ on my wrist. And I'm going to like it for the same reason I already like my wristwatch-the wrist is convenient.
> 
> If you're talking about the one killer specific app, then that's going to be different for everyone. I've already given you mine. The retiree I know who travels every week? The killer apps to them are going to be different.
> 
> I'm not kidding, really. Where is the SDK for the Cookoo?
> 
> And you completely misunderstand the point in releasing SDKs. SDK = Software Development Kit. People write apps for Android phones and watches because there are SDKs that Google has made available. People write apps for iPhone and Apple Watch because of the SDKs Apple has made available.
> 
> If there is no SDK for the Cookoo, then no one else outside of Cookoo will write apps for it because no one else will be able to write apps for it. If you are an app developer and you have the perfect killer app idea but can't get your app onto the device, then too bad, oh well, you'll just move on to another device. Goodbye Cookoo.
> 
> What makes a smartphone so versatile is that third-party app developers can develop for it and users can choose which ones are useful to them, making each phone uniquely useful to and representative of its owner. And the same is going to be true for smartwatches. A smartwatch that developers can't develop for is going to die in the market.


Yep...people decided the watch is not necessary....so most people stopped wearing them...your point is?

I know what an SDK is. Get off the Cookoo, I only brought it up as an example of a traditional watch with notifications. I could have said a traditional watch company with real smartwatch functions like the Kairos, but it isn't out yet. The point wasn't about third party developers, it was about the uselessness of having a computer on your wrist tied to a spotty BT connected phone when all it really is useful at is notifications and quick glanceavle info. You believe it is useful to you so therefore you try to extoll those beliefs to others. Fine....I don't find playing games or some such stuff useful and so I will voice my opinion too. Agree to disagree...let the market decide.

By the way... i just tried the Grubhub app....and yes! It works with fitbit. Any notification I get on my phone works on a simple band.

The killer app is NOT the internet on your watch, the phone can do the heavy lifting for that.

IMHO the killer app is notifications. Everything else is just extra distraction and actually a step backwards trying to everything your phone can do on a small screen.


----------



## Blancpain

scentedlead said:


> By your logic then, no one needs a wristwatch because a cell phone already tells the time. And yet, I still have a number of wristwatches. For some people, watches are jewelry. For others, it's a tool that tells time that's more convenient than pulling out the phone. When I first got a cell phone, I stopped wearing wristwatches. And then I got annoyed and went back to wearing them. To quote Tim Cook: The wrist is interesting.
> 
> Oh. You and those in your culture are those kinds of gamers. Okay then. Good luck promoting gaming in its changing landscape with that kind of elitist and snobby attitude.
> 
> The smartphone's killer app is the internet in your hand. The smartwatch's killer app is the internet on your wrist.
> 
> I like having the time on my wrist. I'm going to like having other pieces of info on my wrist. I'm going to like having remotes on my wrist. I'm going to like having all these things, _in small one device,_ on my wrist. And I'm going to like it for the same reason I already like my wristwatch-the wrist is convenient.
> 
> If you're talking about the one killer specific app, then that's going to be different for everyone. I've already given you mine. The retiree I know who travels every week? The killer apps to them are going to be different.
> 
> I'm not kidding, really. Where is the SDK for the Cookoo?
> 
> And you completely misunderstand the point in releasing SDKs. SDK = Software Development Kit. People write apps for Android phones and watches because there are SDKs that Google has made available. People write apps for iPhone and Apple Watch because of the SDKs Apple has made available.
> 
> If there is no SDK for the Cookoo, then no one else outside of Cookoo will write apps for it because no one else will be able to write apps for it. If you are an app developer and you have the perfect killer app idea but can't get your app onto the device, then too bad, oh well, you'll just move on to another device. Goodbye Cookoo.
> 
> What makes a smartphone so versatile is that third-party app developers can develop for it and users can choose which ones are useful to them, making each phone uniquely useful to and representative of its owner. And the same is going to be true for smartwatches. A smartwatch that developers can't develop for is going to die in the market.


Here's an experiment...go ahead type all your replies only with the apple watch. How long will it take you? How easy and pleasureable is it to do so?


----------



## scentedlead

Blancpain said:


> Agree to disagree...let the market decide.


Filed away for future claimchowder.


----------



## scentedlead

Blancpain said:


> Here's an experiment...go ahead type all your replies only with the apple watch. How long will it take you? How easy and pleasureable is it to do so?


My cousin and I were talking about the Apple Watch. I said, "Well you're not going to read _War and Peace_ on it." And he said, "Oh yeah . . . Watch me." And we both laughed out loud. 'Cause you know, some idiot is gonna do it. Hell, before that, some idiot will write an app to make it possible. But anyways. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

And Apple gets this. Of the three apps in iWork-Pages, Numbers, Keynote-only Keynote has an Apple Watch app. Makes sense, what are you going to do with a word processor or spreadsheet on a watch? As for Keynote, you can't add or edit slides on the watch; you can't even review slides because the screen is too small. But the watch app is a remote-you can forward and backtrack and play and pause slides.

How dare Apple _*cripple*_ its slideshow app for the watch so that the only thing you can do is . . . the only thing that makes sense to do with a slideshow on a watch.


----------



## Blancpain

scentedlead said:


> Filed away for future claimchowder.


Sure buddy 

Hey, I'm not knowledgeable about big corp. Wheeling and dealings...but I suspect neither are you. But lets see what these guys have to say....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102573480

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102573273

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102340656

http://macdailynews.com/2015/01/15/...phone-sales-slow-and-apple-watch-disappoints/

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Wasik-Apple-watch-stock/2015/03/12/id/629713/

http://investorplace.com/2015/04/underwhelming-apple-watch-cannot-catalyze-aapl-stock/#.VXds4Kal-2w

Consensus...after an initial run of sales from early adopters and Apple fanboys...sales are mediaocre at best...some say dissapointing.
Market is deciding....mmmmm clam chowder eh?


----------



## Blancpain

scentedlead said:


> My cousin and I were talking about the Apple Watch. I said, "Well you're not going to read _War and Peace_ on it." And he said, "Oh yeah . . . Watch me." And we both laughed out loud. 'Cause you know, some idiot is gonna do it. Hell, before that, some idiot will write an app to make it possible. But anyways. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
> 
> And Apple gets this. Of the three apps in iWork-Pages, Numbers, Keynote-only Keynote has an Apple Watch app. Makes sense, what are you going to do with a word processor or spreadsheet on a watch? As for Keynote, you can't add or edit slides on the watch; you can't even review slides because the screen is too small. But the watch app is a remote-you can forward and backtrack and play and pause slides.
> 
> How dare Apple _*cripple*_ its slideshow app for the watch so that the only thing you can do is . . . the only thing that makes sense to do with a slideshow on a watch.


Hey, you were the one that said the internet was the killer app on this thing. I was thr one that said the smartwatch has limited functionality and has yet to find the real killer app to make it useful for people other than techies.

Is this discussion board not part of the internet? Besides a few misspellings and grammatical errors, I have no problems writing to you from my phone. If the awatch can do everything an iphone can do...shouldn't it be pleasurable and easy to reply using the awatch instead?

By its very nature the Apple watch has limited usefulness. As of right now the only real advantage over a traditional watch are notifications IMO. So if a company (which shall go nameless) makes a traditional watch with just notifications and nothing else superfluous...what advantage does a full blown Apple watch have? Hell they can even include an NFC chip in that hybrid watch so you can still make your payments.


----------



## Fer Guzman

It does have a HR sensor which I find to be be very useful when working out. It's pretty good at texting too. 

I'm 29, Im almost certain that no one I know that's in their 20s or 30s would spend 500-1k on a tag heur and if they where in the market to spend in that range on a watch im willing to bet the apple watch would be the top contender. Watches in general will be even less popular in the future than they are now. Out of all my friends only one has a Swiss watch, a Rolex, most don't have a watch, and the ones who do use a workout type watch or a fashions watch. Almost all of them don't get a traditional watch. I'm really the only one into watches. The guy who bought the Rolex only bought it for the brand.


----------



## scentedlead

Blancpain said:


> Hey, you were the one that said the internet was the killer app on this thing. I was thr one that said the smartwatch has limited functionality and has yet to find the real killer app to make it useful for people other than techies.
> 
> Is this discussion board not part of the internet? Besides a few misspellings and grammatical errors, I have no problems writing to you from my phone. If the awatch can do everything an iphone can do...shouldn't it be pleasurable and easy to reply using the awatch instead?
> 
> By its very nature the Apple watch has limited usefulness. As of right now the only real advantage over a traditional watch are notifications IMO. So if a company (which shall go nameless) makes a traditional watch with just notifications and nothing else superfluous...what advantage does a full blown Apple watch have? Hell they can even include an NFC chip in that hybrid watch so you can still make your payments.


You can look at the screen's small size as a limit, or you can look at the small size plus its position as a creator of other use cases-or, at least, more convenient use cases. Maps has haptic feedback that tells you when to turn, which isn't possible with a phone's vibrate feature. If you're in a neighborhood that's been known for smartphone thefts-like, say, downtown San Francisco-then it's nice to not have to pull your phone out and be vulnerable to grab-n-go thieves. Keynote has the remote-not new since you can already do that with the iOS app, but much more convenient if you're closer to the audience than the podium.

Everything you've been saying about the limited usefulness has already been said about the smartphone-less powerful than a real computer. It's also been said about the tablet-less powerful than a computer, less portable than a phone. Yet the smartphone and tablet and computer all have their own use cases. I can review code on a phone while waiting for an appointment. I can review and make a quick edit on the go with a tablet while waiting at the DMV. I can edit huge chunks of code with complex grep expressions to find and replace things on a computer. I'm not going to make an order on Grubhub with my watch-that task goes to the phone or tablet or computer. But I can track my order's progress with it-in the street where I am less likely to have a computer or tablet and don't want to take out my phone. And etc.

And yes, the internet on your wrist is the killer app, just like it is with your phone. Not everything you do with your phone requires internet, but a lot of the fun stuff does. Of the apps that I look forward to on the watch, Maps, iTunes, Pandora, Shazam, and GrubHub need internet to be useful. That jetsetter retiree I know? I'd guess a lot of travel apps they'd be interested in would also need internet. I have friends who use Twitter constantly; Twitterrific is going to need internet to be useful. And so on.

The point of the watch was to tell you when you are in this moment and some of the most popular complications-day, date, year, moon-phase, even the chronograph-give you context for the larger picture of when this moment is. Likewise, the smartwatch tells you something about this moment, but to tell you that something and to give you the larger picture for context, it's going to need data and a lot of that data is going to come from the internet.

As for the advantage to a connected traditional watch with nfc? The screen has more use cases than just telling time and notifications. Also, Apple (and Android) already has an ecosystem of apps. To create a connected watch-to create a unified system-you have to coordinate hardware and software which is easy to do for one company, not so much for multiple companies.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> Is this discussion board not part of the internet? Besides a few misspellings and grammatical errors, I have no problems writing to you from my phone. If the awatch can do everything an iphone can do...shouldn't it be pleasurable and easy to reply using the awatch instead?


That logic makes sense only if you're trying to replace another device. IMHO, the AW will b successful only if it does something that the iPhone or other devices cannot do.

For example, the iPhone provides more mobility over laptops. The iPad provides lightweight chassis and keyboardless form for using a computer. The AW provides an always-on-your-wrist computer with sensors for measuring biometrics.

BTW, when I say iPhone iPad AW, I also mean other similar devices in the same class, i.e. android phones tables watches etc.



Blancpain said:


> By its very nature the Apple watch has limited usefulness. As of right now the only real advantage over a traditional watch are notifications IMO. So if a company (which shall go nameless) makes a traditional watch with just notifications and nothing else superfluous...what advantage does a full blown Apple watch have? Hell they can even include an NFC chip in that hybrid watch so you can still make your payments.


Look back at history. The first iPhone provided much more limited capabilities (slow 2G connection, 1-day battery vs 3-5 day for similar phones of the time, no camera front or back). And yet it became more powerful over time as it gained cameras, faster 4G connections etc. Services like Snapchat, Uber, etc wouldn't have made sense on laptops, but are huge with the continuous development on the iPhone.

Not trying to say that the AW will be as popular as the iPhone. But look beyond the limitations of the 1st gen AW to see its potential as Apple and 3rd party app developers improve the device and figure out new and captivating ways of using the AW beyond the 3 tent poles that they started with.


----------



## zetaplus93

Fer Guzman said:


> It does have a HR sensor which I find to be be very useful when working out. It's pretty good at texting too.
> 
> I'm 29, Im almost certain that no one I know that's in their 20s or 30s would spend 500-1k on a tag heur and if they where in the market to spend in that range on a watch im willing to bet the apple watch would be the top contender. Watches in general will be even less popular in the future than they are now. Out of all my friends only one has a Swiss watch, a Rolex, most don't have a watch, and the ones who do use a workout type watch or a fashions watch. Almost all of them don't get a traditional watch. I'm really the only one into watches. The guy who bought the Rolex only bought it for the brand.


+1

My colleagues are similar to your's. Recently, the group manager, in his 50s, bought a Swatch Sisteme 51 and was thrilled with the mechanical movement. No one else had a mechanical of any type, just Quartz or fashion watches, and one ABC watch.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> I know what an SDK is. Get off the Cookoo, I only brought it up as an example of a traditional watch with notifications. I could have said a traditional watch company with real smartwatch functions like the Kairos, but it isn't out yet. The point wasn't about third party developers, it was about the uselessness of having a computer on your wrist tied to a spotty BT connected phone when all it really is useful at is notifications and quick glanceavle info. You believe it is useful to you so therefore you try to extoll those beliefs to others. Fine....I don't find playing games or some such stuff useful and so I will voice my opinion too. Agree to disagree...let the market decide.


The importance of the SDK is that it allows 3rd parties to do things that the platform maker didn't even think of.

I'm pretty sure Apple (and Google) never thought apps/services like Uber, Tinder, and SnapChat would be possible and be such big hits. The lack of a good SDK would prevent extending the usefulness of the platform.

The SDK of traditional-looking watches like the Cookoo (and possibly the upcoming Tag Heuer smartwatches) is limited by the form factor. Those watches aren't computers; they lack the screens, sensors, computing power, and complex-enough software to do many things.

Likewise, the older blackberries and Nokias (then dominant) back in 2007 wasn't competitive because those lack the form factor (always had large bulky physical keyboards instead of a large touchscreen), sensors (accelerators, gyroscopes, etc), and complex-enough software (iOS was closer to a computer OS whereas Blackberry's OS and Nokia's Symbian was closer to feature phone OS); this prevented 3rd parties from doing much more.



Blancpain said:


> IMHO the killer app is notifications. Everything else is just extra distraction and actually a step backwards trying to everything your phone can do on a small screen.


Again, look beyond the limitations and look for use cases that builds on the strengths of the platform.

I find notifications useful. Also the health and fitness. And the communications as well. Each of these, by itself, has been done by others. But the combination of all 3, plus the many more uses yet to be discovered, makes the potential of this platform and form factor attractive.

You can bet 3rd parties are experimenting and doing all sorts of wacky stuff now and for weeks and months to come. New platforms always needs experimentation to figure out killer features. Contrary to mainstream thinking, platform makers often don't have a master plan. They start with some things, experiment, and feel there's something there. They then build the platform and invite others to build on top of it. Together (platform maker, 3rd parties, customers), we figure out what's useful and what's not. And of course, this could all be a dud. But early indications are that there's something there.

BTW, have you tried wearing one for a few weeks? This is a device that needs to be worn to be understood and appreciated. There is a 2-week return policy, so it doesn't hurt to try it.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> Hey, I'm not knowledgeable about big corp. Wheeling and dealings...but I suspect neither are you. But lets see what these guys have to say:


You should go back and look up articles about the iPhone in 2007... Similar negative comments then too. Most people didn't get the iPhone because it's a new platform. It's only in hindsight that we understand what a big deal it was.

Remember, Apple didn't figure out the pricing and distribution back then. They tried to sell it unlocked for $450 or $550. The $200 w/2 year contract strategy was a huge deal and paved the way forward here in the U.S.. The AW may go through similar learnings and adjusting before it go through a huge breakthrough. But the product as-is has big potential.


----------



## Fer Guzman

zetaplus93 said:


> You should go back and look up articles about the iPhone in 2007... Similar negative comments then too. Most people didn't get the iPhone because it's a new platform. It's only in hindsight that we understand what a big deal it was.
> 
> Remember, Apple didn't figure out the pricing and distribution back then. They tried to sell it unlocked for $450 or $550. The $200 w/2 year contract strategy was a huge deal and paved the way forward here in the U.S.. The AW may go through similar learnings and adjusting before it go through a huge breakthrough. But the product as-is has big potential.


Me and my brother went to an apple store when it came out and it was so cool we each bought one. We paid $599 + tax for each and it required a 2 year contract w/ AT&T. It had 8GB of storage, which is what the Apple Watch has. CRAZY.

My brother was not wowed enough to get the apple watch and it's because he doesn't see the point of one. I gave him a Seiko a couple years back to get him into watches and he's worn it a handful of times a year. I think if our dad was someone who wore a watch it might be different for him and the few people my age or younger who do desire or have expensive watches, it's been because they aspire to have a watch like their dads or they are brand snobs (meaning they could care less of the build quality they just buy it because it says a certain name on the dial), or even rarer (like me) they like watches.

It's not comfortable doing things on the apple watch for long periods of time because you have to keep your hand in that 90 degree angle. But for things that take a couple of seconds I think it's good. I think the a significant factor, apart form its utility, will be if companies can get people to spend a couple of hundred dollars on something that they have to grow accustomed to strapping on in the morning which isn't meant to replace or do as much as the smart phone.


----------



## Blancpain

zetaplus93 said:


> You should go back and look up articles about the iPhone in 2007... Similar negative comments then too. Most people didn't get the iPhone because it's a new platform. It's only in hindsight that we understand what a big deal it was.
> 
> Remember, Apple didn't figure out the pricing and distribution back then. They tried to sell it unlocked for $450 or $550. The $200 w/2 year contract strategy was a huge deal and paved the way forward here in the U.S.. The AW may go through similar learnings and adjusting before it go through a huge breakthrough. But the product as-is has big potential.


The problem is.....iphone is not the most popular smartphone. Android has surpassed it years ago. So then if we follow the numbers, Android watches (which traditional Swiss makers are partnering up with) surpass the Apple watch. Non WIS only go for a fashion watch like Michael Korrs or Armani etc for the name. Apple is losing their "high end" cache and people will realize why pay 6x the price for something that really had no real world advantage than a $100 pebble or Android.

Smartwatches may kill the traditional watch, but if those same traditional watch makers jump on board, Apple watch itself will be relegated to second place.

So going back to the original topic, Swiss makers have nothing to fear, Android is here to save them.


----------



## Blancpain

> It's not comfortable doing things on the apple watch for long periods of time because you have to keep your hand in that 90 degree angle. But for things that take a couple of seconds I think it's good. I think the a significant factor, apart form its utility, will be if companies can get people to spend a couple of hundred dollars on something that they have to grow accustomed to strapping on in the morning which isn't meant to replace or do as much as the smart phone.


Exactly! Notifications are glanceable. Social media is a chore on any smart watch. Killer app is something with quick glances, not browsing youtube or searching or Facebooking.

You cannot automatically think you could or should do the same things on a watch than your phone. Sure people were not convinced about the iPhone in 2007, but it was a different time with no competition. You know what the competition is for the Apple watch? The iphone!










This is what people really use their smartphones for....the awatch can do those things, but it is a chore to do so. If people really wanted to watch a small screens we would have kept all computer screens to 15" or TVs to 24"


----------



## Blancpain

zetaplus93 said:


> The importance of the SDK is that it allows 3rd parties to do things that the platform maker didn't even think of.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Apple (and Google) never thought apps/services like Uber, Tinder, and SnapChat would be possible and be such big hits. The lack of a good SDK would prevent extending the usefulness of the platform.
> 
> The SDK of traditional-looking watches like the Cookoo (and possibly the upcoming Tag Heuer smartwatches) is limited by the form factor. Those watches aren't computers; they lack the screens, sensors, computing power, and complex-enough software to do many things.
> 
> Likewise, the older blackberries and Nokias (then dominant) back in 2007 wasn't competitive because those lack the form factor (always had large bulky physical keyboards instead of a large touchscreen), sensors (accelerators, gyroscopes, etc), and complex-enough software (iOS was closer to a computer OS whereas Blackberry's OS and Nokia's Symbian was closer to feature phone OS); this prevented 3rd parties from doing much more.
> 
> Again, look beyond the limitations and look for use cases that builds on the strengths of the platform.
> 
> I find notifications useful. Also the health and fitness. And the communications as well. Each of these, by itself, has been done by others. But the combination of all 3, plus the many more uses yet to be discovered, makes the potential of this platform and form factor attractive.
> 
> You can bet 3rd parties are experimenting and doing all sorts of wacky stuff now and for weeks and months to come. New platforms always needs experimentation to figure out killer features. Contrary to mainstream thinking, platform makers often don't have a master plan. They start with some things, experiment, and feel there's something there. They then build the platform and invite others to build on top of it. Together (platform maker, 3rd parties, customers), we figure out what's useful and what's not. And of course, this could all be a dud. But early indications are that there's something there.
> 
> BTW, have you tried wearing one for a few weeks? This is a device that needs to be worn to be understood and appreciated. There is a 2-week return policy, so it doesn't hurt to try it.


 I've tried the awatch on at the Apple store and played with it for an hour or so. Yes I'm impressed with it, better than the Motorola watch my friend let me try out. When it came down to it, I didn't see anything different functionalitywise between the two.

I'm an avid mountain biker and both watches are not sturdy enough for my needs.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> The problem is.....iphone is not the most popular smartphone. Android has surpassed it years ago. So then if we follow the numbers, Android watches (which traditional Swiss makers are partnering up with) surpass the Apple watch. Non WIS only go for a fashion watch like Michael Korrs or Armani etc for the name. Apple is losing their "high end" cache and people will realize why pay 6x the price for something that really had no real world advantage than a $100 pebble or Android.
> 
> Smartwatches may kill the traditional watch, but if those same traditional watch makers jump on board, Apple watch itself will be relegated to second place.
> 
> So going back to the original topic, Swiss makers have nothing to fear, Android is here to save them.


The AW doesn't need to be the most popular device (computer, laptop, tablet, phone, watch). Others will come along to offer similar class of experiences at the same or lower prices (i.e. Android, Windows, etc). Together, they're changing the landscape.

Again, whenever I say AW, I mean products in the same class with an LCD screen, powerful computing hardware, and complex-enough software/OS. So really AW and Android watches. But not the Tag Heuer watch because that's going to be a quartz watch with analog hour/minute/seconds hands, and not the other things I mentioned above.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> I've tried the awatch on at the Apple store and played with it for an hour or so. Yes I'm impressed with it, better than the Motorola watch my friend let me try out. When it came down to it, I didn't see anything different functionalitywise between the two.
> 
> I'm an avid mountain biker and both watches are not sturdy enough for my needs.


I really think it's hard to gauge the effectiveness of the AW (again, I mean all devices of the same class) in the store. It's gotta be worn to be appreciated.

But I hear you about your requirement for sturdiness. I think of the AW more like a dress watch, so it may not hold up to mountain biking action.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> Exactly! Notifications are glanceable. Social media is a chore on any smart watch. Killer app is something with quick glances, not browsing youtube or searching or Facebooking.


Sure, but use the "limitations" of the watch to its advantage. What if someone wants to be notified immediate (within seconds) of a certain person posting something on social media? A gentle tap on the wrist would notify them. You can imagine too many notification (so some sort of algorithm may help here). Yes, you could do the same on the phone, but if there's lots of notifications, it's less annoying to get a tap on your wrist than constant sounds/buzzing on your phone. You could look at your watch, and if it's not important, just drop your hand and ignore it.

BTW, taps are better than buzzes on your phone. You don't miss it (I've sporadically missed vibrations of my iPhone when it's in my pocket).



Blancpain said:


> You cannot automatically think you could or should do the same things on a watch than your phone. Sure people were not convinced about the iPhone in 2007, but it was a different time with no competition. You know what the competition is for the Apple watch? The iphone!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what people really use their smartphones for....the awatch can do those things, but it is a chore to do so. If people really wanted to watch a small screens we would have kept all computer screens to 15" or TVs to 24"


Again, if the AW's primary competition is the iPhone, then it's going to have a rough time. It's got to be able to do things that the iPhone cannot do.

One example thus far is the health tracking. This is something the iPhone can't do. Other fitness trackers do this to an extent, but the AW experience is quite good so far.


----------



## Relos

I once saw the potential (and still do somewhat, if I look hard enough), but so far it sounds like the Apple Watch (and other wearables for that matter) hasn't proven 'vital' in terms of being able to do things that our phones can't already do. So far, it just seems like more noise and interference.

I can see it improving in the future, especially with the recent release of WatchOS at WWDC this past Monday as I'm sure app developers will eventually come up with apps that'll make the watch more its own entity rather than just an extension of the phone. I can even see myself getting one down the line once it's improved, but probably more so as a fitness companion I can wear to the gym and listen to music from through bluetooth headphones without needing my phone in my pocket. 

Otherwise, I'll still wear my mechanical watches.


----------



## Relos

Fer Guzman said:


> It does have a HR sensor which I find to be be very useful when working out. It's pretty good at texting too.
> 
> I'm 29, Im almost certain that no one I know that's in their 20s or 30s would spend 500-1k on a tag heur and if they where in the market to spend in that range on a watch im willing to bet the apple watch would be the top contender. Watches in general will be even less popular in the future than they are now. Out of all my friends only one has a Swiss watch, a Rolex, most don't have a watch, and the ones who do use a workout type watch or a fashions watch. Almost all of them don't get a traditional watch. I'm really the only one into watches. The guy who bought the Rolex only bought it for the brand.


I was once at that cross road. Last year, in fact, when the Apple Watch was first announced. I thought I'd buy one as soon as it came out. But I waited, smartly, doing my research as time went along, making sure it lived up to the hype before pulling the trigger.

It never did, so I never bought one.

I subsequently bought my Junkers for $500, I think this little guy's gonna stick around for way longer than the Apple Watch was ever going to. In the end, I'm happy with the decision I made.

What's funny is that it was through my rejection of the Apple Watch that I started to become more and more obsessed with mechanical watches. So perhaps I have the Apple Watch to thank for that.


----------



## Blancpain

Relos said:


> I was once at that cross road. Last year, in fact, when the Apple Watch was first announced. I thought I'd buy one as soon as it came out. But I waited, smartly, doing my research as time went along, making sure it lived up to the hype before pulling the trigger.
> 
> It never did, so I never bought one.
> 
> I subsequently bought my Junkers for $500, I think this little guy's gonna stick around for way longer than the Apple Watch was ever going to. In the end, I'm happy with the decision I made.
> 
> What's funny is that it was through my rejection of the Apple Watch that I started to become more and more obsessed with mechanical watches. So perhaps I have the Apple Watch to thank for that.


That's what I think will happen alot. Someone not interested in watches will look into the awatch and decide it isn't ready for prime time yet, but then decide, "hey, I like watches" and get a traditional watch instead.


----------



## Blancpain

zetaplus93 said:


> Sure, but use the "limitations" of the watch to its advantage. What if someone wants to be notified immediate (within seconds) of a certain person posting something on social media? A gentle tap on the wrist would notify them. You can imagine too many notification (so some sort of algorithm may help here). Yes, you could do the same on the phone, but if there's lots of notifications, it's less annoying to get a tap on your wrist than constant sounds/buzzing on your phone. You could look at your watch, and if it's not important, just drop your hand and ignore it.
> 
> BTW, taps are better than buzzes on your phone. You don't miss it (I've sporadically missed vibrations of my iPhone when it's in my pocket).
> 
> Again, if the AW's primary competition is the iPhone, then it's going to have a rough time. It's got to be able to do things that the iPhone cannot do.
> 
> One example thus far is the health tracking. This is something the iPhone can't do. Other fitness trackers do this to an extent, but the AW experience is quite good so far.


Yes notifications on your wrist is good, I get that when I'm on a trail and my phone is in my backpack, my fitness tracker gets all my notifications and calls so I can be informed with customized buzzes on my wrist. G shock on my left wrist and fitbit on right.

Also I don't have too charge the thing for two weeks! Just keep it with my gear and grab and go. I don't think I would like to charge the watch everyday and maybe forget it on the charger when I'm in a hurry to pack up my bike and gear and go.


----------



## Blancpain

I think the awatch is a good first try, but unless there is a whole paradigm shift, it won't even make a dent to the Swiss watch industry. In fact once this concept becomes a reality, Apple will have to follow suit (like the iPhone did with following Android - drop shade, multi tasking, cut and paste, bigger screen, NFC, wireless charging, etc etc)


----------



## Fer Guzman

I agree it will introduce more people to traditional watches, but the benefit will be for higher end traditional watches. Rolex, Omega, etc. It will do more harm than help in the prince range that the non gold apple watch is in, 300-1k range. I think it'll serve as a sort of daily/beater and people will get into the higher end watches for formal occasions, nice dinners, etc.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> I think the awatch is a good first try, but unless there is a whole paradigm shift, it won't even make a dent to the Swiss watch industry. In fact once this concept becomes a reality, Apple will have to follow suit (like the iPhone did with following Android - drop shade, multi tasking, cut and paste, bigger screen, NFC, wireless charging, etc etc)


This would be essentially putting the smartphone on your wrist... It'd still make your arm sore if you lift your arm more than 5-10s.


----------



## raincity

At the risk of repeating something from this long, long thread, I think it's too early to gauge the impact of the iwatch. It might turn some young people onto wristwear (I see a lot of bare wrists these days). And it might cut into sales of fashion watches in the $300-$600 range, which are largely disposable. Those buyers won' worry about obsolete tech; they'll just go buy the next one, upgrading along with their phones. I think it will push some watch companies into incorporating tech into traditional watches. For myself, I'll keep my Omegas.


----------



## 123Blueface

Got my Apple Watch on launch day, delivered on 4/24. Recently sold it.


----------



## Fer Guzman

123Blueface said:


> Got my Apple Watch on launch day, delivered on 4/24. Recently sold it.


I'm curious did you make or loose money or come out even?


----------



## black watch

I don't have any hatred towards Apple watches, heck I’m in their forum because of curiosity.

However, in defense of my automatics, with their many gears & spinning things, I don’t need to pay a monthly fee to know what time it is, and to a lesser degree, 
I’ll continue to know the time should we ever suffer an EMP attack…ha ha, in which case, the value of my automatics will increase tenfold.


----------



## jay7264

To much Hassle they need to make a smart watch with an alternator Seiko kenetic


----------



## BrewerBrain

I'm an Apple guy. I have an iPhone which I usually update to a newer one about every 3 yrs. I also have an iPad mini. I'll admit that it was probably the Apple Watch that got me back interested in watches. However, I have no interest in buying an Apple Watch. It was having the time on cell phones that caused me to stop wearing watches. I just don't see the purpose of having an electronic device that needs to connect to a phone to be fully functional on a much smaller screen (as I understand from reading about it, the Apple watch needs connection to the phone for full function) Why not just use your phone then? Yes, it looks cool and sleek and is sure to get compliments. I'd rather have a nice Quartz or mechanical watch on my wrist which is why I bought one and have been looking for a nice automatic mechanical too.


----------



## shnjb

black watch said:


> I don't have any hatred towards Apple watches, heck I'm in their forum because of curiosity.
> 
> However, in defense of my automatics, with their many gears & spinning things, I don't need to pay a monthly fee to know what time it is, and to a lesser degree,
> I'll continue to know the time should we ever suffer an EMP attack&#8230;ha ha, in which case, the value of my automatics will increase tenfold.


You don't need a monthly fee for the apple watch either.


----------



## black watch

shnjb said:


> You don't need a monthly fee for the apple watch either.


Do tell.


----------



## Fer Guzman

shnjb said:


> You don't need a monthly fee for the apple watch either.


+1 what monthly fee are you referring too?


----------



## black watch

Fer Guzman said:


> +1 what monthly fee are you referring too?


Your Apple iPhone account, I presume you can't have an Apple watch without an Apple iPhone.
My fault, I probably should have said mobile phone bill instead of fee. Either way, in the simplest form, you have to pay to see the time on an Apple watch.


----------



## shnjb

Fer Guzman said:


> +1 what monthly fee are you referring too?


Black, just google apple watch.
I'm not going to look up .... for you.


----------



## black watch

OK, I'll do better than that, I'll call the AT&T store in town and ask if I can buy an Apple watch that will work on my wrist with no phone account, 
if he says yes, then I'm wrong. Maybe there's a straw hat in my closet I can take a bite out of


----------



## black watch

black watch said:


> Your Apple iPhone account, I presume you can't have an Apple watch without an Apple iPhone.
> My fault, I probably should have said mobile phone bill instead of fee. Either way, in the simplest form, you have to pay to see the time on an Apple watch.


Ok, just got off the phone with AT&T, guess I'll have to take a bite out of that hat, hey I'll admit when I'm wrong.

The watch will work with no carrier account as a standalone timepiece, just time, obviously no advance functions. He couldn't tell me if I could get any preprogramed alternative dial faces.
For use of advance functions, a standalone account, or an add on to a current AT&T or Verizon account for $10 month.
I'm really surprised the Apple watch would work at all without a monthly fee/bill, it's just not the American corporate way. Thanks for the insight guys.


----------



## shnjb

black watch said:


> Ok, just got off the phone with AT&T, guess I'll have to take a bite out of that hat, hey I'll admit when I'm wrong.
> 
> The watch will work with no carrier account as a standalone timepiece, just time, obviously no advance functions. He couldn't tell me if I could get any preprogramed alternative dial faces.
> For use of advance functions, a standalone account, or an add on to a current AT&T or Verizon account for $10 month.
> I'm really surprised the Apple watch would work at all without a monthly fee/bill, it's just not the American corporate way. Thanks for the insight guys.


Are you new to internet?
Apple watch, like any device that uses the wifi, will work as long as you have internet at your home, work, cafe, etc.
If you don't have wifi, it will tether to your phone.

Also why would you call AT&T?
They have nothing to do with the Apple watch.
That's like calling time warner cable about a laptop.


----------



## Fer Guzman

I can see why some people might think it requires a data plan like iPad with lte. In fact that wouldn't be a horrible idea to completely untether the watch from the phone at some point in the future.


----------



## BarracksSi

I think carriers simply haven't figured out how to screw over smartwatch users like they do everyone else.

Well, that's probably not gonna happen—additional device fees, that is—since carriers have already been giving away Android smartwatches as bundles with new phones.


----------



## black watch

shnjb said:


> Are you new to internet?
> Apple watch, like any device that uses the wifi, will work as long as you have internet at your home, work, cafe, etc.
> If you don't have wifi, it will tether to your phone.
> 
> Also why would you call AT&T?
> They have nothing to do with the Apple watch.
> That's like calling time warner cable about a laptop.


Not AT&T per se, it's an AT&T store that sells all mobile devices that AT&T support, which includes IPhone. The salesman told me exactly as I previously stated.
Also, if you don't have an IPhone then how can you tether it?

Please keep in mind here, I was talking about using an Apple watch with no IPhone & no standalone account for the watch. Not that I'm cheap, already have an S5.
For any of us non-IPhone people, do you think the Apple watch is worth it, can I pick up and download different dial faces at Wi-Fi hotspots without some kind of Apple account password?


----------



## scentedlead

Fer Guzman said:


> I can see why some people might think it requires a data plan like iPad with lte. In fact that wouldn't be a horrible idea to completely untether the watch from the phone at some point in the future.


A smartwatch untethered from a phone means another phone number and another bill. I'm kinda meh on the idea. I'm with my phone 99% of the time anyways.

But, hm, the point of a smartwatch is to pull out your smartphone less often, so I'll wait and see. Tether, untether? I'll come back to this question in five years to see how attitudes and use patterns will have changed.


----------



## scentedlead

black watch said:


> Not AT&T per se, it's an AT&T store that sells all mobile devices that AT&T support, which includes IPhone. The salesman told me exactly as I previously stated.
> Also, if you don't have an IPhone then how can you tether it?
> 
> Please keep in mind here, I was talking about using an Apple watch with no IPhone & no standalone account for the watch. Not that I'm cheap, already have an S5.
> For any of us non-IPhone people, do you think the Apple watch is worth it, can I pick up and download different dial faces at Wi-Fi hotspots without some kind of Apple account password?


Well, you can't download new dial faces with the AW-what you get is what you get. But, it already has a good selection of faces and there are more in coming this fall.

My iPhone is too old for the AW and honestly, I'm not interested in the AW without first upgrading my phone-even though, by itself, the AW does more than the fitness watch I bought a decade ago. To me, a smartwatch without a compatible smartphone is like a smartphone without a data plan; why would you buy a thing that does cool things if you can't use the cool things?


----------



## Fer Guzman

black watch said:


> For any of us non-IPhone people, do you think the Apple watch is worth it, can I pick up and download different dial faces at Wi-Fi hotspots without some kind of Apple account password?


You need an iPhone to set it up, download apps, customize it. There are only like 9 dials you can't download any more of them. Additionally the watch doesn't connect to any wifi, it only connects to trusted networks that the iPhone connects too. So it's useless if you don't have an iPhone.



scentedlead said:


> A smartwatch untethered from a phone means another phone number and another bill.


You don't need a new number it would just work for data to update apps etc w/o the need for an iPhone when your not connected to wifi but you would get charged a monthly fee to join the shared data plan. It definitely couldn't be your main device though. I don't think this is something we would see any time soon thought for many factors, battery being a huge one.


----------



## black watch

> You need an iPhone to set it up, download apps, customize it. There are only like 9 dials you can't download any more of them. Additionally the watch doesn't connect to any wifi, it only connects to trusted networks that the iPhone connects too. So it's useless if you don't have an iPhone.


Ok, I get it, I knew all along it's kind of useless without an IPhone, but I didn't know I could actually use it in the limited way described. Thanks for everybody's help clearing up my understanding.
I'm about to start a new post on something kind of related, I don't want to add any more to this one, so jump on in.


----------



## zetaplus93

black watch said:


> Please keep in mind here, I was talking about using an Apple watch with no IPhone & no standalone account for the watch. Not that I'm cheap, already have an S5.
> For any of us non-IPhone people, do you think the Apple watch is worth it, can I pick up and download different dial faces at Wi-Fi hotspots without some kind of Apple account password?


I think we were assuming you to have an iPhone since we haven't seen much interest from those who don't have an iPhone.

Given your situation, agreed that it doesn't make much sense to get the AW. It doesn't done enough to justify the costs IMO. Unless you'd really want to switch to an iPhone...


----------



## BarracksSi

In bold caps so that nobody misses it:

*THE APPLE WATCH IS NOT A CELLULAR DEVICE.*

It has wifi and Bluetooth, but NO cellular radio. No 3G, no LTE, not even Edge.

AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile&#8230; None of them care if you get an Apple Watch.

Now, when you're talking about the few 3G/LTE-enabled smartwatches out there, then sure, they latch onto whatever plan you're using.

I used to run my iPad on its own month-by-month data plan for $24.95/mo. I also had our two iPhones on a family plan that preserved my old unlimited data plan (dating from back when AT&T didn't think iPhones would amount to anything). We switched it all to a shared data plan, getting ten gigs for about ninety bucks less than the old total.


----------



## BarracksSi

An update on what the AW will be able to do without a phone nearby:
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/arti...-watch-better-by-making-it-even-more-realtime


----------



## Nasir Askar

I don't think Switzerland is in trouble. People were saying the same in the 1970s i.e. Switzerland is in trouble with the advent of Quartz. Yes it is admitted that Apple Watches have many built in features but newer versions and problems cropping in the older one, for me the life of an Apple Watch is not more than 10 years. Mechanical watches are here to stay for an indefinite period of time and the life of Apple Watch is limited


----------



## Fer Guzman

^ they did say that with Quartz and it had a huge impact on the industry...almost killed it.


----------



## CraigShipp

I've had my Apple Watch for about a month and I love it. It's just so useful that it has parked all my other watches. For the first time in years I'm considering selling my DAY-DATE. Here's my latest review:


----------



## Neiljlewis

I love my technology & love watches. For the record I have the 6 Plus as my phone because I use my phone a lot for reading etc & don't have the best eyesight! Which begs the question, why on earth would I not look at my phone and instead squint at something the size of a stamp?!

I personally don't get the thing with these watches. I see what the attraction is for some when doing strenuous exercise and carrying their phone isn't feasible hence the watch storing health data etc. But this talk that it's so people don't have to take their phone out of their pocket to answe a text/ call etc? Come on, is that for real?!

the technology and real world benefits would need to increase beyond all recognition over the coming years to even get close to considering purchasing one. I remember seeing a stat a while back boasting that something like 1 in 5 Apple customers would consider getting one. I read that as 4 in 5 won't, but ultimately it's all about supply & demand & whilst there clearly will be demand, it's a long, long way away from being must have technology such as the smartphone.


----------



## BarracksSi

Neiljlewis said:


> But this talk that it's so people don't have to take their phone out of their pocket to answe a text/ call etc? Come on, is that for real?!


I'd dig it. Currently, without a smartwatch, during my walk to and from work, I can either leave my phone in my pocket and miss nearly every text or call that comes my way, or I can carry it in my hand so it's more easily stolen.

But, your usage must be different. That's fine.

1 in 5 Apple users want an Apple Watch, too? There's over half a billion iPhones out there; the _billionth_ iOS device (this includes iPads and the aging iPod Touch) was a space grey iPhone sold last November. If that stat is correct, you're complaining that only 100 million Apple users want an Apple Watch.

Again, I wish I had that problem. I can't even sell cupcakes.


----------



## Neiljlewis

Lol, absolutely barracks, that's why I referred to their clearly being demand for it. The point I was trying to make though is that the majority of people still see this as either a fad or in the infancy of its development. I don't mock the possibility of the latter, developments in the coming years could change many people's views, mine included. As for your usage, headphones alleviate that issue for me, but of course everyone needs & usages are different. Ironically, it's use as a phone is quite low down on the list for me & many users too according to a recent survey.


----------



## dawiz

BarracksSi said:


> I'd dig it. Currently, without a smartwatch, during my walk to and from work, I can either leave my phone in my pocket and miss nearly every text or call that comes my way


or you could use the headphones that came with your phone. Answering messages over headphones using Siri is pretty much the same as on the watch.

Or avoid getting killed while talking to your phone / watch and just don't answer calls for 20 minutes. How about that?


----------



## BarracksSi

I wish, but the guys at work expect answers more quickly than that. I'd prefer to treat texts as if they were electronic post-it notes, as in "I'll get to it when I can even if it's an hour from now," but some people have whole real-time conversations via text.


----------



## zetaplus93

Neiljlewis said:


> I love my technology & love watches. For the record I have the 6 Plus as my phone because I use my phone a lot for reading etc & don't have the best eyesight! Which begs the question, why on earth would I not look at my phone and instead squint at something the size of a stamp?!
> 
> I personally don't get the thing with these watches. I see what the attraction is for some when doing strenuous exercise and carrying their phone isn't feasible hence the watch storing health data etc. But this talk that it's so people don't have to take their phone out of their pocket to answe a text/ call etc? Come on, is that for real?!
> 
> the technology and real world benefits would need to increase beyond all recognition over the coming years to even get close to considering purchasing one. I remember seeing a stat a while back boasting that something like 1 in 5 Apple customers would consider getting one. I read that as 4 in 5 won't, but ultimately it's all about supply & demand & whilst there clearly will be demand, it's a long, long way away from being must have technology such as the smartphone.


People pay for convenience.

Check out this article from a century ago, when pocket watches were dominant, when people ridiculed emerging wristwatches (they're too feminine!):

From the New York Times, July 1916

Wristwatches got better (they solved the problem of watches catching on fire!), and convenience won out in the end.


----------



## Blancpain

Not as much interest of the Apple watch as extolled by Apple fans. Go Fitbit! I wear that as well as my mechanicals.

http://www.argusinsights.com/consum...-watch-is-waning-in-advance-of-product-sales/









Meanwhile, in 85% of the wearables market....

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/1...rge-52-percent-in-market-debut.html?referrer=

If the Swiss can keep themselves on the left wrist and Fitbit on the right (or vise versa) they can make the case of the best of both worlds.


----------



## Tucker3434

Blancpain said:


> Not as much interest of the Apple watch as extolled by Apple fans. Go Fitbit! I wear that as well as my mechanicals.
> 
> Consumer Social Data Reveals Excitement for Apple Watch Is Waning in Advance of Product Sales
> 
> View attachment 4377834
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, in 85% of the wearables market....
> 
> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/1...rge-52-percent-in-market-debut.html?referrer=
> 
> If the Swiss can keep themselves on the left wrist and Fitbit on the right (or vise versa) they can make the case of the best of both worlds.


I watched their IPO the other day. Their CEO was on CNBC being interviewed by Jim Cramer who was wearing his Apple watch and has never been shy about discussing it. It was interesting. They do cater to slightly different markets, but here is certainly overlap. I doubt this will be FitBit's best quarter.

As as for me, I'll continue to wear my Apple watch by day and Swiss mechanical by night. To me, they're different products that serve different purposes. One is all about function. The other is about craftsmanship. One will never replace the other. There's room for both.


----------



## Fer Guzman

Blancpain said:


> Not as much interest of the Apple watch as extolled by Apple fans. Go Fitbit! I wear that as well as my mechanicals.
> 
> http://www.argusinsights.com/consum...-watch-is-waning-in-advance-of-product-sales/
> 
> View attachment 4377834
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, in 85% of the wearables market....
> 
> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/1...rge-52-percent-in-market-debut.html?referrer=
> 
> If the Swiss can keep themselves on the left wrist and Fitbit on the right (or vise versa) they can make the case of the best of both worlds.


I'm almost certain Apple's revenue thus far from the watch is more than what Fitbit did in all of 2014. From the article Fitbit's revenue was 745.4 million in 2014. And by all estimates apple has sold more than 2 million watches already.


----------



## Blancpain

Fer Guzman said:


> I'm almost certain Apple's revenue thus far from the watch is more than what Fitbit did in all of 2014. From the article Fitbit's revenue was 745.4 million in 2014. And by all estimates apple has sold more than 2 million watches already.


I wasn't talking about money. Of course a $500 watch brings more than a $99 fitness band. 
That graph shows actual data of interest... Apple watch has dropped off significantly.

2 million ESTIMATE isn't actual numbers. On the NRA website, it states that there is an estimated 2.5 million people who successfully used a gun for protection..... As a gun collector also...I call ******** on that number too. Just because people estimate doesn't make it truth. Hey Apple....release your numbers....they haven't yet because sales probably haven't met expectation.

Anyway, you can count me in that number of those not interested in the Apple watch. This is the last I'll speak of it, subject is boring now. Nothing to see here, I'm moving along. My last statement on this subject.... The Swiss should not be worried at all.


----------



## Fer Guzman

^ The 2 million number is based on pretty good analysis, it's not a number pulled out of thin air. Slice Intelligence estimates that about 2.79 million watches have been sold, with close to 20% buying a second band. So it's highly likely that Apple has sold more than $1 billion worth of apple watches and straps thus far in 2015.

Exclusive: Apple mines big profits from Watch band | Reuters


----------



## shnjb

I seriously doubt FitBit or Pebble will be able to survive the pressure from top end of the wearables market from Apple, Tag Heuer, LG, etc and the low end of the market from xiaomi and other Chinese companies.

While they do serve a slightly different purpose for sure, for many people, the decision will be between Apple watches vs Fitbit wearable vs google now wearable with hardware from multiple companies (Motorola, Samsung, LG, huawei, xiaomi, etc). Being between Apple and Google and the other hardware manufacturers hardly puts Fitbit or jawbone in an enviable position.


----------



## jbg7474

Blancpain said:


> This is the last I'll speak of it, subject is boring now. Nothing to see here, I'm moving along. My last statement on this subject.... The Swiss should not be worried at all.


Somehow, I doubt that.


----------



## shnjb

jbg7474 said:


> Somehow, I doubt that.


Me too.

Patek and a few others may be fine though.


----------



## jbg7474

shnjb said:


> Me too.
> 
> Patek and a few others may be fine though.


Actually, I meant that I doubted the part about it being the last words on the topic, not that the Swiss will be fine, which I generally do not doubt.


----------



## SJACKAL

Apple Watch is not a watch, you think it is, but its a microchip you wear everyday that lets someone out there track and monitor you.


----------



## shnjb

SJACKAL said:


> Apple Watch is not a watch, you think it is, but its a microchip you wear everyday that lets someone out there track and monitor you.


That would actually be true for android wear.


----------



## lorsban

shnjb said:


> That would actually be true for android wear.


I'm sure that's true for nearly all gadgets these days. They use nearly all the same parts inside.


----------



## shnjb

lorsban said:


> I'm sure that's true for nearly all gadgets these days. They use nearly all the same parts inside.


hardware parts do not determine what you do with the data (I.e. Tracking)


----------



## lorsban

shnjb said:


> hardware parts do not determine what you do with the data (I.e. Tracking)


That actually makes it easier because for every piece of software, is another piece of software to crack it.

And lets not be so naive to think that Apple, the second largest OS, isn't doing what Google is doing.

They just haven't been called out or caught yet.

Oh wait...lol

http://www.businessinsider.com/ifa-apples-iphone-tracking-in-ios-6-2012-10

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/20...tion-suit-for-tracking-users-without-consent/


----------



## shnjb

lorsban said:


> That actually makes it easier because for every piece of software, is another piece of software to crack it.
> 
> And lets not be so naive to think that Apple, the second largest OS, isn't doing what Google is doing.
> 
> They just haven't been called out or caught yet.
> 
> Oh wait...lol
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/ifa-apples-iphone-tracking-in-ios-6-2012-10
> 
> https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/20...tion-suit-for-tracking-users-without-consent/


There is a fundamental difference in Google vs Apple.
The existence of tracking data does not mean anything is being done with those data.

Google, Apple, Facebook or any cell phone companies for that matter have location and other types of sensitive customer data.
However, google and Facebook are unique in that their business model involves making use of those sensitive data.
Apple's business model involves high margins on hardware which runs proprietary software.
Apple does not need to mind anything from the user data to make money.


----------



## lorsban

shnjb said:


> There is a fundamental difference in Google vs Apple.
> The existence of tracking data does not mean anything is being done with those data.
> 
> Google, Apple, Facebook or any cell phone companies for that matter have location and other types of sensitive customer data.
> However, google and Facebook are unique in that their business model involves making use of those sensitive data.
> Apple's business model involves high margins on hardware which runs proprietary software.
> Apple does not need to mind anything from the user data to make money.


What do you think happens when you do absolutely anything on iTunes? You think Apple Corp isn't keeping track of your spending habits? And what about that class action suit vs Apple? If they're not using the data, why bother tracking it in the first place?

And at this point, EVERYBODY is getting your info one way or another. Nobody is sacred or holy or ethical in this.

That's the price of "being connected."

Only way you can be safe is if you used a fake identity for everything and saved all your real info via analog - and do all your transactions with cash.


----------



## Tucker3434

The watch isn't tracking anything more than my phone was. We can have a discussion about how much of our info these tech giants should keep track of, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the Apple watch itself. It's the phone it's tethered to. So, I don't really see how it's relevant.


----------



## shnjb

lorsban said:


> What do you think happens when you do absolutely anything on iTunes? You think Apple Corp isn't keeping track of your spending habits? And what about that class action suit vs Apple? If they're not using the data, why bother tracking it in the first place?
> 
> And at this point, EVERYBODY is getting your info one way or another. Nobody is sacred or holy or ethical in this.
> 
> That's the price of "being connected."
> 
> Only way you can be safe is if you used a fake identity for everything and saved all your real info via analog - and do all your transactions with cash.


You clearly know a lot about the inner workings at Apple.
Are you Tim Cook?
Do you wear tin foil hats?


----------



## shnjb

Tucker3434 said:


> The watch isn't tracking anything more than my phone was. We can have a discussion about how much of our info these tech giants should keep track of, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the Apple watch itself. It's the phone it's tethered to. So, I don't really see how it's relevant.


Nah, as the guy above says, the apple pay is the big brother.


----------



## lorsban

shnjb said:


> You clearly know a lot about the inner workings at Apple.
> Are you Tim Cook?
> Do you wear tin foil hats?


I could ask you the same thing.


----------



## shnjb

lorsban said:


> I could ask you the same thing.


Burden of proof is on conspiracy theorists, not on the non-believers.

And no, I don't wear tin foil hats.


----------



## lorsban

shnjb said:


> Burden of proof is on conspiracy theorists, not on the non-believers.
> 
> And no, I don't wear tin foil hats.


Why not? They're very stylish. Hehe

Look all I'm saying is the connected environment is full of companies who are trying to get as much info from you as possible.

You say Apple isn't one of them but a quick search shows otherwise. I posted 2 links - one is from Business Insider. I'm sure you can find more.


----------



## jbg7474

shnjb said:


> Nah, as the guy above says, the apple pay is the big brother.


I know we're way off topic here, but for what it's worth, Apple does not get any info about your payments from Apple Pay, and it's a much safer payment method than using a credit card. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203027


----------



## shnjb

jbg7474 said:


> I know we're way off topic here, but for what it's worth, Apple does not get any info about your payments from Apple Pay, and it's a much safer payment method than using a credit card. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203027


Yeah, that's what they say.
Who knows what machinations are taking place behind the scenes?
I'm keeping my tinfoil hat on, brother!

/sarcasm


----------



## zetaplus93

Pretty OT now, but...



shnjb said:


> There is a fundamental difference in Google vs Apple.
> The existence of tracking data does not mean anything is being done with those data.
> 
> Google, Apple, Facebook or any cell phone companies for that matter have location and other types of sensitive customer data.
> However, google and Facebook are unique in that their business model involves making use of those sensitive data.
> Apple's business model involves high margins on hardware which runs proprietary software.
> Apple does not need to mind anything from the user data to make money.


Though I'm more comfortable with my data being with Apple than Google/Facebook precisely because of the difference in business model that you pointed out, here's a good clarification/counterargument for Google/Facebook.

Ben Thompson wrote a nice piece here (pay-wall). Two things he pointed out were (food for thought):



Ben Thompson said:


> First, it's simply not true to say that Google or Facebook are selling off your data: what they are doing is promising advertisers they will display their ads to a particular type of customer as defined by the advertiser using Google or Facebook's provided parameters... This may sound like semantics but the difference is significant: Google and Facebook do know a lot about individuals, but advertisers don't know anything - that's why Google and Facebook can charge a premium!
> 
> Second, Google and Facebook are highly motivated to protect user information. In fact, should Google or Facebook decide to sell your data, the value of each company would fall through the floor! Their competitive advantage in advertising is that they have data on customers that no one else has. In other words, if you consider incentives, Google and Facebook have more motivation to protect their users' data from 3rd-parties than Apple does: money has a funny way of trumping morals (not that I question Apple's! Rather, I'm just pointing out how wrong Cook's implication is)





lorsban said:


> Look all I'm saying is the connected environment is full of companies who are trying to get as much info from you as possible.
> 
> You say Apple isn't one of them but a quick search shows otherwise. I posted 2 links - one is from Business Insider. I'm sure you can find more.


Sure. But compare the egregious things that Facebook and Google are doing in terms of privacy, Apple's a relatively light offender.

But again, this doesn't have much to do with AW in particular, but tech products in general. Taken to the extreme, you'd be living a life like in Enemy of the State...


----------



## shnjb

zetaplus93 said:


> Pretty OT now, but...
> 
> Though I'm more comfortable with my data being with Apple than Google/Facebook precisely because of the difference in business model that you pointed out, here's a good clarification/counterargument for Google/Facebook.
> 
> Ben Thompson wrote a nice piece here (pay-wall). Two things he pointed out were (food for thought):
> 
> Sure. But compare the egregious things that Facebook and Google are doing in terms of privacy, Apple's a relatively light offender.
> 
> But again, this doesn't have much to do with AW in particular, but tech products in general. Taken to the extreme, you'd be living a life like in Enemy of the State...


I completely agree with your reasonable assessment and it probably is true that there isn't anything particularly malicious being done with the personal information at Facebook and Google.
However, I still find it slightly unsettling that they need to collect and analyze those personal data even if it's at a population level. Nothing is entirely secure either, so even if Google and Facebook aren't trying to do something about it, other people might.

Apple has far less data and analysis of these data for commercial activity is not one of Apple's forte so I am much less concerned.


----------



## arogle1stus

Anybody heard of or read about upscale watch company CFOs, CEOs or Chairmen of Boards of Directors jumping outta
the 30th floor of their high rise Corporate Offices? Neither have I.
Thats what happened in the 1929 Stock Market Crash.
I've owned all kinds of watches in the last 62 years. Switzerland hasn't had one case of death by suicide by any Swiss
Watch Company Execs due to Billy Gates play toy.

X traindriver Art


----------



## Fer Guzman

^ this is irrelevant with anything having to do with the apple watch? And what does Bill Gates have to do with the apple watch?


----------



## zetaplus93

shnjb said:


> Apple has far less data and analysis of these data for commercial activity is not one of Apple's forte so I am much less concerned.


Agreed. Though even Apple may need to do more data collecting in order to bring more "proactive" features in future updates. They're doing some already in iOS 9. Hopefully they'll figure out a way to do most of this with as little personal data as possible:

Intelligence in iOS 9


----------



## gatster

Ultimately, the below quote from this article says it all to me:

_"Sebastian Vivas, the director of a watch museum maintained by Audemars Piguet, the Swiss manufacturer, recently described his industry as unperturbed by Apple's plans: "We're not afraid; we're just a little bit smiling." It would be a greater threat, he told me, if men widely accepted that they could wear gemstones without a time-keeping pretext."_

My 2c is that this thread is borderline trolling but I do think there may be a small impact to some smaller companies, however I work with a lot of geeks/nerds (whatever label you wish to apply) and about 80-90% have no interest in watches, and the 10-20% that do are very much into the ownership of multiple Rolex/Omegas/Panerais. The only ones that have mentioned the AW are either out and out Apple fans from the 80-90%, or one of the ones that own an expensive watch. It's a small sample but I wouldn't be surprised if this represented the broader demographic.

I hopefully have a vintage purchase coming up soon (Ranchero or a pre-Carrera Heuer), and then I'm going to buy an AW when I'm in the US on business in July, just to see what the fuss is about!


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> Pretty OT now, but...
> 
> Though I'm more comfortable with my data being with Apple than Google/Facebook precisely because of the difference in business model that you pointed out, here's a good clarification/counterargument for Google/Facebook.
> 
> Ben Thompson wrote a nice piece here (pay-wall). Two things he pointed out were (food for thought):
> 
> Sure. But compare the egregious things that Facebook and Google are doing in terms of privacy, Apple's a relatively light offender.
> 
> But again, this doesn't have much to do with AW in particular, but tech products in general. Taken to the extreme, you'd be living a life like in Enemy of the State...


Haha yes Enemy of the State. And Jack Reacher.

I'm not quite that concerned, to be honest. I suppose living in a 3rd world country makes us more unconcerned or maybe unaffected.

When smartwatches do become connected by themselves, and accepted, by the 1st world as their primary gadget, it would take the rest of the world another 10 years or so to adapt it.

What use is a smartwatch if you live in a place with poor connectivity? And right now most of the world is still like that.

That's another reason why I don't think smartwatches will make much of a dent in the world luxury market.


----------



## Tucker3434

lorsban said:


> Haha yes Enemy of the State. And Jack Reacher.
> 
> I'm not quite that concerned, to be honest. I suppose living in a 3rd world country makes us more unconcerned or maybe unaffected.
> 
> When smartwatches do become connected by themselves, and accepted, by the 1st world as their primary gadget, it would take the rest of the world another 10 years or so to adapt it.
> *
> What use is a smartwatch if you live in a place with poor connectivity? And right now most of the world is still like that.
> *
> That's another reason why I don't think smartwatches will make much of a dent in the world luxury market.


Yeah, you're right about that. 10 years ago even in The U.S. our data services were terrible, slow and spotty. A smart watch would have been worthless then. People aren't going to spend that long staring at their wrist waiting for an answer. These days, it's difficult to find non-broadband speeds anywhere, even in rural areas. It's what has made the watch possible.

Still, you're going to find more luxury watch buyers in developed countries. The apple watch probably won't make a dent in luxury watch sales in the Philippines, but I guarantee you this won't be their best quarter in England, and that is a bigger piece of the pie.


----------



## scentedlead

Tucker3434 said:


> Yeah, you're right about that. 10 years ago even in The U.S. our data services were terrible, slow and spotty. A smart watch would have been worthless then. People aren't going to spend that long staring at their wrist waiting for an answer. These days, it's difficult to find non-broadband speeds anywhere, even in rural areas. It's what has made the watch possible.
> 
> Still, you're going to find more luxury watch buyers in developed countries. The apple watch probably won't make a dent in luxury watch sales in the Philippines, but I guarantee you this won't be their best quarter in England, and that is a bigger piece of the pie.


In 2007, the first iPhone supported only GPRS and EDGE-dial up has a max speed of 56kbps; GPRS, 171kbps; EDGE, 384Kbps; we're talking kilobits not megabits. Yet, a week after release, a friend and I went to the Sony Metreon to watch a movie and we noticed that more than half the people in our row had iPhones. Never say never-people learn to make do and adapt to what they have. There are lots of things smartphones do that don't need speed. Also, never underestimate the power of internet addiction.

A smartwatch isn't useful or useless because of internet speed. If all you need on your watch is notifications, then all it needs from the phone is said notifications and quick bursts of text don't require fat data pipes-unlike, say, a movie or tv show or radio stream. A smartwatch is going to be useful or useless because of the phone it is tethered to and the apps on it and how much you can control going to to the watch.

In developing areas, the barrier to smartphones and smartwatches isn't internet speed-it's price.


----------



## BarracksSi

Speaking of internet speed ^^^^^

One reason for the slow adoption of 4K televisions is that there's so little 4K content available. Regular 1080p is light enough to easily transmit over-the-air, but 4K needs twice as much data, and most residential internet isn't fast enough.

Discs like Blu-Ray are falling out of favor while the convenience of streaming and downloadable media is winning. 4K downloads are huge, though, and not really practical for most users.

Going back to smartwatches in general -- like scentedlead pointed out, the watch itself just doesn't need that much data. It's never going to display 4K movies, never mind 1080 or 720 or anything else. I already think it's silly to play little Vine clips on an AW (I feel that it was more of a tech demo at WWDC than anything else). Possibly the most data-heavy thing it can be expected to do is voice recognition, and it seems to be quick enough already.

I don't think that there is much room, or need, for massive smartwatch hardware upgrades.


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> I don't think that there is much room, or need, for massive smartwatch hardware upgrades.


I do like that there is already a software update coming in the fall.

As for hardware, thinner is better. At 38mm, I don't think it needs to get smaller. And at 11.5mm (including the sensor ring), it's actually a slight bit thinner than my chronographs and incoming automatic. But thinner is always nicer.

I never understood netbooks; I have never wanted a smaller notebook screen and would rather have had an 11 - 15″ laptop that were _thinner._ That said, the netbooks were cheaper and I suspect that thinner is harder to do-and therefore more expensive, witness the prices of netbooks vs. ultrabooks.

That said, I have a really hard time imagining what, in a small smartwatch, can be miniaturized even more than what the things inside already are.

(Truth be told, I also wish the AW were square, and had a crown plus two buttons like a chronograph. I'd wear it on my right wrist if it had the crown and two buttons.)


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> That said, I have a really hard time imagining what, in a small smartwatch, can be miniaturized even more than what the things inside already are.


Right. In the teardown I've seen, between the rear sensors, battery, S1 chip package, "taptic engine", and the display/touch/glass sandwich, there isn't much room to take anything away. Maybe if the system components can be further unified onto one chip (some pieces are still sourced from outside Apple), they can add more battery capacity. The taptic motor can't be made any smaller because it needs mass to create the taps. I doubt if the display could be made any slimmer, either.


----------



## Blancpain

Apple watch 7 weeks later


----------



## BarracksSi

Blancpain said:


> Apple watch 7 weeks later
> 
> [vid]


I wonder what he thinks would make for a hardware update.

The bands and straps aren't going to be obsoleted, and I still think a camera is a bad idea (a worse idea than a camera on an iPad, really). The display's pixel density is excellent; more pixels means more GPU work and more power consumption, but the battery can't get any bigger inside the existing case.

Maybe more memory capacity?

It has wifi and Bluetooth already, so should Apple add a cellular radio? What standard will it run? Wouldn't they have to update the hardware again when cellular providers change their networks again? Where are the additional antennas going to fit? What about the radio chips? The battery would need a boost, too.

If Apple could pull it off, I'd be amazed.


----------



## shnjb

BarracksSi said:


> I wonder what he thinks would make for a hardware update.
> 
> The bands and straps aren't going to be obsoleted, and I still think a camera is a bad idea (a worse idea than a camera on an iPad, really). The display's pixel density is excellent; more pixels means more GPU work and more power consumption, but the battery can't get any bigger inside the existing case.
> 
> Maybe more memory capacity?
> 
> It has wifi and Bluetooth already, so should Apple add a cellular radio? What standard will it run? Wouldn't they have to update the hardware again when cellular providers change their networks again? Where are the additional antennas going to fit? What about the radio chips? The battery would need a boost, too.
> 
> If Apple could pull it off, I'd be amazed.


I don't think he wears watches.
For me, it will just be a beater watch that also does all the other stuff, which I can work out with, travel with, etc.


----------



## hector67

As the OP claims with absolute certainty, I will make my own prediction on the future of the watch industry: In 10 years, the flexible and super thin technology will be functional, or the holographic projection technology will be small enough that "bands" you can wear on your non watch wrist will be available and will replace AW and phones alltogether. So there, you will be able to have your all in one gadget to do all you need in life and work in one wrist... and you will want your swiss watch to make a statement, swim, dive, climb your favorite rock or dress up and have a lovely evening with your significant other while being online and connected all the time


----------



## lorsban

It looks like Apple Watch sales are tanking (AAPL)

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/bu...pple-Watch-sales-are-tanking-AAPL-6371615.php


----------



## dawiz

lorsban said:


> It looks like Apple Watch sales are tanking (AAPL)
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/technology/bu...pple-Watch-sales-are-tanking-AAPL-6371615.php


And quite dramatically so. 200'000 a day was pretty strong, now down to 2000-5000 a day, which, frankly, is a joke. Switzerland will live to see another day after all, it seems.


----------



## gatster

I find myself wondering how many 'normal' watches are sold globally a day now...in relation to that number I'm pretty sure 2-5k Apple watches is a drop in the ocean.


----------



## rationaltime

gatster said:


> I find myself wondering how many 'normal' watches are sold globally a day now...in relation to that number I'm pretty sure 2-5k Apple watches is a drop in the ocean.


Sure, just Rolex makes about 3000 watches/day.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## dawiz

rationaltime said:


> Sure, just Rolex makes about 3000 watches/day.
> 
> Thanks,
> rationaltime


Tissot sells about 60'000 per day world wide.


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> As for hardware, thinner is better. At 38mm, I don't think it needs to get smaller. And at 11.5mm (including the sensor ring), it's actually a slight bit thinner than my chronographs and incoming automatic. But thinner is always nicer.


There may be a market for an even smaller-sized AW/smartwatch. I've read & seen women who prefer smaller watches (i.e. 25mm or smaller).

Of course, whether it makes sense (design-wise, product-market-fit, philosophically) for Apple or other smartwatch companies to introduce such a small smartwatch (or if it's even technologically achievable in the next few years) is another story.

But I do see many women who wear watches with these smaller watches (usually with a FitBit or Jawbone on the other wrist as well), and at least some of them have mentioned that they'd not go with the 38mm AW because it's too big and not fashionable enough.


----------



## pronstar

Shrinking tech down to minuscule size does have its drawbacks...cell phones started big, went small, and are now bigger than ever 









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Blancpain

From the mouth of babes....






By contrast, the old folks






Kinda reminds me of the PT Cruiser. It was marketed for the young, but all the old farts bought that hideous thing thinking they would be cool.

PT Cruiser no longer being produced.

And please don't be a Dick (Tracey) and talk into your wrist....BT headsets were bad enough, but at least we didn't hear the other side of the conversation.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## AAMC

AAMC said:


> Personally I think it's going to be a really short life cycle product (shorter than the iPod) it will last for two/three years and that's it


I think I may have overestimated the iWatch life cycle length on post #2


----------



## scentedlead

Apple Watch 'collapsing sales' report actually shows Apple is crushing smartwatch sector



> Apple hasn't yet given any figures on Apple Watch sales (after noting last year that it would not be publishing unit sales of the new device in its quarterly earnings reports), but Slice Intelligence compiled some questionable figures from "e-receipt" data it gleaned from a large group of consumers who volunteer to share their purchasing information.
> 
> Slice obtains much of its consumer data from an shopping assistance iOS app (which includes support for Apple Watch).


Maybe, just maybe, there are lots of e-receipts going around when the only way to get AW is through internet order; and there are fewer e-receipts going around when anyone can walk into an Apple store and plonk down cash for one.



> The Slice data being cited is also U.S. only. We know that international sales, particularly in China, have for some time represented the majority of Apple's sales overall, so the Slice data can only possibly represent a portion of total Apple Watch sales.


So, as the AW got launched in more countries, the more suspect this data is.



> Apple Watch crushed sales of far less expensive smart bands
> 
> In a rather desperate bid to establish some aspect of failure for Apple Watch, journalists appear to have completely overlooked the majority of the data Slice actually presented. Even if the Slice data is only moderately reliable, it clearly shows that Apple's first attempt to sell a "smart band" has trounced everything else on the market, and continues to far outsell everything else even after supposedly "collapsing."


Snip because you can read the rest yourself. But it ends on this:



> Even so, Hargreaves himself also estimated the next quarter of Apple Watch sales to "meet or exceed" 5.5 million internationally, accounting for fiscal year sales (launch through September) of 10.5 million units. Those figures are too large to even fit on the Slice chart, and directly contradict the idea that Apple Watch sales are collapsing into obscurity, rather than supporting the notion.


Geez, I wish I had a product where it was considered a huge failure because only 2,000 units per day were sold to survey-participating buyers who shopped online and lived in the U.S.

Personally, I think that the AW will sell more than the Apple TV. It'll have numbers close to the iPad but not the iPhone, but only because the competitor to the smartwatch is the smartphone. Yes, the smartphone, that thing that was responsible for declining watch sales even before smartphones existed; remember how many people stopped buying watches when they got cell phones? Why buy a watch when your cell phone can do it better?


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> From the mouth of babes....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By contrast, the old folks


So looks like they all want it but don't think it's a necessity.

Potentially bolds well for the AW and similar products.



Blancpain said:


> Kinda reminds me of the PT Cruiser. It was marketed for the young, but all the old farts bought that hideous thing thinking they would be cool.
> 
> PT Cruiser no longer being produced.


Not sure how the reactions from both young and old would lead you to think that the AW would be like the PT Cruiser...



Blancpain said:


> And please don't be a Dick (Tracey) and talk into your wrist....BT headsets were bad enough, but at least we didn't hear the other side of the conversation.


There's a time and place for talking (briefly) on your watch. Depends on how you use it (and potentially how you abuse it).

One reasonable and sane use case: I find it quite useful when I'm carrying something in both hands.

Another one: on older cars without Bluetooth car kits (i.e. Microphone and speaker), taking a call on the wrist makes more sense than using your phone since you're likely to have your hand on the steering wheel.


----------



## Blancpain

zetaplus93 said:


> So looks like they all want it but don't think it's a necessity.
> 
> Potentially bolds well for the AW and similar products.
> 
> Not sure how the reactions from both young and old would lead you to think that the AW would be like the PT Cruiser...
> 
> There's a time and place for talking (briefly) on your watch. Depends on how you use it (and potentially how you abuse it).
> 
> One reasonable and sane use case: I find it quite useful when I'm carrying something in both hands.
> 
> Another one: on older cars without Bluetooth car kits (i.e. Microphone and speaker), taking a call on the wrist makes more sense than using your phone since you're likely to have your hand on the steering wheel.


Meme going around








Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Blancpain

The Apple watch reminds me of the PT Cruiser because the youth don't think the Apple watch is a cool must have device, look at the polling. In fact, younger people are not buying iphones anymore and the older people are. 

Sure, MAYBE Apple sold 2.5 million watches to date....MAYBE they will sell 5 million by the end of this year. Tim Cooke refuses to release actual numbers because he too embarrassed of how much of a flop this watch could be. All other successful products had sales numbers shouted from the rooftops after the first week. 

Where is the OP? Reality has refuted your original assertion....the Swiss are not only NOT in trouble, they are probably laughing as they are now poised to come out with cool smartwatches of their own.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## scentedlead

Blancpain said:


> Sure, MAYBE Apple sold 2.5 million watches to date....MAYBE they will sell 5 million by the end of this year. Tim Cooke refuses to release actual numbers because he too embarrassed of how much of a flop this watch could be. All other successful products had sales numbers shouted from the rooftops after the first week.


Estimates are that the AW sold 1 million units in the opening weekend of sales. The latest projections I've seen have the estimates at 10+ million units sold to the end of September-that averages out to 5 million watches per quarter.



> Where is the OP? Reality has refuted your original assertion....the Swiss are not only NOT in trouble, they are probably laughing as they are now poised to come out with cool smartwatches of their own.


But, if the Swiss start making smartwatches, isn't that a concession that smartwatches are the future?

Also, how are the Swiss going to make smartwatches?

Apple, Android makers, Microsoft, and Sony easily put products into the smartwatch market because the smartwatch is essentially a computer which they all have lots of experience with. Engineering and programming a computer is a lot different than engineering and regulating gears and springs. Also, any smartwatch released today has to support 3rd party apps or face underwhelming consumers. Do the Swiss have the management experience it takes to manage app stores and the ecosystems around the apps and watches? The smartwatch itself already requires complex hardware and software and supporting a watch platform requires equally complex management.

Tag Heuer's smartwatch will be an Android Wear piece that will cost USD, $1,400 at launch in October or November. I'm interested to see how Tag's watch will be different from other Android watches, but the point will probably remain that Tag needed a partnership to do it.


----------



## Blancpain

Forget the Apple Watch, here's the new watch everyone on Wall Street wants.

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-omega-globemaster-watch-unboxing-2015-5

"Doesn't display email" lololololol

I think it's a wrong move for the Swiss to go into smart watches. Even Apple can't make those cool. But then again, millennials think Apple itself is uncool now...a dorky tech product will not change that view. So here we are....Apple is where Microsoft was 15 years ago....they ARE the establishment....which makes them uncool.

https://pando.com/2014/06/13/apple-...e-possible-to-try-and-convince-you-otherwise/

http://time.com/money/3403800/apple-iphone-samsung-android-cool/

http://www.alternet.org/economy/apple-not-cool

http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-is-done-say-teens/


----------



## secfincorp

I just read that apple watch sales are slooooowing. I say good riddance.


----------



## Blancpain

scentedlead said:


> Estimates are that the AW sold 1 million units in the opening weekend of sales. The latest projections I've seen have the estimates at 10+ million units sold to the end of September-that averages out to 5 million watches per quarter.
> 
> But, if the Swiss start making smartwatches, isn't that a concession that smartwatches are the future?
> 
> Also, how are the Swiss going to make smartwatches?
> 
> Apple, Android makers, Microsoft, and Sony easily put products into the smartwatch market because the smartwatch is essentially a computer which they all have lots of experience with. Engineering and programming a computer is a lot different than engineering and regulating gears and springs. Also, any smartwatch released today has to support 3rd party apps or face underwhelming consumers. Do the Swiss have the management experience it takes to manage app stores and the ecosystems around the apps and watches? The smartwatch itself already requires complex hardware and software and supporting a watch platform requires equally complex management.
> 
> Tag Heuer's smartwatch will be an Android Wear piece that will cost USD, $1,400 at launch in October or November. I'm interested to see how Tag's watch will be different from other Android watches, but the point will probably remain that Tag needed a partnership to do it.


Yes Android will be on Swiss smartwatches. Since Android is the dominant OS in mobile, not IOS, it mashes perfect sense for the Swiss to partner up with Google. I personally think they shouldn't go into smart watches, but hey they can make all those things they want.

I really doubt the Apple watch will quadruple its current sales to make 10 million. I think they will reach a high of 2.5 million.

I already but these numbers of 2014 traditional watch sales up which was 1.2 billion..with a B. So Apple watch crushes smart watches.. Big fish in a little pond....how much of a dent did they make in the watch market as a whole?

Currently, the traditional watch makers are on track to sell 17% more than last year.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## dawiz

Blancpain said:


> Yes Android will be on Swiss smartwatches. Since Android is the dominant OS in mobile, not IOS, it mashes perfect sense for the Swiss to partner up with Google.


I'm inclined to say: nope. Android traditionally dominates with people of lower income strata. IOS massively dominates with middle- and upper class families. And the latter are those who'll be buying Tags (with Tag being the only manufacturer who's announced they've partnered with Google, AFAIK). My prediction: that Android Tag's going to be the same failure as the Apple Watch.


----------



## valmak

Blancpain said:


> Where is the OP? Reality has refuted your original assertion....the Swiss are not only NOT in trouble, they are probably laughing as they are now poised to come out with cool smartwatches of their own.
> 
> Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


I'm right here. Haven't changed my mind yet, still think AW is strong. My view of what's going on is that the early adopters were the ones that immediately "got" the Apple Watch, meaning they understood how great it was right away. That's why there was a huge initial surge and it has slowed down. For the rest of the people to get one, they need to become familiar with all that it can do. Everybody that I have talked to didn't even know of all the cool stuff it can do. So once more people get the apple watch and more people catch on to what it can do it will be nearly as common as iPhones are today. *Again, in a few years times, the Apple Watch will be nearly as common as the iPhone is today. *I think some evidence of how in danger the Swiss industry is, is Rolex extending their warranty from 3 years to 5 years. Think about it, why would they extend their warranty, thus costing them more money, unless they had some competition?


----------



## dawiz

valmak said:


> I think some evidence of how in danger the Swiss industry is, is Rolex extending their warranty from 3 years to 5 years. Think about it, why would they extend their warranty, thus costing them more money, unless they had some competition?


Yes, they did this because of their competition - but certainly not because of Apple. Omega extended their warranty to 4 years on high-end models a year ago (and long before the AW was launched), Rolex' step is a direct reaction to that.

The Apple Watch is most definitely no competition for Omega or Rolex. If at all (and at the moment it sure doesn't look like it - sales figures are in Newton territory , it would be in the same league as Tissot or Swatch.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> The Apple watch reminds me of the PT Cruiser because the youth don't think the Apple watch is a cool must have device, look at the polling. In fact, younger people are not buying iphones anymore and the older people are.


The YouTube video you posted of kids reactions to the AW contradicts this assertion. They were wow'ed by the AW, though they think it should be untethered from the phone.



Blancpain said:


> Sure, MAYBE Apple sold 2.5 million watches to date....MAYBE they will sell 5 million by the end of this year. Tim Cooke refuses to release actual numbers because he too embarrassed of how much of a flop this watch could be. All other successful products had sales numbers shouted from the rooftops after the first week.


as has been said previously, Apple announced that they weren't going to share shipment data in Jan 2015.

Why? Perhaps because when they did that with the iPhone and iPad, competitors flooded in. Makes more sense not to say anything to tip off competitors.

BTW, be careful of slice data. iMore digs deeper to see where the data comes from and finds its really not good data to use:

http://www.imore.com/opinion-apple-watch-sales-coverage-plunges-90-accuracy


----------



## shnjb

Blancpain, you seem to be confused.
This is a first generation device from Apple and there will be many ups and downs and "lollllls" from people like you, but it is difficult to imagine how the AW can be classified a failure when it has already sold millions, outselling previous Apple first generation product launches such as the iPhone 1, iPod, etc.

While it is possible that the Apple watch will not enjoy a huge commercial success in the long run, it seems both premature and against the facts to suggest that the sales are slow and that the product was a commercial failure.
Furthermore, the Apple watch OS is in its infancy, and as such there are many quirks and kinks to be worked out.
Did you know that the first iPhone did not even feature third party applications?
It's hardly surprising that there are specific aspects of AW people find frustrating (battery life, cannot answer emails although why the hell would you want to, etc); such is the case with most first gen devices.


----------



## dawiz

shnjb said:


> but it is difficult to imagine how the AW can be classified a failure when it has already sold millions, outselling previous Apple first generation product launches such as the iPhone 1, iPod, etc.


The market size for these devices was dramatically smaller than today back when they were introduced. The iPhone 1 was much more successful than the Apple Watch - it never had a drop in sales, for example. If the AW had gone down from 200'000 to 100'000 I'd say - well, it's normal fluctuation for a new product. Even if it had gone down to 50k. But from 200'000 per day to 2-5k per day is a failure on a massive scale and there's just no sugarcoating it.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> I think it's a wrong move for the Swiss to go into smart watches. Even Apple can't make those cool. But then again, millennials think Apple itself is uncool now...a dorky tech product will not change that view. So here we are....Apple is where Microsoft was 15 years ago....they ARE the establishment....which makes them uncool.
> 
> https://pando.com/2014/06/13/apple-...e-possible-to-try-and-convince-you-otherwise/
> 
> Apple, Android, Samsung: Which Is the Coolest Tech Brand?
> 
> 6 Reasons Your Apple Product Has Become Very Uncool | Alternet
> 
> Apple is done, say teens - CNET


Your links are a few years old.

Teens love iPhone more, use Facebook a lot less, says survey - CNET

BTW, Samsung sales aren't doing so well ever since the iPhone 6 came out:

Samsung sees profits decline for seventh consecutive quarter YoY - Business Insider


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> Yes Android will be on Swiss smartwatches. Since Android is the dominant OS in mobile, not IOS, it mashes perfect sense for the Swiss to partner up with Google.


The question is who gets to control the design/taste? Google's and Samsung's hardware designs have typically really sucked (Samsung Galaxy has done better in recent years, but only after copying a lot of iPhone's designs).



Blancpain said:


> I really doubt the Apple watch will quadruple its current sales to make 10 million. I think they will reach a high of 2.5 million.


What's the logic and/or data to support this claim?



Blancpain said:


> I already but these numbers of 2014 traditional watch sales up which was 1.2 billion..with a B. So Apple watch crushes smart watches.. Big fish in a little pond....how much of a dent did they make in the watch market as a whole?
> 
> Currently, the traditional watch makers are on track to sell 17% more than last year.


To put numbers in context:

In 2007, Apple shipped 1.4M iPhone vs 1.15B mobile phones globally, most of which are feature phones.

In 2014, Apple shipped 191M vs 1.25B mobile phones globally (most of which are smartphones, feature phones are going extinct):

â€¢ Apple iPhone: global sales 2007-2015, by quarter | Statistic

If AW adoption rates follow the iPhone on some level, in several years, the AW won't dominate, but it won't be a drop in a pond either.

Also, consider this: If you looked at 2007 iPhone shipments (1.4M units) on 1/1/2008, you could say that it's a disaster (since global shipments is 1.25B, with a B). And you'd be off the mark because you're trying to extrapolate data based on very little data.

So the takeaway is that there isn't enough data yet to say it'll succeed or not. Time will tell. But the customer reactions thus far are positive.


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> The market size for [smartphones] was dramatically smaller than today back when they were introduced.


Smartphone market was 122M units in 2007 (link). Apple sold 3.3M units for a 2.7% marketshare.

Smartwatch market was 6.8M units in 2014 (link). Apple sales in 2015 are anywhere from 2.5M~10M+. Marketshare is anywhere from 25% ~ 60%+.

So smartphone market was dramatically bigger in 2007 (when the iPhone was introduced) than the smartwatch market was in 2014. Also, the AW is likely to dominate the smartwatch market in 2015.



dawiz said:


> The iPhone 1 was much more successful than the Apple Watch - it never had a drop in sales, for example.


iPhone sales always had a "drop". Sales are cyclical. After the biggest quarters of the year (say 2008Q1, 2012Q1, 2013Q1, 2014Q1, 2015Q1), sales always drop:

â€¢ Apple iPhone: global sales 2007-2015, by quarter | Statistic

Also, iPhone sales are measured on a quarterly basis, which smooths out wild variances (that you'd find in daily, weekly, and monthly data).

Slice data (which isn't great BTW) tries to estimate daily sales. Take slice's data and turn it into quarterly results and you'll see much smoother data and the "drop" likely won't be there.


----------



## Blancpain

The fact is that the Apple watch, despite the vocal minority, is already a failure. The decline of iPad sales coupled with the fact that China is supposed to be a big new market (after their market crash, do you really think the people will afford a high priced toy?) Apple watch is only 4% of Apple revenue. They are only relying on iPhone sales not even the iPad....and iPhone sales are actually plateuing.

Also since the millennials have high unemployment rates coupled with high student loan debt (know the trillions)
Only the Gen X and Baby boomers have the discretionary funds to buy the Apple watch. Which automatically makes it UNCOOL to the millenials, so the cycle starts. Apple now is Microsoft of yesteryear.
Iphone 6 sales are by IPhone uses upgrading, data shows that iPhone s have actually gained only few % points worldwide, Android has grown more.

Apple watch is on the level of Apple TV (which came out almost 10 years ago) and have not gained any traction.




Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Blancpain

Totally inline with what those little kids said when asjed if they would want to get the Apple watch. 
Sure more said they would get it if someone else paid for it, I don't count that as a win for Apple

The old folks were more excited By the watch than the kids, not good for looking term Apple
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Blancpain

Like a rock...Doesn't look Like it's stopping either








Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

I don't think most people comprehend the numbers when we talk about Apple.

Let's say this: the AW will not be owned by every iPhone user. I firmly believe this much.

Let's now guess that the AW adoption rate is a pessimistic 5%. Thats one out of every 20 owners of an iPhone 5 or later. That's even worse than headlines which pre-proclaimed the AW a failure because "only 30% of iPhone users want one."

If we go off the 2014 sales* quoted a couple posts back, that's over 9,000,000 Apple Watches.

How's that? I can be an analyst just like anyone else.

[*] 2014 sales figures don't include the iPhone 5, _which debuted in 2012_, sold more than any iPhone before it, and is still compatible with the Apple Watch.


----------



## Blancpain

There is more interest of the iPod....the iPod? Than the Apple watch....not good for the Apple watch when a 15 year old tech has more interest than a month old one.









Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Blancpain




----------



## Blancpain

There is a reason why Swiss brands are still popular today even after the Quartz watches came out. Fashion.

Apple tried to give away their watches to celebrities so the masses can go "ooh, ahhhh" did it work?





















Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Blancpain




----------



## Blancpain

Real interest is of the iPhone and iPad not Awatch.
Are these recent enough numbers?


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> Moderated


...

If you think these are competitors to the AW, you're really off the mark...


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> View attachment 4592066
> 
> Totally inline with what those little kids said when asjed if they would want to get the Apple watch.


1/3 wants the AW. That's pretty good if you think about it.

It's a new type of device that they've likely never seen in person, and likely doesn't know what it does.



Blancpain said:


> Sure more said they would get it if someone else paid for it, I don't count that as a win for Apple


We're talking about kids here. Of course someone would have to buy it for them...


----------



## Blancpain

Apple watch and iPhone 3G are total different beasts.

iPhone sales went UP 3000% from Q3 to Q4.








Apple watch sales, tanked after the first day









And has been falling by -90% ever since.


----------



## Blancpain

jbg7474 said:


> Actually, I meant that I doubted the part about it being the last words on the topic, not that the Swiss will be fine, which I generally do not doubt.


You were right...I couldn't stay away 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> View attachment 4593210
> 
> 
> Real interest is of the iPhone and iPad not Awatch.
> Are these recent enough numbers?


So would this data mean that more people are interested in the AW than Rolex?


----------



## dawiz

The number one sign for me that the Apple Watch is flopping is that Apple is apparently making their own employees in the Apple Store wear them now. That means that there simply are too many of them around.


----------



## Blancpain

zetaplus93 said:


> So would this data mean that more people are interested in the AW than Rolex?


Only if those numbers are sustained, which is already coming down very rapidly.

Also notice interest in Rolex is steady....while Apple watch fluctuates wildly. Some would say that it's an indication of timelessness compared to a flash in the pan.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> Apple watch and iPhone 3G are total different beasts.
> 
> iPhone sales went UP 3000% from Q3 to Q4.
> View attachment 4593538


Yes, because it went on sale on June 29, 2007. So 2007Q3 numbers are for the first 2 days of sales [Link]

Realistically, you would take that number and combine it into the 2007Q4 numbers.


----------



## Blancpain

zetaplus93 said:


> Yes, because it went on sale on June 29, 2007. So 2007Q3 numbers are for the first 2 days of sales [Link]
> 
> Realistically, you would take that number and combine it into the 2007Q4 numbers.


Fine....take Q4 to Q1 2008...numbers still up....not trending the other way as in Apple Watch. Tell me how again Apple watch is a parallel of iPhone?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Blancpain

dawiz said:


> The number one sign for me that the Apple Watch is flopping is that Apple is apparently making their own employees in the Apple Store wear them now. That means that there simply are too many of them around.


But Tim Cooke said demand is outstripping supply. Why waste precious Apple Watches that could go to the massive rush of people gobbling them up? Could he have lied and hidden the actual numbers because he knows it's a flop? No....not Apple! They could do no evil (except towards their own employees in sweatshops)

To be fair, the employees are getting the watches at 50% discount...are those added to their overall sales? Most likely.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> Apple watch is only 4% of Apple revenue.


It's a new product. New products don't become substantial revenue generators for a while.

Compare this with the iPhone. In 2008Q1 [link], iPhone rev was $241M while overall rev was $9.6B. So that's 2.5% of overall Apple rev.



Blancpain said:


> They are only relying on iPhone sales not even the iPad....and iPhone sales are actually plateuing.


iPhone sales are increasing if you look at the trend:

â€¢ Apple iPhone: global sales 2007-2015, by quarter | Statistic



Blancpain said:


> Only the Gen X and Baby boomers have the discretionary funds to buy the Apple watch. Which automatically makes it UNCOOL to the millenials, so the cycle starts.


OK...



Blancpain said:


> Iphone 6 sales are by IPhone uses upgrading, data shows that iPhone s have actually gained only few % points worldwide, Android has grown more.


Apple's iPhone 6 maintains almost 50% share of US smartphone market, Canaccord research finds



Blancpain said:


> Apple watch is on the level of Apple TV (which came out almost 10 years ago) and have not gained any traction.


Apparently Apple TV sold about 10M units in 2013 (link). It was launched in 2007 (link). So that's a 8-year-old product that's priced at $99 compared to at least $350 for the AW.

If AW is in the range of the Apple TV within 3 months of launch, that ain't bad.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> Fine....take Q4 to Q1 2008...numbers still up....not trending the other way as in Apple Watch. Tell me how again Apple watch is a parallel of iPhone?


The point I'm making is that the Slice data is questionable at best. We don't have enough data at this point to say which way the trend is going.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> Also notice interest in Rolex is steady....while Apple watch fluctuates wildly. Some would say that it's an indication of timelessness compared to a flash in the pan.


Rolex has been around for almost a century, so of course it's steady (and obviously a company that produces good products to sustain the level of interest for such a long time).

The AW was announced 10 months ago and shipped 3 months ago, hence no data before then and the wild spikes afterwards (the two peaks are during announcement in Sept 2014 and shipment in Apr 2015).

My point is that Google trends doesn't tell you anything useful in this case. It's not a good proxy for estimating demand.


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> But Tim Cooke said demand is outstripping supply.


It was, but back in April and May. Supply has caught up to demand for most models as of late June, which you can see by looking at shipment dates at the Apple Store.


----------



## BarracksSi

Why bother googling about the Apple Watch when the most relevant website is apple.com?


----------



## PeterTheFish

dawiz said:


> The number one sign for me that the Apple Watch is flopping is that Apple is apparently making their own employees in the Apple Store wear them now. That means that there simply are too many of them around.


This is just silly. Nearly every retailer does this, and Apple has been doing the same with iPhones, etc for a while now. It's a good way to force employee to gain product knowledge and develop brand advocates, and the cost of equipping their sales force is minimal.


----------



## dawiz

PeterTheFish said:


> This is just silly. Nearly every retailer does this, and Apple has been doing the same with iPhones, etc for a while now. It's a good way to force employee to gain product knowledge and develop brand advocates, and the cost of equipping their sales force is minimal.


Except that when there weren't any available, the staff weren't wearing them. Now that they're piling up in some back room, staffers are required to put them on.


----------



## James142

Mashable: The Apple Watch once looked like a huge success. Now there are doubts.


----------



## PeterTheFish

dawiz said:


> Except that when there weren't any available, the staff weren't wearing them. Now that they're piling up in some back room, staffers are required to put them on.


Again, I don't see that as any indication they're a flop. When demand outstrips supply, you get them to customers. When supply catches up, you invest in marketing. The fact that Apple can make watches fast enough to keep stock doesn't mean that the product is a flop - it means they've balanced production capacity with demand.


----------



## scentedlead

I don’t understand why people so! very! badly! want the Apple Watch to fail—and it’s a hate I don’t see inflicted onto other smartwatches.

If you’re a fan of watches, then your interest is in watches in general and horology. I’ve love a Philippe Patek as much as I’d love a G-Shock as much as I’d love a Seiko 5 as much as I’d love an Apple Watch. They all would fit different aspects of my life, but, more importantly, they all contribute to horology in different ways. Horology as a study benefits from a diversity of time-keeping devices and that diversity comes from ingenuity and innovation.

But if you’re a fan of only your fave brands of watches, then you’re a fan of only the watches you either own or want—forget the rest.


----------



## scentedlead

zetaplus93 said:


> The point I'm making is that the Slice data is questionable at best. We don't have enough data at this point to say which way the trend is going.


Slice got their data from e-receipts from customers who opted in to having their purchases tracked, and these are U.S. only customers. You can use this data, but you also have to acknowledge that this excludes people who opted-out of having purchases tracked, people who went to a physical store and got a paper receipt, and all purchases outside the U.S. I don't understand why people insist on treating these numbers as god when it's such a limited demographic. Whenever you look at stats, you have to look at the methodology-this is basic Stats 101.

Oh look, those numbers dropped right about the time they were made available in Apple's retail stores. Maybe, just maybe, people would rather not wait for mail order but would rather go to a store and get it now. Slice data was okay data to use by itself when internet order was the only way to get the AW, but now, not so much-especially not without other stats and context to see how the data fits into the overall big picture.


----------



## dawiz

scentedlead said:


> I don't understand why people so! very! badly! want the Apple Watch to failI


I don't want it to fail - I was very excited about it when it was announced. That doesn't change the fact that it already is a failed product. V2 is probably around the corner, so V1 can be binned now.


----------



## dawiz

scentedlead said:


> Slice got their data from e-receipts from customers who opted in to having their purchases tracked, and these are U.S. only customers. You can use this data, but you also have to acknowledge that this excludes people who opted-out of having purchases tracked, people who went to a physical store and got a paper receipt


Most people don't get paper receipts at Apple Stores. This kind of sampling is very accurate as long as the sample size is big enough to be representative, which, as far as I can tell, was the case here. The margin of error is typically +-5% for something like this. It's definitely more accurate than raw sales figures as those typically also include units that shipped to retailers but didn't actually sell.

Sales abroad are likely to be much worse than in the U.S. It's never a good sign when only 5 people show up for a product launch, as was the case in Switzerland, for example. I'm an Apple Store regular and I hardly ever see anyone looking at the AW displays, either, while there are normally queues for pretty much everything else in the Zurich Store.


----------



## BarracksSi

dawiz said:


> It's never a good sign when only 5 people show up for a product launch, as was the case in Switzerland, for example. I'm an Apple Store regular and I hardly ever see anyone looking at the AW displays, either, while there are normally queues for pretty much everything else in the Zurich Store.


We all know that the AW was online-only for the first, what, month and a half, right? Apple VP Angela Ahrendts directed the rollout, saying that customers deserve better than to camp in line for a week. That left early adopters and eBay squatters to snap up all the launch production, and regular, patient people would show up later.

Around here, there's often somebody at least looking at the closed-box displays, somebody else fiddling with the demo models, and maybe every 20-30 minutes, someone else is trying them on. I watched four orders being placed in half an hour one evening at the Tysons Corner store.


----------



## BarracksSi

dawiz said:


> I don't want it to fail - I was very excited about it when it was announced. That doesn't change the fact that it already is a failed product. *V2 is probably around the corner, so V1 can be binned now.*


Does the OS 2 update count as version 2 for you?


----------



## BarracksSi

zetaplus93 said:


> 1/3 wants the AW. That's pretty good if you think about it.


It sure is. I offered the idea that 1/5 of 2014's 191 million iPhone buyers would want an AW, which still turned out to be over _nine million._ One third would be _sixty_ million.

Let's run with this a bit more:

Statista.com ( • Apple iPhone: global sales 2007-2015, by quarter | Statistic ) gives me a total of just over 450 million iPhones sold since Q1 2013. That's when the iPhone 5 settled in, which is important because the 5 is compatible with the AW.

Let's knock off ten million... no, twenty million... because the iPhone 4S, a pretty popular model itself, was still on sale at that time as Apple's entry-priced phone. So, with the remainder being the iPhone 5 and newer, we could be looking at four hundred and thirty million, or 430,000,000, iPhones that are compatible with the Apple Watch.

Hm.

One third of 430,000,000 is 165,000,000.

Are we sure that saying, "Nearly two thirds don't want an Apple Watch," is really a doomsday statement? _A hundred and sixty-five million_ is a failure?

Okay, let's try again with a different sales projection. Ten percent. One of every 10 current iPhone owners wold buy an AW. Let's say that. Even the least favorable estimates and surveys don't go that low. It makes the math easier, too.

43,000,000 potential AW owners.


----------



## scentedlead

So . . . How many Android users want an Android watch?


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> So . . . How many Android users want an Android watch?


Probably still a bucketload.

Next question -- should Switzerland be worried?


----------



## Blancpain




----------



## BarracksSi

Blancpain said:


> View attachment 4599674
> View attachment 4599682


Thanks for re-quoting the exact statistic I used.


----------



## Blancpain

scentedlead said:


> So . . . How many Android users want an Android watch?


Not many, smartwatches in general is a non starter...that includes the Apple watch. I don't care if these watches succeed or fail, I'm just throwing a little cold water on the Apple hype machine.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## scentedlead

Blancpain said:


> View attachment 4599674
> View attachment 4599682


To go back only a few posts . . .



BarracksSi said:


> Hm.
> 
> One third of 430,000,000 is 165,000,000.
> 
> Are we sure that saying, "Nearly two thirds don't want an Apple Watch," is really a doomsday statement? * A hundred and sixty-five million* is a failure?


I'm beginning to think that even 6 billion units sold will be considered a failure for Apple. Anything less than 7 billion units sold is a failure for Apple.

Granted, BarracksSi is number crunching for iPhone users, whereas the Pulse survey seems to be polling the general population (is it? with no source, I can't check the methodology. where are these screengrabs from?) whether they have an iPhone or not.

But still, even if we assume 1/3 of the general population = 1/3 of iPhone users, that's still a lot. And, chances are, more iPhone users will be interested in the AW than the general population.


----------



## dawiz

BarracksSi said:


> We all know that the AW was online-only for the first, what, month and a half, right?


It's never been online-only in Switzerland


----------



## BarracksSi

dawiz said:


> It's never been online-only in Switzerland


Ah, thanks for reminding me. FWIW, there weren't lines around the block here on the day it became available in stores, either.

And, when I asked what they had on hand last week, they only had some of the the 42mm Sport models. They're still selling as many as they can make.


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> Most people don't get paper receipts at Apple Stores. This kind of sampling is very accurate as long as the sample size is big enough to be representative, which, as far as I can tell, was the case here. The margin of error is typically +-5% for something like this. It's definitely more accurate than raw sales figures as those typically also include units that shipped to retailers but didn't actually sell.


The assumption is that Slice data is representative of US sales. Does the average U.S. buyer of Apple products use the Slice app? Have you? That's a big question mark to me.



dawiz said:


> Sales abroad are likely to be much worse than in the U.S. It's never a good sign when only 5 people show up for a product launch, as was the case in Switzerland, for example. I'm an Apple Store regular and I hardly ever see anyone looking at the AW displays, either, while there are normally queues for pretty much everything else in the Zurich Store.


Forget Switzerland. Look at Apple's biggest overseas markets like China, Japan, UK, etc.

Apple typically makes more rev from overseas than in the U.S. Rev from the Americas is about 1/3 to 2/5 of total rev in the most recent quarters:

http://www.statista.com/statistics/382175/quarterly-revenue-of-apple-by-geograhical-region/


----------



## zetaplus93

Blancpain said:


> I don't care if these watches succeed or fail, I'm just throwing a little cold water on the Apple hype machine.


It's quite evident from your posts and tone of your writing that you care a lot about this topic, and Apple products in particular.


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> Next question -- should Switzerland be worried?


Which was the original topic for this thread...

I would say that makers of lower-end watches should be worried, but the effects would be felt in the long term.

Technology has been moving out of the technology industry for the past few years (an interesting set of slides, starting on #27, by Benedict Evans if anyone is interested). For example, Uber/Lyft in transportation, AirBnb in hospitality, Tesla into auto & energy. In each instance, it's primarily the "injection of software" that starts transforming the industry. The incumbents are threatened because 1) software is making the product better, 2) competitors using software updates the products much faster than the incumbents, and 3) the incumbents don't have the skills/people to understand and incorporate software into their products. They are also incentivized to ignore products from new entrants because these new products are typically worse at the beginning. But because of 1 & 2, these products become better quickly over time. By the time incumbents realize the threat, it's typically too late.

Examples of this include the telecom industry (Blackberry, Microsoft, Intel, & others have been superseded by the new dominant design, aka iPhones) and computer industry to a certain extent (primarily the lower end market, which are being replaced by iPads/tablets & Chromebooks).

Anyway, coming back to watches, Swiss watch companies making lower-end watches should be threatened because 1) Apple & and other computer makers understand software, 2) software can be updated on a biannual or faster pace, and 3) most watch companies don't understand software (and computer hardware).

Of course, Tag Heuer is partnering with Google & Intel, but it looks like the vision is more of a traditional watch with some smarts in there. This approach reminds me of the Motorola ROKR--launched around 2005, it's a traditional candybar Motorola cellphone that added iTunes support. It bombed because the iTunes support was horrible (and Apple hated this). Eventually of course, Apple went on to reimagine what a phone is and designed it from the ground up. In other words, a computer maker reimagined what a phone means--they threw out all the preconceived notions that cellphone companies (i.e. Motorola) had.

For higher-end companies (i.e. Patek, Rolex, etc), it absolutely makes sense for them not to join the smartwatch race because it would dilute their brand.

For lower-end companies, they should absolutely be threatened.

Of course, all of this makes a very big assumption that software will make the product (i.e. wrist-worn devices) better than existing products (traditional watches) for the jobs they're hired to do. If the product sucks, it will fail in the marketplace.


----------



## dawiz

zetaplus93 said:


> Forget Switzerland. Look at Apple's biggest overseas markets like China,


I wish Apple luck with that.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7756492


----------



## bjjkk

I work in NYC and see far more traditional watches on people then apple watches. Actually I don't see apple watches very often, and usually only on a hipster. In my office 90% have iPhone, but none have an interest in the apple watch. When I asked them why, they all had a similar opinion that they didn't need a new gadget, they just didn't see it as being better than their current watch.

I think the slowing sales figures support the apple fans rushed out to buy the watch, but the general population just isn't very interested.


----------



## shines_lover

But then I do not buy mechanical watches to specifically keep up with technological advancements and partially tell time accurately. I buy them because they are beautiful and artistic.


----------



## aqua73

Do you even know what you are talking about! Apple watch really! 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## jjlwis1

Troll 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Will_f

Blancpain said:


> .
> 
> I already but these numbers of 2014 traditional watch sales up which was 1.2 billion..with a B. So Apple watch crushes smart watches.. Big fish in a little pond....how much of a dent did they make in the watch market as a whole?
> 
> Currently, the traditional watch makers are on track to sell 17% more than last year.
> 
> Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


Does 12 billion sound likely to you? There's only 7 billion people on the planet, most of whom don't wear watches.


----------



## shnjb

Blancpain please stop spamming this thread.


----------



## shnjb

Regarding the "90%" drop in sale nonsense, here is some logic.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/07/09/the-apple-watch-hysteria-is-out-of-control.aspx


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> I wish Apple luck with that.
> 
> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7756492


Think about that for a moment.

This is a broad market event. Not only will it affect Apple, it'll affect Swiss companies.

Hell, it might mess with the global economy in general. So not exactly a great thing to wish anyone luck with, unless you're hoping for the next recession to come sooner rather than later.


----------



## flowerhillfixit

It's not a watch. It's a wrist top computer. They're different. And sorry to inform you it reminds me if my 1973 Optel LCD watch. Ugly.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> Which was the original topic for this thread...
> 
> I would say that makers of lower-end watches should be worried, but the effects would be felt in the long term.
> 
> Technology has been moving out of the technology industry for the past few years (an interesting set of slides, starting on #27, by Benedict Evans if anyone is interested). For example, Uber/Lyft in transportation, AirBnb in hospitality, Tesla into auto & energy. In each instance, it's primarily the "injection of software" that starts transforming the industry. The incumbents are threatened because 1) software is making the product better, 2) competitors using software updates the products much faster than the incumbents, and 3) the incumbents don't have the skills/people to understand and incorporate software into their products. They are also incentivized to ignore products from new entrants because these new products are typically worse at the beginning. But because of 1 & 2, these products become better quickly over time. By the time incumbents realize the threat, it's typically too late.
> 
> Examples of this include the telecom industry (Blackberry, Microsoft, Intel, & others have been superseded by the new dominant design, aka iPhones) and computer industry to a certain extent (primarily the lower end market, which are being replaced by iPads/tablets & Chromebooks).
> 
> Anyway, coming back to watches, Swiss watch companies making lower-end watches should be threatened because 1) Apple & and other computer makers understand software, 2) software can be updated on a biannual or faster pace, and 3) most watch companies don't understand software (and computer hardware).
> 
> Of course, Tag Heuer is partnering with Google & Intel, but it looks like the vision is more of a traditional watch with some smarts in there. This approach reminds me of the Motorola ROKR--launched around 2005, it's a traditional candybar Motorola cellphone that added iTunes support. It bombed because the iTunes support was horrible (and Apple hated this). Eventually of course, Apple went on to reimagine what a phone is and designed it from the ground up. In other words, a computer maker reimagined what a phone means--they threw out all the preconceived notions that cellphone companies (i.e. Motorola) had.
> 
> For higher-end companies (i.e. Patek, Rolex, etc), it absolutely makes sense for them not to join the smartwatch race because it would dilute their brand.
> 
> For lower-end companies, they should absolutely be threatened.
> 
> Of course, all of this makes a very big assumption that software will make the product (i.e. wrist-worn devices) better than existing products (traditional watches) for the jobs they're hired to do. If the product sucks, it will fail in the marketplace.


It's a fair point regarding the lower end watches.

But it seems to me that AW users/owners aren't budget-type consumers and wouldn't be in the low end watch market anyway.

In the first place, AW owners Need to be iPhone 5 and 6 users (not sure if iPhone 4 works with AW). These are Not cheap phones.

Even in my country, which is 3rd world, and primarily a low-end watch market, I'm not seeing them with AW or even iPhones for that matter, since Android is low/mid-end king here.


----------



## valmak

jjlwis1 said:


> Troll
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


.... you


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> It's a fair point regarding the lower end watches.
> 
> But it seems to me that AW users/owners aren't budget-type consumers and wouldn't be in the low end watch market anyway.
> 
> In the first place, AW owners Need to be iPhone 5 and 6 users (not sure if iPhone 4 works with AW). These are Not cheap phones.
> 
> Even in my country, which is 3rd world, and primarily a low-end watch market, I'm not seeing them with AW or even iPhones for that matter, since Android is low/mid-end king here.


Let me clarify. By lower-end, I meant watches in the $350-$1000 segment (which the Aluminum and SS Watch plays in) as opposed to higher end watches like Omegas and super high end like Patek.

Absolutely agree it won't touch anything less expensive, say the Seiko 5 (which are typically less than $200). But it would compete with watches from, say, Hamilton or Tag, that's within the price segment.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> Let me clarify. By lower-end, I meant watches in the $350-$1000 segment (which the Aluminum and SS Watch plays in) as opposed to higher end watches like Omegas and super high end like Patek.
> 
> Absolutely agree it won't touch anything less expensive, say the Seiko 5 (which are typically less than $200). But it would compete with watches from, say, Hamilton or Tag, that's within the price segment.


Hmm...350-1000? That's a Strong segment in Swiss watches and both Tag and Hamilton are deeply entrenched in that, well, more Hamilton since Tag's bread and butter is in the $1500-3500 range. Sales are going up, instead of down in these segments.

I still stand by my belief that smartwatches (not just AW) fall into the gadget-niche category, along with sport watches and heartrate monitors - which I think could bear the brunt of the losses.

I'm personally looking at smartwatches instead of a heartrate monitor because they're the same price yet the smartwatch adds connectivity with my phone which I bring along anyway. I'm sure others feel the same way.

In other words, it's form AND function. $350-3,500 watches are a Form product. They're jewelry. Smartwatches are function gadgets. That's the main difference I see. That's why both these markets can exist side by side, basically independent of each other.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

lorsban said:


> I still stand by my belief that smartwatches (not just AW) fall into the gadget-niche category, along with sport watches and heartrate monitors - which I think could bear the brunt of the losses.
> 
> I'm personally looking at smartwatches instead of a heartrate monitor because they're the same price yet the smartwatch adds connectivity with my phone which I bring along anyway. I'm sure others feel the same way.


Yup, me too. Among the watches I have, the mechanicals are at the lowest risk of departing due to a smartwatch, and my Garmin GPS/HR watch already has one foot out the door. The only reason I may keep the Garmin would be for biking data (mainly GPS and pedal cadence), but I hardly use that data anyway, even after four years of owning the thing.


----------



## PeterTheFish

zetaplus93 said:


> Which was the original topic for this thread...
> 
> I would say that makers of lower-end watches should be worried, but the effects would be felt in the long term.
> 
> Anyway, coming back to watches, Swiss watch companies making lower-end watches should be threatened because 1) Apple & and other computer makers understand software, 2) software can be updated on a biannual or faster pace, and 3) most watch companies don't understand software (and computer hardware).
> 
> Of course, Tag Heuer is partnering with Google & Intel, but it looks like the vision is more of a traditional watch with some smarts in there. This approach reminds me of the Motorola ROKR--launched around 2005, it's a traditional candybar Motorola cellphone that added iTunes support. It bombed because the iTunes support was horrible (and Apple hated this). Eventually of course, Apple went on to reimagine what a phone is and designed it from the ground up. In other words, a computer maker reimagined what a phone means--they threw out all the preconceived notions that cellphone companies (i.e. Motorola) had.
> 
> For higher-end companies (i.e. Patek, Rolex, etc), it absolutely makes sense for them not to join the smartwatch race because it would dilute their brand.
> 
> For lower-end companies, they should absolutely be threatened.
> 
> Of course, all of this makes a very big assumption that software will make the product (i.e. wrist-worn devices) better than existing products (traditional watches) for the jobs they're hired to do. If the product sucks, it will fail in the marketplace.


Maybe the way software is already impacting the industry is separate and aside from the AW. I see it as similar to the way it has impacted airliners and automobiles.

Today, cars and airplanes are designed using CAD with the first manufactured examples prototypes in name only. Certainly a far cry from sculpting clay.

Likewise, today a micro brand can crowd-source design inspiration, design, source, and ultimately create a timepiece on an individual scale.

When cheap Quartz watches became widespread, mechanical watches essentially became jewelry. Timekeeping accuracy was second. With cell phones now widespread, even a Quartz watch is really just jewelry, albeit fashion jewelry.

I think Micro brands (with a few that may go on to become industry Titans in decades to come) have the ability to disrupt the watch industry more than the AW. Manufacturers like Rolex who adopt CAD and modern CNC processes to keep labor costs low and profits high will likely fare well - those who don't, not so much. And frankly, I'm not sure there's a lot of overlap between AW and Rolex buyers. A gentleman I work with told me a story recently;

When the Blackberry was first released, you could tell the most important guy in the room cause he had the highest tech stuff. Today, a relatively short time later, it's probably the guy with a paper notepad. And he's probably not wearing an AW.


----------



## Matt C

Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dawiz

zetaplus93 said:


> Think about that for a moment.
> 
> This is a broad market event. Not only will it affect Apple, it'll affect Swiss companies.
> 
> Hell, it might mess with the global economy in general. So not exactly a great thing to wish anyone luck with, unless you're hoping for the next recession to come sooner rather than later.


Certainly, the Swiss luxury brand will be feeling that as well.


----------



## GenericWatcher

I use my Garmin swim watch to count laps and give me all sorts of metrics for my workout (I swim roughly 1.5 km daily). I got so used to it that if I arrive at the gym without it, I will go back home and get it. I might substitute that for a smartwatch one day, but it cannot be something that I have to charge regularly. As awesome as smartwatches can be, having to remember to charge it is a big step backwards for me.

I don't know what the future will bring, what will become popular, but I am one of those people who wears a watch all the time (even when sleeping or working out). I know cell phones can tell time, but having to fish it out of my pocket is a hassle. I was travelling once when the battery on my quartz died, and I spent a few days having to look at my cell phone for the time, and I was NOT happy with that as a solution.

This may seem prejudicial on my part, but from my personal experience, people who do not wear watches at all do not take their time or their appointments seriously. When I look at people I worked with, vendors and suppliers I meet, candidates at job interviews...etc. All the ones that do not show up on time are also the ones who do not wear a watch. They also didn't think that 'showing up on time' is that important either.

Finally, I have found this to be worse with women who keep wearing a watch after the battery died because it looks like a nice accessory. But they cant be bothered to take it to a store to replace the battery.


----------



## blackmsport

Apple watch is shxt... Bloody toy 
Swiss watches survive for a longtime

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## lorsban

BarracksSi said:


> Yup, me too. Among the watches I have, the mechanicals are at the lowest risk of departing due to a smartwatch, and my Garmin GPS/HR watch already has one foot out the door. The only reason I may keep the Garmin would be for biking data (mainly GPS and pedal cadence), but I hardly use that data anyway, even after four years of owning the thing.


I've been looking to buy myself that Garmin too! Haha

But yeah, I'm holding off on it until they make a good working smartwatch with an accurate heartrate monitor.


----------



## Nilton Az

I can't see a leader of any country making an address wearing a toy watch. Also can't see a big shot CEO lighting a cigar sporting a toy watch. Who ever started this thread knows nothing about watches, watch demographic or culture. Be a good boy and move along now.

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk


----------



## OSUMBA2003

Apple Watch Sales Aren't Looking So Hot - Forbes


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> Hmm...350-1000? That's a Strong segment in Swiss watches and both Tag and Hamilton are deeply entrenched in that, well, more Hamilton since Tag's bread and butter is in the $1500-3500 range. Sales are going up, instead of down in these segments.


The Swiss Watch Industry's numbers show that sales have been increasing through 2014, but has been slowing since the beginning of the year.

Looking at the different segments, the 200-500 CHF segment and the 500-3,000 CHF segments are seeing this trend (these correspond to roughly USD200-500 and USD500-3,000). The 3,000 CHF segment seems to be more resilient but has seen some slowdowns.

Then again, the major factor seems to be the slowdown in exports to Hong Kong (due to the government crackdown on corruption) and not due to the AW.

FH - Watch industry statistics
http://www.fhs.ch/scripts/getstat.php?file=histo_gp_150505_a.pdf
http://www.fhs.ch/scripts/getstat.php?file=histo_pays_150505_a.pdf



lorsban said:


> In other words, it's form AND function. $350-3,500 watches are a Form product. They're jewelry. Smartwatches are function gadgets. That's the main difference I see. That's why both these markets can exist side by side, basically independent of each other.


That's certainly a possibility. If a traditional watch's is bought as jewelry and an AW is bought for function, then it's certainly possible that both can exist side by side.

I'm wearing my traditional watches on weekends now because I don't need the functionality that I require on weekdays due to my busy work schedule. So I fit into that profile.

Then again, after getting the AW, my traditional watch purchases have slowed down because I'm using the same watch fund to buy an AW (which likely needs updating every 3-4 years). So it's taking some money away from my traditional watch purchases.


----------



## zetaplus93

PeterTheFish said:


> Maybe the way software is already impacting the industry is separate and aside from the AW. I see it as similar to the way it has impacted airliners and automobiles.
> 
> Today, cars and airplanes are designed using CAD with the first manufactured examples prototypes in name only. Certainly a far cry from sculpting clay.
> 
> Likewise, today a micro brand can crowd-source design inspiration, design, source, and ultimately create a timepiece on an individual scale.
> 
> When cheap Quartz watches became widespread, mechanical watches essentially became jewelry. Timekeeping accuracy was second. With cell phones now widespread, even a Quartz watch is really just jewelry, albeit fashion jewelry.


Good points.

But I think when viewing software only in the design process, that's quite limiting. Software can enter in many different areas.

For example, let's look at finance. Software went into the IT infrastructure first. With mobile (and good cameras), we can now deposit checks at home (reducing visits and traffic to banking centers & ATMs) and split bills with friends using our phones (Venmo and others). On the investment side, software and very fast hardware (FPGAs) enabled high-frequency trading (whether or not this is a good thing for the community at-large is another topic). Apple Pay and other similar solutions are starting to replace some credit card swipes and cash payments. Bitcoins (controversial topic) could drastically change the banking infrastructure, bypassing traditional financial institutions (banks, clearing houses, etc) to transfer funds from one entity to another.

So when seeing what software has done and is continue to do with the finance industry (and others), we're only scratching the surface with the watch industry.



PeterTheFish said:


> And frankly, I'm not sure there's a lot of overlap between AW and Rolex buyers. A gentleman I work with told me a story recently;
> 
> When the Blackberry was first released, you could tell the most important guy in the room cause he had the highest tech stuff. Today, a relatively short time later, it's probably the guy with a paper notepad. And he's probably not wearing an AW.


Right. And for that reason I don't think the AW will touch the truly luxury watch segment.

Then again, there's probably 100X more people working for the most important guy in the room. Apple would want to target the, say, top 30-40% of that group (and not the most important guy in the room) because 1) they have enough disposable income, and 2) there's more of them (than the most important guy).


----------



## Fer Guzman

Nilton Az said:


> I can't see a leader of any country making an address wearing a toy watch. Also can't see a big shot CEO lighting a cigar sporting a toy watch. Who ever started this thread knows nothing about watches, watch demographic or culture. Be a good boy and move along now.
> 
> Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk


I've seen Obama wearing a Fitbit while meeting with other heads of state. If you look at the population in general, most of people don't wear a watch and and almost no one cares if you do.

Of course interest in the apple watch sold down. But they are still selling about 20k a day, I think that's pretty good.

The Swiss watch industry has seen very little or stagnated growth since late 2014. The currency, crackdown of corruption, and slow down of China are probably the biggest factors.


----------



## PeterTheFish

zetaplus93 said:


> Good points.
> 
> But I think when viewing software only in the design process, that's quite limiting. Software can enter in many different areas.
> 
> For example, let's look at finance. Software went into the IT infrastructure first. With mobile (and good cameras), we can now deposit checks at home (reducing visits and traffic to banking centers & ATMs) and split bills with friends using our phones (Venmo and others). On the investment side, software and very fast hardware (FPGAs) enabled high-frequency trading (whether or not this is a good thing for the community at-large is another topic). Apple Pay and other similar solutions are starting to replace some credit card swipes and cash payments. Bitcoins (controversial topic) could drastically change the banking infrastructure, bypassing traditional financial institutions (banks, clearing houses, etc) to transfer funds from one entity to another.
> 
> So when seeing what software has done and is continue to do with the finance industry (and others), we're only scratching the surface with the watch industry.
> 
> Right. And for that reason I don't think the AW will touch the truly luxury watch segment.
> 
> Then again, there's probably 100X more people working for the most important guy in the room. Apple would want to target the, say, top 30-40% of that group (and not the most important guy in the room) because 1) they have enough disposable income, and 2) there's more of them (than the most important guy).


I'm just not convinced that there's that much more to do in the watch industry. With cell phones we already have great mobile technology platforms. Moving it to our wrist is an incremental benefit. Maybe a luxury watch bracelet with a HR Monitor / Pedometer, caller ID, etc would be nice and meet needs not met by cell phones. But what could a watch add over a phone to mobile payments, etc...


----------



## shnjb

Nilton Az said:


> I can't see a leader of any country making an address wearing a toy watch. Also can't see a big shot CEO lighting a cigar sporting a toy watch. Who ever started this thread knows nothing about watches, watch demographic or culture. Be a good boy and move along now.
> 
> Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk


Probably true, but heads of state and big shot CEO is not really a market Apple is after now, is it?


----------



## Nilton Az

shnjb said:


> Probably true, but heads of state and big shot CEO is not really a market Apple is after now, is it?


Exactly, they are after digital watch wearers and the tech savvy who don't wear watches let alone appreciate a real timepiece anyway. Electronic watches will only really compete with other electronic (digital) watches, not mechanical swiss masterpieces. Thats like saying "I just seen the new Hyundai with electronic everything, a great engine and superb dynamics. Boy are BMW, Ferrari, Porche, Lamborghini, Aston Martin etc in trouble! " Pretty stupid right. At best, it might take a couple of sales from the entry level BMW's but never really impact BMW, let alone the others.

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk


----------



## MattyRetro

The AW is nothing more than a gimmick at this point. It's a very nice gimmick but smart watches in general just don't do enough to make an impact on traditional timepieces. I think the AW will fade out of existence due to the limited amount of practical applications. Right now, hype is fueling sales and interest. As people try to use the AW and see how cumbersome it is, the hype will wear off. Unless Apple can bring some serious applications to it and make it a "needed" accessory, it will die.


----------



## VicLeChic

First of all it's not a watch, it's a small computer. Apple calls it a watch to make it simple to potential buyers. 

Most people who are into watches buy them for reasons other than the strict utilitarian aspect, otherwise they would just check the time in their phone. When it comes to luxury watches, people look for crafmanship, status, know-how, tradition and other attributes a portable computer doesn't have. 

An Apple watch answers a different need, the same as a smart phone, without the voice calls : convenience in communicating and being informed. 

I don't think Apple is a competitor or a threat to the watch industry. Apple could even help it by bringing more young people to wear watches again. They'll start with a computer, and might end up being interested in something more traditional like a classic mechanical watch. 

Forum members, do you see yourselves stop wearing your timepieces and use an Apple watch or any other wearable instead? I certainly don't.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> The Swiss Watch Industry's numbers show that sales have been increasing through 2014, but has been slowing since the beginning of the year.
> 
> Looking at the different segments, the 200-500 CHF segment and the 500-3,000 CHF segments are seeing this trend (these correspond to roughly USD200-500 and USD500-3,000). The 3,000 CHF segment seems to be more resilient but has seen some slowdowns.
> 
> Then again, the major factor seems to be the slowdown in exports to Hong Kong (due to the government crackdown on corruption) and not due to the AW.
> 
> FH - Watch industry statistics
> http://www.fhs.ch/scripts/getstat.php?file=histo_gp_150505_a.pdf
> http://www.fhs.ch/scripts/getstat.php?file=histo_pays_150505_a.pdf
> 
> That's certainly a possibility. If a traditional watch's is bought as jewelry and an AW is bought for function, then it's certainly possible that both can exist side by side.
> 
> I'm wearing my traditional watches on weekends now because I don't need the functionality that I require on weekdays due to my busy work schedule. So I fit into that profile.
> 
> Then again, after getting the AW, my traditional watch purchases have slowed down because I'm using the same watch fund to buy an AW (which likely needs updating every 3-4 years). So it's taking some money away from my traditional watch purchases.


I wouldn't be surprised if smartwatches take a bit of time away from traditional watches on collectors' wrists.

That's usually what happens when you buy Anything new. The new item becomes the star no matter what it is. For most people tho, if its a novelty piece, they usually revert back to the norm. Like in my case, I have all stainless steel watches then I got an all black watch with rubber. It's a novelty watch for me but I used it 24/7 for a couple of weeks then the use became less and less until I flipped it.

Now, if the "novelty" watch becomes The main watch then it means the user was simply waiting for something like that to come out. I've had experience with this too, with tablets and smartphones. I was a dumbphone and laptop user for years but every time I'd use them, I'm thinking; "I wish this was just the screen with the same functions." Or "I wish this phone could connect online and had better games."

Never in my life tho did I ever wish my traditional watch was all screen, had similar functions as my smartphone.

The perfect watch for me is always gonna be mechanical, have generational longevity, and be infinitely versatile in the beach-to-boardroom sense.

But I may still buy a smartwatch like the Galaxy Gear IF they make it smaller with the same standalone functions (it doesn't need a smartphone). But it'll be for fitness mostly.


----------



## VicLeChic

valmak said:


> have any of you actually seen the apple watch in person and tried it on? because i have. and i've also owned plenty of mechanical watches. the apple watch is remarkable. i'm not speaking out of my butt. go and try it for yourself before you dismiss it. it's going to be a game changer.


Oh yeah? What mechanical watches did you own? And how is Apple going to answer the needs of the typical mechanical watch collector? I'm talking about the know-how, the tradition, the beauty, the ingenuity and other qualities put together to develop a piece of art? Apple watch answers different needs : be connected, informed, communicate etc. What's all this has to do with the pleasure of owning a timepiece?


----------



## zetaplus93

VicLeChic said:


> An Apple watch answers a different need, the same as a smart phone, without the voice calls : convenience in communicating and being informed.


There are several other features that it brings: fitness tracking and payments.

Apple Pay (and other wireless key/lock solutions that could potentially come out of this) has been quite convenient, enough that I wish all retailers have this capability. It's almost like the wireless entry and push-button start/stop capability in cars today. When these were first introduced, a lot of people thought, why pay an extra $500 to get this? You just have to put your keys into the door/ignition... it's not worth $500! But now having this almost become a standard feature, I'd gladly pay to get the feature on future car purchases. I think Apple Pay and other similar features will follow a similar path forward.



VicLeChic said:


> Apple could even help it by bringing more young people to wear watches again. They'll start with a computer, and might end up being interested in something more traditional like a classic mechanical watch.


At first I thought this was possible, but I'm not so sure now. If one used a tool on a daily basis, would anyone opt to get a beautiful but functionality-inferior product to replace the tool? I wouldn't trade my iPhone for, say, a Vertu Nokia-candy-style phone. I can't really think of any tool that I use on a daily basis where I would...

To be clear, I'm talking about this as a mainstream trend where AW-wearing people (who haven't worn watches before) start looking at traditional watches.



VicLeChic said:


> Forum members, do you see yourselves stop wearing your timepieces and use an Apple watch or any other wearable instead? I certainly don't.


On this and other watch forums, a likely negligible number of us have. But I think it's because of we've been "poisoned" (haha) by the beauty of traditional watches, from the case, to the hands, to the movements, and so forth.

But if one has never been seduced by the awe of traditional watches and buys into the world of smartwatches, would they start expressing interest in traditional watches someday? My sense is no (for mainstream consumers) given the vast difference in functionality. But of course, time will tell (and the AW has to become mainstream before this can ever happen!).


----------



## zetaplus93

PeterTheFish said:


> I'm just not convinced that there's that much more to do in the watch industry. With cell phones we already have great mobile technology platforms. Moving it to our wrist is an incremental benefit. Maybe a luxury watch bracelet with a HR Monitor / Pedometer, caller ID, etc would be nice and meet needs not met by cell phones. But what could a watch add over a phone to mobile payments, etc...


It'll be up to the creativity of the designers and 3rd party app developers to bring the magic to it.

Things like fitness/health is one new thing the AW is bringing to the table. I think mobile payments (and wireless control of things in our lives, like the car, doors, etc) is another.

But I think the biggest things have yet to come. When the iPhone launched, people saw the potential for it. But I doubt anyone really saw things like Uber, AirBnb, SnapChat, etc coming. It's probably a similar thing with the AW.


----------



## zetaplus93

VicLeChic said:


> Oh yeah? What mechanical watches did you own? And how is Apple going to answer the needs of the typical mechanical watch collector? I'm talking about the know-how, the tradition, the beauty, the ingenuity and other qualities put together to develop a piece of art? Apple watch answers different needs : be connected, informed, communicate etc. What's all this has to do with the pleasure of owning a timepiece?


But remember, us traditional-watch-wearing folks are in the minority.

Apple is targeting mainstream consumers with higher disposable income. So these people likely don't wear watches, and if they do, likely wear them as status symbols and less likely values the tradition, beauty, ingenuity (of movements, complications, etc) of traditional watches.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if smartwatches take a bit of time away from traditional watches on collectors' wrists.


I don't know. Most of the feedback from watch people on forums and discussion sections of watch-sites tend to be strongly anti-AW. So I would've said that most watch people have no interest in such products.



lorsban said:


> Now, if the "novelty" watch becomes The main watch then it means the user was simply waiting for something like that to come out. I've had experience with this too, with tablets and smartphones. I was a dumbphone and laptop user for years but every time I'd use them, I'm thinking; "I wish this was just the screen with the same functions." Or "I wish this phone could connect online and had better games."
> 
> Never in my life tho did I ever wish my traditional watch was all screen, had similar functions as my smartphone.


Well, I've always wondered that in 2015 (with smartphones, Internet, etc etc), why we still use physical keys and/or punch numerical passwords to open doors/etc. Why do we still swipe credit cards (that are so prone to fraud)? Why do I still go to the doctor for routine checkups to find problems rather than have devices monitor me and alert me to see the doctor when it senses something wrong? Why do we trade business cards when meeting new clients? Why check in at the hotel front desk (I already reserved and you have my credit card/ID electronically)?

I think the advancement of wearables and smart devices (Internet of Things) will address some of these thoughts.


----------



## macotono

valmak said:


> I know lots of people get riled up about this but it's the truth. Switzerland is in trouble. Lots of watch companies are going to fold. I tried the demo of the Apple watch today and it's beautiful and can do so much (and only the Apple apps were installed so it can do much much more). Companies like Rolex, PP and Omega and a few others will stay afloat of course but probably over the next 10 years we will see lots of companies die out (I'm guessing about half or more). Sales of the main brands will decrease by a lot and there will be plenty of layoffs. It's just too much watch for ~$600 for any of these other brands to compete with it. I think eventually it will replace the smartphone at some level too. You can deny it all you want but it's going to happen. I saw the future today. Maybe in 10 years when the next wearable (maybe smart glasses?) come along then regular old mechanical watches will make a comeback. So companies are probably better off to take a loss for a while and stay in business.


History, craftsmanship will never be replaced by a computer. Imagine all the people don't like Quartz watches cause they are battery operated and because of this buy only mechanical watches, do you think they will go for an apple watch instead of a mechanic watch? I would never trade any of my Rolexs, Tudors or Omegas for an apple watch. That is not to say that I wouldn't buy one for working out. I am 34 and wouldn't choose an apple watch over a nice mechanical or Quartz watch.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Aradan

I see a few problems with this watch. You can not swim with it. Bad battery life, yes been said but I'll say it again. If you forget to charge it all you have on your wrist is a bracelet. When they were first announced I really really wanted one. But as I couldn't afford the model I wanted and still can't, I had plenty of time to think about it. Why would I want a watch that I have to upgrade in two years along with my phone. Say you have an IPhone 4s, guess what it won't work with it. So I get the watch and in two years it's updated, oops, I may have to get a new phone as well. Hmmm now I'm spending double or more to get the latest. So in the end I'll stick with just the phone. And wear my wonderful outdated mechanicals and Quartz watches because I love them and their history and all that went into them. Yes the smart watch will always have a niche. The pebble didn't put anyone out of business did it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> Well, I've always wondered that in 2015 (with smartphones, Internet, etc etc), why we still use physical keys and/or punch numerical passwords to open doors/etc. Why do we still swipe credit cards (that are so prone to fraud)? Why do I still go to the doctor for routine checkups to find problems rather than have devices monitor me and alert me to see the doctor when it senses something wrong? Why do we trade business cards when meeting new clients? Why check in at the hotel front desk (I already reserved and you have my credit card/ID electronically)?
> 
> I think the advancement of wearables and smart devices (Internet of Things) will address some of these thoughts.


I know how you feel.

You should try reading The Night's Dawn Trilogy by Peter F. Hamilton.

Pretty cool take on the possibilities of "wearables."

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## VicLeChic

Will we ever see a see-through case back on an Apple watch, decorated with rhodium, perlage (circular graining) and Côte de Genève? I seriously doubt it. In the meantime Switzerland is safe.

Apple watch looks ugly to me and is completely useless to most people, when it's sold as something useful in your daily life. I predict a flop, once the hype has passed. 

People who buy luxury watches buy an object which can be compared to jewelry. They look for attributes in this object which are completely unrelated to the so called "functionalities" offered by a portable computer on your wrist. 

People who buy a mechanical watch either inexpensive or luxurious look for a piece of delicate crafmanship, with a beating heart, a ticking noise, unplugged, stand alone. When it falls asleep, you can wake it up by winding its crown or just wearing it. Isn't it just magical? No electronic device will ever give you that feeling.


----------



## VicLeChic

zetaplus93 said:


> People pay for convenience.
> 
> Check out this article from a century ago, when pocket watches were dominant, when people ridiculed emerging wristwatches (they're too feminine!):
> 
> From the New York Times, July 1916
> 
> Wristwatches got better (they solved the problem of watches catching on fire!), and convenience won out in the end.


Ok, so what you are saying is that in the same way pocket watches were replaced with wrist watches for convenience in outdoors activities 100 years ago, we will see from now on traditional wrist watches being replaced with smart watches for convenience in our modern always connected life?

First of all, a lot of people just don't wear watches at all, they use their phone to know the time, so no replacement here, just an addition.

Secondly, many people who use a watch just need the time, nothing else, no fancy functionalities which are completely useless, except maybe for fitness tracking and health monitoring, but in that case you have much better and cheaper alternatives. So again, I don't see a replacement here.

Finally, the niche category of watches enthusiasts (most of them at least) would not stop buying regular watches because of smart watches. They might try smart watches like anybody else, for other reasons than knowing the time.

All in all, I don't think the search for convenience will be a reason for people to replace traditional watches with smart ones. People who buy a smart watch buy it for other reasons than time telling. They are not buying a watch but a wearable computer used as a personal assistant, and that has nothing to do with buying a watch. They are completely different products designed to address different needs. Yes they both sit on your wrist, so they compete for the same physical space, for now. But who's to say that the smart watch will not be replaced by something even more convenient, like a smart band, a smart ring, a smart necklace or smart earrings with holographic projection? Would that be the end of jewelry? I don't think so.


----------



## dawiz

zetaplus93 said:


> But remember, us traditional-watch-wearing folks are in the minority.
> 
> Apple is targeting mainstream consumers with higher disposable income. So these people likely don't wear watches, and if they do, likely wear them as status symbols and less likely values the tradition, beauty, ingenuity (of movements, complications, etc) of traditional watches.


? The number of watch wearers largely depends on the age group. Below 25, most people don't wear watches. Above 25, most people, by far, do.


----------



## eblackmo

zetaplus93 said:


> It'll be up to the creativity of the designers and 3rd party app developers to bring the magic to it.
> 
> Things like fitness/health is one new thing the AW is bringing to the table. I think mobile payments (and wireless control of things in our lives, like the car, doors, etc) is another.
> 
> But I think the biggest things have yet to come. When the iPhone launched, people saw the potential for it. But I doubt anyone really saw things like Uber, AirBnb, SnapChat, etc coming. It's probably a similar thing with the AW.


There is definitely a lot of possibility within the home automation space. Only for smartphones at the moment. There are limitations to smart watches that don't apply to phones. I use my phone as a universal remote I have a bunch of apps that talk to my AV equipment over my wireless network. I network everything at home I can stream movies/TV/music to any device in my house. It's awesome and it's come a long way.

Will smartwatches like the iwatch become as useful as smartphones? It costs time and money to develop apps and the developers have to recoup that money one way or the other. So writing apps for android or ios that run on tablets and phones is a lot safer bet. So who knows? I look forward to finding out.


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> ? The number of watch wearers largely depends on the age group. Below 25, most people don't wear watches. Above 25, most people, by far, do.


Right. And for those above 25, how many of them value history, beauty, and ingenuity of the mechanical marvels as was brought up in the post I replied to?

My point was that simply we who value these things (which I term watch people) are in the minority.

Many others wear watches, but they're either wearing Quartz fashion watches, or if they've got a mechanical, only wear the mechanical for the status and beauty, but they likely don't care about the mechanical marvels (or probably think of the "lack" of accuracy vs Quartz and iPhones to be a downside!).


----------



## dawiz

zetaplus93 said:


> Right. And for those above 25, how many of them value history, beauty, and ingenuity of the mechanical marvels as was brought up in the post I replied to?
> 
> My point was that simply we who value these things (which I term watch people) are in the minority.
> 
> Many others wear watches, but they're either wearing Quartz fashion watches, or if they've got a mechanical, only wear the mechanical for the status and beauty, but they likely don't care about the mechanical marvels (or probably think of the "lack" of accuracy vs Quartz and iPhones to be a downside!).


Just because they're wearing Quartz doesn't mean they'll be buying an Apple Watch. Honestly, I've had one (my brother loaned it to me) on the wrist for the bigger part of the weekend again and it's total and complete rubbish. Apps take forever to load data (some didn't at all, like BBC news), the whole UI is glacial, the small display makes using it a complete pain and it feels like a brick on the wrist.

Anyway, he's been trying to sell it on a larger Swiss auction site and hasn't received a single bid for it yet - 42mm Apple Watch with mesh strap. Starting price is 299 CH, cost him 870 including Apple Care. For crying out loud - how can people still be defending this thing? This is definitely the biggest piece of crap Apple has ever launched.


----------



## BarracksSi

dawiz said:


> Apps take forever to load data (some didn't at all, like BBC news), the whole UI is glacial,


Looks like you won't wait for WatchOS 2 and native apps.



> the small display makes using it a complete pain


Oh well, can't change that. A bigger display runs the risk of making a smartwatch _too_ big.



> and it feels like a brick on the wrist.


Must not be a fan of dive watches or 7750 chronos, either.


----------



## shnjb

VicLeChic said:


> Oh yeah? What mechanical watches did you own? And how is Apple going to answer the needs of the typical mechanical watch collector? I'm talking about the know-how, the tradition, the beauty, the ingenuity and other qualities put together to develop a piece of art? Apple watch answers different needs : be connected, informed, communicate etc. What's all this has to do with the pleasure of owning a timepiece?


I have a Patek 5127, Rolex datejust, gmt2c, have owned panerai, gifted a breguet, etc.
I have also recently bought two apple watches for me and the lady.
Quite honestly, i feel that workmanship of a Rolex or a Patek is nice, but most of it is not visible without a loupe unless you are looking at the movement.
Apple has come up with some good ideas on bracelets and straps and have incorporated some horological concepts like crown to pull off an attractive wrist device, albeit in a slightly geeky way.
While this current generation won't replace traditional watches in terms of sales, it is entirely plausible to see the traditional watches go the way of typewriters.
A good analogous example might be driverless cars.
When driverless cars become available for the masses, will there be a market for personal cars?
One can imagine Ferrari and high end manufacturers will be fine, but the rest may not be able to compete with economy of scale from tech companies.


----------



## shnjb

BarracksSi said:


> Looks like you won't wait for WatchOS 2 and native apps.
> 
> Oh well, can't change that. A bigger display runs the risk of making a smartwatch _too_ big.
> 
> Must not be a fan of dive watches or 7750 chronos, either.


The brick on the wrist argument is something I don't understand at all.
My Rolex is far heavier than the Apple watch and is just as thick.
Most dive watches, even expensive popular ones like Panerai, are thicker and more heavy.

It's really only dress watches which are significantly lighter and thinner, and among mechanical watches, it's pretty much only very fine automatic watches are (my Patek with its auto movement is about 8.5mm thick, which is much better than the Apple watch at 12.5mm).


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> Just because they're wearing Quartz doesn't mean they'll be buying an Apple Watch.


That wasn't the point I was putting forth.

If you look through my responses on this point, the OP was saying that the AW wasn't made for us watch people, and my point was that it wasn't because watch people are the minority. Apple's trying to make it for the mainstream person who have high disposable income.



dawiz said:


> Honestly, I've had one (my brother loaned it to me) on the wrist for the bigger part of the weekend again and it's total and complete rubbish. Apps take forever to load data (some didn't at all, like BBC news), the whole UI is glacial, the small display makes using it a complete pain and it feels like a brick on the wrist.


Those are frustrations that I also feel.

Nevertheless, the core set of apps and features provide enough benefit to justify the purchase for me. It obviously doesn't for you, and that's fine.

Speed will get better with newer versions of the software (native apps are coming in the fall), so I'm not too worried about that.

The small display will not change. I'm not reading much beyond a sentence or two, so I'm not bothered--long form reading wasn't the point of the device.



dawiz said:


> For crying out loud - how can people still be defending this thing? This is definitely the biggest piece of crap Apple has ever launched.


We're finding good uses for it, hence our enthusiasm. If you don't, that's fine too.

Vote with your wallet. The product will succeed or fail based on adoption by the general public, not niche segments like the watch community.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> I know how you feel.
> 
> You should try reading The Night's Dawn Trilogy by Peter F. Hamilton.
> 
> Pretty cool take on the possibilities of "wearables."
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Thanks, will have to take a look at that.


----------



## BarracksSi

Pulling this up from a few pages back:



scentedlead said:


> So . . . How many Android users want an Android watch?


I don't think anyone cares.

That, by itself, is interesting. The press gets all over Apple but leaves other smartwatch manufacturers alone.

Samsung's Gear has been distributed as part of a bundle with new Galaxy phones, so it's hard to say whether all Gear owners went out of their way to buy one or if they just took it in as a freebie. This also means that their motivation to continue using a Gear may vary.

The one guy at work who I know has a Gear, though, wears it all the time now. He has other watches, but they've been sitting in a box for months. I'm not sure if he'll ever end up in the market for a nice Swiss watch.


----------



## shnjb

BarracksSi said:


> Pulling this up from a few pages back:
> 
> I don't think anyone cares.
> 
> That, by itself, is interesting. The press gets all over Apple but leaves other smartwatch manufacturers alone.
> 
> Samsung's Gear has been distributed as part of a bundle with new Galaxy phones, so it's hard to say whether all Gear owners went out of their way to buy one or if they just took it in as a freebie. This also means that their motivation to continue using a Gear may vary.
> 
> The one guy at work who I know has a Gear, though, wears it all the time now. He has other watches, but they've been sitting in a box for months. I'm not sure if he'll ever end up in the market for a nice Swiss watch.


Yeah that is interesting.

I asked my lady who I've given the stainless modern buckle AW to and she claims that she won't buy any watch under 10k USD.


----------



## zetaplus93

VicLeChic said:


> Ok, so what you are saying is that in the same way pocket watches were replaced with wrist watches for convenience in outdoors activities 100 years ago, we will see from now on traditional wrist watches being replaced with smart watches for convenience in our modern always connected life?


Yes, for certain tasks, a wrist-worn device is more convenient than a pocket-carrying device like pocket watches and phones.



VicLeChic said:


> Secondly, many people who use a watch just need the time, nothing else, no fancy functionalities which are completely useless, except maybe for fitness tracking and health monitoring, but in that case you have much better and cheaper alternatives. So again, I don't see a replacement here.


That's because traditional watches have only been able to provide time and not much else (in terms of function; the jewelry aspect is if course a big deal).

The fact that Fitbits have gained mainstream adoption means that there are other jobs-to-be-done that people are looking for, and that the wrist is a prime location for these tasks.

The jobs that Fitbit provides will be integrated into general purpose computers like the AW, much like the iPod capabilities were integrated into the iPhone.



VicLeChic said:


> Finally, the niche category of watches enthusiasts (most of them at least) would not stop buying regular watches because of smart watches. They might try smart watches like anybody else, for other reasons than knowing the time.


Watch people (us, not regular fashion watch people) are not the market Apple is going after. It's mainstream people with high disposable income that they're targeting, as I'm mentioned several times.



VicLeChic said:


> All in all, I don't think the search for convenience will be a reason for people to replace traditional watches with smart ones.


I disagree. Convenience is a big deal.

Think of wireless entry and start-stop capabilities in modern cars. The market has demonstrated that people are willing to pay for these simple conveniences (how hard is it to put your physical key into the door or ignition?).



VicLeChic said:


> People who buy a smart watch buy it for other reasons than time telling. They are not buying a watch but a wearable computer used as a personal assistant, and that has nothing to do with buying a watch. They are completely different products designed to address different needs. Yes they both sit on your wrist, so they compete for the same physical space, for now.


Hence they're competing for these same space and likely same dollars in the general public's wallet.



VicLeChic said:


> But who's to say that the smart watch will not be replaced by something even more convenient, like a smart band, a smart ring, a smart necklace or smart earrings with holographic projection? Would that be the end of jewelry? I don't think so.


The smartwatch could evolve into other forms in the future, certainly.

I don't think jewelry will ever go away. But if the AW is so compelling to wear, people may wear other items like rings as jewelry instead (assuming we don't go double-wristing!).


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> I don't think anyone cares.
> 
> That, by itself, is interesting. The press gets all over Apple but leaves other smartwatch manufacturers alone.
> 
> Samsung's Gear has been distributed as part of a bundle with new Galaxy phones, so it's hard to say whether all Gear owners went out of their way to buy one or if they just took it in as a freebie. This also means that their motivation to continue using a Gear may vary.
> 
> The one guy at work who I know has a Gear, though, wears it all the time now. He has other watches, but they've been sitting in a box for months. I'm not sure if he'll ever end up in the market for a nice Swiss watch.


There should be a market for Android watches. After all, there're people buying high end Android phones.

The current crop of Android wear watches haven't been at the level of the AW. It may take some time before Android Wear products evolve enough for a "good-enough" product to emerge before this market grows.

I think this is also the reason Apple chose to not announce sales numbers. With the iPhone and iPad, once competition find out that there's a market, they threw all their resources into making products that more or less resembles the iPhone/iPad. At that point, Apple faced more competition. So this time around, they decided not to give this signal to competitors (at least not so soon) so they'd have more room to grow with less competition.


----------



## lorsban

BarracksSi said:


> Pulling this up from a few pages back:
> 
> I don't think anyone cares.
> 
> That, by itself, is interesting. The press gets all over Apple but leaves other smartwatch manufacturers alone.
> 
> Samsung's Gear has been distributed as part of a bundle with new Galaxy phones, so it's hard to say whether all Gear owners went out of their way to buy one or if they just took it in as a freebie. This also means that their motivation to continue using a Gear may vary.
> 
> The one guy at work who I know has a Gear, though, wears it all the time now. He has other watches, but they've been sitting in a box for months. I'm not sure if he'll ever end up in the market for a nice Swiss watch.


If Samsung makes a smaller Gear S, I'd get one. The Gear S is the only mainstream smartwatch with a sim slot.

The only time it needs to be tethered is during setup.

This is a major plus for fitness applications since you don't need to bring the phone along.

Fitness is the One area traditional watches can't compete in. Most they can do is chronograph but they're too heavy and digital will always be more accurate.


----------



## eblackmo

It's interesting isn't it. Smart watches are a trade off between usability (this is important) and well being a watch. Otherwise you might as well strap an iphone or note to your wrist. Smart watches are essentially peripheral devices for a phone. I know some (1?) take a sim but there is still the limitation of the screen size.

If you don't have usability people won't buy it. Back in the day before the advent of smart phones. Usability for mobile devices was centred on being able to make/receive sms and phone calls and that was it. It's come a long way since then. Now you can run fully featured apps, do gps based navigation etc. but you need the usability and hardware to make it feasible. If third parties can't make money off it then it will wither and die. Time will tell.


----------



## dawiz

BarracksSi said:


> Must not be a fan of dive watches or 7750 chronos, either.


Having no problem with my Sub and and the 300mc - but you're correct, don't like the thickness of the 7750.

The problem with the AW isn't the weight, obviously, but he shape.

Gladly, I don't have to wait for 2.0 as I don't own the watch - but I highly doubt things will be faster. If the watch can't handle web apps and is already slow, how should it cope with full fledged apps?


----------



## dawiz

shnjb said:


> The brick on the wrist argument is something I don't understand at all.
> My Rolex is far heavier than the Apple watch and is just as thick.
> Most dive watches, even expensive popular ones like Panerai, are thicker and more heavy.


It's not the weight but the shape. It just doesn't feel right on the wrist. To me, it literally feels and looks like strapping a little square box to your wrist.

Most Rolex sport watches (I own a 16610) are fairly small compared to others. Panerai is popular, but except perhaps for the Radiomir, these watches are positively gigantic and their size is often debated.


----------



## BarracksSi

dawiz said:


> Gladly, I don't have to wait for 2.0 as I don't own the watch - but I highly doubt things will be faster. If the watch can't handle web apps and is already slow, how should it cope with full fledged apps?


A good chunk of why nonnative apps are slow is because they have to load all their data - buttons, menus, icons, everything - from the phone. They're basically just extensions of phone apps, in the sense that the watch is like a secondary display.

Native apps would already reside on the watch, of course, meaning that they won't have to load their entire UI and the associated resources from the phone app. If they have to load online data, it should be about as quick as the phone. Some apps wouldn't need to load anything from the phone, either.

As always, the bottleneck isn't the CPU/GPU/etc, it's the data pipe. The less data that needs to travel between the AW and its phone, the better.


----------



## dawiz

http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/12/...ium=feed&utm_campaign=Engadget&?ncid=rss_full

This. Well written, pretty much sums up what I said a few posts back. No real user concept, confusing to use, slow.

Btw.: the biggest flaw they need to address ASAP is the fact that the watch only displays the time if you flick your wrists. And a lot of time, it doesn't detect the motion and stays dark. That's inexcusable.


----------



## Trankster

The big issue I see is battery life. My Moto360 does not last a day as a watch (6-8hrs). On a hike tracking my route with my phone's GPS and heart rate it runs down in about 2 hours. It is "fun" changing watch faces, checking the weather and dialing my wife from my wrist, BUT for daily wear I prefer my Omega or Fortis.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## lorsban

Trankster said:


> The big issue I see is battery life. My Moto360 does not last a day as a watch (6-8hrs). On a hike tracking my route with my phone's GPS and heart rate it runs down in about 2 hours. It is "fun" changing watch faces, checking the weather and dialing my wife from my wrist, BUT for daily wear I prefer my Omega or Fortis.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


That's why at this point, I see them more as suped-up fitness watches.


----------



## dawiz

lorsban said:


> That's why at this point, I see them more as suped-up fitness watches.


Of which there are plenty, most sporting 5-7 days battery life and costing 1/3 :-/


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> Gladly, I don't have to wait for 2.0 as I don't own the watch - but I highly doubt things will be faster. If the watch can't handle web apps and is already slow, how should it cope with full fledged apps?


Why the doubt? Computers always get faster, real quick. See everything from iPhones to iPads to laptops.


----------



## VicLeChic

Let's assume for a second that Apple fix the AW teething issues, and let's imagine comparable Android smart watches are released, and that the public likes them and starts buying and using them. 

Now, we know that some luxury Swiss brands belong to big groups. Those groups sell also entry level watches under different brands. In some cases, the cheap brand is the bread and butter, and allows for luxury brands to survive. The salles in "lower" brands could be directly hit by the hypothetical success of smart watches.

In this scenario, could the arrival of smartwatches jeopardise the profitability of these groups to a point where some less profitable brands (entry level or luxury) would have to disappear? 

As watch enthusiasts, do we have reasons to be concerned?


----------



## phillip.grasso

I as tech guy, practically everyone around me as a smart watch on, so I'm doing the rebel thing and getting into good mechanical watches 

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> It's not the weight but the shape. It just doesn't feel right on the wrist. To me, it literally feels and looks like strapping a little square box to your wrist.
> 
> Most Rolex sport watches (I own a 16610) are fairly small compared to others. Panerai is popular, but except perhaps for the Radiomir, these watches are positively gigantic and their size is often debated.


It seems that most modern men's watches are much larger than the AW. Look at the dive and chrono watches for example. And the popular fashion watches of today. Just look at Tudor, Omega, and Rolex's current lineup. 42mm is the norm. And 42mm traditional watches are larger than the 42mm AW because of the way the watch is measured.

The only ones smaller than AW are vintage (dress) watches. Even the traditional Rolex Explorer and Datejust have been enlarged to 39mm and larger.


----------



## zetaplus93

VicLeChic said:


> Let's assume for a second that Apple fix the AW teething issues, and let's imagine comparable Android smart watches are released, and that the public likes them and starts buying and using them.
> 
> Now, we know that some luxury Swiss brands belong to big groups. Those groups sell also entry level watches under different brands. In some cases, the cheap brand is the bread and butter, and allows for luxury brands to survive. The sales in "lower" brands could be directly hit by the hypothetical success of smart watches.
> 
> In this scenario, could the arrival of smartwatches jeopardize the profitability of these groups to a point where some less profitable brands (entry level or luxury) would have to disappear?


To quote myself from 2 months ago:



zetaplus93 said:


> Let's do a thought experiment:
> 
> Imagine a world 10-20 years in the future. Assume (and a big assumption at this point in time) the AW and similar products catch on, becomes more beautiful (in its own sense) and compels millions of people (especially the younger ones) to wear it day in and day out. And it also has compelling features.
> 
> Would the youngsters, now older and with more disposable income, find old world mechanicals compelling as a jewelry?
> 
> Keep in mind that they have to *not* wear their AW (or equivalent) to wear mechanicals (assuming two-wrist-watches don't become a thing). So they lose the ability to do all the compelling things that they've been used to for years and years now.
> 
> My thought is that, yes, there will continue to be those who will find mechanicals compelling. But this will become a niche, perhaps like pocket watches today...
> 
> Thoughts?





VicLeChic said:


> As watch enthusiasts, do we have reasons to be concerned?


To a certain degree, yes.

If the AW (by which I mean AW + products in the same class, i.e. Android Wear or others) gains mainstream adoption, then traditional watch sales will stabilize and likely decline. If it's severe enough, then there will be some consolidation--weaker companies will be bought out by larger ones, or a group of them will band together to form new larger companies and reduce costs (by using the same design house, distribution, manufacturing, etc). But likely there will be a market (i.e. watch enthusiasts) to sustain a good chunk of the current crop of companies. Perhaps there'll be more conglomerates like Rolex, Swatch Group, Seiko, Citizen, etc.

So in the long term, assuming the capabilities of AW (modern watches) does not migrate into yet another form factor (rings, bracelets, clothing, etc) and sticks around, us watch enthusiasts will still have our traditional watches. I think the traditional watches that'll remain are the hot sellers--cool designs, classic ones that never die, or HH designs. The blander designs that has neither beauty, heritage, or any mechanical marvels will fade away.

But our kids may look at traditional watches like how we view old rotary phones or pocket watches. An interesting marvel, beautiful, but serves no practical purpose aside from telling time in the future world of, say, 2040. If these are passed down as heirlooms, I think it may still be quite cool to them because of the mechanical marvels contained in the movements (look! it works without electricity or microprocessors!).


----------



## guspech750

I do not need more electronic gizmos in my life. 

I'll stick with mechanical watches thank you 


Sent from The White House on taxpayers dimes. 

DTR + 4.10's + Eaton swap = Wreeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom


----------



## dawiz

zetaplus93 said:


> It seems that most modern men's watches are much larger than the AW. Look at the dive and chrono watches for example. And the popular fashion watches of today. Just look at Tudor, Omega, and Rolex's current lineup. 42mm is the norm. And 42mm traditional watches are larger than the 42mm AW because of the way the watch is measured.
> 
> The only ones smaller than AW are vintage (dress) watches. Even the traditional Rolex Explorer and Datejust have been enlarged to 39mm and larger.


Again, it's not about the AW's size, it's the awkward shape that makes it wear weird.


----------



## eblackmo

It's kind of debate on the evolution of technology generally. Does something like a smartwatch have the potential to do more in a meaningful way than just tell the time and measure blood sugar levels (or whatever). Smartphones and tablets do but they have much greater usability. Try editing a powerpoint presentation, or remote desktop to a server on an apple watch or a gear or whatever else. It's not going to happen. If I am a third party app developer and I have a team of guys and we are funded with some venture capital.

Those venture capitalists want a return on their investment and so do my employees. That doesn't happen unless I can sell that app or get a lot of people using it and sell advertising and/or add paid features etc. I have to make money out of it somehow. No one is in it for love it's a business. The market is saturated with smartphones and tablets which run a different OS to these smartwatches (right?) I don't know if these app compile to a cross platform runtime like java. Maybe they do I am not an apps guy but you still have the usability and hardware issue and that's the main problem.

Will smartwatches succeed? Probably. Will they ever be anything more than something that's a phone peripheral and fills a particular niche. I doubt it. I could be wrong but I could also be right. You also have to wonder if apple, samsung etc. are planning on smartwatches taking market share from their other devices. Maybe they are and maybe they are not. Maybe they see it as complementary technology. Time will tell right?


----------



## shnjb

eblackmo said:


> It's kind of debate on the evolution of technology generally. Does something like a smartwatch have the potential to do more in a meaningful way than just tell the time and measure blood sugar levels (or whatever). Smartphones and tablets do but they have much greater usability. Try editing a powerpoint presentation, or remote desktop to a server on an apple watch or a gear or whatever else. It's not going to happen. If I am a third party app developer and I have a team of guys and we are funded with some venture capital.
> 
> Those venture capitalists want a return on their investment and so do my employees. That doesn't happen unless I can sell that app or get a lot of people using it and sell advertising and/or add paid features etc. I have to make money out of it somehow. No one is in it for love it's a business. The market is saturated with smartphones and tablets which run a different OS to these smartwatches (right?) I don't know if these app compile to a cross platform runtime like java. Maybe they do I am not an apps guy but you still have the usability and hardware issue and that's the main problem.
> 
> Will smartwatches succeed? Probably. Will they ever be anything more than something that's a phone peripheral and fills a particular niche. I doubt it. I could be wrong but I could also be right. You also have to wonder if apple, samsung etc. are planning on smartwatches taking market share from their other devices. Maybe they are and maybe they are not. Maybe they see it as complementary technology. Time will tell right?


Wow that was quite a ramble.


----------



## eblackmo

shnjb said:


> Wow that was quite a ramble.


Nah. I wouldn't call it a ramble. I would call it an informed perspective.


----------



## scentedlead

eblackmo said:


> It's kind of debate on the evolution of technology generally. Does something like a smartwatch have the potential to do more in a meaningful way than just tell the time and measure blood sugar levels (or whatever). Smartphones and tablets do but they have much greater usability. Try editing a powerpoint presentation, or remote desktop to a server on an apple watch or a gear or whatever else. It's not going to happen. If I am a third party app developer and I have a team of guys and we are funded with some venture capital.
> 
> Those venture capitalists want a return on their investment and so do my employees. That doesn't happen unless I can sell that app or get a lot of people using it and sell advertising and/or add paid features etc. I have to make money out of it somehow. No one is in it for love it's a business. The market is saturated with smartphones and tablets which run a different OS to these smartwatches (right?) I don't know if these app compile to a cross platform runtime like java. Maybe they do I am not an apps guy but you still have the usability and hardware issue and that's the main problem.
> 
> Will smartwatches succeed? Probably. Will they ever be anything more than something that's a phone peripheral and fills a particular niche. I doubt it. I could be wrong but I could also be right. You also have to wonder if apple, samsung etc. are planning on smartwatches taking market share from their other devices. Maybe they are and maybe they are not. Maybe they see it as complementary technology. Time will tell right?


The thing with apps is that it has to be right for the form factor. Take Keynote (it's Apple's Powerpoint): You're not going to edit slides on a watch-that task is best done on computers and, in a pinch like the bus ride to work, a tablet. You're not even going to review slides on a watch-the screen is too small, so that task is best done on computers and tablets and maybe smartphones. But a remote control to play or pause the slideshow? That task is done best on phones and watches.

A lot of watch apps are extensions of their phone or tablet apps so development is less intensive. But what developers do need to think about is, "Does this make sense on a watch?"

I already mentioned Keynote above. As for GrubHub, you're not going to view menus or place orders on a watch. But knowing when your order is ready? That's perfect for a watch-it's basically the next step in the vibrating coaster pagers that restaurants use. Twitter's watch app shows you your timeline and global hashtags-stuff people on the go don't need and the reviews have been meh. Twitterrific's watch app shows you your mentions and direct messages-stuff people do want on their watches and the reviews have been favorable. The only app I can think of that makes sense as a standalone watch app is Tomagotchi and that's because the original game was housed in a plastic keychain.

(Cross platform like Java and Flash suck. Android users love to boast the platform's support of Flash, but no one ever thought, "Oooh, a Flash app! 'Cause I'd rather have a Flash app over a native app.")

The iPhone was meant to cannibalize sales of the iPod. And the iPad was meant to cannibalize sales of low-cost laptops. But with the latter, it's not because tablets replaced laptops as much as, tablets complemented desktop computers-some things are better on a computer and some things are better on a tablet-and people found themselves wondering, "Now that I have a tablet, am I better off getting a laptop, or a desktop?" Some things are better on a phone (or tablet, or computer); some things are better on a watch. A healthy line-up of products means that the products complement each other and the user can decide which form factor is best for which tasks, and then switch easily between devices.


----------



## zetaplus93

eblackmo said:


> It's kind of debate on the evolution of technology generally. Does something like a smartwatch have the potential to do more in a meaningful way than just tell the time and measure blood sugar levels (or whatever). ... <snip> Time will tell right?


You argued for both sides so it's a bit difficult to follow you. But I think you're saying that smartwatches will go mainstream but do a smaller set of things (like the phones, tablets, computers, which can handle a wide variety of tasks).

I agree that watches won't do as wide variety of tasks, but it'll serve vital/critical-enough needs to warrant people spending money on it (and if not, then it'll truly be a niche product and won't go mainstream).



scentedlead said:


> The thing with apps is that it has to be right for the form factor. Take Keynote (it's Apple's Powerpoint): You're not going to edit slides on a watch-that task is best done on computers and, in a pinch like the bus ride to work, a tablet. You're not even going to review slides on a watch-the screen is too small, so that task is best done on computers and tablets and maybe smartphones. But a remote control to play or pause the slideshow? That task is done best on phones and watches.


Also, take drawing in general. It's relatively hard to draw (free form) with a mouse. A digital pen makes it easier (as animators will tell you). A tablet makes it even easier for the average person (look at all the drawing apps on the iPad).

So certain tasks that we used to use computers/mice/pens for has been made easier to adopt because of a new form factor. In fact, a new market was unlocked; tablets expanded the # of people drawing digitally because many people wouldn't have drawn using a mouse.



scentedlead said:


> (Cross platform like Java and Flash suck. Android users love to boast the platform's support of Flash, but no one ever thought, "Oooh, a Flash app! 'Cause I'd rather have a Flash app over a native app.")


+1

Native apps are the way to go because, given limited computing resources on mobile devices, you need the most optimized apps possible (so apps are fast and consume little computing resources).



scentedlead said:


> The iPhone was meant to cannibalize sales of the iPod. And the iPad was meant to cannibalize sales of low-cost laptops. But with the latter, it's not because tablets replaced laptops as much as, tablets complemented desktop computers-some things are better on a computer and some things are better on a tablet-and people found themselves wondering, "Now that I have a tablet, am I better off getting a laptop, or a desktop?" Some things are better on a phone (or tablet, or computer); some things are better on a watch. A healthy line-up of products means that the products complement each other and the user can decide which form factor is best for which tasks, and then switch easily between devices.


This is the one point that a lot of people don't pick up on. Many arguments assert that for smartwatches to take off, it has to replace smartphones.

If you look at people's usage today, a lot of people have multiple devices. It's usually a phone and computer, and some have a tablet in addition. As smartphone adoption increases, it hasn't replaced, say, the computer, because it cannot do all the tasks that a computer does. So the AW could go mainstream without significantly cannibalizing phones.

So, the current trend is for a proliferation of "screens" that each offers the best experience (Apple's approach), and not (yet) for a consolidation of devices to offer best "bang-for-buck" (Microsoft's approach with the Surface, which tries to combine tablets/laptops).

There is the very real potential for "gadget fatigue". The ongoing costs of products could limit the # of devices people buy. Apple's stance is that they can create the range of product lines and people can pick and choose whichever makes the most sense. Personally, I've addressed this by slowing down upgrade cycles of laptops, tablets, and phones (and hoping I don't break them accidentally!). I feel the current iterations of these products are mature enough to extend their replacement cycles.

BTW, the odd product out of Apple's history is the iPod. But iPods are different because it was designed as an almost singular-task devices. All subsequent products (iPhone, iPad, AW) are designed to be (more or less) general purpose computers with different form factors. A clue is in the SDK--the iPod has limited SDK (and apps) because it wasn't meant to be a general purpose device.


----------



## lorsban

VicLeChic said:


> Let's assume for a second that Apple fix the AW teething issues, and let's imagine comparable Android smart watches are released, and that the public likes them and starts buying and using them.
> 
> Now, we know that some luxury Swiss brands belong to big groups. Those groups sell also entry level watches under different brands. In some cases, the cheap brand is the bread and butter, and allows for luxury brands to survive. The salles in "lower" brands could be directly hit by the hypothetical success of smart watches.
> 
> In this scenario, could the arrival of smartwatches jeopardise the profitability of these groups to a point where some less profitable brands (entry level or luxury) would have to disappear?
> 
> As watch enthusiasts, do we have reasons to be concerned?


Still no. They will continue to occupy different segments.

The trajectory of wearables follows smartphones and tablets - technology and features. Screen, processor and battery advancements. Basically, what you saw with phones and tablets, you'll see on wearables. They're gadgets.

Traditional watches are about maintaining tradition. The most popular watches are still based on designs from the 50's or earlier. They're status symbols and jewelry.

Two totally different segments here.

And as long as people still use their smartphones, the smartwatch will be a redundant item for most people.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> And as long as people still use their smartphones, the smartwatch will be a redundant item for most people.


But all watches already are redundant. Anyone who's been asked, "Why do you have a watch when you have a cell phone?" knows this. It's only when you truly answer this question that you realize how the watch isn't redundant.

High-end watches aren't redundant because they are jewelry in ways that phones never could be.

Low-end watches aren't redundant because having the time on the wrist is much more convenient than having it in a pocket or bag. As far as time-keeping devices go, the cell phone is a glorified pocket-watch.

Smartwatches aren't redundant because they extend the phone to the wrist where it's more convenient to receive and look at info than keeping and hiding such info in a pocket or bag. Hey, this glorified pocket watch, let's move some of it to the wrist.


----------



## Rodney Hall

Had one for 24hrs didn't like it sold it 
Wearable tech not for me i like my B&Rs Breiltings and Rolexes too much 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eblackmo

zetaplus93 said:


> You argued for both sides so it's a bit difficult to follow you. But I think you're saying that smartwatches will go mainstream but do a smaller set of things (like the phones, tablets, computers, which can handle a wide variety of tasks).
> 
> I agree that watches won't do as wide variety of tasks, but it'll serve vital/critical-enough needs to warrant people spending money on it (and if not, then it'll truly be a niche product and won't go mainstream).
> 
> Also, take drawing in general. It's relatively hard to draw (free form) with a mouse. A digital pen makes it easier (as animators will tell you). A tablet makes it even easier for the average person (look at all the drawing apps on the iPad).
> 
> So certain tasks that we used to use computers/mice/pens for has been made easier to adopt because of a new form factor. In fact, a new market was unlocked; tablets expanded the # of people drawing digitally because many people wouldn't have drawn using a mouse.
> 
> +1
> 
> Native apps are the way to go because, given limited computing resources on mobile devices, you need the most optimized apps possible (so apps are fast and consume little computing resources).
> 
> This is the one point that a lot of people don't pick up on. Many arguments assert that for smartwatches to take off, it has to replace smartphones.
> 
> If you look at people's usage today, a lot of people have multiple devices. It's usually a phone and computer, and some have a tablet in addition. As smartphone adoption increases, it hasn't replaced, say, the computer, because it cannot do all the tasks that a computer does. So the AW could go mainstream without significantly cannibalizing phones.
> 
> So, the current trend is for a proliferation of "screens" that each offers the best experience (Apple's approach), and not (yet) for a consolidation of devices to offer best "bang-for-buck" (Microsoft's approach with the Surface, which tries to combine tablets/laptops).
> 
> There is the very real potential for "gadget fatigue". The ongoing costs of products could limit the # of devices people buy. Apple's stance is that they can create the range of product lines and people can pick and choose whichever makes the most sense. Personally, I've addressed this by slowing down upgrade cycles of laptops, tablets, and phones (and hoping I don't break them accidentally!). I feel the current iterations of these products are mature enough to extend their replacement cycles.
> 
> BTW, the odd product out of Apple's history is the iPod. But iPods are different because it was designed as an almost singular-task devices. All subsequent products (iPhone, iPad, AW) are designed to be (more or less) general purpose computers with different form factors. A clue is in the SDK--the iPod has limited SDK (and apps) because it wasn't meant to be a general purpose device.


The screen is to small. Also there is people in this thread claiming smart watches are going to replace just about everything. They won't. Because of a variety of reasons that all have to do with making money. Or more accurately not making money. Oh and the ipods primary function is playing music and they are as ubiquitous as smart phones and tablets everyone has one including me. Music companies and apple make bucketloads of cash off the ipod. It's even being used in home automation but that's because people buy them. That's the difference.


----------



## shnjb

eblackmo said:


> The screen is to small. Also there is people in this thread claiming smart watches are going to replace just about everything. They won't. Because of a variety of reasons that all have to do with making money. Or more accurately not making money. Oh and the ipods primary function is playing music and they are as ubiquitous as smart phones and tablets everyone has one including me. Music companies and apple make bucketloads of cash off the ipod. It's even being used in home automation but that's because people buy them. That's the difference.


Dats deep brah


----------



## eblackmo

shnjb said:


> Dats deep brah


No worries brah. I appreciate your insightful input.


----------



## pronstar

I hope the best argument for mechanical watches isn't "because the AW is slow to run apps" because I'm sure that will be addressed soon enough...technology marches on and things always get faster/better with time. 

Thankfully, I don't believe this argument will sound the death knell for mechanical watches. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> Smartwatches aren't redundant because they extend the phone to the wrist where it's more convenient to receive and look at info than keeping and hiding such info in a pocket or bag. Hey, this glorified pocket watch, let's move some of it to the wrist.


Glorified pocketwatch? Huh? C'mon even you'll agree that smartphones or tablets are FAR more than that.

All smartwatches are at this point are wanna-be smartphones with small inadequate screens, power, function and battery life.

In a nutshell:










I suppose for very few people, it works. But for the rest of the world, why bother?


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> Glorified pocketwatch? Huh? C'mon even you'll agree that smartphones or tablets are FAR more than that.


If you know me, then you know that I know that smartphones aren't phones-they are computers, and the phone is just another app. That the computer has been miniaturaized to fit into your hand is a marvel of engineering.



scentedlead said:


> Low-end watches aren't redundant because having the time on the wrist is much more convenient than having it in a pocket or bag. *As far as time-keeping devices go,* the cell phone is a glorified pocket-watch.


All cell phones are glorified pocket watches-not just smartphones.

I buy watches because when I want the time, I want something more convenient than a pocket watch (also, I like a piece of jewelry to accent my outfit). When people ask me, "Why do you have a watch when you have a cell phone?" this is exactly what I tell them. What do you tell them?

The cell phone is more precise and accurate than the pocket watch, I'll give it that.

I really want a G-Shock-something in the GW-M5610 line, probably the GW-M5610BB. The watches in the GW-M5610 line are atomic, and solar-total set it and forget it. But an Apple Watch is on NTP-accurate to within 50 milliseconds-and it too is total set it and forget it, automatically adjusting for DST and time zones. Do I want the toughness of a G-Shock? Or do I want the elegance-and the apps-of the AW?



lorsban said:


> All smartwatches are at this point are wanna-be smartphones with small inadequate screens, power, function and battery life.


That's actually exactly what people said about smartphones 10 years ago. One smartphone predecessor-the personal digital assistant, the PDA-was glorified address book and appointment book. The other predecessor-the cell phone-was a glorified phone. Put those two together and, voilà! People were . . . still underwhelmed. The PDA can now make phone calls (and replace the Walkman). Mkay, now what? What is this good for? Most people couldn't see beyond the phone with its integrated address and appointment books. It takes the ingenuity of 3rd party app developers to make smartphones what they are today.

Lather, rinse, repeat with tablets-oversized cell phone, undersized computer, um, now what? What is this good for? Turns out, 3rd party app developers came up with lots of things.



lorsban said:


> I suppose for very few people, it works. But for the rest of the world, why bother?


I get it that WUS has a fairly heavy bias towards mechanical watch wearers. But there are lots of different kinds of watch buyers-some of them are even different than the kind who buy mechanical watches.

If your watch is jewelry, then of course the AW-or any smartwatch-will never fulfill your needs. But if your watch is a tool, then maybe a multi-purpose tool has more appeal than a single-purpose tool. For a certain kind of watch buyer, a mechanical will never fulfill their needs.

I have a Seiko 5 with a 7S26 movement. The movement is mesmerizing-I could stare at it all day. But I also want a watch to tell the time _with a modicum of accuracy._ Hence, the Seiko 5 is not one of my daily watches. (Also, I realize I prolly shot myself in the foot when I bought a non-hacking watch. But the movement is mesmerizing and you can't take that away from me.)


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> I buy watches because when I want the time, I want something more convenient than a pocket watch (also, I like a piece of jewelry to accent my outfit). When people ask me, "Why do you have a watch when you have a cell phone?" this is exactly what I tell them. What do you tell them?


I've never been asked that question. If ever someone asks, I'll just say that I like watches.



> That's actually exactly what people said about smartphones 10 years ago. One smartphone predecessor-the personal digital assistant, the PDA-was glorified address book and appointment book. The other predecessor-the cell phone-was a glorified phone. Put those two together and, voilà! People were . . . still underwhelmed. The PDA can now make phone calls (and replace the Walkman). Mkay, now what? What is this good for? Most people couldn't see beyond the phone with its integrated address and appointment books. It takes the ingenuity of 3rd party app developers to make smartphones what they are today.
> 
> Lather, rinse, repeat with tablets-oversized cell phone, undersized computer, um, now what? What is this good for? Turns out, 3rd party app developers came up with lots of things.


True.

But in my experience, products that reduce clutter/bulk by combining features and functions always succeed.

Smartwatches, At This Point, are the opposite, they add bulk/clutter because they're still add-on items that require a smartphone. They don't add functionality, they simply mimic it poorly. Hence, the dwindling sales.

It's great tho that it serves some kind of purpose to those who got it and I personally have a fitness use planned for one but again, I'm looking at the Galaxy Gear S because it's got a sim slot for total connectivity - a basic smartphone on the wrist - if they make it cheaper or smaller, I'll likely get one.

That's why I think they'll exist side by side. And not only that, I see smartwatches BOOSTING traditional watch sales. Haha!

After sampling all those different watch faces on your smartwatch, you'll likely realize that nothing beats the real deal.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> It's great tho that it serves some kind of purpose to those who got it and I personally have a fitness use planned for one but again, I'm looking at the Galaxy Gear S because it's got a sim slot for total connectivity - a basic smartphone on the wrist - if they make it cheaper or smaller, I'll likely get one.


We have very different views of what smartwatches should be.

You start with the smartphone and then reduce it in size to get the smartwatch. I start with what's worn on the wrist (watches and fitness wearables) and ask what they do (watches give bursts of info-the time, the day, the date, chronographs tell how much time has passed; fitness wearables have sensors that track movement and vital signs) and then wonder what bits of info from the phone it can display like that.

You want a smartwatch to be a shrunken smartphone. I want a smartwatch to be a watch on steroids. These are two completely different things.

Prolly the reason why I like the AW so much, whereas other smartwatches leave me cold, is that from interviews Jony Ive and Marc Newson have given, they've looked at their automatics-not their phones, but their automatics-and put deep thought into why they like them so much. They didn't start with their smartphones, they started with their wrist watches. Tim Cook has been saying for a while now, "The wrist is interesting," and I wonder how much of that is influenced by what Ive and Newson have concluded about why they like their watches so much.



> After sampling all those different watch faces on your smartwatch, you'll likely realize that nothing beats the real deal.


Truth be told, I am dazzled by smartwatch faces. When I got my first iPad, I realized I could carry a thousand books in my bag-what a feeling! With the AW, I can have how many complications? I love complications and it makes me lightheaded and giddy at the thought of having so many in just one device.


----------



## eblackmo

scentedlead said:


> The thing with apps is that it has to be right for the form factor. Take Keynote (it's Apple's Powerpoint): You're not going to edit slides on a watch-that task is best done on computers and, in a pinch like the bus ride to work, a tablet. You're not even going to review slides on a watch-the screen is too small, so that task is best done on computers and tablets and maybe smartphones. But a remote control to play or pause the slideshow? That task is done best on phones and watches.
> 
> A lot of watch apps are extensions of their phone or tablet apps so development is less intensive. But what developers do need to think about is, "Does this make sense on a watch?"
> 
> I already mentioned Keynote above. As for GrubHub, you're not going to view menus or place orders on a watch. But knowing when your order is ready? That's perfect for a watch-it's basically the next step in the vibrating coaster pagers that restaurants use. Twitter's watch app shows you your timeline and global hashtags-stuff people on the go don't need and the reviews have been meh. Twitterrific's watch app shows you your mentions and direct messages-stuff people do want on their watches and the reviews have been favorable. The only app I can think of that makes sense as a standalone watch app is Tomagotchi and that's because the original game was housed in a plastic keychain.
> 
> (Cross platform like Java and Flash suck. Android users love to boast the platform's support of Flash, but no one ever thought, "Oooh, a Flash app! 'Cause I'd rather have a Flash app over a native app.")
> 
> The iPhone was meant to cannibalize sales of the iPod. And the iPad was meant to cannibalize sales of low-cost laptops. But with the latter, it's not because tablets replaced laptops as much as, tablets complemented desktop computers-some things are better on a computer and some things are better on a tablet-and people found themselves wondering, "Now that I have a tablet, am I better off getting a laptop, or a desktop?" Some things are better on a phone (or tablet, or computer); some things are better on a watch. A healthy line-up of products means that the products complement each other and the user can decide which form factor is best for which tasks, and then switch easily between devices.


I agree. It's all about appropriate usage. All the talk about smart watches becoming the be all and end all was annoying me and not particularly grounded in reality but thats just my opinion.  Smart watches have plenty of applications. It just makes sense to tether it to a phone and use it to extend the functionality of apps installed on the phone. For both technical and business reasons. This is always open to debate of course.


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> We have very different views of what smartwatches should be.
> 
> You start with the smartphone and then reduce it in size to get the smartwatch. I start with what's worn on the wrist (watches and fitness wearables) and ask what they do (watches give bursts of info-the time, the day, the date, chronographs tell how much time has passed; fitness wearables have sensors that track movement and vital signs) and then wonder what bits of info from the phone it can display like that.
> 
> You want a smartwatch to be a shrunken smartphone. I want a smartwatch to be a watch on steroids. These are two completely different things.


Hmm....something like this perhaps?










It's more watch-centric but can display some phone alerts and notifications. It runs on solar AND it looks Awesome!



> Truth be told, I am dazzled by smartwatch faces. When I got my first iPad, I realized I could carry a thousand books in my bag-what a feeling! With the AW, I can have how many complications? I love complications and it makes me lightheaded and giddy at the thought of having so many in just one device.


I feel that way about my phone. It all started with my Note 2 phablet. It was big enough for me to open/edit office docs but not so big to be difficult to pocket. Ever since I got that, I've given my tablet to my kid and only use my laptop for recording.

I use a smaller phone now but I've already gotten used to doing things on a smaller device. But a 5in screen is my limit.


----------



## BarracksSi

lorsban said:


> Hmm....something like this perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's more watch-centric but can display some phone alerts and notifications. It runs on solar AND it looks Awesome!


i thought of those, too (including similar ideas like Citizen's Proximity models). They don't tell who is sending the message, though. It's like a secretary who says,

"Sir, you have a new message."
Ok, thanks. Who is it?
"I can't tell you."
Do I need to stop what I'm doing and talk to them now?
"I don't know, sir."
Can it wait until I get home?
"I don't know that, either."
What's the message about, then?
"I can't tell you any details, sir."
Then why did you tell me about it?
"That's my only job, sir."

I'd prefer to _fire_ a secretary like that, no matter how good-looking she is. ;-p


----------



## VicLeChic

Do you guys see big luxury brands jump on the smart watch bandwagon at some point, like IWC's recently announced smart device integrated in the strap.? Can we expect the likes of Rolex, Omega, Breitling etc to follow suit by combining traditional mechanical layout with smart features?

Would that be a good thing for us enthusiasts? I guess it could potentially be quite interesting. If you're fed up with the smart gadget, just replace the strap and make it "fully traditional"! We could have the best of both worlds.


----------



## lorsban

VicLeChic said:


> Do you guys see big luxury brands jump on the smart watch bandwagon at some point, like IWC's recently announced smart device integrated in the strap.? Can we expect the likes of Rolex, Omega, Breitling etc to follow suit by combining traditional mechanical layout with smart features?
> 
> Would that be a good thing for us enthusiasts? I guess it could potentially be quite interesting. If you're fed up with the smart gadget, just replace the strap and make it "fully traditional"! We could have the best of both worlds.


That's one option.

Another is a smaller band like a fitbit that you wear on your other wrist.

Or you could just pull your phone out of your pocket lol


----------



## Chibatastic

VicLeChic said:


> Do you guys see big luxury brands jump on the smart watch bandwagon at some point, like IWC's recently announced smart device integrated in the strap.? Can we expect the likes of Rolex, Omega, Breitling etc to follow suit by combining traditional mechanical layout with smart features?
> 
> Would that be a good thing for us enthusiasts? I guess it could potentially be quite interesting. If you're fed up with the smart gadget, just replace the strap and make it "fully traditional"! We could have the best of both worlds.


If a luxury watch brand were to compete with android / apple it would be a tough uphill battle. Now if they were to form partnerships, that would be a different story.
I remember reading about apple approaching some of the large swiss companies and getting snubbed. Perhaps this will change down the road.


----------



## emunzy

The market that finds joy in complicated time pieces are not the same people buying the apple watch. The other companies will not die out because their market is not the same as smart watches. 

Your experience came from the Appel store, so of course everyone in the store even people with expensive watches wanted to try on the watch. 

You do not understand the market you are trying to predict. I hope you don't deal on the stock market. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> Hmm....something like this perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's more watch-centric but can display some phone alerts and notifications. It runs on solar AND it looks Awesome!


LOL, no.

One big plus to having a computer on your wrist is having as many complications as you want. The only limit is your (and the engineer's) imagination. With that Casio Edifice, can you add a moon-phase complication? A sunrise/sunset complication? A sun position complication? Whereas with the AW:

Depending on the face, you could have any number of the following complications-calendar, world clock, moon phase, sunrise/sunset, stopwatch, timer, alarm, stocks, weather, activity tracker. Or better yet, have the complication become the face:

The Solar face is basically a sunrise/sunset complication visualized. And the Astronomy face defaults to the earth but it can be configured to show the moon to be a moon phase complication.

















BarracksSi said:


> i thought of those, too (including similar ideas like Citizen's Proximity models). They don't tell who is sending the message, though. It's like a secretary who says,
> 
> "Sir, you have a new message."
> Ok, thanks. Who is it?
> "I can't tell you."
> Do I need to stop what I'm doing and talk to them now?
> "I don't know, sir."
> Can it wait until I get home?
> "I don't know that, either."
> What's the message about, then?
> "I can't tell you any details, sir."
> Then why did you tell me about it?
> "That's my only job, sir."
> 
> I'd prefer to fire a secretary like that, no matter how good-looking she is. ;-p


Ew, that's no better than having your phone buzz or beep.

If your phone can do that, then why bother making the watch do that? For the notification to be more compelling, the watch has to give not too much info, but enough info-enough being what you need to help you decide what to do but that amount is definitely more than what a phone hidden in your pocket does.



lorsban said:


> Or you could just pull your phone out of your pocket lol


LOL, but I wear a watch so that I don't have to take out my phone out of my pocket. Why do you own a watch and not a pocket watch? That said, I wouldn't mind a pinnable watch, or a necklace watch-as long as it's on me where it's accessible and that means not inside a pocket or a bag.


----------



## scentedlead

In light of last week's conversations about AW sales tanking:

Recode.net: Apple Watch, Not Dead Yet




> "We've always been very clear that we're talking about U.S. online sales. We're not projecting other channels," said Agarwal. "Anytime we send data to reporters, I was the first to say, 'Look, it could be sales are shifting online to in-stores.' That's how we present it."
> 
> Few seemed to pick up on that nuance.
> 
> To find another way to gauge the popularity of the Apple Watch, we consulted several veteran technology analysts with contacts in Apple's manufacturing supply chain who claimed Slice's data does not represent the whole market, and does not correspond to what they're hearing from supplier sources.
> 
> Ben Bajarin of Creative Strategies said he is seeing production gain momentum, not decrease, as Apple moves into its September quarter. He has raised his own Apple Watch sales forecast based on research with suppliers, estimating Apple will sell 20 million smartwatches this calendar year, up from his initial projection of 19 million.


Seeing that Apple has no plans to release stats of sales units, we look to other ways of collecting this data. When internet ordering was the only way to get the AW, perhaps this was the best way to estimate how many units were sold. But when even Slice reps transparently told the press, "U.S. only, online only" and few journalists bother to listen, well, an iMore.com headline puts it best: Apple Watch sales coverage plunges 90% in accuracy.


----------



## dawiz

scentedlead said:


> In light of last week's conversations about AW sales tanking:
> 
> Recode.net: Apple Watch, Not Dead Yet
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing that Apple has no plans to release stats of sales units, we look to other ways of collecting this data. When internet ordering was the only way to get the AW, perhaps this was the best way to estimate how many units were sold. But when even Slice reps transparently told the press, "U.S. only, online only" and few journalists bother to listen, well, an iMore.com headline puts it best: Apple Watch sales coverage plunges 90% in accuracy.


Unfortunately for Apple, Slice uses a method that is amongst the best and most accurate out there. Saying this isn't the case simply means you don't know the first thing about empirical social science.


----------



## scentedlead

dawiz said:


> Unfortunately for Apple, Slice uses a method that is amongst the best and most accurate out there. Saying this isn't the case simply means you don't know the first thing about empirical social science.


Kanishka Agarwal is the Chief Data Officer of Slice Intelligence.


----------



## dawiz

scentedlead said:


> Kanishka Agarwal is the Chief Data Officer of Slice Intelligence.


Indeed - and he's saying that they regularly use their method on all kinds of sales projections and reach almost 99% accuracy on cross-checks for Amazon etc. - which makes this particular method vastly more accurate than most others as the sample size is massive.


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> LOL, but I wear a watch so that I don't have to take out my phone out of my pocket.


So you plan writing emails, surf, edit spreadsheets on your WATCH?


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> Unfortunately for Apple, Slice uses a method that is amongst the best and most accurate out there. Saying this isn't the case simply means you don't know the first thing about empirical social science.


Now you're just trolling.

Apparently the words from the people who created the data can't convince you how to interpret the data correctly.


----------



## dawiz

zetaplus93 said:


> Now you're just trolling.
> 
> Apparently the words from the people who created the data can't convince you how to interpret the data correctly.


This is what Minney really said - don't just read some random fanboi blog and post things as fact - before you accuse others of trolling, turn on your brain:

'We get permissioned access to email inboxes from users of our apps (Slice and unroll.me) as well as through partners who license our technology to power their online experiences (i.e. The find, IFTTT, Gone!, etc.).
That number [1.2 million] is based on our projections to the online population.
Our panel is of 2 million people; 9,080 of whom bought an Apple Watch.
Based on our statistical modeling and validation (including partner and client feedback), we are confident our numbers are representative.
So, Slice takes the results of a survey of its buyer population, and from that, projects to the U.S. population as a whole. This is what all surveys do. Slice has two advantages:
An extremely large sample population (2 million).
The fact that the sampling is automatic.
Ms. Minney notes that the panel size is "an order of magnitude larger than panels by Nielsen, comScore, etc."
Since the data is supplied automatically from real e-receipts, as opposed by any self-reporting, it has a very high degree of accuracy.'


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> This is what Minney really said - don't just read some random fanboi blog and post things as fact - before you accuse others of trolling, turn on your brain:


To re-quote the Re/code article that scentedlead posted:



> But Slice's methodology has its limits. It does not track in-store purchases or global retail sales. The firm's projections of a precipitous drop in sales based entirely on online sales of the Apple Watch roughly correspond with news of the device's coming availability in stores - on June 17 to pick up online orders, then more broadly on June 26.
> 
> For an expensive gadget like the Watch, it is reasonable to assume mass market buyers are likely to want to play around with it and purchase in person.
> 
> "We've always been very clear that we're talking about U.S. online sales. We're not projecting other channels," said [Slice Chief Data Officer Kanishka Agarwal]. "Anytime we send data to reporters, I was the first to say, 'Look, it could be sales are shifting online to in-stores.' That's how we present it."
> 
> Few seemed to pick up on that nuance.
> 
> To find another way to gauge the popularity of the Apple Watch, we consulted several veteran technology analysts with contacts in Apple's manufacturing supply chain who claimed Slice's data does not represent the whole market, and does not correspond to what they're hearing from supplier sources.
> 
> Ben Bajarin of Creative Strategies said he is seeing production gain momentum, not decrease, as Apple moves into its September quarter. He has raised his own Apple Watch sales forecast based on research with suppliers, estimating Apple will sell 20 million smartwatches this calendar year, up from his initial projection of 19 million.
> 
> Information research firm IDC is hearing the same based on its ongoing source checks in the global manufacturing and supply chain. IDC said the Apple Watch appears to be selling as expected: Following an initial burst of interest from Apple enthusiasts, demand tapered off. But sales continue apace, and appear to be on track to reach about 21.2 million units sold this year.
> 
> "What we've heard and what I've confirmed with other analysts is &#8230; [the Apple watch] is still growing," said Ryan Reith, research director for IDC's mobile devices team. "They're expecting it to grow throughout the year."
> 
> Reith noted that researchers who glean information from one distribution channel fail to get a complete picture.
> 
> "If you don't look at all channels, you can certainly miss trends - especially as it shifts to new markets, and as it's available in different stores," Reith said.
> 
> Apple reports its third fiscal quarter results July 21 and has said it will lump Apple Watch sales into the category of "other" products including Apple TV, Beats Electronics and Apple-branded third-party accessories. The company declined to comment for this story.


So:

1) Slice only tracks online sales; sales have started to shift to in-store sales

2) Slice only has US sales; Apple sales are worldwide and continue rolling out into new countries


----------



## BarracksSi

Is Slice an opt-in service?

If it is, I haven't heard of it until this week, and I thought I was sort of a tech nerd.

I'll make a wild guess and say that the people who I saw trying to buy an AW in-store before it became available were _not_ tech nerds, because they had no idea that it was still online-only. I don't expect that they would be members of Slice, then, either.


----------



## lorsban

Ok so Slice is just one of the methods but still, that particular method showed a NINETY percent drop. 

Even if that wasn't the whole picture, why hasn't anybody else refuted it? 

Why hasn't Apple come out to say how false that is and showed the "fantastic" sales figures in their Apple stores?

Seems to me that the slice report is pretty close to what's happening Everywhere. 

Hence Apple's media silence. 

Apple Loves to brag about sales figures. Their silence here shows there's nothing to brag about.


----------



## BarracksSi

Apple doesn't announce anything until their quarterly earnings call. They don't cater to the tech press's whims (never mind random people on web forums).


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> So you plan writing emails, surf, edit spreadsheets on your WATCH?


Well . . .



scentedlead said:


> The thing with apps is that it has to be right for the form factor. Take Keynote (it's Apple's Powerpoint): You're not going to edit slides on a watch-that task is best done on computers and, in a pinch like the bus ride to work, a tablet. You're not even going to review slides on a watch-the screen is too small, so that task is best done on computers and tablets and maybe smartphones. But a remote control to play or pause the slideshow? That task is done best on phones and watches.
> 
> A lot of watch apps are extensions of their phone or tablet apps so development is less intensive. But what developers do need to think about is, "Does this make sense on a watch?"
> 
> I already mentioned Keynote above. As for GrubHub, you're not going to view menus or place orders on a watch. But knowing when your order is ready? That's perfect for a watch-it's basically the next step in the vibrating coaster pagers that restaurants use. Twitter's watch app shows you your timeline and global hashtags-stuff people on the go don't need and the reviews have been meh. Twitterrific's watch app shows you your mentions and direct messages-stuff people do want on their watches and the reviews have been favorable. The only app I can think of that makes sense as a standalone watch app is Tomagotchi and that's because the original game was housed in a plastic keychain.
> 
> The iPhone was meant to cannibalize sales of the iPod. And the iPad was meant to cannibalize sales of low-cost laptops. But with the latter, it's not because tablets replaced laptops as much as, tablets complemented desktop computers-some things are better on a computer and some things are better on a tablet-and people found themselves wondering, "Now that I have a tablet, am I better off getting a laptop, or a desktop?" Some things are better on a phone (or tablet, or computer); some things are better on a watch. A healthy line-up of products means that the products complement each other and the user can decide which form factor is best for which tasks, and then switch easily between devices.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> Ok so Slice is just one of the methods but still, that particular method showed a NINETY percent drop.
> 
> Even if that wasn't the whole picture, why hasn't anybody else refuted it?





> "We've always been very clear that we're talking about U.S. online sales. We're not projecting other channels," said *[Slice Chief Data Officer Kanishka Agarwal]*. "Anytime we send data to reporters, I was the first to say, *'Look, it could be sales are shifting online to in-stores.' That's how we present it.*"


Agarwal isn't refuting his own company's numbers but he is openly refuting the way the media has interpreted them. Agarwal is the _Chief Data Officer_ of Slice Intelligence-probably he knows a thing or two about stats, especially is own company's stats.

The data is great because it tracks individual products down to the zip code. But, as _Slice Intelligence Chief Data Officer_ Agarwal keeps saying, this data is for online sales only, U.S. only. What that means for laypersons: The data is deep, but the data isn't broad.



zetaplus93 said:


> So:
> 
> 1) Slice only tracks online sales; sales have started to shift to in-store sales
> 
> 2) Slice only has US sales; Apple sales are worldwide and continue rolling out into new countries


----------



## valmak

emunzy said:


> The market that finds joy in complicated time pieces are not the same people buying the apple watch. The other companies will not die out because their market is not the same as smart watches.
> 
> Your experience came from the Appel store, so of course everyone in the store even people with expensive watches wanted to try on the watch.
> 
> You do not understand the market you are trying to predict. I hope you don't deal on the stock market.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


You are 100% wrong about this. The average buyer of a Rolex/Omega probably has no idea what is powering their watch. All they know is that it's an expensive, brand name watch and that is why they wear one. It's the same kind of people buying Louis Vuitton/Chanel. The market for highly complicated watches is very, very small. How many tourbillons are produced each year? Maybe .01% of the population is in the market for highly complicated watches. And actually, this market is actually interested in Apple Watches because the typical person that buys watches like Patek is older and could benefit from having the health apps of an Apple Watch. I have one relative who stopped wearing his Rolex and is now wearing an Apple Watch. One of my buddies has a Rolex, Bregeut and a couple of others and has now ordered an Apple Watch. I've owned several mechanicals in the past and now am wearing an Apple Watch. How can you say they are different markets when I just gave several examples of people ditching their mechanicals for an Apple Watch? You and many others on this forum may not have any interest in it but this community is really small. Just think about the last time you randomly encountered a WIS in public.


----------



## leahorsfall

Why have a watch that needs charging and wouldn't survive in a puddle?
I have a mobile.....I don't need a watch that does what a mobile does
I'm not david hasslehoff 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nic1930

Speaking from experience, as both a watch enthusiast and a gadget lover, I recently bought a smartwatch and kept it for two days before realising that it was nothing more than an expensive gimmick that became very uninteresting very quickly. The battery life was abysmal and you can forget about being able to see the screen once you leave the house in daylight. I was looking forward to the getting a smartwatch and really wanted it to succeed, but the reality for me is that you are far better sticking with a smartphone that does everything (and more) and does it far better. Needless to say I sent it back and bought a new G-shock instead which has put a far bigger smile on my face than the smartwatch did! I don't think Switzerland are losing much sleep.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## VicLeChic

I would be interested in knowing what proportion of AW owners find it useful and are happy with it . So far I read some lukewarm reviews here and there, but difficult to find any hard data.


----------



## 123Blueface

VicLeChic said:


> I would be interested in knowing what proportion of AW owners find it useful and are happy with it . So far I read some lukewarm reviews here and there, but difficult to find any hard data.


I went to a restaurant the other night and as we waited to order, I saw a guy near me with his Apple Watch Sport with white band on. 
It made me remember briefly I owned an SS on day one they were available and have since sold it.
It was the first time I have thought about that watch in approximately two months.
I then looked at my wrist and smiled when I saw the time on my Rolex Submariner TT Bluesey.


----------



## Nic1930

123Blueface said:


> I went to a restaurant the other night and as we waited to order, I saw a guy near me with his Apple Watch Sport with white band on.
> It made me remember briefly I owned an SS on day one they were available and have since sold it.
> It was the first time I have thought about that watch in approximately two months.
> I then looked at my wrist and smiled when I saw the time on my Rolex Submariner TT Bluesey.


I can honestly say that I've yet to see anyone wearing an Apple Watch outside of an Apple Store!


----------



## PeterTheFish

Nic1930 said:


> I can honestly say that I've yet to see anyone wearing an Apple Watch outside of an Apple Store!


Depends where you are I guess. Subways, Penn Station, a few flights and hotels, I've seen lots in the wild over the last few months.


----------



## lorsban

Nic1930 said:


> I can honestly say that I've yet to see anyone wearing an Apple Watch outside of an Apple Store!


I've seen one guy with an AW.

Heard of another buying then flipping the week after.


----------



## BarracksSi

Nic1930 said:


> I can honestly say that I've yet to see anyone wearing an Apple Watch outside of an Apple Store!


I see them every day here in DC, and that's not counting the two coworkers who have their own. Most are Sport models, but I've seen some SS models on traditional buckles, leather loops, and sometimes the Milanese mesh.

I haven't noticed any gold models or link bracelets, though.


----------



## Watch Catcher

I can't believe anyone who is a real watch lover would consider buying/wearing the apple watch. I know a few people who have them and they are just a gimic and I believe are just an excuse for someone who can't be bothered to get their iPhone out of their pocket and look at it. 

I hope the reason why we love mechanical watches on this forum is because they have a heart, they are real and have true value. They show the culmination of a rich horological history and are the polar opposite from an iwatch. Let's keep it real please.


----------



## BarracksSi

Watch Catcher said:


> I hope the reason why we love mechanical watches on this forum is because they have a heart, they are real and have true value. They show the culmination of a rich horological history and are the polar opposite from an iwatch. Let's keep it real please.


You have to be realistic about mechanical watches' abilities, though. They've pretty much been stalled in development for a long time. A small argument could be made for Omega bringing Daniels's co-axial to mass production in non-magnetic form, or other SG brands with a new 80-hour movement, but I don't think anybody believes that mechanical timepieces are going to see another major leap in engineering.

I'm not saying that mechanical watches aren't charming, of course, like steam locomotives and stagecoaches are more interesting than electric trains and SUVs. But they're done.

Improvements still had to be made in durability and accuracy, but these were achieved with quartz watches, not mechanicals. Unfortunately for status-conscious buyers, we can now buy decent quartz watches for twenty bucks. Cheaper, more accurate, and more durable&#8230; how is that not an advancement in engineering? It can be argued that a cheap Casio digital represents the new pinnacle of personal timekeeping devices. John Harrison, who spent his life developing the first viable marine chronometer, would flip his lid if he could see what's been achieved.

The _real reason_ we love mechanical watches in this forum is because the Internet funneled us here. We're enthusiastic enough to search the Internet, click on some links, and sit down to discuss these little nuggets of metal, because hardly anyone else in our real lives care about them.


----------



## shnjb

valmak said:


> You are 100% wrong about this. The average buyer of a Rolex/Omega probably has no idea what is powering their watch. All they know is that it's an expensive, brand name watch and that is why they wear one. It's the same kind of people buying Louis Vuitton/Chanel. The market for highly complicated watches is very, very small. How many tourbillons are produced each year? Maybe .01% of the population is in the market for highly complicated watches. And actually, this market is actually interested in Apple Watches because the typical person that buys watches like Patek is older and could benefit from having the health apps of an Apple Watch. I have one relative who stopped wearing his Rolex and is now wearing an Apple Watch. One of my buddies has a Rolex, Bregeut and a couple of others and has now ordered an Apple Watch. I've owned several mechanicals in the past and now am wearing an Apple Watch. How can you say they are different markets when I just gave several examples of people ditching their mechanicals for an Apple Watch? You and many others on this forum may not have any interest in it but this community is really small. Just think about the last time you randomly encountered a WIS in public.


Add me as another data point.
Between the lady and myself, we have a Patek, a breguet, two rolexes, Cartier, Chanel, etc but we just each got an apple watch.
Quite frankly, I find the apple watch interesting and somewhat useful.


----------



## MrDagon007

A few colleagues and my sister in law have it. I see it regularly in the metro (hong kong, city with probably more luxury watches per capita than elsewhere).
I think I will wait for a v2. V1 is promising but Apple is always lots better in v2 of a product.
I must say that the straps are brilliantly engineered though.
And even the cheapest silicon like strap for it is supremely comfortable.


----------



## VicLeChic

BarracksSi said:


> You have to be realistic about mechanical watches' abilities, though. They've pretty much been stalled in development for a long time. A small argument could be made for Omega bringing Daniels's co-axial to mass production in non-magnetic form, or other SG brands with a new 80-hour movement, but I don't think anybody believes that mechanical timepieces are going to see another major leap in engineering.
> 
> I'm not saying that mechanical watches aren't charming, of course, like steam locomotives and stagecoaches are more interesting than electric trains and SUVs. But they're done.
> 
> Improvements still had to be made in durability and accuracy, but these were achieved with quartz watches, not mechanicals. Unfortunately for status-conscious buyers, we can now buy decent quartz watches for twenty bucks. Cheaper, more accurate, and more durable&#8230; how is that not an advancement in engineering? It can be argued that a cheap Casio digital represents the new pinnacle of personal timekeeping devices. John Harrison, who spent his life developing the first viable marine chronometer, would flip his lid if he could see what's been achieved.
> 
> The _real reason_ we love mechanical watches in this forum is because the Internet funneled us here. We're enthusiastic enough to search the Internet, click on some links, and sit down to discuss these little nuggets of metal, because hardly anyone else in our real lives care about them.


Locomotives and stage coaches are done. Mechanical watches are alive and kicking. Why? For an awful lot of attributes digital watches, quartz and now smart watches will never offer their owners.

Is the general public interested or at least appreciate luxury watches? Yes. The same goes for luxury cars. Is the general public intrigued by a Ferrari parked on the street, or an old sports classic little marvel (Aston Martin DB5 / Jaguar E-type etc. )? Yes.

Can the general public afford luxury watches, or are willing to spend their money on them? Generally speaking, no.. To blow x thousands on a watch, you are either very well off, or you are an enthusiast. The general public will find that crazy.

Now, will smart watches replace traditional watches? For the entry level price point (up to 500 EUR maybe), I fear the worst. The general public who can't afford or refuse to pay for mid or high level watches might consider smart watches, I think. However, smart watches will only be successful if they are truly useful to the general public, not just a gimmick, and that remains to be proven.

If smart watches take off, will it be the end of traditional watches? Again, the cheaper ones will take a serious hit, IMHO. The luxury ones? I strongly believe they'll survive, in the same way they resisted the attack of quartz and digital watches a few decades ago.

I could be wrong, but I am convinced there will always be a buyer for a traditional mechanical watch for all the reasons we already know. Prestige, tradition, elegance, class, sheer beauty, know-how, art, ingenuity, longevity, future "repairability", convenience (no need to turn a screen on), desirability and more.


----------



## BarracksSi

I should have typed, "Like steam locomotives and stagecoaches, mechanical watches are done _developing_."

You can still ride on steam trains and horse-drawn carriages, but only in nostalgic settings. They're also way more expensive to maintain than our little watches, so it's harder to turn a profit, making them less desirable for regular business operations.

Never mind that it's a lot harder to keep them in the garage. ;-)


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

shnjb said:


> Add me as another data point.
> Between the lady and myself, we have a Patek, a breguet, two rolexes, Cartier, Chanel, etc but we just each got an apple watch.
> Quite frankly, I find the apple watch interesting and somewhat useful.


And which watch will you both wear when you go out to an important affair - a wedding, a Barmitvah or business dinner.

Owning an Apple watch will be fun, as quart was in the 70, but outstanding mechanical pieces will prevail, because each one is individual.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

BarracksSi said:


> You have to be realistic about mechanical watches' abilities, though. They've pretty much been stalled in development for a long time..


Simply not true.
Of course most of the inventions between 1700 and 1850 are still employed in watches to-day, indeed nothing Breguet invented between 1747 and 1823 has vastly changed i.e. concept is similar
BUT
They all have been vastly improved and innovated on, indeed George Daniels did not invent co-axial, he just improved on it.

"stalled" absolutely not! accuracy, Self Winding, Hermetic, anti-magnetic, COSC, friction, (materials) silicon, complications on one timepiece!
"stalled" = no way!


----------



## zetaplus93

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Simply not true.
> Of course most of the inventions between 1700 and 1850 are still employed in watches to-day, indeed nothing Breguet invented between 1747 and 1823 has vastly changed i.e. concept is similar
> BUT
> They all have been vastly improved and innovated on, indeed George Daniels did not invent co-axial, he just improved on it.
> 
> "stalled" absolutely not! accuracy, Self Winding, Hermetic, anti-magnetic, COSC, friction, (materials) silicon, complications on one timepiece!
> "stalled" = no way!


I have to disagree.

I think these advances have greatly exceeded the average person's requirements long ago.

The average person needs good time keeping, good water resistance (or beach and other play), and (maybe) some anti-magnetic needs. A beautiful design is desired too.

Does the average Joe need > 15,000 Gauss anti-magnetism? Or 1,000m water resistance? These features are just like the race for higher megapixels in cameras and higher MHz race in computers of yesteryears. Totally unnecessary (and adds to thicker and bigger design every year).


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> I have to disagree.
> 
> I think these advances have greatly exceeded the average person's requirements long ago.
> 
> The average person needs good time keeping, good water resistance (or beach and other play), and (maybe) some anti-magnetic needs. A beautiful design is desired too.
> 
> Does the average Joe need > 15,000 Gauss anti-magnetism? Or 1,000m water resistance? These features are just like the race for higher megapixels in cameras and higher MHz race in computers of yesteryears. Totally unnecessary (and adds to thicker and bigger design every year).


The point is that there are still indeed advancements going on with mechanicals and these technologies will likely trickle down like ETA's 80-hour power reserve movements in sub-$1000 watches.

And now that you mention useless technologies/uses, what about videos and games on a smartwatch?

Granted I've owned a mechanical watch with a cool but useless feature too; temperature gauge. And there are watches with working blackjack or poker. Very cool but generally in the useless category.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> The point is that there are still indeed advancements going on with mechanicals and these technologies will likely trickle down like ETA's 80-hour power reserve movements in sub-$1000 watches.


Sure, but advancements have to be meaningful to the end user. Otherwise you're adding features so the company can justify that the new product is better on paper. Also, some of these features also have downsides (i.e. thicker movements that lead to thicker and heavier cases).



lorsban said:


> And now that you mention useless technologies/uses, what about videos and games on a smartwatch?


I don't see the appeal of games on a watch, but never say never as people like to say. The younger generation apparently likes it though...

But I'll give you one more example from smartphones: > 350 (or so) dpi screens. Companies pushing this claim better performance, but average Joe can't tell the difference beyond a certain point. Also higher dpi means more power consumption.



lorsban said:


> Granted I've owned a mechanical watch with a cool but useless feature too; temperature gauge. And there are watches with working blackjack or poker. Very cool but generally in the useless category.


Are there really much more advancements to be made in mechanicals? What else could one ask for in new designs?

It seems to me that many companies are mining vintages designs for new watches. Seems that they've run out of new features to add and are instead differentiating on design and not functionality.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

zetaplus93 said:


> I have to disagree.
> 
> I think these advances have greatly exceeded the average person's requirements long ago.
> 
> The average person needs good time keeping, good water resistance (or beach and other play), and (maybe) some anti-magnetic needs. A beautiful design is desired too.
> 
> Does the average Joe need > 15,000 Gauss anti-magnetism? Or 1,000m water resistance? These features are just like the race for higher megapixels in cameras and higher MHz race in computers of yesteryears. Totally unnecessary (and adds to thicker and bigger design every year).


Anti-magnetism, is one of if not the final frontiers that badly effected all watches, it is as important as shock protection, many, many watches are effected (running fast) by magnetic effect.

Divers watches are essential to divers, and LOTS of people do Scuba diving as a hobby, of course if you don't require that function, get a GMT Master II
a


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> Are there really much more advancements to be made in mechanicals? What else could one ask for in new designs?


It's more about trickling down high end features for the masses that I find interesting. Again, you can get double the average power reserve already now.

A reliable tourbillon in the sub-$1000 would be great as well. Perpetual calendar.

Better shock proofing is also practical.



> Seems that they've run out of new features to add and are instead differentiating on design and not functionality.


You can say the same for smartwatches and smartphones which basically have the same bits and pieces inside. And with regards to functionality, the tiny screen limits what's usable.


----------



## zetaplus93

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Anti-magnetism, is one of if not the final frontiers that badly effected all watches, it is as important as shock protection, many, many watches are effected (running fast) by magnetic effect.


While I don't have statistical evidence, I somewhat doubt how serious this problem is for the average consumer... I haven't come across this myself, and these types of threads don't seem to come up often in watch forums. It's more likely that people ask about regulation and things of that nature.



HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Divers watches are essential to divers, and LOTS of people do Scuba diving as a hobby, of course if you don't require that function, get a GMT Master II
> a


I'm not questioning the need for divers. Rather, does the average person need more than 200m? Take a look at the records for diving. Most people are around 30-6 (recreational). Only when you get to the pros so you do anything deeper:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_diving

Given these records, why does everyone want to buy 1,000m dive watches? It's really to be cool and special, and a bigger number sells more. That's it. It's not a need anymore.

I do find the GMT function useful. And the diving bezel to, to time things. But these are features from the 50s and 60s. These features haven't evolved since then (except for electronic versions of these features).


----------



## scentedlead

zetaplus93 said:


> It seems to me that many companies are mining vintages designs for new watches. Seems that they've run out of new features to add and are instead differentiating on design and not functionality.





lorsban said:


> You can say the same for smartwatches and smartphones which basically have the same bits and pieces inside. And with regards to functionality, the tiny screen limits what's usable.


The limit to a mechanical watch is what the watchmaker can do with gears, whereas, the limit to a smartwatch is what the hardware engineers can miniaturize and what software engineers can come up with.

I want in a watch: a world clock, moon phase, sunrise/sunset, stopwatch, timer, no-fuss time setting.

How much would that cost me to get all into a mechanical watch? How much is a GMT watch? How much is a chronograph? How much is a moon phase watch? How much does a watch with a perpetual calendar cost? How much for a watch with a sunrise/sunset complication? Because I obviously can't afford a Philippe Patek. So, to go cheaper, how much is a sun/moon phase? (But let's be real, a sun/moon phase is so lame compared to sunrise/sunset.)

How much would that cost me to get in a smartwatch? An Apple Watch gets me all that in my wishlist-it gives me all these pieces of information-in only USD $350. (And it does more.)

Of course, there are limits-namely the battery life, the very low level of water resistance, and for some people, a learning curve. But it's got enough battery life, enough water resistance, and a low enough learning curve for most people and for 3.9 million people in its first three months, its usefulness outweighs its limits.

How revolutionary is a technology or invention if it's inaccessible to everyday people? At this point, gears that look pretty are not revolutionary. We're in the age of the information revolution-defined by easy access to information. How much information can a mechanical watch give you? How much information can a smartwatch give you? And at what prices?


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> How much would that cost me to get all into a mechanical watch? How much is a GMT watch? How much is a chronograph? How much is a moon phase watch? How much does a watch with a perpetual calendar cost? How much for a watch with a sunrise/sunset complication? Because I obviously can't afford a Philippe Patek. So, to go cheaper, how much is a sun/moon phase? (But let's be real, a sun/moon phase is so lame compared to sunrise/sunset.)


Japanese mechanicals are cheap. Maybe less than $150 for a gmt or moonphase.

Even cheaper for a chinese movement.



> Of course, there are limits-namely the battery life, the very low level of water resistance, and for some people, a learning curve. But it's got enough battery life, enough water resistance, and a low enough learning curve for most people and for 3.9 million people in its first three months, its usefulness outweighs its limits.


3.9 million may seem like a lot to you. But the OP's contention is that it's enough to derail the Swiss luxury watch industry and it's clear that it's gonna take a hell of a lot more than 3.9m to derail this entire centuries old industry.

Sales are dwindling because you STILL have to fish your phone out of your pocket eventually anyway AND smartwatches are ugly, have poor battery, Can't take a beating.

I and most Everyone on this forum would rather just stick to our phones and mechanicals/hybrids or even quartz watches.


----------



## jbg7474

I think very few of us really buy the OP contention that "Switzerland is in trouble". But you can disagree with the OP about Switzerland's future status without believing the Apple Watch is a waste of the space-time continuum.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> Japanese mechanicals are cheap. Maybe less than $150 for a gmt or moonphase.
> 
> Even cheaper for a chinese movement.


What is the cheapest mechanical watch I can get with a sunrise/sunset complication? What is the cheapest mechanical watch I can get with *all* the complications I want?



> 3.9 million may seem like a lot to you. But the OP's contention is that it's enough to derail the Swiss luxury watch industry and it's clear that it's gonna take a hell of a lot more than 3.9m to derail this entire centuries old industry.
> 
> Sales are dwindling because you STILL have to fish your phone out of your pocket eventually anyway AND smartwatches are ugly, have poor battery, Can't take a beating.


The iPhone sold 1.5 million units in its first two quarters of sales-announced Jan 2007, released end of July 2007. The pre-orders for the Apple Watch-announced September 2014, released April 2015-are estimated to be in the near 2 million range for only the Apple Watch Sport-the other 300,000+ units estimated to be the Apple Watch and Apple Watch Edition.

Yes, I am aware that 3.9 million people pales in comparison to the 7+ billion people on Earth. But the way people talk, is this really the measure of success for the Apple Watch? 7+ billion units in its first quarter? I wish I had a product where 3.9 million units in its debut quarter were considered a failure.

Whose numbers are you quoting when you say sales are dwindling? Slice Intelligence which tracks U.S. only, online only sales? IDC, which checks in with suppliers, estimates that Apple is on track to sell 20 million units this year.



> I and most Everyone on this forum would rather just stick to our phones and mechanicals/hybrids or even quartz watches.


As I have been saying all along:

If your watch is a piece of jewelry, then smartwatches offer you nothing. But if your watch is a tool, then smartwatches can be very compelling.

The fountain pen, beyond the charm it offers, is a viable alternative to ballpoint pens-ballpoint pens require pressure and that is problematic for people with issues moving arms, hands, fingers, whereas a fountain pen works via capillary action and the mere dragging a fountain pen needs may be accessible to people with limited movement or function. But let's be real, the ballpoint just trumps the fountain pen-the ease of use and lack of mess can't be beat. And then throw in digital pens-instant digitization, no more scanning needed!

Very few people here argue mechanical watches will become extinct-there will always be a niche market for them. But that niche is limited to people who wear watches as jewelry and horology enthusiasts. Is there even an accessibility reason for mechanical watches as with fountain pens? For people who want tools, mechanical watches were superseded by quartz watches, and quartz watches are being superseded by smartwatches. (Though, for military and SWAT and et al, nothing will replace a G-Shock just yet.)

The question isn't whether mechanicals will go extinct-they will always be here. It's whether mechanicals will be pushed further outside of the mainstream. I wonder if mechanicals will be pushed even further towards an even more elite clientele than what the market is today-as quartz did to the Swiss industry in the '60s and '70s. (As for quartz watches, I think these will be pushed to the sub $200 range-if you can't afford a smartwatch, and a phone to work with it, then you don't get a smartwatch.)

I've already mentioned many times that I wear a watch because I don't want to take my phone out of my pocket-or bag-just to tell the time. Yes, my watch is a tool-even the one with the pavé rhinestone bezel. As a tool, here's what the Apple Watch potentially offers me:



> iPhone Killer: The Secret History of the Apple Watch
> 
> Lynch is leaning forward in his chair, telling me about his kids: about how grateful he is to be able to simply glance at his Watch, realize that the latest text message isn't immediately important, and then go right back to family time; about how that doesn't feel disruptive to him-or them.
> 
> A moment later, he stands up. He has to leave; he owes Dye and Ive an update on something important. In all the time we've been talking, he's never once looked at his phone.


Why do you wear a watch when you already have a cell phone?

Apple asked this question and came up with the same answers I did. But if your watch is a piece of jewelry and not a tool, then there is no answer to this question that Apple came up with that jives with your answers.


----------



## lorsban

http://9to5mac.com/2015/05/20/apple-watch-falls-short-expectations/


----------



## BarracksSi

http://www.macworld.com/article/294...e-signs-desperately-seeking-a-watch-flop.html


----------



## lorsban

Nobody said it's a failure. All we're saying is smartwatches in general are not affecting the luxury mechanical watch industry.


----------



## dawiz

lorsban said:


> Nobody said it's a failure.


I did. For a company like Apple that's used to produce one smash hit after the other, the AW version 1 definitely is a failure.


----------



## lorsban

dawiz said:


> I did. For a company like Apple that's used to produce one smash hit after the other, the AW version 1 definitely is a failure.


It just sold a bit less than they expected. But that's not their fault. Smartwatches in general aren't mainstream yet.

Right now they're still just imperfect tools. They have potential but as long as battery, durability, functions are still limited, they're likely to remain as fringe-niche products for early adopters. More gimmick, than essential at this point.

What's sad tho is it seems Apple has been playing catch up ever since Steve Jobs died. I doubt if he would've ok'd the Apple Watch.


----------



## dawiz

lorsban said:


> It just sold a bit less than they expected. But that's not their fault. Smartwatches in general aren't mainstream yet.
> 
> Right now they're still just imperfect tools. They have potential but as long as battery, durability, functions are still limited, they're likely to remain as fringe-niche products for early adopters. More gimmick, than essential at this point.
> 
> What's sad tho is it seems Apple has been playing catch up ever since Steve Jobs died. I doubt if he would've ok'd the Apple Watch.


I doubt he would have in this version. Apple has been boasting that they revolutionize every market they enter. So far, this has mainly panned out - but the AW isn't a revolutionary product. It's plagued buy the same three issues as all other smart watches:

1. Lack of necessity
2. Usability problems
3. Battery life

So this time, they couldn't improve on what was already on the market and push the product to the general public. So again: for Apple, this has to be a failure.


----------



## Snoweagle

For a smart watch it's already a good product, at least to me. I've tried other smart watches like Samsung's Gear series, all are quite terrible to use.


----------



## dawiz

Snoweagle said:


> For a smart watch it's already a good product, at least to me. I've tried other smart watches like Samsung's Gear series, all are quite terrible to use.


I had a Moto 360 for quite a while. The usability concept isn't the same as on the Apple Watch, but I found it to be ok to use, but unnecessary. The AW is different but definitely not better.


----------



## zetaplus93

What's fascinating about this thread is that whenever "Apple" enters a conversation, it immediately polarizes the conversation. Logic generally goes out the door--the conversation inevitably turns emotional, and one cannot have a discussion when things are emotionally charged.

The same can be said whenever "Rolex" and "Seiko" gets together in the same thread... :rodekaart

I'm just glad that there are companies making things that we like, be it mechanical, quartz, or digital!


----------



## Snoweagle

dawiz said:


> I had a Moto 360 for quite a while. The usability concept isn't the same as on the Apple Watch, but I found it to be ok to use, but unnecessary. The AW is different but definitely not better.


Somehow I felt that smart watches are just merely accessories for their respective brand of smart phones, such as having the convenience of receiving notifications or having calls without having to take the phone out of your pocket or bag.

Haven't tried the Moto 360 yet but as compared to Samsung Gear series which are pretty popular here in Singapore, it's definitely not as good as Apple Watch.

Can see that you're from Switzerland and I absolutely adore Swiss watches! This Apple Watch is just, as said, an accessory for my iPhone 6 plus but can never replace my TAG Heuer or Rolex.


----------



## dawiz

zetaplus93 said:


> What's fascinating about this thread is that whenever "Apple" enters a conversation, it immediately polarizes the conversation. Logic generally goes out the door--the conversation inevitably turns emotional, and one cannot have a discussion when things are emotionally charged.
> 
> The same can be said whenever "Rolex" and "Seiko" gets together in the same thread... :rodekaart
> 
> I'm just glad that there are companies making things that we like, be it mechanical, quartz, or digital!


Frankly, and I don't know why, fanbois of any kind just make me angry. And Apple fanboidom is amongst the worst on the planet. There are some Apple buyers here and elsewhere that in some childish, almost idiotic manner can't accept that their favorite company is just a company and neither worse nor better than other companies. No matter how bad the reported sales figures are, how bad the overwhelming majority of reviews are, how low the customer satisfaction is, these people will defend their company like a bunch of dodos. And the more they defend it, the angrier I get. But then I've always had problems dealing with mindlessness.


----------



## bigclive2011

Haven't seen anyone wearing one yet!! And I work with the public.

Tecchy friends have all said no because of battery life, lack of function, and the necessity to still have your I phone in your pocket.

So I think we Swiss watch lovers are safe for a while )


----------



## lorsban

dawiz said:


> Frankly, and I don't know why, fanbois of any kind just make me angry. And Apple fanboidom is amongst the worst on the planet. There are some Apple buyers here and elsewhere that in some childish, almost idiotic manner can't accept that their favorite company is just a company and neither worse nor better than other companies. No matter how bad the reported sales figures are, how bad the overwhelming majority of reviews are, how low the customer satisfaction is, these people will defend their company like a bunch of dodos. And the more they defend it, the angrier I get. But then I've always had problems dealing with mindlessness.


Haha! I feel similarly.

Smartwatches have been around for years but when Apple decides to make their own, all of a sudden Switzerland is in chaos. Huh?

Sony/Samsung had a huge headstart and Samsung is already in their 3rd gen but for some reason the Almighty Apple didn't learn from their mistakes and repeated all of them: poor battery, clunky UI, limited integration, limited apps etc...

Even the design looks straight from the Asus Watch.


----------



## zetaplus93

> At 97%, Apple Watch customer satisfaction outpaces original iPhone, iPad


http://iphone.appleinsider.com/arti...action-outpaces-original-iphone-ipad---report



> Casual users seem to be the most at ease with the Apple Watch, as 73 percent of survey respondents who do not work in technology reported being "very satisfied." That number drops to 63 percent for so-called "tech insiders" and 43 percent for developers.


For what it's worth, I don't quite agree with such a high sat result (given my experiences with it; but perhaps it's because I'm one of those gadget-loving techies). It's a good V1 product, but I'm surprised that it's higher than the first gen iPhone and iPads.

Also, the source of data needs to be taken into account. This is an opt-in survey, which likely would attract more happy customers.



> Interestingly, Wristly says that its analysis indicated a gulf in perceived value between owners of the stainless steel Watch and the sport version, with stainless steel owners generally believing the device to be a better value.


That would be interesting if true. Perhaps those who opted for the SS did more research and understood what the AW is capable of, whereas those with the Sports were "dipping their toes" into the AW since they weren't sold on it?

Edit: More info about the customer sat survey. I feel a bit better about how they got the data:

https://techpinions.com/the-state-of-apple-watch-satisfaction/41126 (BTW, full report at the end of the post)


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> Frankly, and I don't know why, fanbois of any kind just make me angry. And Apple fanboidom is amongst the worst on the planet. There are some Apple buyers here and elsewhere that in some childish, almost idiotic manner can't accept that their favorite company is just a company and neither worse nor better than other companies. No matter how bad the reported sales figures are, how bad the overwhelming majority of reviews are, how low the customer satisfaction is, these people will defend their company like a bunch of dodos. And the more they defend it, the angrier I get. But then I've always had problems dealing with mindlessness.


I think we can all do better than that.

We can all disagree with one another on our arguments (based on logic, data, interpretation of data, etc). That's the point of discussing things in forums.

Come on, we can do better than to resort to name calling.


----------



## valmak

dawiz said:


> Frankly, and I don't know why, fanbois of any kind just make me angry. And Apple fanboidom is amongst the worst on the planet. There are some Apple buyers here and elsewhere that in some childish, almost idiotic manner can't accept that their favorite company is just a company and neither worse nor better than other companies. No matter how bad the reported sales figures are, how bad the overwhelming majority of reviews are, how low the customer satisfaction is, these people will defend their company like a bunch of dodos. And the more they defend it, the angrier I get. But then I've always had problems dealing with mindlessness.


I think you're confusing being a fanboy and appreciating a genuinely good product with huge potential. The negative publicity is expected and comes with being number 1. You are criticizing a product you probably have no experience with and know practically nothing about. I doubt you've ever even handled one in real life. All you are going off of is the attacks by "journalists" who get attention from writing negative stories about it. Sounds like you're the one lacking a brain.


----------



## scentedlead

dawiz said:


> I doubt he would have in this version. Apple has been boasting that they revolutionize every market they enter. So far, this has mainly panned out - but the AW isn't a revolutionary product. It's plagued buy the same three issues as all other smart watches:
> 
> 1. Lack of necessity
> 2. Usability problems
> 3. Battery life
> 
> So this time, they couldn't improve on what was already on the market and push the product to the general public. So again: for Apple, this has to be a failure.


But see, it's a failure _for Apple_ therefore it's a failure? Says who? And why this double standard?

When the iPhone 6 and 6+ were released, they had an opening weekend sales of 10 million units. But only 39 million units were sold that quarter. Do we say that the iPhone 6/6+ failed because sales dropped? Or do we say that people bought on release and then once that people got theirs, demand tapered off.

Well, the AW sold 2 million units in its opening weekend, and then sales tapered off to 4 million in its first quarter. By this logic, the AW is a failure the same way the iPhone 6/6+ are failures.

As for "couldn't improve upon," engineering has to progress and sometimes that's a limit. The first iPhone in 2007 didn't have copy and paste. Apple got blasted for that but then the first touchscreen smartphones after that also couldn't do copy and paste-no one's engineering had progressed that far at that point.

In its opening weekend, the AW became the best selling smartwatch and that's a failure? I remember when the first iPhone came out in 2007-2G EDGE only, no copy and paste, no 3rd party apps, destined to fail. Well, I for one want the AW to be a failure like the iPhone.


----------



## scentedlead

Whether the AW is going to be a compelling computer, time will tell what developers will come up with. I look at the apps on my phone and tablet and some watch apps have been underwhelming to me but others are truly nifty.

But as a timekeeping device, it's already compelling to me-accuracy to 50 milliseconds, day/date, military hour, sunrise/sunset, world clock, moonphase, alarm. And this list is limited to only the stuff I'm interested in and only the stuff the AW has _out of the box._


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> Haha! I feel similarly.
> 
> Smartwatches have been around for years but when Apple decides to make their own, all of a sudden Switzerland is in chaos. Huh?


First off, as others have mentioned, the general sentiment is that Swiss companies (especially those making $350-$1,000 watches) should be worried, not that everything is in chaos. That'd be overstating it at this point (though perhaps not so in a few year's time, though it's debatable).

Secondly, it's likely that things are different with the AW because it's potentially a "dominant design". If so, then product adoption will suddenly pick up.

An example is the iPad. Prior to that, we had Windows tablet computers. Those sold to mainly niche use cases; once the iPad was introduced, it became a dominant design (look at tablets before and after the iPad; notice competitors copied the general iPad design), mainstream consumers adopted it, and sales took off.

The same could be said for the iPhone. Again, notice the designs prior to and after the iPhone. (BTW, the Blackberries were the dominant design prior to the iPhone; others like Samsung copied it relentlessly).

With smart watches prior to the AW, while they sold, it seemed to be mainly for niche use cases. With the AW, it seems to be more mainstream (i.e. some non-techies are wearing it whereas that wasn't the case with previous smartwatches).

Thirdly, market conditions may have also changed since Samsung and others introduced their products. There's no denying that Apple brings huge influences, and their intro of a product can change the market landscape.

Notice that the rumored next gen Samsung watch includes a digital crown. If true, then Samsung is adopting the smart follower approach again as they did with the iPhone. And this may not be a bad thing for the entire industry as it'll help with pushing the adoption of modern smartwatches.



lorsban said:


> Sony/Samsung had a huge headstart and Samsung is already in their 3rd gen but for some reason the Almighty Apple didn't learn from their mistakes and repeated all of them: poor battery, clunky UI, limited integration, limited apps etc...


Firstly, first to market doesn't mean anything. See Windows Tablet circa 2005.

Secondly, I think the rules changed, in particular about people's expectations on battery.

A recent story about Blackberry's fall from grace highlights this. Blackberries were valued for its great security, push email, great battery life, and low-sipping bandwidth usage (which carriers loved). The iPhone along and broke those rules. It's battery lasted only a day and it was a bandwidth hog. But people loved it and eventually these characteristics were adopted by the customers, carriers, and the industry. It's a good read, and perhaps some good lessons to be learned for today's smartwatch industry players:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-rise-and-fall-of-blackberry-1432311912


----------



## El @

Much ado for a small remote display and few sensors.
When it will be able to stand by itself, project a virtual keyboard in the air and the screen into your apple glasses or something, then we'll talk.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> First off, as others have mentioned, the general sentiment is that Swiss companies (especially those making $350-$1,000 watches) should be worried, not that everything is in chaos. That'd be overstating it at this point (though perhaps not so in a few year's time, though it's debatable).


It's right there in the title of the thread. I wasn't the one who overstated.

Next, there is absolutely no indication that ANY segment of Swiss luxury is affected. 2 or 3 people in your circles is not a valid basis.



> Secondly, it's likely that things are different with the AW because it's potentially a "dominant design". If so, then product adoption will suddenly pick up.


That "dominant" design? Asus did it first.



> With smart watches prior to the AW, while they sold, it seemed to be mainly for niche use cases. With the AW, it seems to be more mainstream (i.e. some non-techies are wearing it whereas that wasn't the case with previous smartwatches).


How so?

There are over 700 million iphone users. Even at 20 million sold smartwatches, that's less than 3% adoption. Hardly mainstream.



> Thirdly, market conditions may have also changed since Samsung and others introduced their products. There's no denying that Apple brings huge influences, and their intro of a product can change the market landscape.
> 
> Notice that the rumored next gen Samsung watch includes a digital crown. If true, then Samsung is adopting the smart follower approach again as they did with the iPhone. And this may not be a bad thing for the entire industry as it'll help with pushing the adoption of modern smartwatches.


Everybody copies. Like when Samsung made Phablets and Apple just now did their own. It's not a one way street.



> Secondly, I think the rules changed, in particular about people's expectations on battery.


Unfortunately no. For non-users, the battery and redundancy are still the main reason for passing over smartwatches.

This is also the reason why Fitbit is the top selling wearable today. And Pebble has matched Android because it too has a strong battery.

Make the battery better, make them more standalone and then maybe we'll see them being mainstream. And by mainstream, I mean at least 20% adoption (for both iOS and Android).

For now ALL smartwatches are niche products.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> How so?
> 
> There are over 700 million iphone users. Even at 20 million sold smartwatches, that's less than 3% adoption. Hardly mainstream.
> 
> ... And by mainstream, I mean at least 20% adoption (for both iOS and Android).


By that measure (and adjusting your wording so that we're talking about 20% adoption for smartwatches), the iPhone and Android together got to about 20% penetration of the U.S. Market sometime around June 2011:

http://www.asymco.com/2014/07/08/late-late-majority/

So it took 4 years for modern smartphones to reach 20% penetration.

We can use this data to frame our discussions.

BTW, Horace Dediu also plotted adoption rates of several other major technologies/products over the past century to compare:

http://www.asymco.com/2013/11/18/seeing-whats-next-2/


----------



## BarracksSi

lorsban said:


> Next, there is absolutely no indication that ANY segment of Swiss luxury is affected. 2 or 3 people in your circles is not a valid basis.


Since you're so adamant about this --

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-drop-most-since-2009-amid-apple-watch-debut

Now, that's not the whole story, as Hong Kong saw a huge 33% drop in sales, and the AW was not available there anyway -- but four of the other five major markets also dropped. U.S. Sales dropped _fifteen_ percent. Sales in Italy rose, but even FHS says it was mostly likely due to selling watches at the Universal Exposition. The Bloomberg article is citing this publication:
http://www.fhs.ch/file/59/comm_150505_a.pdf



> For now ALL smartwatches are niche products.


Just as watches costing four figures and higher are niche products&#8230;


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> By that measure (and adjusting your wording so that we're talking about 20% adoption for smartwatches), the iPhone and Android together got to about 20% penetration of the U.S. Market sometime around June 2011:
> 
> http://www.asymco.com/2014/07/08/late-late-majority/
> 
> So it took 4 years for modern smartphones to reach 20% penetration.
> 
> We can use this data to frame our discussions.
> 
> BTW, Horace Dediu also plotted adoption rates of several other major technologies/products over the past century to compare:
> 
> http://www.asymco.com/2013/11/18/seeing-whats-next-2/


That's 20% of all smartphone users to also become smartwatch users. So if iOS + Android = 2.4Billion, 20% would be 480 Million smartwatches sold (by today's figures).

4 years from now, there should be about 4 billion smartphone users so 20% of that is 800 million. (This is just an estimate by the way, I don't own a crystal ball or anything)

Once we reach that figure, then we can revive the discussion on how this affects all watch markets. And I will likely agree that we are indeed seeing a major shift.


----------



## BarracksSi

lorsban said:


> Once we reach that figure, ....


I'm pretty sure the Swiss aren't waiting around to find out.


----------



## lorsban

BarracksSi said:


> I'm pretty sure the Swiss aren't waiting around to find out.


Lol yeah. Tag is already making their own. I see Tissot doing the same.


----------



## VicLeChic

BarracksSi said:


> Since you're so adamant about this --
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-drop-most-since-2009-amid-apple-watch-debut
> 
> Now, that's not the whole story, as Hong Kong saw a huge 33% drop in sales, and the AW was not available there anyway -- but four of the other five major markets also dropped. U.S. Sales dropped _fifteen_ percent. Sales in Italy rose, but even FHS says it was mostly likely due to selling watches at the Universal Exposition. The Bloomberg article is citing this publication:
> http://www.fhs.ch/file/59/comm_150505_a.pdf
> 
> Just as watches costing four figures and higher are niche products&#8230;


The drop in sales is due to the rise of the swiss franck against the euro. The whole AW threat is just speculation at the moment, as the smart watch has not even been introduced in many countries. Whether AW could become a real threat in the future remains to be seen, although I admit I am a bit concerned,. Time will tell, no pun intended.

Quote
Swiss watchmakers are struggling to adjust prices worldwide as the franc has surged to record levels against the euro this year. The advent of Apple Inc.'s wrist gadget is compounding the industry's difficulties, and the device is due to arrive in store shelves in more countries, including Switzerland, next week. That may lead retailers to reduce orders of Swiss watches on concern of rising competition.
Unquote


----------



## valmak

According to this article, Apple Watch Satisfaction Is Off the Charts. So it's not only negative news. 
Apple Watch Buyers Are Very Happy With Their Purchase


----------



## scentedlead

It’ll be interesting to see what Tag and Tissot come up with if only because the Swiss already rejected quartz as anathema to them, so how much of an anathema should a computer be? Also, a computer is already a more complicated endeavor than a quartz movement, so how much more complicated would a computer plus an app ecosystem be? Obviously the Swiss are capable of quartz. But a quartz movement has a strong resemblance to a mechanical movement; a computer has no resemblance to anything at all in a mechanical movement.

A computer isn’t something you jump into last minute as Blackberry found out when its first iPhone competitor’s reviews can be summed up with, “half-baked.” I think given more time, Blackberry could’ve made a viable iPhone competitor but those first reviews on that first product tarnished the Blackberry brand. Is this a risk Swiss brands want to take?


----------



## valmak

scentedlead said:


> It'll be interesting to see what Tag and Tissot come up with if only because the Swiss already rejected quartz as anathema to them, so how much of an anathema should a computer be? Also, a computer is already a more complicated endeavor than a quartz movement, so how much more complicated would a computer plus an app ecosystem be? Obviously the Swiss are capable of quartz. But a quartz movement has a strong resemblance to a mechanical movement; a computer has no resemblance to anything at all in a mechanical movement.
> 
> A computer isn't something you jump into last minute as Blackberry found out when its first iPhone competitor's reviews can be summed up with, "half-baked." I think given more time, Blackberry could've made a viable iPhone competitor but those first reviews on that first product tarnished the Blackberry brand. Is this a risk Swiss brands want to take?


Anything brands like Tag and and Tissot come up with in the smartwatch realm will be laughable and entertaining to see. Not that their non-smart watch offerings aren't as well.


----------



## Nic1930

I've previously stated that I've owned and got rid of my smartwatch after realising that it was nothing more than a pointless extension of my phone with an irritatingly poor battery life and a screen that's impossible to see outside in the daylight (my opinion). There's clearly an appetite for smartwear and with Tag, tissot and now casio announcing smartwatch development, it will surely be apple that will fall way behind in the smartwatch race once actual watch company's perfect their products? I can't see apple making a smart mechanical anytime soon, although I suspect Switzerland (& Japan) will have a great many to choose from!! 

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk


----------



## scentedlead

Honestly, I think the Japanese will make a smartwatch before the Swiss do. Oh look Sony makes a smartwatch. If you want to limit it to watch companies only, then I’m placing my bets on Casio, then the other Japanese companies—but not even a penny on the Swiss, when was the last time they made a popular computer? (Am still not over the fact that they turned down quartz until Swatch in the 1980s.)


----------



## valmak

Nic1930 said:


> I've previously stated that I've owned and got rid of my smartwatch after realising that it was nothing more than a pointless extension of my phone with an irritatingly poor battery life and a screen that's impossible to see outside in the daylight (my opinion). *There's clearly an appetite for smartwear and with Tag, tissot and now casio announcing smartwatch development, it will surely be apple that will fall way behind in the smartwatch race once actual watch company's perfect their products?* I can't see apple making a smart mechanical anytime soon, although I suspect Switzerland (& Japan) will have a great many to choose from!!
> 
> Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk


I would bet any amount of money that this will never happen. Other tech companies can't compete with Apple and you're saying non-tech companies can? That is seriously ludicrous.


----------



## Nic1930

valmak said:


> I would bet any amount of money that this will never happen. Other tech companies can't compete with Apple and you're saying non-tech companies can? That is seriously ludicrous.


Pebble have made very successful smartwatches out of a kickstarter campaign. To think that companies like casio can't finance the necessary technical knowhow to add some smart capabilities to their watch lines, now that's ludicrous! They clearly think they can, because they're doing it!
There are plenty of other tech companies who compete very successfully with Apple (Samsung, Microsoft, Google... You may have heard of them), I don't think it's too far fetched to think that an actual watch company could thrive in the smart WATCH world!

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

What's so great about a smart mechanical watch? You want a watch nearly twice as thick so you can gain an inherently inaccurate, non-configurable analog face?

If you think you can make a reasonably thin smart-mechanical hybrid, tell us what you'll leave out of the "smart" half (or half of the thickness without taking out any functions or battery capacity) and where you'll find a super-thin movement for less than a hundred bucks.

If that's not possible, then we're looking at fat, expensive hybrids when even the non-hybrid AW gets chided for being too thick and expensive.


----------



## scentedlead

Nic1930 said:


> Pebble have made very successful smartwatches out of a kickstarter campaign.


Eric Migicovsky has been working on smartwatches since he was a college student a decade ago. Well, when your smartwatch works with only Blackberry when that company is tanking, of course investors and customers don't come. My point is, despite his setbacks, he's not a newbie to smartwatches-he's already a very seasoned veteran.

Also, Pebble is based in Silicon Valley where it's very easy to find the talent needed to build a computer.



> To think that companies like casio can't finance the necessary technical knowhow to add some smart capabilities to their watch lines, now that's ludicrous! They clearly think they can, because they're doing it!
> There are plenty of other tech companies who compete very successfully with Apple (Samsung, Microsoft, Google... You may have heard of them), I don't think it's too far fetched to think that an actual watch company could thrive in the smart WATCH world!


Where do mechanical watches and computers overlap? They don't. The closest gap is between computers and digital quartz watches; the furthest gap is between computers and things that aren't computerized at all.

Tag is getting out a smartwatch by partnering with Google for an Android watch. Tag doesn't have the means to recruit and develop a smartwatch unit in house. This means Tag's smartwatch is going to try to fulfill the demands of non-techies at Tag and techies at Google. That will be "interesting."

Lastly, Apple is the second most profitable company in the world. The last estimate I saw for Apple's cash reserves was USD $194 _billion._

(I actually was considering a Pebble watch, but then Sep 9, 2014 happened.)


----------



## Nic1930

scentedlead said:


> Where do mechanical watches and computers overlap? They don't. The closest gap is between computers and digital quartz watches; the furthest gap is between computers and things that aren't computerized at all.


Without wanting to come across as a Casio fanboy, last I heard they weren't just a watch making company and all ready have a foothold in the mobile computing market. I would think that they would be ideally placed to dip their toe into this market and a smartwatch of some description would fit nicely into their G-Shock line. I'd be interested to see what they're developing.


----------



## Nic1930

BarracksSi said:


> If you think you can make a reasonably thin smart-mechanical hybrid, tell us what you'll leave out of the "smart" half (or half of the thickness without taking out any functions or battery capacity) and where you'll find a super-thin movement for less than a hundred bucks.
> 
> If that's not possible, then we're looking at fat, expensive hybrids when even the non-hybrid AW gets chided for being too thick and expensive.


Having owned one, I would say that notifications, caller id, some health monitoring and some music control functionality is about all I ever used on it. Everything else was completely impractical on such a small screen. So yes, there is alot I'd leave out. As for cost, the Apple watch costs something like $83 to produce, only Apple can explain why it retails for as much as it does. I suspect I know the answer!


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> That's 20% of all smartphone users to also become smartwatch users. So if iOS + Android = 2.4Billion, 20% would be 480 Million smartwatches sold (by today's figures).
> 
> 4 years from now, there should be about 4 billion smartphone users so 20% of that is 800 million. (This is just an estimate by the way, I don't own a crystal ball or anything)
> 
> Once we reach that figure, then we can revive the discussion on how this affects all watch markets. And I will likely agree that we are indeed seeing a major shift.


Let's make it simple. 20% of the U.S. population in 4 years. Let's see when (or if) we get there.

Now at least we have a number instead of going around in circles.


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> It'll be interesting to see what Tag and Tissot come up with if only because the Swiss already rejected quartz as anathema to them, so how much of an anathema should a computer be? Also, a computer is already a more complicated endeavor than a quartz movement, so how much more complicated would a computer plus an app ecosystem be? Obviously the Swiss are capable of quartz. But a quartz movement has a strong resemblance to a mechanical movement; a computer has no resemblance to anything at all in a mechanical movement.
> 
> A computer isn't something you jump into last minute as Blackberry found out when its first iPhone competitor's reviews can be summed up with, "half-baked." I think given more time, Blackberry could've made a viable iPhone competitor but those first reviews on that first product tarnished the Blackberry brand. Is this a risk Swiss brands want to take?


By that measure, it'd be interesting to see if the designs that traditional watchmakers come up with (i.e. looks like a traditional watch but has some smarts underneath) resonate with the market.

As I mentioned previously, Blackberries (and the old Nokia with 0-9 keys) were dominant design (i.e. Excellent physical keyboard) that got replaced by modern phones like the iPhone. Will the Tag smartwatches (and similar products like the Witherings) coexist with traditional and modern smartwatches going forward?


----------



## zetaplus93

Nic1930 said:


> Pebble have made very successful smartwatches out of a kickstarter campaign.


It was successful for its time (2013) when there weren't much in this space except offerings from Samsung and Sony.

Fast forward to 2015. Modern smartwatches are offering more than what Pebble can provide, especially when it doesn't have access to APIs in iOS. They've pivoted primarily to cater to Android because they can access the APIs in Android Wear. It's dead in the water for iOS from this point forward.



Nic1930 said:


> To think that companies like casio can't finance the necessary technical knowhow to add some smart capabilities to their watch lines, now that's ludicrous! They clearly think they can, because they're doing it!


It's difficult for companies like Casio because they've not had experiencing working on modern OSs like Android and Android Wear. They can certainly get up-to-speed, but company culture and other factors may slow their entry into modern smartwatches like Android Wear. By that time, perhaps other electronics makers, like Samsung and maybe Sony, will have leap-frogged them.

They will, of course, continue with their G-Shock line. But the functionality between modern smartwaches like the Gear line and the G-Shock is huge.



Nic1930 said:


> There are plenty of other tech companies who compete very successfully with Apple (Samsung, Microsoft, Google... You may have heard of them), I don't think it's too far fetched to think that an actual watch company could thrive in the smart WATCH world!


It's far-fetched because the competitors you listed are computer hardware/software companies. Casio hasn't much experience developing hardware/software for computers. It's a huge leap from 8-bit or 16-bit electronics (that're likely in G-Shocks) to modern 64-bit computing architectures running on ARM. The skills needed, from developers to managers to project planning to partnering, is enormous.

If Casio partners up with Google and Intel (as Tag did), then their chances would improve.


----------



## zetaplus93

Nic1930 said:


> Without wanting to come across as a Casio fanboy, last I heard they weren't just a watch making company and all ready have a foothold in the mobile computing market. I would think that they would be ideally placed to dip their toe into this market and a smartwatch of some description would fit nicely into their G-Shock line. I'd be interested to see what they're developing.


Interesting. Could you share more about what Casio is up to? I've only read an article where they've stated that they're planning to work on modern smartwatches:

Casio Wants To Develop Smartwatch To Beat All Smartwatches : PERSONAL TECH : Tech Times


----------



## BarracksSi

Nic1930 said:


> Having owned one, I would say that notifications, caller id, some health monitoring and some music control functionality is about all I ever used on it. Everything else was completely impractical on such a small screen. So yes, there is alot I'd leave out.


Even for just those functions, you'd need a CPU, motion sensor (gyros are small anyway, but we're talking cubic millimeters here), vibration module and speaker (unless you want all notifications to be silent), display, touch surface (unless you'd rather use buttons, which also take space), charging input (micro-USB or induction?), and a battery. And an OS optimized to make as much use of that little battery as possible.

An optical heart rate sensor could be optional, I suppose, but you'd lose the feature comparisons with the AW, Mio, Fitbit, Garmin, TomTom, and anyone else who's adding the sensors to their next smartwatches and bands.

There's really not a lot of components to remove before a smartwatch becomes incapable of being anything more than just a plain fitness band. You can look at the middle ground like a Garmin Vivofit or Fitbit's Surge and Charge bands, though.


----------



## Nic1930

BarracksSi said:


> Even for just those functions, you'd need a CPU, motion sensor (gyros are small anyway, but we're talking cubic millimeters here), vibration module and speaker (unless you want all notifications to be silent), display, touch surface (unless you'd rather use buttons, which also take space), charging input (micro-USB or induction?), and a battery. And an OS optimized to make as much use of that little battery as possible.
> 
> An optical heart rate sensor could be optional, I suppose, but you'd lose the feature comparisons with the AW, Mio, Fitbit, Garmin, TomTom, and anyone else who's adding the sensors to their next smartwatches and bands.
> 
> There's really not a lot of components to remove before a smartwatch becomes incapable of being anything more than just a plain fitness band. You can look at the middle ground like a Garmin Vivofit or Fitbit's Surge and Charge bands, though.


Ok, I can see that you can't be persuaded that a good hybrid may be possible, so whilst you continue to find reasons for it to fail, I'll remain optimistic that the experts at these companies may one day deliver what they seem confident that they can. I for one am looking forward to seeing the fruits of their labours.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

I don't need "persuading", I'm just going over what goes into these things because people forget that there's only so much space to use on the wrist.


----------



## James142

Apple: iPhones Light, Watch A Major Disappointment And In-line EPS Guidance - Forbes

Excerpt from article:

"Watch fell far short of Street expectations

Even with Tim Cook saying the Watch beat their internal expectations it fell far short of what the Street was expecting and I suspect what Apple was hoping for. Revenue for the category that the Watch is reported was $2.6 billion vs. my projection of $3.7 billion based on 4 million Watches at an ASP of $550. If my calculations are close to correct Apple sold about 2 million Watches in the quarter, which would be very low compared to what analysts were expecting."


----------



## valmak

Nic1930 said:


> Ok, I can see that you can't be persuaded that a good hybrid may be possible, so whilst you continue to find reasons for it to fail, I'll remain optimistic that the experts at these companies may one day deliver what they seem confident that they can. I for one am looking forward to seeing the fruits of their labours.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


a hybrid mechanical/smart watch is a terrible idea and would never catch on.


----------



## Fer Guzman

James142 said:


> Apple: iPhones Light, Watch A Major Disappointment And In-line EPS Guidance - Forbes
> 
> Excerpt from article:
> 
> "Watch fell far short of Street expectations
> 
> Even with Tim Cook saying the Watch beat their internal expectations it fell far short of what the Street was expecting and I suspect what Apple was hoping for. Revenue for the category that the Watch is reported was $2.6 billion vs. my projection of $3.7 billion based on 4 million Watches at an ASP of $550. If my calculations are close to correct Apple sold about 2 million Watches in the quarter, which would be very low compared to what analysts were expecting."


I was hoping they'd sell $1-2 billion worth of watches, so even though the street was expecting more I think it's a great start to the 1st version of this product in a niche segment. If they sold 2.6 billion worth, that's about 10% of what the Swiss watch industry did in 2014.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> Let's make it simple. 20% of the U.S. population in 4 years. Let's see when (or if) we get there.
> 
> Now at least we have a number instead of going around in circles.


Why just the US? It has to be worldwide because that's the market of Switzerland.

So, 20% of all smartphone owners in the world.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> Why just the US? It has to be worldwide because that's the market of Switzerland.
> 
> So, 20% of all smartphone owners in the world.


Because the data is for the U.S.

If you can find data on worldwide adoption of smartphones, then that'd be something to compare to.

Also, adoption and adoption rate will vary by country. Developed countries will likely have higher adoption rates.

Also, try to find adoption rates of Swiss watches worldwide since we're measuring against Swiss luxury brands like Tag, so to make it an apples to apples comparison (no puns intended). I'm curious what the adoption rates are for mechanical watches in the $250-$1000 range.

By point of comparison, according to the Federation of Swiss Watch Industry, Swiss watch companies shipped 3.5 million units in the CHF500-3000 in 2014, and 5 million units in the CHF 200-500 range in 2014 (1 CHF roughly equals 1 USD):

http://www.fhs.ch/scripts/getstat.php?file=histo_gp_150606_a.pdf

So actually, if Apple and Android Wear vendors ships more than a few million units, it'd be matching current shipments from all Swiss watchmakers on a worldwide basis.

Other stats here: http://www.fhs.ch/eng/statistics.html


----------



## zetaplus93

James142 said:


> Apple: iPhones Light, Watch A Major Disappointment And In-line EPS Guidance - Forbes
> 
> Excerpt from article:
> 
> "Watch fell far short of Street expectations
> 
> Even with Tim Cook saying the Watch beat their internal expectations it fell far short of what the Street was expecting and I suspect what Apple was hoping for. Revenue for the category that the Watch is reported was $2.6 billion vs. my projection of $3.7 billion based on 4 million Watches at an ASP of $550. If my calculations are close to correct Apple sold about 2 million Watches in the quarter, which would be very low compared to what analysts were expecting."


By point of comparison, according to the Federation of Swiss Watch Industry, Swiss watch companies shipped 3.5 million units in the CHF500-3000 in 2014, and 5 million units in the CHF 200-500 range in 2014 (1 CHF roughly equals 1 USD):

http://www.fhs.ch/scripts/getstat.php?file=histo_gp_150606_a.pdf

So actually, if Apple and Android Wear vendors ships more than a few million units, it'd be matching current shipments from all Swiss watchmakers on a worldwide basis.

Other stats here: http://www.fhs.ch/eng/statistics.html


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> Because the data is for the U.S.
> 
> If you can find data on worldwide adoption of smartphones, then that'd be something to compare to.
> 
> Also, adoption and adoption rate will vary by country. Developed countries will likely have higher adoption rates.
> 
> Also, try to find adoption rates of Swiss watches worldwide since we're measuring against Swiss luxury brands like Tag, so to make it an apples to apples comparison (no puns intended). I'm curious what the adoption rates are for mechanical watches in the $250-$1000 range.
> 
> By point of comparison, according to the Federation of Swiss Watch Industry, Swiss watch companies shipped 3.5 million units in the CHF500-3000 in 2014, and 5 million units in the CHF 200-500 range in 2014 (1 CHF roughly equals 1 USD):
> 
> http://www.fhs.ch/scripts/getstat.php?file=histo_gp_150606_a.pdf
> 
> So actually, if Apple and Android Wear vendors ships more than a few million units, it'd be matching current shipments from all Swiss watchmakers on a worldwide basis.
> 
> Other stats here: http://www.fhs.ch/eng/statistics.html


iOS - 700 million users worldwide
Android - 1.6 billion worldwide

The US is only 350 million people.

Even if smartwatches match the Swiss output, the Swiss have had over 100 years headstart to build the habit of getting people to wear their watches.

I still believe smartwatches are gadgets. And gadgets fall in a totally different category vs Swiss watches. I can buy a smartwatch now for fitness and to satisfy my curiosity but get another Swiss watch for the collection.

So I believe it will take huge adoption numbers to shift people from buying smartwatches just for the novelty to buying them as their main watch and letting go of traditionals for good.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> Even if smartwatches match the Swiss output, the Swiss have had over 100 years headstart to build the habit of getting people to wear their watches.


That habit has been waning in the last decade or so. People 25 and younger are increasingly not wearing any watches at all.

Now, will this generation of people wear a traditional, a smartwatch, both, or neither. This is the trend to watch out for.

You gotta look to the future, and that means the younger generation. The current generation will be your cash cow, sure, but you don't want to do what Microsoft did in the 2000's and miss mobile (i.e. The next trend) almost completely.



lorsban said:


> So I believe it will take huge adoption numbers to shift people from buying smartwatches just for the novelty to buying them as their main watch and letting go of traditionals for good.


To judge whether people are buying for novelty or not (of any product), you just need to measure repeat buyers. Huge adoption is not required.


----------



## BarracksSi

"Wall Street expectations". If there's one thing I learned in Econ 101, it's that people with money are more reactionary than a herd of gazelles hyped up on acid.

Apple still doesn't care about Wall Street. Why should they?


----------



## Fer Guzman

lorsban said:


> iOS - 700 million users worldwide
> Android - 1.6 billion worldwide
> 
> The US is only 350 million people.
> 
> Even if smartwatches match the Swiss output, the Swiss have had over 100 years headstart to build the habit of getting people to wear their watches.
> 
> I still believe smartwatches are gadgets. And gadgets fall in a totally different category vs Swiss watches. I can buy a smartwatch now for fitness and to satisfy my curiosity but get another Swiss watch for the collection.
> 
> So I believe it will take huge adoption numbers to shift people from buying smartwatches just for the novelty to buying them as their main watch and letting go of traditionals for good.


Most people don't wear a watch to begin with, and a lot of people buying the apple watch are first time watch users. I think it's partly the reason why some people are expecting too much of it. The numbers are important because in the sub 1k segment it will be interesting to see how many customers prefer to buy a sub 1k Swiss watch or an apple watch especially if apple can move a couple million units in a slow quarter.


----------



## lorsban

Fer Guzman said:


> Most people don't wear a watch to begin with, and a lot of people buying the apple watch are first time watch users. I think it's partly the reason why some people are expecting too much of it. The numbers are important because in the sub 1k segment it will be interesting to see how many customers prefer to buy a sub 1k Swiss watch or an apple watch especially if apple can move a couple million units in a slow quarter.


Well, that's the thing, most people don't wear watches Because they already have a cellphone. So why would they even bother with a smartwatch? It's just another added expense for a redundant product.

I think the main market for smartwatches are for those people who already have watches but are in the market for a multi-function watch. Instead of a digital watch or a fitness band, might as well get a smartwatch - which can do all those tasks. Product integration. Ultimate tool watch, in other words.

Swiss watches or jewelry watches, are a totally different animal. And like I said, it will take a major shift in perspective to change how we feel about watches as jewelry.


----------



## Fer Guzman

lorsban said:


> I think the main market for smartwatches are for those people who already have watches but are in the market for a multi-function watch. Instead of a digital watch or a fitness band, might as well get a smartwatch - which can do all those tasks. Product integration. Ultimate tool watch, in other words.


I disagree. A majority of the people I know who have purchased it never had a watch before, but I do agree that for people purchasing a fashion watch for example, or a daily wearer, the added functions will probably convince them to spend a bit more on an apple watch vs the fashion watches at a Macy's.


----------



## watchRus

Gee, some responses on this thread make me wonder how we got along without an Apple smart watch.


----------



## valmak

lorsban said:


> Well, that's the thing, most people don't wear watches Because they already have a cellphone. So why would they even bother with a smartwatch? It's just another added expense for a redundant product.


Apple Watch makes checking texts and emails, listening to music, paying for stuff, etc... more convenient. You don't have to dig through your pocket to take out your phone 50 times a day for minor reasons.


----------



## lorsban

valmak said:


> Apple Watch makes checking texts and emails, listening to music, paying for stuff, etc... more convenient. You don't have to dig through your pocket to take out your phone 50 times a day for minor reasons.


We don't take it out 50x a day. We just leave the phone on the desk or table. When we get messages, the phone shows it and all we need to do is look down. We don't need to lift the arm (like for a watch) or anything.

The only time it's remotely cumbersome is during fitness activities. Like say, on a bike - where having to reach for the phone and focus on screen can be downright dangerous.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## VicLeChic

lorsban said:


> The only time it's remotely cumbersome is during fitness activities. Like say, on a bike - where having to reach for the phone and focus on screen can be downright dangerous.
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Agreed. And even for fitness activities, you still need to carry your iPhone with you, since the AW is not standalone. It defeats the whole point.


----------



## lorsban

VicLeChic said:


> Agreed. And even for fitness activities, you still need to carry your iPhone with you, since the AW is not standalone. It defeats the whole point.


That's why I'm excited about this. The only standalone smartwatch available. Sim slot, 3g, wifi, GPS.

My only issue is it's big. If they made this a bit smaller, I'd definitely buy it.










Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## scentedlead

watchRus said:


> Gee, some responses on this thread make me wonder how we got along without an Apple smart watch.


In the '90s, I had a summer job in an office as a filing clerk-put the files in alphabetical order, and send to the shredder recycling center any file older than a certain date. It took me a big chunk of my summer to go through a basement of cabinets. I realized that if all these files had been digitized, the job would've taken me only a minute to do.

Obviously people got along without computers before they were invented. But you can say that about any invention. I heard a grandparent-age person say, "In my day, my parents told me, 'When I was your age, we didn't have electricity.'" The moral of this is that parents always tell their children, "You don't need [insert invention]-you're very spoiled, don't you know that?"

How did people get along before clocks and watches? Here's a great idea: Let's go back to sundials and church bells telling you it's time to pray.


----------



## dawiz

zetaplus93 said:


> By point of comparison, according to the Federation of Swiss Watch Industry, Swiss watch companies shipped 3.5 million units in the CHF500-3000 in 2014, and 5 million units in the CHF 200-500 range in 2014 (1 CHF roughly equals 1 USD):
> 
> http://www.fhs.ch/scripts/getstat.php?file=histo_gp_150606_a.pdf
> 
> So actually, if Apple and Android Wear vendors ships more than a few million units, it'd be matching current shipments from all Swiss watchmakers on a worldwide basis.
> 
> Other stats here: FH - Watch industry statistics


Let's not blow this out of proportion. Here are the sales figures by company:

INFOGRAPHIE. L'horlogerie suisse en chiffres - LeTemps.ch

3 Million for luxury, Haut-de-gamme: 3.6 Million, Entry (Swatch, Tissot etc.) 18.8 Million. - Overall, the Swiss watch industry sold about 25 million watches in 2014. And that is 1.7% of worldwide watch sales. So Apple's 2 million isn't even 10% of Swiss sales and won't even remotely put a dent in the industry anywhere. It's a complete niche product for the time being.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> We don't take it out 50x a day. We just leave the phone on the desk or table. When we get messages, the phone shows it and all we need to do is look down.


I wish I could receive my messages by leaving my phone on my desk when I'm on a bus/train, walking down the street, bustling through an airport, out running errands, playing with my nieces and nephews.


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> I wish I could receive my messages by leaving my phone on my desk when I'm on a bus/train, walking down the street, bustling through an airport, out running errands, playing with my nieces and nephews.


After owning a cellphone since the late 90's, I have never had any problem whatsovever, even when walking, on the bus/train, at the airport or anywhere else.

It has never been an issue to stop somewhere and make calls/reply via sms or email and when I'm rushing, I just wait till I get to the next stop to do my business.

I guess my work isn't such that I don't have a couple of seconds to spare to take my phone out of my pocket.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> We don't take it out 50x a day. We just leave the phone on the desk or table. When we get messages, the phone shows it and all we need to do is look down. We don't need to lift the arm (like for a watch) or anything.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...verage-user-picks-device-1-500-times-day.html



> How often do YOU look at your phone? The average user now picks up their device more than 1,500 times a week
> * The average user reaches for their phone at 7:31am in the morning
> * These users check personal emails and Facebook before they get out of bed
> * And many of us pick up our phones more than 1,500 times each week
> * Average owners use their phone for three hours and sixteen minutes a day
> * And almost four in ten users admitted to feeling lost without their device
> * Study surveyed 2,000 smartphone owners about their tech habits


Seems to be on the high side. But I can see at least 50x a day.

Lorsban, perhaps your usage habits are different from the average user.


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> Let's not blow this out of proportion. Here are the sales figures by company:
> 
> INFOGRAPHIE. L'horlogerie suisse en chiffres - LeTemps.ch
> 
> 3 Million for luxury, Haut-de-gamme: 3.6 Million, Entry (Swatch, Tissot etc.) 18.8 Million. - Overall, the Swiss watch industry sold about 25 million watches in 2014. And that is 1.7% of worldwide watch sales.


That report sort of matches with that from FHS, which reported a total of 28.6M units shipped in 2014.

However, FHS has more detailed breakdown because it breaks it down by price: CHF 0-200, 200-500, 500-3,000, 3,000+.

One needs to compare apples to apples. One way is to compare on price point. Swiss companies shipped 5M in the 200-500 CHF range, and 3.5M in the range of 500-3,000 CHF range. So, a good ball park is likely around 5-6M units compared to Apple's $350-1,000 range (for simplicity, I took the price points from the cheapest to the AW with Link bracelet).

And no, we shouldn't compare AW with the 18.4M units shipped in the 0-200 CHF range. Different and lower price points. It'd be like comparing entry-level luxury cars from BMW with dirt bikes.



dawiz said:


> So Apple's 2 million isn't even 10% of Swiss sales and won't even remotely put a dent in the industry anywhere.


Keep in mind that the FHS data is for an entire year. AW has been on sale for slightly over 2 months by end of June. The Christmas quarter is typically Apple's biggest sales quarter. Also, we're not counting Android Wear sales yet.



dawiz said:


> It's a complete niche product for the time being.


Of course it is (for now), it's been out for a little over 2 months. Remember we establish some time frame for our discussions earlier?

If it wasn't, it'd be the fastest adoption of any new product that mankind has ever invented since the dawn of time (see adoption rates of major inventions that Horace Dediu compiled in my earlier thread).


----------



## dawiz

zetaplus93 said:


> One needs to compare apples to apples. One way is to compare on price point. Swiss companies shipped 5M in the 200-500 CHF range, and 3.5M in the range of 5000-3,000 CHF range. So, a good ball park is likely around 5-6M units compared to Apple's 350-1,000 range (for simplicity, I took the price points from the cheapest to the AW with Link bracelet).
> 
> And no, we shouldn't compare AW with the 18.4M units shipped in the 0-200 CHF range. Different and lower price points. It'd be like comparing entry-level luxury cars from BMW with dirt bikes.


There's no need to make weird calculations and assumptions and come up with hypothetical numbers - the sales are neatly listed. And heck yeah do we need to factor in the low-cost market as that's the only one in danger here. The price point isn't the issue, it's the strata of the potential buyers. The Apple Watch appeals to the market of the 18-45 year old buyer - which is where most of the 18 million entry level watches went.

Of the 2 million watches sold, a significant number likely went out as pre-orders, so it would be insane to assume that the watch is still selling at 1 million pieces per month. It's probably drastically less than that, as other projections have been indicating.


----------



## watchRus

I remember Apple Pay replacing all our credit cards because just how many times do we use our credit cards? Oh wait.

Apple watch offers nothing other than redundant information and redundant usage. Those looking at their phones 1,500x a week will only benefit from interacting toward a large screen, unless you are trying to be efficient exactly how? So in essence, you are doubling down on time consumption.

What we have here is an attempt of justification, as one need to appraise their motivation and desire in acquiring/wearing this product because their initial purchase was most likely made on a whim. If you need to argue with a consumer why they should purchase a product, argue, not inform, then you are admitting to the notion that this product will be of no use to them. If otherwise, the need for debate from majority will be avoidable as its purpose and application will be immediately realized.

Apple needs to understand that it cannot force a product down our throat, which is how I feel with both Apple pay and Apple watch, products coming about from the reign of Tim Cook. Boy how times have changed from the Jobs era where adoption to a new Apple product was almost instant and rampant.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...verage-user-picks-device-1-500-times-day.html
> 
> Seems to be on the high side. But I can see at least 50x a day.
> 
> Lorsban, perhaps your usage habits are different from the average user.


The numbers can be anything. My point was that since the 90s, I and most other users had no issues with phones being in our pockets or where ever. It was and still is a simple matter to simply get the phone out of the pocket.

If we were moving around or in a rush, the phone stays in the pocket but right when we get a breather, we check and handle business. In the home or office, it's a simple matter to leave the phone on some table and manage notifications.

I don't believe this is odd or weird behavior. I don't see how this is so inconvenient that I need an accessory on my wrist to give me partial info so I can decide whether to take my phone out or not.

No matter how big or bulky my phone was or is (I have a Note 2 now), taking it out of the pocket was never an issue.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

dawiz said:


> There's no need to make weird calculations and assumptions and come up with hypothetical numbers - the sales are neatly listed.


These are not weird and hypothetical numbers.

Data is from the FHS:



> Statistics on Swiss watch exports are updated monthly. They are based on foreign trade statistics prepared by the Federal Customs Administration. All values are expressed as export prices, according to declarations made by the exporting firms.


You can read more about the FHS in their "Who Are We" section.



dawiz said:


> And heck yeah do we need to factor in the low-cost market as that's the only one in danger here. The price point isn't the issue, it's the strata of the potential buyers. The Apple Watch appeals to the market of the 18-45 year old buyer - which is where most of the 18 million entry level watches went.


I disagree.

Swatches (those cheap fun watches) that cost under CHF200 (the 18M entry level watches) appeal more to teenagers than the 30-45 year old crowd (who prefer nice Swiss mechanicals, which we all know).

So comparison on price point makes more logical sense.



dawiz said:


> Of the 2 million watches sold, a significant number likely went out as pre-orders, so it would be insane to assume that the watch is still selling at 1 million pieces per month. It's probably drastically less than that, as other projections have been indicating.


Again, we haven't hit the Christmas holiday quarter yet, which is typically the largest quarter.

I don't believe the AW will hit 18M, but if it hits around 5M or so for the year, it'd be matching sales in units to Swiss watches in the same price bracket range on year 1 (which isn't a complete year since AW went on sale 4/24). Not bad.


----------



## zetaplus93

watchRus said:


> I remember Apple Pay replacing all our credit cards because just how many times do we use our credit cards? Oh wait.


Enough to make it worth some people's while, for example when you're rushing to get onto a train that you're late for.



watchRus said:


> Those looking at their phones 1,500x a week will only benefit from interacting toward a large screen, unless you are trying to be efficient exactly how? So in essence, you are doubling down on time consumption.


I'd wager that a huge bulk of these interactions are as Apple described: short, light-weight interactions. Think messaging (iMessage, Facebook messenger, etc), checking the time, checking next appointment time/location, checking the weather, checking emails.

The AW does many of these tasks well today.



watchRus said:


> What we have here is an attempt of justification, as one need to appraise their motivation and desire in acquiring/wearing this product because their initial purchase was most likely made on a whim.


We can measure repeat sales to determine if purchases were made on a whim. If so, they won't buy again (or will sell it quickly).



watchRus said:


> If you need to argue with a consumer why they should purchase a product, argue, not inform, then you are admitting to the notion that this product will be of no use to them.
> ...
> Apple needs to understand that it cannot force a product down our throat, which is how I feel with both Apple pay and Apple watch, products coming about from the reign of Tim Cook.


People buy things out of their own will (mostly, except when it's gifted by people, provided by the company, or when getting "suggestions" from your SO...).

I don't understand why you think Apple is forcing products down our collective throats with Apple Pay and AW. You either buy, or not. If you don't like it, you don't buy it and things are still fine. The sun still rises, the moon shines, all's right with the world (sorta).



watchRus said:


> Boy how times have changed from the Jobs era where adoption to a new Apple product was almost instant and rampant.


See adoption for the iPhone, arguably Apple's biggest hit thus far, below. It's wasn't instant nor rampant, but took years for mass adoption. In fact, the entire smartphone market took years for mass adoption (20% penetration of iPhones was achieved in 2012):

How close is the UK to smartphone saturation? | Asymco
• Apple iPhone: global sales 2007-2015, by quarter | Statistic


----------



## BarracksSi

watchRus said:


> I remember Apple Pay replacing all our credit cards because just how many times do we use our credit cards? Oh wait.


I'll be using Apple Pay as much as possible when (a) I upgrade from my 5S, or get an AW; and (b) more of my local stores get new credit card terminals.

All those new terminals might come quicker than you think. Starting this October, the rules here in the U.S. about fraudulent transactions will change. Retailers will be on the hook for bad transactions unless they switch to new readers that use the chipped credit cards.

Retailers don't want to spend any more money than they have to, so when they upgrade to new terminals, they're more likely to go with all the bells and whistles, which now includes NFC capability thanks to Apple, Samsung, Google Wallet, PayPal, and anyone else who's getting compatible devices and cards onto the market.

So, no, Apple Pay hasn't taken off like a rocket, because there are a lot of pieces to fall into place first. When you look, though, you'll see that those pieces are on the way.

[adding on]
I had posted this deep in the original "iWatch" thread:
https://pando.com/2014/09/11/the-hidden-brilliance-behind-the-timing-of-apples-adoption-of-nfc/



> But here's the twist. There's another major change set to occur in the payments landscape that will require the majority of these nine million merchants to deploy new hardware in their stores in the next year.
> 
> As of October 2015, any merchants that do not support EMV credit cards - smart cards with integrated circuits that enable point of sale authentication and help prevent fraud - will be liable for the fraudulent use of counterfeit, lost, and stolen cards. EVM cards are read at the point of sale by inserting the end of the card featuring the chip into a payment terminal, rather than swiping the familiar magnetic stripe on the back of the card. Consumers then enter a PIN to authorize the transaction. (If you've traveled internationally, you're likely familiar with this system).
> 
> These EMV cards and the resulting transactions are far more difficult to counterfeit than what Americans consider "standard" credit cards. While EMV is the norm around the world, only about 14 percent of US merchants support this technology today and very few consumers own credit cards incorporating these chips.
> 
> Why does this matter to Apple Pay? Because millions of merchants will be required to purchase and install new card-reader hardware in the next year in order to comply with this standard. And when these merchants shell out for new card-readers, something they might do at most once or twice per decade, there's a good chance they'll opt for all the "bells and whistles." Following Apple's announcement, NFC is right at the top of the list of must-support technologies. Hence we could see a dramatic spike in NFC support in this country. (Big h/t to Wealthfront CEO Adam Nash for pointing out the brilliance of this timing.)


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> The numbers can be anything. My point was that since the 90s, I and most other users had no issues with phones being in our pockets or where ever. It was and still is a simple matter to simply get the phone out of the pocket.


Lorsban, again, it seems that your usage behavior is different from the younger generation.

Observe what the younger folks (say in grade school) do on their smartphones. I believe their usage behavior is vastly different from your's based on how you describe your's. It's a generational thing.

Hell, I didn't get a mobile phone until college. Now elementary school kids rock them. Times have changed, and we need to adapt with it.



lorsban said:


> If we were moving around or in a rush, the phone stays in the pocket but right when we get a breather, we check and handle business. In the home or office, it's a simple matter to leave the phone on some table and manage notifications.


You can probably imagine the generation before you asking (back in the 90's), why do you need a mobile phone? You can take care of business at home or work. If you're going to the grocery store, why do you need to make a phone call?

For what it's worth, I also prefer to not be interrupted so frequently too, and I find the AW helping me in this regard because I can be interrupted less when I need to check on small things (and pull the phone our for bigger tasks). But I can see and understand that the younger guys use it more frequently than I do. So more power to them.



lorsban said:


> I don't believe this is odd or weird behavior. I don't see how this is so inconvenient that I need an accessory on my wrist to give me partial info so I can decide whether to take my phone out or not.
> 
> No matter how big or bulky my phone was or is (I have a Note 2 now), taking it out of the pocket was never an issue.


It's neither odd or weird behavior, just different.

Again, the younger folks use technology differently, is all. Apple and other companies are just moving with this trend and building for the future where people use technology differently.


----------



## watchRus

Oh joy, split quoting.



zetaplus93 said:


> Enough to make it worth people's while, especially if you're rushing to get onto a train that you're late for.


So how does one rushing to get on a train benefit from using Apple Pay? I am assuming you are speaking of fingerprint identification which by no means saves more time than a simple swiping of card. I have not personally used it but have witnessed a family member struggling to.



zetaplus93 said:


> I'd wager that a huge bulk of these interactions are as Apple described: short, light-weight interactions. Think messaging (iMessage, Facebook messenger, etc), checking the time, checking next appointment time/location, checking the weather, checking emails.
> 
> The AW does many of these tasks well today.


There are no light weight interactions. Each interaction you encounter must be acknowledged as it is the whole, exclusive purpose behind your _smart_ device. This has been my experience almost all times and from my observations of others. Especially iMessage and Facebook, which accounts for the logic behind majority of 1,500x we supposedly expose our phones to the public. Now, checking time, sure, I can see how one can benefit from having a _smart_ wrist watch. After all, you are a surgeon, and a little too occupied in your line of work that you can't expend any further resources to know when your next surgery is or what time your daughter's recital is, right?

Weather isn't something that will deviate from its pattern in a minute by minute basis. Yes, there will be variations, but it should be consistent in its forecast. In other words, one does not need to constantly occupy their fingers swiping for it to start raining. Not to mention this and more _comprehensive _email information can be easily glimpsed from your notification window with a quick swipe down. More attainable information and less squinting is always beneficial.



zetaplus93 said:


> We can measure repeat sales to determine if purchases were made on a whim. If so, they won't buy again (or will sell it quickly).
> 
> People buy things out of their own will (mostly, except when it's gifted by people or provided by the company).


You are misunderstanding my whole conjecture here. I made a logical deduction as to the reason why one needs to debate about a new product line when its relative practicality and utility should be immediate or more forthcoming according to you. Clearly, it is not from the deliberations taking place here, and this leads one to question if their initial assumption behind the purchase is legitimate or forced on from pressures of previous emotional stances... such as previous purchases of the same brand leading them to be vulnerable in their purchasing decisions.



zetaplus93 said:


> I don't understand why you think Apple is forcing products down our collective throats with Apple Pay and AW. You either buy, or not. If you don't like it, you don't buy it and things are just fine.


Simple, I am being told, instructed, declared upon that products such as Apple Pay and Apple watch will enhance my life, will lead to my betterment in time consumption, but it is something I cannot quantify. Every article I read about the two recent product lines has been about why I should invest in it, granted these are technology websites whose sole livelihood depends on the proliferation of new technology. So it is no doubt that they propel such interests in products even if they offer very little advancement to an average consumer's way of life. By taking qualm from those interested in these products and exposure to their relentless justifications of its efficacy, one can help but not direct certain feelings at the product company as if they themselves were projecting this atmosphere.



zetaplus93 said:


> See adoption for the iPhone, arguably Apple's biggest hit thus far, below. It's wasn't instant nor rampant, but took years for mass adoption. In fact, the entire smartphone market took years for mass adoption (20% penetration of iPhones was achieved in 2012):
> 
> How close is the UK to smartphone saturation? | Asymco
> â€¢ Apple iPhone: global sales 2007-2015, by quarter | Statistic


Apple's iPhone was first of its kind. Nothing like it. A complete touch interface where buttons once reigned. There were reservations, doubts to its adaptability in replacing the then culture of buttons. But ultimately, through the perseverance of Steve Jobs in creating additional product lines around it, iPhone became a household name. But rather than innnovating like Jobs, Apple chooses to be a companion to its rivals' advancements.


----------



## zetaplus93

watchRus said:


> So how does one rushing to get on a train benefit from using Apple Pay? I am assuming you are speaking of fingerprint identification which by no means saves more time than a simple swiping of card. I have not personally used it but have witnessed a family member struggling to.


Ah, you haven't seen it in action. Here's a short video that shows it in action:






You can pay using the Apple Watch wirelessly when you get to the gate leading to the subway. Flick your wrist up to the wireless scanner, it registers the payment, and the gate opens for you to go into the subway station and onto the train. No fingerprint scanning required.

Asia (and probably other places) actually had this system years ago with credit-card-like-payment-cards. Same idea. Typically you see someone take their wallet (with the payment card in it) out, place it on a wireless scanner, and then go into the subway station. The AW is the same idea, but built into the watch.

It's quite cool actually. These payment cards can also pay for things at convenience stores, parking, etc etc. So quite useful and convenient.



watchRus said:


> There are no light weight interactions. Each interaction you encounter must be acknowledged as it is the whole, exclusive purpose behind your _smart_ device. This has been my experience almost all times and from my observations of others. Especially iMessage and Facebook, which accounts for the logic behind majority of 1,500x we supposedly expose our phones to the public.


Messages saying that you're heading home, heading out, be right there, the inevitable "hahaha" or "LOL" messages are quite light-weight in nature. If I start having deep conversations, sure, I'll switch to a phone or computer (or go to email).

Oh, and being able to check quickly who messaged you, and a quick snippet of the message, can be immensely helpful to determine if you need to respond then or later.



watchRus said:


> Now, checking time, sure, I can see how one can benefit from having a _smart_ wrist watch. After all, you are a surgeon, and a little too occupied in your line of work that you can't expend any further resources to know when your next surgery is or what time your daughter's recital is, right?


It's helpful in general instances when you're carrying stuff around (between meetings, walking to the car, etc etc) or are otherwise occupied enough to not want to take your phone out of your pocket. These are the mundane but frequently occurring situations where the AW and other similar devices help.

Here, do an experiment. I assume you're a traditional watch-wearing person. Try not wearing a watch for a day and just use your phone to look for the time. Do you miss your watch after a few hours or days? If not, not sure why you'd be hanging out on WUS...



watchRus said:


> Weather isn't something that will deviate from its pattern in a minute by minute basis. Yes, there will be variations, but it should be consistent in its forecast. In other words, one does not need to constantly occupy their fingers swiping for it to start raining. Not to mention this and more _comprehensive _email information can be easily glimpsed from your notification window with a quick swipe down. More attainable information and less squinting is always beneficial.


Agreed, you won't check weather that often (though I check weather a few times a day on unstable weather pattern days).

Some people check stock prices often, maybe at hourly rates. Or sports game scores. Or even email--again, probably not for long form reading on the watch, but seeing what came in, the subject line, and a bit of the content can be useful for those that find it compelling.



watchRus said:


> You are misunderstanding my whole conjecture here. I made a logical deduction as to the reason why one needs to debate about a new product line when its relative practicality and utility should be immediate or more forthcoming according to you.


You should look back to 2007 and 2010 to the introduction of the iPhone and iPad. Loads of vigorous debates then even though (in hindsight perhaps) it was quite obvious how useful these devices are.



watchRus said:


> Clearly, it is not from the deliberations taking place here, and this leads one to question if their initial assumption behind the purchase is legitimate or forced on from pressures of previous emotional stances... such as previous purchases of the same brand leading them to be vulnerable in their purchasing decisions.


You lost me there... what exactly are you trying to say? Emotional stances? Vulnerable?



watchRus said:


> Simple, I am being told, instructed, declared upon that products such as Apple Pay and Apple watch will enhance my life, will lead to my betterment in time consumption, but it is something I cannot quantify. Every article I read about the two recent product lines has been about why I should invest in it, granted these are technology websites whose sole livelihood depends on the proliferation of new technology. So it is no doubt that they propel such interests in products even if they offer very little advancement to an average consumer's way of life. By taking qualm from those interested in these products and exposure to their relentless justifications of its efficacy, one can help but not direct certain feelings at the product company as if they themselves were projecting this atmosphere.


Simple, don't read the articles.

Again, things are not forced upon you by any means. You're choosing to read the articles.

Apple (and all companies in the world) are going to try to convince you that you need to buy their product. It's up to you to decide if it makes sense or not.



watchRus said:


> Apple's iPhone was first of its kind. Nothing like it. A complete touch interface where buttons once reigned. There were reservations, doubts to its adaptability in replacing the then culture of buttons. But ultimately, through the perseverance of Steve Jobs in creating additional product lines around it, iPhone became a household name.


Going back to your original statement:



watchRus said:


> Boy how times have changed from the Jobs era where adoption to a new Apple product was almost instant and rampant.


So yes, iPhone became a household name. But adoption of it took 5 years to get 20% penetration in the US back in 2012. So it wasn't almost instantaneous.



watchRus said:


> But rather than innnovating like Jobs, Apple chooses to be a companion to its rivals' advancements.


Now that's the start of a flame war...


----------



## VicLeChic

The more I read about the AW, the less I need one!


----------



## Tom vanDal

VicLeChic said:


> The more I read about the AW, the less I need one!


Initially wanted one when I had a hands-on at the Apple Store. Did some research online and on youtube...
Now I'm waiting for a new Tissot to arrive and I'm already looking into an Aqua Terra: No smart watch for me.

The only trouble I see in switzerland is my bloody bank account .


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> Lorsban, again, it seems that your usage behavior is different from the younger generation.
> 
> Observe what the younger folks (say in grade school) do on their smartphones. I believe their usage behavior is vastly different from your's based on how you describe your's. It's a generational thing.
> 
> Hell, I didn't get a mobile phone until college. Now elementary school kids rock them. Times have changed, and we need to adapt with it.
> 
> You can probably imagine the generation before you asking (back in the 90's), why do you need a mobile phone? You can take care of business at home or work. If you're going to the grocery store, why do you need to make a phone call?
> 
> For what it's worth, I also prefer to not be interrupted so frequently too, and I find the AW helping me in this regard because I can be interrupted less when I need to check on small things (and pull the phone our for bigger tasks). But I can see and understand that the younger guys use it more frequently than I do. So more power to them.
> 
> It's neither odd or weird behavior, just different.
> 
> Again, the younger folks use technology differently, is all. Apple and other companies are just moving with this trend and building for the future where people use technology differently.


Lol

I guess I am old. I still remember beepers for crying out loud! And my 5 year old daughter does fly around tablets and smartphones almost instinctively.

I do have my eye on the future tho and it looks like this:










A standalone device with flexible display.

Today's smartwatches are still trying to mimic traditional watch design. But it's too much compromise. Small screen is terribly limiting. Samsung is going the cuff route but it's too big and bulky.

Once they start thinking standalone flexible cuffs, then it could be game over for traditional watches.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## valmak

lorsban said:


> Lol
> 
> I guess I am old. I still remember beepers for crying out loud! And my 5 year old daughter does fly around tablets and smartphones almost instinctively.
> 
> I do have my eye on the future tho and it looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A standalone device with flexible display.
> 
> Today's smartwatches are still trying to mimic traditional watch design. But it's too much compromise. Small screen is terribly limiting. Samsung is going the cuff route but it's too big and bulky.
> 
> *Once they start thinking standalone flexible cuffs, then it could be game over for traditional watches.*
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


This is a terrible idea. It's fine the way it is. Once it gets slimmer it will look amazing.


----------



## Henraa

Considering about 95% of my friends and family use iPhones, I am not seeing the love for the Apple watch. I have one friend who has bought one and in conversation most people are asking why he doesn't just look at his iPhone? 

Technology dates yet mechanical watches never seem to. They have their place but I don't think the traditional watch industry needs to worry, to be frank.


----------



## Crunchy

Just got my apple watch today. The fit and finish is amazing. However, cant get some functions to work yet. Having to charge it everyday is a deal breaker why it will not replace my rolex. However, it is the best smartwatch out there in quality and it will definitely replace many $1-2k quartz watches.


----------



## lorsban

Henraa said:


> Considering about 95% of my friends and family use iPhones, I am not seeing the love for the Apple watch. I have one friend who has bought one and in conversation most people are asking why he doesn't just look at his iPhone?
> 
> Technology dates yet mechanical watches never seem to. They have their place but I don't think the traditional watch industry needs to worry, to be frank.


Same here.

For most smartphone users, the small convenience a smartwatch offers (notifications at a glance) doesn't outweigh the inherent weaknesses:

1. poor battery, 
2. small screen, 
3. eventually having to take the phone out anyway
4. Traditional watches still look better
5. Smartwatches aren't as durable

That's a lot of minuses for the 2 seconds you save in not having to take your phone out of your pocket.

That's why adoption has been weak especially if you consider there are over 2 billion smartphone users.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> For most smartphone users, the small convenience a smartwatch offers (notifications at a glance) doesn't outweigh the inherent weaknesses:
> 
> 1. poor battery,


Most people charge their cell phones every night. It's not rocket surgery to charge a device overnight.



> 2. small screen,


Some tasks need only a small screen. Receiving a SMS that says, "OK" doesn't take a lot of space. Neither does a remote for a music player, or slide show, or camera. Neither does Tomagotchi.



> 3. eventually having to take the phone out anyway


Depends on the task. A remote on my watch means I don't need to take my phone out just to skip a song. Also, placing an order for food will require at minimum a cell phone-but receiving a notification that my order is ready for pickup means that once my order is placed, my phone stays in the pocket after that.



> 4. Traditional watches still look better


Some watches are not made for you at all.



> 5. Smartwatches aren't as durable


But they're not fragile snowflakes either. They're as durable as most dress watches-i.e. durable enough.



> That's a lot of minuses for the 2 seconds you save in not having to take your phone out of your pocket.
> 
> That's why adoption has been weak especially if you consider there are over 2 billion smartphone users.


*shrugs* In the first quarter of sales, the iPhone sold only 270,000 units. In 2007, iPhone had 1.1% of the entire cell phone market. We all know what a failure for Apple the iPhone has been.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> Lol
> 
> I guess I am old. I still remember beepers for crying out loud! And my 5 year old daughter does fly around tablets and smartphones almost instinctively.
> 
> I do have my eye on the future tho and it looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A standalone device with flexible display.
> 
> Today's smartwatches are still trying to mimic traditional watch design. But it's too much compromise. Small screen is terribly limiting. Samsung is going the cuff route but it's too big and bulky.
> 
> Once they start thinking standalone flexible cuffs, then it could be game over for traditional watches.
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Between the above and bluetooth-enabled Casio Edifice you proposed 10 pages ago, you're basically proposing that smartwatches either be mechanical but with displays for notifications; or smartphones, shrunk down to fit onto the wrist. Whereas, the smartwatch is a computer designed from the ground up to be a watch. They all have different design philosophies.

Designing a new product for the wrist should ask a few questions:

1. What is a watch at its most basic?
2. What can the watch do?
3. What can the watch do best?
And finally: 4. What are watches for?

The thing about the bluetooth Edifice is that it asked the question "What can a watch do?" but it didn't ask the question, "What can a watch do best?" It tells you you have a notification. Great. It doesn't tell you anything else. Whom is it from? What is it about? Does a notification like this make a watch more compelling than a buzz from a cell phone? Not really. It doesn't take the watch to its full potential-why shouldn't a watch be able to display name, contact info, and a few words? Now that would be really useful.

As for the wrap-around computer, that's a design that didn't ask the question, "What is a watch at its most basic?" A watch tells you the time at a glance-at its most basic, it gives you a very short burst of info with only a glance. A cell phone isn't the form factor for glances, it's the form factor for short looks-clipping coupons, looking at menus, planning the day with a group via SMS, etc. Do you really want to these tasks on the wrist? Your wrist arm would get tired.

The reason why smartwatches are more compelling than a mechanical with additional computer-ish parts as half-hearted afterthoughts and more compelling that cell phones half-heartedly shrunken down is that they were designed from the ground up to be a computer on the wrist. The design process started with:

What is a watch at its most basic? It gives you a short burst of info with only a glance-or a touch, if it has a haptic engine.

From there, then you ask what a watch can do and what it can do best. And then from there, you've answered: What are watches for?


----------



## scentedlead

zetaplus93 said:


> Here, do an experiment. I assume you're a traditional watch-wearing person. Try not wearing a watch for a day and just use your phone to look for the time. Do you miss your watch after a few hours or days? If not, not sure why you'd be hanging out on WUS...


Has anyone actually done this yet? Use only your phone to tell the time. Seriously. Try not wearing a watch for a day, a few days, a week, a few weeks.

I remember my first cell phone, my parents gave it to me when I was a college freshman. When I lost my watch, I thought, "Oh well. I have a cell phone!" . . . I lasted only one week.

In this age of cell phones, why do you wear a watch? There's a huge difference between a very specific, "I want a timepiece more convenient than a pocket watch," v. a very vague, "I like watches."

If your watch is a tool, then the answer to this question is urgent to you. If your watch is a tool, then not wearing a watch is going to be a huge annoyance to you.

But if your watch is jewelry-if your watch is adornment-then the answer to the question is going to be not urgent and not wearing a watch is going to be a non-issue.

As the Apple Watch is more a tool and less a piece jewelry, it has very little and probably nothing to offer you. "What does the AW offer mechanical watch collectors?" Nothing. And that's okay because it's a watch that wasn't made for you at all. It should be very easy to accept that a watch was made for someone else and not for you at all.


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> Most people charge their cell phones every night. It's not rocket surgery to charge a device overnight.


Yeah. Phone being the operative word.

And I'm not the only one who thinks this is an issue. Weak battery life was one of the main issues that even users complain about.

If it's ok with you then that's great.



> Some tasks need only a small screen. Receiving a SMS that says, "OK" doesn't take a lot of space. Neither does a remote for a music player, or slide show, or camera. Neither does Tomagotchi.


Again, if that small screen is ok for you, great.



> Depends on the task. A remote on my watch means I don't need to take my phone out just to skip a song. Also, placing an order for food will require at minimum a cell phone-but receiving a notification that my order is ready for pickup means that once my order is placed, my phone stays in the pocket after that.


Ok this is good, a specific scenario.

I get the convenience in fitness settings. But out in a restaurant, my phone would likely be on the table where I'd immediately see the notification.

The Samsung S6 Edge actually solves the issue with a curved display that can scroll info.



> Some watches are not made for you at all.


Haha I guess so.



> But they're not fragile snowflakes either. They're as durable as most dress watches-i.e. durable enough.


And there's the issue. "Good enough" for a dress watch but I intend to use this tech as a fitness band and it NEEDS to be more rugged (for mtb etc...).



> *shrugs* In the first quarter of sales, the iPhone sold only 270,000 units. In 2007, iPhone had 1.1% of the entire cell phone market. We all know what a failure for Apple the iPhone has been.


Maybe. But like I said, it would take a heck of a lot more to derail traditional watches.

Not saying it won't happen. But I believe they first need to fix those issues I mentioned.


----------



## BarracksSi

The "screen is too small" complaint is not going to get fixed by any smartwatch, IMO. 

I think a phone-sized cuff is a bad idea -- if it has to be big enough for a keyboard, better to make it a handheld device because one-handed typing on top of the opposite forearm sucks. Go ahead, try it for a full minute.

So, you're back to a wristwatch-sized device, and the screen can't get any bigger.

If that idea doesn't sound any good, then you're not going to like a smartwatch, whether it's made by Apple or Samsung or LG or Garmin or Mio or Fitbit or TAG or Casio or Asus or anyone else.


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> The thing about the bluetooth Edifice is that it asked the question "What can a watch do?" but it didn't ask the question, "What can a watch do best?" It tells you you have a notification. Great. It doesn't tell you anything else. Whom is it from? What is it about? Does a notification like this make a watch more compelling than a buzz from a cell phone? Not really. It doesn't take the watch to its full potential-why shouldn't a watch be able to display name, contact info, and a few words? Now that would be really useful.


The Casio is still basically a traditional watch with added features. Made for people who just need to know when to take the phone out. That's it. For those guys that's all they need.



> As for the wrap-around computer, that's a design that didn't ask the question, "What is a watch at its most basic?" A watch tells you the time at a glance-at its most basic, it gives you a very short burst of info with only a glance. A cell phone isn't the form factor for glances, it's the form factor for short looks-clipping coupons, looking at menus, planning the day with a group via SMS, etc. Do you really want to these tasks on the wrist? Your wrist arm would get tired.


The cuff is meant to be a gadget that replaces both watches and smartphones and maybe tablets.

And as you can see, it straightens out to a smartphone form factor. So it doesn't need to be on your arm 24/7.

You see a notification, you can manage it on the wrist or lay it flat for heavier duty stuff. You can wrap it on your wrist or fold it and put it in your pocket. Pretty damn cool.


----------



## BarracksSi

lorsban said:


> The Casio is still basically a traditional watch with added features. Made for people who just need to know when to take the phone out. That's it. For those guys that's all they need.


I still don't understand it.

It's not enough to be told that I just got a call or text but _not_ be told who it's from or what it's about. Is it from one of my guys at work simply responding "Got it", or is it from my wife because she got locked out of the house?

I illustrated the problem with the Casio earlier, maybe here in this thread, like this:

Secretary Edifice: "There's a message for you, sir."
Me: "Thanks. Who's it from?"
"I can't tell you, sir."
"Uh, okay. What's it about?"
"I don't know."
"You don't know?"
"That's correct, sir."
"Then why did you tell me about the message?"
"That's all I can do, sir."
"&#8230; You're fired. Go home."


----------



## Nic1930

BarracksSi said:


> I still don't understand it.
> 
> It's not enough to be told that I just got a call or text but _not_ be told who it's from or what it's about. Is it from one of my guys at work simply responding "Got it", or is it from my wife because she got locked out of the house?
> 
> I illustrated the problem with the Casio earlier, maybe here in this thread, like this:
> 
> Secretary Edifice: "There's a message for you, sir."
> Me: "Thanks. Who's it from?"
> "I can't tell you, sir."
> "Uh, okay. What's it about?"
> "I don't know."
> "You don't know?"
> "That's correct, sir."
> "Then why did you tell me about the message?"
> "That's all I can do, sir."
> "&#8230; You're fired. Go home."


Lol, that's actually quite funny, but it makes you wonder what it says about us as a species that we've become too lazy to reach a hand into our pockets to find out who's called us! Makes you wonder where we'll be taken next on this voyage to a more convenient life! I'd personally like a dishwasher that empties itself, I hate that job!!!!

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk


----------



## lorsban

BarracksSi said:


> I still don't understand it


Like I said, most don't even need their watch to say anything more than the time.

Some, want their watch to tell them to check their phone, maybe switch music tracks.

Some want their watch to tell them they have a message AND to say who it's from.

Some want to know who it's from AND what the message is about: for example - Email from Annie re: Appointment

Some want that AND to be able to read the whole message as well.

Some want to read the message AND reply.

Different strokes for different folks.

Simple as that.


----------



## 123Blueface

Major Apple Fanboy here.

Different strokes for different folks indeed.
I love watches. Own many.
I love Apple products. Own many.
Tried the Apple Watch. Got up before 3 a.m. EST to order one right away when they went on sale.
Got it at my front door on first day, 4/24.
About a month later, SOLD IT.

May be for some or many, wasn't for me.
While difficult to explain and doesn't seem to make sense, while it is definitely a well made superb quality product, somehow, someway, it still looked cheap to me.
When I see someone wearing one, even today, still looks cheap to me.
Perhaps a future generation may grow on me but right now, today, it is nothing more than a small extension of your iPhone on your wrist. Very small advantage to me for the money and to wear it instead of a Rolex, Breitling or any other fine watch.
Prefer to wear a quality traditional watch and just reach in my pocket when necessary.


----------



## BarracksSi

lorsban said:


> Like I said, most don't even need their watch to say anything more than the time.
> 
> Some, want their watch to tell them to check their phone, maybe switch music tracks.


That's a half-assed job, though. Who would you hire: a combination janitor-secretary who can't clean or type, or two people who are good at their jobs?

You know why Casio (and Citizen, and a few others) do it this way? It's because they don't know any better, or that they don't want to cannibalize their existing lineup, or they can't let go of the past, or they're trying to grab a niche in a broad category that they don't understand.

All of those reasons are poor reasons to develop a device. Apple and Samsung don't do it that way for good reason.


----------



## zetaplus93

Nic1930 said:


> Lol, that's actually quite funny, but it makes you wonder what it says about us as a species that we've become too lazy to reach a hand into our pockets to find out who's called us! Makes you wonder where we'll be taken next on this voyage to a more convenient life! I'd personally like a dishwasher that empties itself, I hate that job!!!!
> 
> Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk


Imagine this comment over a century ago when pocket watches started being replaced by wristwatches... And here we are still


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> For most smartphone users...


It's probably helpful to think about the 5 points below in terms of the likely customers, which tend to be younger and grew up with modern smartphones.



lorsban said:


> ... the small convenience a smartwatch offers (notifications at a glance) doesn't outweigh the inherent weaknesses:
> 
> 1. poor battery,
> 2. small screen,
> 3. eventually having to take the phone out anyway
> 4. Traditional watches still look better
> 5. Smartwatches aren't as durable


Battery life? Sucked since 2007.

Small screen? Yup.

Eventually having to take the phone out? If I can be aware of group conversations over the course of the entire day (yes, this happens) and quickly deal with short messages like LOL without taking out my phone, that'd be valuable.

Traditional watches still look better? Oh you mean the Nixon and other (fashion) watches. Yes, but they don't do anything useful except tell the time. And they're not the In-thing at the moment. I score more cool points with the new AW.

Smart watches aren't as durable? Neither are my Nixons. (For those who wear GShocks, yup, true there)



lorsban said:


> That's a lot of minuses for the 2 seconds you save in not having to take your phone out of your pocket.


Multiply the 2 seconds by 150x a day or so, on average, which was pulled up earlier in the thread.

Think not in minutes but disturbances/annoyances, which we all want to avoid.

Again, we're applying to this the general public, not to your specific case (which is different from the younger users that the AW is supposedly going after).



lorsban said:


> That's why adoption has been weak especially if you consider there are over 2 billion smartphone users.


We keep going in circles about this point.

Remember the time frame we established a few pages back? It took 4 years for the iPhone to get 20% penetration in the U.S. No product in history can ever meet the adoption numbers you're looking for in 3 months.


----------



## scentedlead

zetaplus93 said:


> Imagine this comment over a century ago when pocket watches started being replaced by wristwatches... And here we are still


1890s
Old guy: Only _women_ wear wrist watches. _Real men_ use pocket watches. Damn sissy boys.
Young guy: WTF. The general wants to coordinate this campaign by time instead of by audible-you know, that thing everyone, including the other side, can hear. And I am not going to pull out my pocket watch while I am holding a gun.

1900s - 1920s
Old guy: Okay. So wrist watches are nifty. But only soldiers wear wrist watches. Proper gentlemen in civilized society use pocket watches.
Young guy: But sports!

1930s
Young guy: Oooh. Unbreakable glass and waterproofing! 
Old guy: In my day, our wrist watches didn't need those things! Kids today just want to waste their money.

Lather, rinse, repeat. You can say the same thing about a lot of things.


----------



## lorsban

BarracksSi said:


> That's a half-assed job, though.


I've heard many say that most smartwatches are half-assed for still needing a phone to work and not having at least 2 days battery.

Like I said, different strokes for different folks.

If you think the AW is THE best then good for you.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> It's probably helpful to think about the 5 points below in terms of the likely customers, which tend to be younger and grew up with modern smartphones.
> 
> Battery life? Sucked since 2007.
> 
> Small screen? Yup.


Hate to break it to you but phones Prior to 2007 had even smaller screens and worse battery life. I had phones with a 1.5 inch screen and my old Palm Treos and Centros could barely do a day.

So at my "old" age of 37 I've pretty much seen the progress and actually lived through most of it.

These days, I use my smartphone for everything. I don't use my laptop except for recording music and I don't have a tablet. So, I guess you can put me in the "heavy use" category.



> Eventually having to take the phone out? If I can be aware of group conversations over the course of the entire day (yes, this happens) and quickly deal with short messages like LOL without taking out my phone, that'd be valuable.


In my case, since I use my phone as my main device for work and personal use, I have my phone out all the time or I'm doing some other work on it. So when a viber/watsapp msg comes up that needs a short reply, it's not an issue.

For me it's just a matter of tapping on the notification and replying and pressing the back button to get back to what I was doing.

A lot of my friends and family are like this.

I can see the case tho if the phone wasn't the main device. Like if I had a tablet or was working mostly with a laptop or desktop and I'm typing away and the phone rings in my pocket or vibrates and I need to fish it out of my pocket and it's just some silly emoticon in a group chat. That would indeed annoy me.

But a better app in this case would be to have the phone connect to my laptop or tablet so I see the phone notification on screen and can manage it right on the tablet or pc.



> Traditional watches still look better? Oh you mean the Nixon and other (fashion) watches. Yes, but they don't do anything useful except tell the time. And they're not the In-thing at the moment. I score more cool points with the new AW.


I'm not too familiar with Nixon so I'll just take your word for it.



> Remember the time frame we established a few pages back? It took 4 years for the iPhone to get 20% penetration in the U.S. No product in history can ever meet the adoption numbers you're looking for in 3 months.


Right.

I don't expect smartwatches to do that in 3 months either. But I'm going to wait until they do hit 20% to see how it's affecting the Swiss.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> But out in a restaurant, my phone would likely be on the table where I'd immediately see the notification.


Maybe this is cultural, but that feels really rude-I would never.

I have no qualms putting my phone, face up, on top of my work desk. But when I'm at a restaurant-when I'm with other people-doing so is going to signal to them that I am going to half-assedly pay attention to them. Like a movie, sitting down with other people is a no cell phones environment.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> I can see the case tho if the phone wasn't the main device. Like if I had a tablet or was working mostly with a laptop or desktop and I'm typing away and the phone rings in my pocket or vibrates and I need to fish it out of my pocket and it's just some silly emoticon in a group chat. That would indeed annoy me.


Because most people I know have iPhones, I just use iMessage for texting. Turn on my iTunes account on my computer, and voilà, text messages on my desktop. Which is great . . . when I'm at my computer. And usually I'm not.

Now what? For me, an Apple watch is more convenient.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> I've heard many say that most smartwatches are half-assed for still needing a phone to work and not having at least 2 days battery.


Of the smartphone market, only the Samsung Gear S is standalone. It comes in a whopping 58 x 40mm case-how many people do you know wear watches that large? Adding in cellular networking adds to bulk and for the U.S. market, you need both GSM and CDMA bands. You could create one GSM product and one CDMA product, but that adds to the cost of manufacturing.

For most people, they already have their phone on their person already. The point of taking a notification on the wrist is to see if you want to take it on the phone. If you don't then oh well. But if you do, and you don't have your phone, then what?

When do people not have their phone on them? For me, it's working out indoors-outdoors, I am certainly bringing it with me. For me, the AW does enough without a phone-Macworld: What can your Apple Watch do without your iPhone?

And of all the reviews I've read, most said the battery lasted them long enough-get home in the evening, charge phone, charge watch, no big deal. The only one I read with battery issues was with trying to use it as a fitness tracker for long stretches, say more than a few hours.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> Hate to break it to you but phones Prior to 2007 had even smaller screens and worse battery life. I had phones with a 1.5 inch screen and my old Palm Treos and Centros could barely do a day.
> 
> So at my "old" age of 37 I've pretty much seen the progress and actually lived through most of it.


Phones that most people owned prior to 2007 weren't smartphones (adoption rate was too low then) but rather feature phones--they lasted for days (i.e. the Razr). And agreed those had even smaller screens (Razrs and Nokia's).

Anyway, from the perspective of a younger customer (say 20-30 years old), the AW, in terms of battery life (1-day), sucks as much as the iPhone. They're used to it, and not a major factor (assuming the AW brings enough benefits)--they'd just charge the watch with the phone.

But from the perspective of screen size, that's valid--the AW screen is very small compared to the iPhone.



lorsban said:


> I don't expect smartwatches to do that in 3 months either. But I'm going to wait until they do hit 20% to see how it's affecting the Swiss.


OK, that's more reasonable and very different than saying, "that's why adoption has been weak especially if you consider there are over 2 billion smartphone users"


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> Maybe this is cultural, but that feels really rude-I would never.
> 
> I have no qualms putting my phone, face up, on top of my work desk. But when I'm at a restaurant-when I'm with other people-doing so is going to signal to them that I am going to half-assedly pay attention to them. Like a movie, sitting down with other people is a no cell phones environment.


+1

Agreed, could be a cultural difference. No electronic gadgets at the dinner table at home either, it'd be rude and make it harder to have conversations (which is already hard to have since we're not in physical contact enough already!).


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> I've heard many say that most smartwatches are half-assed for still needing a phone to work and not having at least 2 days battery.


I think it's a valid for people to expect smartwatches to operate on its own (since all the other gadgets like iPhones and iPads and computers work by themselves). Of course, for technological reasons, it hasn't happened with the AW yet (some Gear watches are independent). But you can bet Apple's working to untether it in future version.

As for the 2-day battery part... still think it's not a big deal to charge daily since we're doing that with iPhones today. So nope, AW isn't a great device for camping trips and things of that nature. I think Apple will keep the battery usage at about that, 18 hours, like they stuck to the 10-hour battery usage for iPads through subsequent generations.


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> Maybe this is cultural, but that feels really rude-I would never.
> 
> I have no qualms putting my phone, face up, on top of my work desk. But when I'm at a restaurant-when I'm with other people-doing so is going to signal to them that I am going to half-assedly pay attention to them. Like a movie, sitting down with other people is a no cell phones environment.


Well of course it's not 100% ok. I guess most of the time, the atmosphere around here is more casual but in more formal/serious settings, the phone stays in the pocket. But in these situations, glancing every so often at your watch is also not ok.

If I were in a serious meeting and the guy in front of me kept looking at his watch, I'd be pretty pissed.


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> Of the smartphone market, only the Samsung Gear S is standalone. It comes in a whopping 58 x 40mm case-how many people do you know wear watches that large?


Yes I'm watching this series closely. The Gear S ticks most of the boxes for my fitness needs except size. I agree with you it's huge.

If they make version 2 smaller or even much thinner (going back to the cuff idea), I'd likely buy. Battery would still be bad but I'll just be using this for exercise anyway.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> Well of course it's not 100% ok. I guess most of the time, the atmosphere around here is more casual but in more formal/serious settings, the phone stays in the pocket. But in these situations, glancing every so often at your watch is also not ok.
> 
> If I were in a serious meeting and the guy in front of me kept looking at his watch, I'd be pretty pissed.


That's why you filter the notifications sent to your watch. Messages from work? Yes, the phone should send those to the watch. Messages from that friend or cousin you see twice a year? Nah, hold those.



lorsban said:


> Yes I'm watching this series closely. The Gear S ticks most of the boxes for my fitness needs except size. I agree with you it's huge.
> 
> If they make version 2 smaller or even much thinner (going back to the cuff idea), I'd likely buy. Battery would still be bad but I'll just be using this for exercise anyway.


You really need to see a teardown of a smartwatch to see just how much of a demand "make it smaller" is. Someday, the technology will support a small smartwatch but, it's going to get there only with hard work.


----------



## lorsban

> You really need to see a teardown of a smartwatch to see just how much of a demand "make it smaller" is. Someday, the technology will support a small smartwatch but, it's going to get there only with hard work.


Haha yeah I know. I'm likely gonna be waiting a loooong time to get what I want.


----------



## rogervdv

I don't have a smartphone, so I'm probably way out of the market segment that would want to buy an Apple watch. The truth is, I didn't even know there was an Apple watch until I saw this thread, and the idea of something like a little smartphone on my wrist does not appeal to me in the least. I don;t want to be beholden to a corporation that makes its products deliberately obsolete to generate more sales. I also don't want to live out my life through a little wrist-screen.

I wear a mechanical watch not for reasons of showing off, or displaying financial wealth (of which I don't have much) or even merely for nostalgic reasons. I wear one because I don't like buying watch batteries all the time or contributing to mountains of disposable items. I also believe in protecting the skill of watchmaking as a craft as opposed to merely pouring money into the coffers of Apple for it's latest toy to rule people's lives.

If the Apple watch (and other toys like it) reduce the number of trashy disposable watches being made, it will serve a purpose.


----------



## zetaplus93

Well, this critique would pretty much apply to all companies in the world that create electronics.


----------



## pronstar

Apple is such a failure. They haven't developed a watch that 100% of the population wants. 

(I have no desire to own a smartwatch, but can appreciate that others do) 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rogervdv

...


----------



## rogervdv

zetaplus93 said:


> Well, this critique would pretty much apply to all companies in the world that create electronics.


All those creating less functional, consumer toys perhaps. Is that actually a problem?


----------



## Henraa

rogervdv said:


> I don't have a smartphone, so I'm probably way out of the market segment that would want to buy an Apple watch. The truth is, I didn't even know there was an Apple watch until I saw this thread, and the idea of something like a little smartphone on my wrist does not appeal to me in the least. I don;t want to be beholden to a corporation that makes its products deliberately obsolete to generate more sales. I also don't want to live out my life through a little wrist-screen.


I agree with you about mechanical watches being much more desirable than smart watches but I don't agree with the statement about Apple making products deliberately 'obsolete' in order to generate sales. I've owned Apple products for years and have never encountered what you have said. The iPhone 4S still gets support 4 years after it was released as do many macs and iPods. The ipad 2 is due to get iOS 9 and that too is a 4 year old device. You try and get that level of support from many of their competitors!

Apple release devices that have software features that may not run on older devices but that is how product evolution works. These are usually a very small list of features but this has no effect whatsoever on the reliability or working of the previous device. In 2 months time my iPhone 6 will be replaced in the market by the iPhone 6S. Will this make my phone obsolete? Of course it won't and it will be supported for at least another 3 years.


----------



## zetaplus93

zetaplus93 said:


> Well, this critique would pretty much apply to all companies in the world that create electronics.





rogervdv said:


> All those creating less functional, consumer toys perhaps. Is that actually a problem?


I was replying to this thought:



rogervdv said:


> I don;t want to be beholden to a corporation that makes its products deliberately obsolete to generate more sales.


If one subscribe to conspiracy theories, then pretty much all electronic companies in the world is incentivized to deliberately obsolete their existing products in order to generate more sales.

Another way to look at this is that the pace in electronics is so fast that we're constantly making better products.


----------



## valmak

Well I guess I was right...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-helps-push-u-watch-084547794.html


----------



## BarracksSi

valmak said:


> Well I guess I was right...
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-helps-push-u-watch-084547794.html


I saw that, too. What I didn't expect was not the 1.9 million estimate for AW sales, but the _less than a million_ estimate for traditional watch sales.

That's crazy. Even if the estimates are off, that's still a huge difference.


----------



## dawiz

BarracksSi said:


> I saw that, too. What I didn't expect was not the 1.9 million estimate for AW sales, but the _less than a million_ estimate for traditional watch sales.
> 
> That's crazy. Even if the estimates are off, that's still a huge difference.


And I was right: it's the el-cheapo brands that are bleeding. So except for Swatch, the rest of the Swiss watch industry is safe. So who needs to worry? I suppose China and Japan.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## scentedlead

I think more than anything, the AW is accelerating market saturation which was already being accelerated by the proliferation of cell phones. The thing about traditional watches is that no one watch does it all. That's why you have a dress watch, a work watch, a beater watch. You might have a complication-free watch that's slim enough to fit under a shirt sleeve. You might have a big bulky ABC G-Shock for hiking in the mountains. You might have a chronograph for your casual time. But when a computer in your pocket tells the time more accurately, how badly do you need a watch? And if a computer on your wrist does many things many different kinds of watches do-and then some more-then how many watches do you need?

That said, I do want to see the numbers of traditional watches broken down by type. Sub $1,000 fashion watches are the obvious target. What about G-Shocks? But what about mechanical watches? What about Fitbits? What about other smartwatches?



Yahoo Finance said:


> Producers such as Swatch Group AG, the maker of Omega, have maintained that Apple's entry isn't a threat and will spur sales of traditional timepieces in the long term by getting young people in the habit of wearing a watch.


Um, that's like expecting young people who grew up on smartphones to go to rotary phones.


----------



## lorsban

valmak said:


> Well I guess I was right...
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-helps-push-u-watch-084547794.html


I wouldn't be so quick to attribute all that decline to just the AW.

As we speak Fitbit has sold over 20million watches and 4.5 million in the last quarter alone.

The pricepoint of Fitbit and the most affected traditional watch market are almost the same.

Second, it's still not the Swiss who are affected but the very low end - below $150.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/gear-styl...fitbit-instead-of-apple-watch.html/?a=viewall


----------



## valmak

dawiz said:


> And I was right: it's the el-cheapo brands that are bleeding. So except for Swatch, the rest of the Swiss watch industry is safe. So who needs to worry? I suppose China and Japan.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think there's basically three camps of thought:
1. Apple watch will have no effect on traditional watches
2. Apple watch will only have an effect on low-mid range watches
3. Apple watch will have an effect on traditional watches

In the short run it seems that 2 was correct but in the long run I think 3 will be correct. In the very long run I expect that 1 will be correct as traditional watches will make a comeback in the distant future.


----------



## valmak

lorsban said:


> I wouldn't be so quick to attribute all that decline to just the AW.
> 
> As we speak Fitbit has sold over 20million watches and 4.5 million in the last quarter alone.
> 
> The pricepoint of Fitbit and the most affected traditional watch market are almost the same.
> 
> Second, it's still not the Swiss who are affected but the very low end - below $150.


I'm not too keen on the fitbit. From what I've seen it seems the Apple Watch is leagues above it. The Apple Watch is just so much more attractive and useful. Fitbit might be able to come up with something to compete with the Apple Watch in the future but I doubt it. The people buying fitbit are non-iphone users and people that don't understand the Apple Watch yet. Probably Samsung will come up with some copy of the Apple Watch that will replace most fitbits.

Ya the article says that the Swiss watch industry hasn't really seen much impact yet. Like I originally said, I expect the big names to definitely survive this. It would be really naive to say JLC is going under. I think in due time the larger Swiss industry, and the watch industry in general, will take a hit.


----------



## lorsban

valmak said:


> Probably Samsung will come up with some copy of the Apple Watch that will replace most fitbits.


I doubt that.

Samsung is only making stuff for their own phones. And the new watches are going to be round.

They're the only one's making standalone watches tho and a big plus is they have 4gb storage for songs but the battery is still likely to suck.

The great thing about Fitbit is it works for all or most smartphones, has a 7 day battery, can show text/call alerts with caller ID and can also control the phone's music. But it works primarily as a fitness tracker and doesn't need to be connected to any phone.

One thing this shows tho is "Superwatches," including all smartwatches and multi-function fitness bands, are greatly impacting the watch market. People want more for their money. Why spend $150 on a watch with Date if you can get a superwatch?


----------



## valmak

lorsban said:


> I doubt that.
> 
> Samsung is only making stuff for their own phones. And the new watches are going to be round.
> 
> They're the only one's making standalone watches tho and a big plus is they have 4gb storage for songs but the battery is still likely to suck.
> 
> The great thing about Fitbit is it works for all or most smartphones, has a 7 day battery, can show text/call alerts with caller ID and can also control the phone's music. But it works primarily as a fitness tracker and doesn't need to be connected to any phone.


lol @ caller ID. you can literally make phone calls from your apple watch. in the next iteration you will be able to facetime.


----------



## lorsban

valmak said:


> lol @ caller ID. you can literally make phone calls from your apple watch. in the next iteration you will be able to facetime.


For most people that's enough.

And you can already make calls/texts/emails/surf on a Samsung Galaxy Gear S.

But again, if you kept doing smartphone stuff on your watch, you better be close to a wall socket - which again is stupid. But I suppose I'm just more particular with battery life. Some people are perfectly ok carrying an extra battery pack for their phones and/or a big battery case lol


----------



## BarracksSi

valmak said:


> lol @ caller ID. you can literally make phone calls from your apple watch. in the next iteration you will be able to facetime.


I sure hope not.

Video streaming is terrible for battery life, and holding my wrist in the air long enough to make video chat worthwhile is a pain in the you-know-what. Sure, maybe I could hold it in my palm, but at that point, wouldn't a phone be so much better?

I'm enjoying my AW, but jeez laweeze, I'm pretty sure I understand its limits.


----------



## VicLeChic

Without actual sales figures of the AW, attributing traditional watches decline to AW's hypothetical success is speculation at this stage. AW could turn into a massive breakthrough, or just a flop if people decide they don't need a piece of junk. Time will tell.


----------



## valmak

VicLeChic said:


> Without actual sales figures of the AW, attributing traditional watches decline to AW's hypothetical success is speculation at this stage. AW could turn into a massive breakthrough, or just a flop if people decide they don't need a piece of junk. Time will tell.


It's not really speculation. I knew the Apple Watch would be a huge hit and disrupt the watch industry months before it was even released when Hodinkee reviewed it. It's all pretty obvious to anybody with half a brain. Mechanical watches can't even tell time very accurately so which one is the piece of junk?


----------



## IMD90

I don't think the Apple watch is a threat for the swiss brands.There is a temptation to compare this scenario with the Quartz revolution. But then, a lot of swiss companies tried to follow the trend and started making quartz. Today they are more prudent because they have learned from the past. To survive they must adapt to the present and future. And this means they must find a way and do better mechanical watches. The smartwatches and mechanical pieces will compete, of course, but this is a positive fact for us, the watch lovers.


----------



## dawiz

valmak said:


> It's not really speculation. I knew the Apple Watch would be a huge hit and disrupt the watch industry months before it was even released when Hodinkee reviewed it. It's all pretty obvious to anybody with half a brain.


Huge hit? Are you delusional?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lorsban

valmak said:


> so which one is the piece of junk?


How good will the Apple Watch, or any smartwatch, be when the next versions come out the next year or the year after that?

A good mechanical, however, can last multiple generations.


----------



## scentedlead

The first iPhone was a piece of crap—slow data speeds, no cut and paste, no native apps. But it got revised, and every update was an incremental improvement. Now it and other smartphones like it are ubiquitous. And iOS thrives.

Of course the current Apple Watch is going to not be the hot thing once the next hardware version hits the streets. But that’s the nature of tech—it improves incrementally. Just because this current Apple Watch is going to be obsolete in a few years doesn’t mean the platform will be obsolete. Hardware specs are the less important thing—more important is the life of the platform.

We’ll know in due time how long the platform will last, but with anticipation of Watch OS 2 coming out in the fall, early signs look good.


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> The first iPhone was a piece of crap-slow data speeds, no cut and paste, no native apps. But it got revised, and every update was an incremental improvement. Now it and other smartphones like it are ubiquitous. And iOS thrives.


Yeah but we're talking about two different gadgets here. One of them was able to integrate many functions into ONE easy to carry piece.

The other also adds functions Yet still needs you to carry the gadget its trying to emulate.

That's like carrying your smartphone AND your cordless phone, beeper, pc, discman + your entire cd collection along with you.


----------



## PierreD

I wouldn't buy one of these and never would I put it on my wrist if I was gifted one (so wife please take note). For me personally nothing will replace a real time piece I can wind every morning being a ritual that I have before heading into the office, or the admiration I have when looking at the movement working in some of the skeleton and glass back watches I own.

i recently purchased a Rebelde, from Nicholas Hacko a local watch maker that assembles and has created his own brand known as one of the smallest watch brands in the world. Supporting local watch makers and watch repairers is important; not everything needs to be taken over by a conglomerate. Relationships, interaction with watch makers and repairers, the joy of watches must live on..


----------



## BarracksSi

lorsban said:


> Yeah but we're talking about two different gadgets here. One of them was able to integrate many functions into ONE easy to carry piece.
> 
> The other also adds functions Yet still needs you to carry the gadget its trying to emulate.
> 
> That's like carrying your smartphone AND your cordless phone, beeper, pc, discman + your entire cd collection along with you.


This point keeps coming up, but I think it's misguided.

None of the other computing devices fully emulate each other. The smartphone doesn't emulate the laptop, and the laptop still doesn't fully emulate the desktop.

Why do people expect a smartwatch to emulate a phone? It won't. It's too small, which means many things: it doesn't have a keyboard, it doesn't display much text, pictures are too tiny, it's terrible for Angry Birds, &#8230;

These are all features that are sacrificed for the big convenience of always being on your wrist. The laptop, too, made sacrifices for becoming portable: the potential for huge memory storage, multiple CPUs and GPUs, near-infinite power consumption, etc. The smartphone, obviously, sacrificed features to be able to fit in a pocket.

Corporate mainframe computers are at one end of the convenience-versus-power scale, while the watch is waaaaaay at the opposite end.

So why is there so much hate for smartwatches? Is it just too small?  Are people upset that they can't use the watch to edit a spreadsheet while standing on the subway or remotely control a video camera at a concert?

I'll ask it this way: are people's expectations simply unrealistic?


----------



## gaopa

I enjoy my Pebble watch and don't plan on buying an Apple watch. However, my quality Swiss and German watches will be around long after the Apple watch fad has faded. Cheers, Bill P.


----------



## lorsban

BarracksSi said:


> This point keeps coming up, but I think it's misguided.
> 
> None of the other computing devices fully emulate each other. The smartphone doesn't emulate the laptop, and the laptop still doesn't fully emulate the desktop.
> 
> Why do people expect a smartwatch to emulate a phone? It won't. It's too small, which means many things: it doesn't have a keyboard, it doesn't display much text, pictures are too tiny, it's terrible for Angry Birds, &#8230;
> 
> These are all features that are sacrificed for the big convenience of always being on your wrist. The laptop, too, made sacrifices for becoming portable: the potential for huge memory storage, multiple CPUs and GPUs, near-infinite power consumption, etc. The smartphone, obviously, sacrificed features to be able to fit in a pocket.
> 
> Corporate mainframe computers are at one end of the convenience-versus-power scale, while the watch is waaaaaay at the opposite end.
> 
> So why is there so much hate for smartwatches? Is it just too small? Are people upset that they can't use the watch to edit a spreadsheet while standing on the subway or remotely control a video camera at a concert?
> 
> I'll ask it this way: are people's expectations simply unrealistic?


That's the problem tho. We all use smartphones differently and it shows with our watch/smartwatch choice.

Some people want the "everything but the kitchen sink" approach like Samsung Gear S but then some want something basic like a Casio Edifice Bluetooth.

There is no set standard since there's no consensus yet on what a smartwatch should do. And I think it will take a loooong time for that to be cleared up especially for watches which are more personal in nature.


----------



## BarracksSi

lorsban said:


> That's the problem tho. *We all use smartphones differently * and it shows with our watch/smartwatch choice.


Agreed; and I agree with the rest of your post, too, but I wanted to highlight this bit.

We use our smartphones differently, but they're largely the same hardware now. Different processors and OSes, yet fundamentally, they're a blank piece of glass. Flip covers and hardware keyboards* are all but abandoned. They're all slightly different recipes of the same dish.

All the different uses come from apps, then, not the hardware. Apps are why the same phone a socialite uses to browse Twittergram also came be used by an audio engineer to tweak a concert performance's sound mix while sitting in the crowd.

I think smartwatches-or the broader category called "wearables"-will need to settle down into much fewer versions of hardware. Buyers would eventually expect the same range of abilities, and the ones that don't fit in will fall aside.

I mentioned in my other thread that my G-Shock will always be a G-Shock, while my AW can serve a range of roles based solely on aesthetics. When you add the possibilities afforded by apps on an AW, it's hard to imagine that even Casio's Bluetooth-connected Gs will be able to keep up.

(*) Samsung is teasing a hardware keyboard cover for their next flagship phone. You'd think they would learn from Blackberry's fate, but maybe they just hope to gain the former BB buyers who want an inflexible, non-configurable stack of buttons.


----------



## Fer Guzman

CNBC vid re: impact on sub $1k market, no impact on anything over $2.5k.

Apple Watch killing watchmakers? http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000404683


----------



## pronstar

Any computerized Smartwatch will become obsolete over time, that's the nature of tech. 

Mechanical watches have been obsolete for decades, but they're purchased for reasons beyond "I need the latest technology". 

A new Honda Accord is light years beyond a classic car, it doesn't mean people don't desire classic cars. 

I don't understand why it has to be "this or that" when we're comparing apples to bananas....there's room for both, because they're vastly different products that appeal to vastly different buyer motivations. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lorsban

BarracksSi said:


> I think smartwatches-or the broader category called "wearables"-will need to settle down into much fewer versions of hardware. Buyers would eventually expect the same range of abilities, and the ones that don't fit in will fall aside.


With regards to watches, I think it might take a while before we all agree on a singular form factor. We will get there but we first need to change our perception of watches being a personal representation or statement.

For now, some people want round, some square, some rectangle. Some want smaller, I'm still waiting for that flexible cuff haha!


----------



## Makhdoom

Why is just Switzerland in trouble? And wow you can see the future, that's amazing.


----------



## AvantGardeTime

I was interested in getting an Apple watch as I am an apple fan (iPhone 6+, iMac, Mac Book Air, etc) but decided to hold off. A couple of co-workers got them and the features and integration are second to none. However, I just don't see the need (Speaking for me personally) to own one. Everything I need/want to get done is easily accomplished with my iPhone. While the cases, straps and bracelets of the iWatch are of respectable quality, they don't appeal to me aesthetically. Call me old school or a watch luddite, but to the me Apple watch is a nice piece of tech, a gizmo or a toy for the wrist. But it is no substitute for a watch. I think a typical timepiece and the Apple watch have very different missions in life. I don't see myself stop wearing my Breitling Aerospace for an Apple Watch, at least not in this first generation of the product.


----------



## AvantGardeTime

RuffRydas said:


> I am currently wearing a Fitbit ChargeHR on my right wrist and wearing a Seiko SKX009 on my left wrist... I'm living proof they can co-exist...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Same here. I wear my Fitbit Charge HR on my right wrist and either Breitling Aerospace or Airwolf on the left.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

AvantGardeTime said:


> I was interested in getting an Apple watch as I am an apple fan (iPhone 6+, iMac, Mac Book Air, etc) but decided to hold off. A couple of co-workers got them and the features and integration are second to none. However, I just don't see the need (Speaking for me personally) to own one. Everything I need/want to get done is easily accomplished with my iPhone. While the cases, straps and bracelets of the iWatch are of respectable quality, they don't appeal to me aesthetically. Call me old school or a watch luddite, but to the me Apple watch is a nice piece of tech, a gizmo or a toy for the wrist. But it is no substitute for a watch. I think a typical timepiece and the Apple watch have very different missions in life. I don't see myself stop wearing my Breitling Aerospace for an Apple Watch, at least not in this first generation of the product.


Thanks. Here you go:
https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=2221746


----------



## dawiz

AvantGardeTime said:


> While the cases, straps and bracelets of the iWatch are of respectable quality, they don't appeal to me aesthetically.


While I think the Apple Watch is as necessary as nail fungus, at least for the strap situation there's a solution - there are adapters available that'll allow you to mount any regular strap on your Apple Watch.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pronstar

AvantGardeTime said:


> Same here. I wear my Fitbit Charge HR on my right wrist and either Breitling Aerospace or Airwolf on the left.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Quite a few folks I work with do the same. Fitbit on one wrist, "regular" watch on the other.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lorsban

pronstar said:


> Quite a few folks I work with do the same. Fitbit on one wrist, "regular" watch on the other.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My brother does that.

Best of both worlds.


----------



## dawiz

lorsban said:


> My brother does that.
> 
> Best of both worlds.


Yupp, Jawbone Up on the right, watch on the left

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Makhdoom

What Mr. Full Brain does not realize is that the math he is so ramming down our throats was calculated using an abacus. A banana watch will be as useful two generations down the line as an abacus while doing college algebra. If he argues that the newest version running iOS 100.2.1 will still be called a banana watch, then it can be argued that you never know when newer tech will replace the banana watch. But I guess fanboys never see without goggles.

Also Mr. Valmak please post photos of your mechanical Swiss watches, you know the ones that are inferior to the banana watch. We are all curious to see just what you have that the banana watch top trumps. And remember the WUS motto "without pictures it did not happen."


----------



## valmak

Makhdoom said:


> Also Mr. Valmak please post photos of your mechanical Swiss watches, you know the ones that are inferior to the banana watch. We are all curious to see just what you have that the banana watch top trumps. And remember the WUS motto "without pictures it did not happen."


Oh so since I don't own a Patek I don't know what I'm talking about? That Rolex you bought with your wife's money doesn't make you an expert.


----------



## Makhdoom

valmak said:


> Oh so since I don't own a Patek I don't know what I'm talking about? That Rolex you bought with your wife's money doesn't make you an expert.


Do not own a single Rolex, but please do show us the inferiority of your connections, buy jumping to conclusions. "They were almost ready to sell off their 5K watches." Mind reader now are you.

It does not matter if you don't have a Patek, just show us what you have, put us in our place.


----------



## valmak

Makhdoom said:


> Do not own a single Rolex, but please do show us the inferiority of your connections, buy jumping to conclusions. "They were almost ready to sell off their 5K watches." Mind reader now are you.
> 
> It does not matter if you don't have a Patek, just show us what you have, put us in our place.


I have the Apple Watch. I've had mechanicals in the past but usually flipped them after a couple of months. I don't know what point you're trying to make. I never said the big brands would go out of business. I said the industry would take a hit and it did. The Apple Watch is a great watch at a great price. I still like mechanicals but the Apple Watch is quite the competition for them.


----------



## dawiz

valmak said:


> I said the industry would take a hit and it did.


Most certainly not because of the Apple Watch. The measly sales figures are simply nowhere near to having any kind of effect on the industry. What made them take a hit is the global economic crisis - and the fact that sales are down dramatically in China because of the slow economy there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Makhdoom

dawiz said:


> Most certainly not because of the Apple Watch. The measly sales figures are simply nowhere near to having any kind of effect on the industry. What made them take a hit is the global economic crisis - and the fact that sales are down dramatically in China because of the slow economy there.


See there is someone not dealing in absolutes. I have seen the little SWATCH kiosk selling those little plastic things to people and it does not seem to be shutting down. The SEIKO shop across does not look worse off either. So I think all watches, even banana watch, can co-exist into the future.

However people with banana watches will not be giving them to their grandsons, because they will not be compatible with the operating system of their latest thingamajig, also it will be obsolete. A normal watch even a Quartz has more value to grandsons down the line. For example, I asked my grandfather for the citizen he was wearing when I was fifteen. It was a plain old citizen quartz with day and date, very plain, very boring. Years later I found another one of his watches in the store room of the old house. This watch is an automatic that I later realized grand dad is wearing in a picture with me. I look to be about two and a half or maybe three years old and standing right next to him with the watch on his wrist. So I kept the automatic and gave the Quartz to my brother six months ago.

He was very happy to have it and was not disappointed to get grand dad's quartz watch. He has no plans to sell it in favor of a banana watch either.

So there.


----------



## Ard

Opinions, I guess this is where we put ours into the mix. I'm a fishing guide, fly fishing only and more focused on Spey casting than traditional single hand fly casting. In the course of my experience I have met all sorts of fishermen. You may be thinking what is the relationship here but I definitely see one. Serious fly fishing people collect more rods and reels than they really need or can possibly use, does that sound familiar? Many of the younger guys or the older ones who are new to the sport try every new product that comes onto the market. There are however a large enough number of those who stick to the traditional tried and proven lines - reels and flies that they support the market for those items. There will always be change, it is the duty of the traditionalist to teach the old school ways but to be tolerant of the new wave of technology as it appears. Watches are no different, we collect them in number but we wear one at a time. The idea that an Apple watch will somehow hurt the Swiss watch making industry is one I could never subscribe to. The new guy will perhaps be drawn to the new technology but the folks who have been wearing and appreciating the Swiss or Japanese watches through the decades will not change their tastes. The shear number of members on this forum is an indicator of the popularity of traditional wrist watches. The Apple watch may never see the day where it has a forum like this built solely around that new technology. A forum perhaps but not one with such depth as this and the membership so let's not be practicing the Requiem Overture for the Swiss watch just yet.

Ard


----------



## valmak

I think you guys are generalizing your own likes to the public at large. You may buy a Rolex because it is a complicated piece of machinery that you can one day pass down to your children. That's not true for most of the rest of Rolex buyers though. 99% of Rolex buyers buy one because it is shiny and says Rolex on the face. We all know this to be true. Now Apple Watch is shiny and says Apple on it. Also, it does a lot more stuff. It's really a no brainer.


----------



## BarracksSi

This blog post may have been mentioned a while ago, but I was poking around earlier and thought it would be relevant.
Swatch changes tune, takes on Apple Watch with own smartwatch featuring mobile payments

Particularly:


Nick Hayek said:


> Back then, Swatch CEO Nick Hayek told Bloomberg that he personally didn't believe replacing an iPhone with an interactive terminal on your wrist would be the next revolution.
> 
> "A smartwatch needs software and this software must constantly be updated. Every year, you're forced to buy a new smartphone because the new software requires new hardware. It will be the same problem with smartwatches," he said in May 2014. "Besides, consumers don't want to charge their watches, and no charging cable will be available for a while."


Regular smartwatch users can contest his point about "consumers don't want to charge their watches", but look at the rest of this quote.

Either Hayek is bluffing or he's incredibly narrow-minded. New software requiring new hardware? iOS 8 is running on... no, _officially supported on_ iPhones which are long discontinued. He's thinking of embedded software, the kind that runs televisions, refrigerators, and -- guess what -- Swatch Touch watches. He _doesn't know_ any other way of doing computerized watches.

This is why Switzerland is in trouble. They don't look like they're organized well enough to support this kind of technology. The roots of Apple, Google, and Microsoft have been in this game for a half-century or more. At least Biver at TAG understands that he'll need outside help.


----------



## Cr15py

How does this thread run for and stay fresh for 77 pages?? I haven't seen many smart watches on wrists, so take-up is slow in my experience - people are still walking around staring at their phones. A wrist attachment seems unnecessary to them.


----------



## TradeKraft

I've seen a number of Apple watches in the wild. I think of them the same way I do a Toyota Camry... Very pedestrian, an appliance of sorts.


----------



## BarracksSi

Can't say it's been "fresh" for all 77 pages, but it seems like rumors and predictions keep changing every couple weeks. The blog I mentioned in the previous post was from February, and part of the reason I posted it here was to show how out of date it is (and how Hayek failed to do what he'd claimed Swatch would do).

As far as who's wearing what, I've been seeing almost as many fitness bands as all regular watches combined. It's crazy. Smartwatches are able to bridge the gap between the two categories as long as owners accept the compromises.


----------



## Cr15py

valmak said:


> I think you guys are generalizing your own likes to the public at large. You may buy a Rolex because it is a complicated piece of machinery that you can one day pass down to your children. That's not true for most of the rest of Rolex buyers though. 99% of Rolex buyers buy one because it is shiny and says Rolex on the face. We all know this to be true. Now Apple Watch is shiny and says Apple on it. Also, it does a lot more stuff. It's really a no brainer.


Rolex is a status symbol, Apple is fairly affordable and accessible to the masses. A digital watch does more but Rolex was never very threatened by the Quartz Crisis.


----------



## dawiz

Cr15py said:


> How does this thread run for and stay fresh for 77 pages?? I haven't seen many smart watches on wrists, so take-up is slow in my experience - people are still walking around staring at their phones. A wrist attachment seems unnecessary to them.


I have absolutely no idea why the mods haven't closed this yet. This ran its course a long, long time ago.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ticonderoga

valmak said:


> Scentedland knows what he's talking about. I suspect he's not part of this small WIS bubble since he just registered here so he is easily able to separate himself from their thinking.


When someone "registered" has about as little to do with their experience here. Many, like myself, have been readers here for years before we finally decided to register.


----------



## Ticonderoga

dawiz said:


> I have absolutely no idea why the mods haven't closed this yet. This ran its course a long, long time ago.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


77 pages and counting, so you want to close it why? Really, who cares if it runs for 10 more years and many arguments are repeated 3 or 4 times? What is solved by closing the thread? So far as WUS, every added comment makes the site bigger and increases the site's rating on Google. Isn't that what a website wants? To be ever larger and more popular?

That you posted a comment at all shows that even you are coming back to read this thread. If YOU want it to die, you just shouldn't post and just go to read something else. If enough people do the same, this thread will drift to page 2, then 3 and eventually it will just "go away."

I always find it comical that some people decide for the rest of us when a discussion has run its course. Imagine you're at a cocktail party and 4 guys have been talking politics for 3 hours and you're sick of hearing about it. Do you move to another part of the party, leave the party or approach them and demand that they stop talking politics or (as you have done here) request that the party host close their conversation because - in your opinion - it has "run its course."


----------



## dawiz

Ticonderoga said:


> That you posted a comment at all shows that even you are coming back to read this thread.


The reason why I've been coming back is that it continues popping up in my Tapatalk activity display. But you're right - I'm trying to unsubscribe now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ticonderoga

black watch said:


> The watch will work with no carrier account as a standalone timepiece, just time, obviously no advance functions.


Am I the only one that sees the irony in this statement?

The AW works great as a watch but you have to pay for advanced functions. So, as a standalone, it is basically a $20 Timex. Otherwise, you're strapped to a phone bill.

I like the "idea" of the AW but if I have to drag a charger along when I go out of town, well, that's just silly.


----------



## HOROLOGIST007

Ticonderoga said:


> Am I the only one that sees the irony in this statement?
> 
> The AW works great as a watch but you have to pay for advanced functions. So, as a standalone, it is basically a $20 Timex. Otherwise, you're strapped to a phone bill.
> 
> I like the "idea" of the AW but if I have to drag a charger along when I go out of town, well, that's just silly.


Nope, I see it too.
Its less functional than an 80s quart watch and the battery lasts 18 months!


----------



## valmak

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Nope, I see it too.
> Its less functional than an 80s quart watch and the battery lasts 18 months!


Oh I didn't know an 80s quartz watch could play music through bluetooth, read and send text messages, receive and make calls, function as a method of payment, monitor your activity, scan you into the gym and easily change between dress and sport watch.


----------



## pronstar

HOROLOGIST007 said:


> Its less functional than an 80 quart watch


Do you wear a 5 gallon hat with your 20 gallon watch? 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## scentedlead

black watch said:


> The AW works great as a watch but you have to pay for advanced functions.





Ticonderoga said:


> Am I the only one that sees the irony in this statement?
> 
> The AW works great as a watch but you have to pay for advanced functions. So, as a standalone, it is basically a $20 Timex. Otherwise, you're strapped to a phone bill.
> 
> I like the "idea" of the AW but if I have to drag a charger along when I go out of town, well, that's just silly.


Turns out, you can a lot with the AW without an iPhone.

What do you want from a smartwatch?

The data has to come from somewhere. If you have a standalone smartwatch, that means it needs its own data plan in addition to the data plan you already have for your cell phone. For most people, it's just cheaper to have the smartwatch use the cell phone's data plan because they already have it and a few megabytes, maybe tens of megabytes, isn't going to break the data plan they already have.

People think nothing of internet for their computers and phones yet for some reason, internet for a watch is too outlandish for some people to wrap their minds around. The exact sunrise/sunset, moonphase, time zones, weather, stock prices, appointments, map directions have to come from somewhere-that first complication in a mechanical watch will cost you a house (compared to the price of the watch plus a cell phone data plan which lots of people already have) and those last three complications are things no mechanical watch is going to accomplish. Also: What song am I listening to? Whether on my phone or on my watch, getting that answer requires an internet connection. Is my pizza order ready? Ditto on needing an internet connection.

As for needing a charger, I like what my Macbook does for me and so, charging it is a small thing to mind in exchange. Ditto my iPad. Ditto my iPhone. Ditto my Apple Watch.


----------



## scentedlead

I wanna go back to the fact that smartwatches need to be charged and explore what I see as a disconnect between mechanical watch users and the average person on the street.

In real life and reading up on reviews, recharging is a negative only when it has to be done too frequently—needing to be recharged is not a negative in and of itself. However, here on WUS, that smartwatches need to be recharged is one of a handful of dealbreakers. It’s quite a disconnect.

Your average person on the street is going to compare a smartwatch to what they already have and that’s either a quartz watch which has a battery, or a cell phone which has a battery. It’s only mechanical watch users—and mechanical watches are only 2% of the watch market—who compare the smartwatch to mechanical watches.

A mechanical watch user wants a set of gears on their wrist. A fitness wearable user wants a set of sensors on their wrist. A smartwatch user wants a computer on their wrist. These things really don’t compare.

Of course comparisons will be made—these products occupy space on the wrist. But there’s a point when a comparison is forced and it’s not coming from a place of curiosity or analysis but a place of disappointment and umbrage that a certain product dared to not be for them, at all.


----------



## Ticonderoga

scentedlead said:


> Turns out, you can a lot with the AW without an iPhone.
> 
> What do you want from a smartwatch?
> 
> The data has to come from somewhere. If you have a standalone smartwatch, that means it needs its own data plan in addition to the data plan you already have for your cell phone. For most people, it's just cheaper to have the smartwatch use the cell phone's data plan because they already have it and a few megabytes, maybe tens of megabytes, isn't going to break the data plan they already have.
> 
> People think nothing of internet for their computers and phones yet for some reason, internet for a watch is too outlandish for some people to wrap their minds around. The exact sunrise/sunset, moonphase, time zones, weather, stock prices, appointments, map directions have to come from somewhere-that first complication in a mechanical watch will cost you a house (compared to the price of the watch plus a cell phone data plan which lots of people already have) and those last three complications are things no mechanical watch is going to accomplish. Also: What song am I listening to? Whether on my phone or on my watch, getting that answer requires an internet connection. Is my pizza order ready? Ditto on needing an internet connection.
> 
> As for needing a charger, I like what my Macbook does for me and so, charging it is a small thing to mind in exchange. Ditto my iPad. Ditto my iPhone. Ditto my Apple Watch.


You're disconnecting two different issues and lumping them together. There is a difference between my iPhone getting a 3g signal and operating on its own and my computer getting a wifi signal and operating on its own when compared to an AW that can do neither.

Really, what the apple watch is is a bluetooth extension of your iPhone that happens to tell the time. Alone, its a paperweight, with an iPhone it has some interesting properties but I believe that a lot of people are deluding themselves to believe that the AW is the brain. It's not the brain, the iPhone is the brain, the AW is an arm or a leg.

Moonphase schmoonphase ~ its the iPhone tracking all that. I can get the moonphase on my iPhone - the AW is really an iPhone external monitor.


----------



## MaxPower

Ticonderoga said:


> You're disconnecting two different issues and lumping them together. There is a difference between my iPhone getting a 3g signal and operating on its own and my computer getting a wifi signal and operating on its own when compared to an AW that can do neither.
> 
> Really, what the apple watch is is a bluetooth extension of your iPhone that happens to tell the time. Alone, its a paperweight, with an iPhone it has some interesting properties but I believe that a lot of people are deluding themselves to believe that the AW is the brain. It's not the brain, the iPhone is the brain, the AW is an arm or a leg.
> 
> Moonphase schmoonphase ~ its the iPhone tracking all that. I can get the moonphase on my iPhone - the AW is really an iPhone external monitor.


I get your point, and generally speaking you're right - pretty much every advanced feature requires an iPhone - but the AW isn't quite a paperweight on its own. Exercise tracking features keep functioning (as do related sensors/accelerometer), you can store up to 2GB off music locally (and listen to it via Bluetooth), and view some photos. Apple Pay doesn't require the phone. And of course timekeeping continues to work, including stopwatch/timers. It's a bit more than a secondary iPhone display.


----------



## zetaplus93

Ticonderoga said:


> Really, what the apple watch is is a bluetooth extension of your iPhone that happens to tell the time. Alone, its a paperweight, with an iPhone it has some interesting properties but I believe that a lot of people are deluding themselves to believe that the AW is the brain. It's not the brain, the iPhone is the brain, the AW is an arm or a leg.


What a lot of people don't realize is that the AW is pretty powerful. It has an A5 processor, which is equivalent to the processor used in the iPhone 4S/5, Apple TV (3rd generation), iPad 2, and iPad Mini. It's quite powerful.

At home with Wifi, and with the iPhone powered off, I can:

Use Siri on the AW to do some basic things like setting count up/down timers
Send and receive messages, both text, voice, and emoticons

If I'm outside of Wifi range, I can still:


Use Apple Pay
Use fitness tracking features
Play music via B/T headset

This is with watchOS 1.0.1.

Now imagine what OS 2/3 will do to the AW to make it more standalone. If the AW can run Siri, I'm sure it can do a lot more with just a Wifi connection w/o the iPhone.


----------



## Ticonderoga

zetaplus93 said:


> What a lot of people don't realize is that the AW is pretty powerful. It has an A5 processor, which is equivalent to the processor used in the iPhone 4S/5, Apple TV (3rd generation), iPad 2, and iPad Mini. It's quite powerful.
> 
> At home with Wifi, and with the iPhone powered off, I can:
> 
> Use Siri on the AW to do some basic things like setting count up/down timers
> Send and receive messages, both text, voice, and emoticons
> 
> If I'm outside of Wifi range, I can still:
> 
> 
> Use Apple Pay
> Use fitness tracking features
> Play music via B/T headset
> 
> This is with watchOS 1.0.1.
> 
> Now imagine what OS 2/3 will do to the AW to make it more standalone. If the AW can run Siri, I'm sure it can do a lot more with just a Wifi connection w/o the iPhone.


I just finished reading all 78 pages of this thread - took 3 days to do it - and my opinion after reading all of your opinions, mine opinion is:

I like the _idea _of owning a Rolex. That it is a quality timepiece that will last generations; it is well crafted and has all those little spinning wheels and gears. It is a marvel to think about. I haven't bought one yet only because it hasn't fit the budget, not because I don't think that it has everything that I need.

I also like the *idea of the AW*. But I haven't bought it yet because it is flawed in many ways. I also didn't buy the first iPhone for the same reasons. But, eventually when the price of the iPhone came down, and the features increased, I finally did buy it and I've never looked back.

Eventually the AW (or a similar smart watch) will have the features that will lure many many people, including many of the naysayers here.

When they have a smart watch that will last a day and a half on a single charge, I'll start looking. Until then, I'll let the other tech geeks fund the research and I'll take advantage of the finished product later.

Considering that the Walkman tape player was cutting edge technology in the 80's, look how far we've come. I'm sure, in just a few years, the AW will be light years ahead of where it is today.

I'm on holiday in Spain (with a baby in stroller) and DAILY, I can think of how the AW *could *make my life easier. Just in navigation: I do a Google maps search of how to walk from here to there and 3 blocks later, I want to check my progress.

1. Reach into pocket.
2. Push iPhone button.
3. Enter passcode.
4. Open google maps.
5. See my progress.

If my Google maps was beamed to my wrist, every two or three blocks, I could just flick my wrist and see my progress.

I can think of how an alarm on the watch would be helpful; sometimes I'm in the other room and my iPhone alarm is going off and I don't hear it.

I'm sick and tired of reaching into my pocket to pull my credit card, sign the slip, and then put receipt and card back into wallet, back into pocket, while holding a baby and the folks behind me in line are already crowding me.

Flick my wrist at the pay screen and my receipts are automatically saved to the app on my iPhone for later review. Where can I sign up?

And in the future, you'll just drag and drop each receipt to its own file. How convenient will that be for taxes:

File one - dump file, no tax consequences.
File two - business expenses
File three - house expenses
File four - baby expenses

In time, there will be G-shock smart watches. They'll have GPS, you can swim in the ocean for 3 hours, come home and plot your swim around the bay on your Google maps.

I can't even begin to think of the hundreds of possibilities with a watch that will evolve over the next decade. I dare say that most of us will surprised and impressed.

Will I ditch my mechanicals? No. Smartwatch on one wrist mechanical on the other? Maybe.

But, what if the smartwatch was put on the bottom of a band? Imagine, a set of steel link or leather straps that have a smartwatch at the bottom of the wrist and at the top you can have your Rolex or Omega? A little insert where you can move your SW from band to band. You can wear your mechanical with a traditional band, or if you need your SW that day, you wear the SW band. Imagine if you wear your favorite watch with SW on the bottom and when you feel your wrist vibrate, you flick it over to see the text message?

Is Switzerland in trouble? No.

Will many of us be wearing smart watches in one form or another in 10 years. I think probably.


----------



## VicLeChic

Ticonderoga said:


> In time, there will be G-shock smart watches. They'll have GPS, you can swim in the ocean for 3 hours, come home and plot your swim around the bay on you Google maps.
> .


That sounds like such a cool feature! Great for navigation as well.



Ticonderoga said:


> But, what if the smartwatch was put on the bottom of a band? Imagine, a set of steel link or leather straps that have a smartwatch at the bottom of the wrist and at the top you can have your Rolex or Omega? A little insert where you can move your SW from band to band. You can wear your mechanical with a traditional band, or if you need your SW that day, you wear the SW band. Imagine if you wear your favorite watch with SW on the bottom and when you feel your wrist vibrate, you flick it over to see the text message?
> .


I also believe we will see some sort of hybrid watches in the future. Aren't most cars hybrid by nature nowadays? They have mechanical engines, geartrains and suspension coupled with electronic management and tons of gadgets inside the cabin. I wouldn't mind a discreet smart device inserted in the strap, as long as the predominant element is your mechanical watch, not the electronic appendix.


----------



## zetaplus93

VicLeChic said:


> I also believe we will see some sort of hybrid watches in the future. Aren't most cars hybrid by nature nowadays? They have mechanical engines, geartrains and suspension coupled with electronic management and tons of gadgets inside the cabin. I wouldn't mind a discreet smart device inserted in the strap, as long as the predominant element is your mechanical watch, not the electronic appendix.


Montblanc and others are working on this:

Montblanc e-Strap Smart Attachment For Timewalker Watch Hands-On | aBlogtoWatch

For those who have thought about this type of e-strap, does the current offering seem appealing?

If not, what else would you like on it for you to pay somewhere in the $200 price range (Montblanc previously announced 250 Euro pricing, but of course it's not the final price)?


----------



## paneraifan111

Yes no kidding I heard this many times but luckily for retailers these 5k plus type watches are a different league and people will still buy em!!!


----------



## xevious

It may be useful, but it becomes yet another item that needs to be charged (phone, headset, mouse, MP3 player, etc). If it would last a full week on a single charge, maybe... The other problem is the fragility. Everyone does know the dreaded iPhone glass syndrome, right? They break so easily. And then Apple charges you a whopping $100+ to replace it. And it's not like they give you a loaner phone while they're fixing it. 

I refuse to be an Apple sheep, will not follow until the road is proven safe and reliable. ;-)


----------



## kapybarus

Useful yes, but better looking I don t think so.

Odoslané z môjho iPhone cez Tapatalk


----------



## shnjb

xevious said:


> It may be useful, but it becomes yet another item that needs to be charged (phone, headset, mouse, MP3 player, etc). If it would last a full week on a single charge, maybe... The other problem is the fragility. Everyone does know the dreaded iPhone glass syndrome, right? They break so easily. And then Apple charges you a whopping $100+ to replace it. And it's not like they give you a loaner phone while they're fixing it.
> 
> I refuse to be an Apple sheep, will not follow until the road is proven safe and reliable. ;-)


So your points seem to be 1) doesn't last 7 days, 2) glass not durable, 3) should be cheaper than $100 to replace the glass and 4) should be given a loaner.

But what about traditional watches?
1) automatic watches rarely have 7 day power reserve. They are just charged by your motion rather than electricity. Apple Watch is charged at night, instead of day time during wear.
2) Apple Watch Sport uses glass but the other versions use sapphire crystal and it is just as durable as what goes on nice watches. If you compare the sport to other cheap watches in the $350 or below segment, I think you would be hard-pressed to find sapphire crystal.
3) Cost of replacing the "glass" is not an option on cheap watches. If you take your cheap broken watch from Michael Kors, will they replace it for $100? I doubt it. Cost of replacing crystal sapphire from a real watch company is possible but it will always cost more than $100.
4) do watch companies give you a loaner while fixing the watch?
Why would you expect this as a standard service? It's not like you bought a $50000 car. An iPhone only costs $650+ and an Apple Watch $350+.


----------



## lorsban

shnjb said:


> So your points seem to be 1) doesn't last 7 days, 2) glass not durable, 3) should be cheaper than $100 to replace the glass and 4) should be given a loaner.
> 
> But what about traditional watches?
> 1) automatic watches rarely have 7 day power reserve. They are just charged by your motion rather than electricity. Apple Watch is charged at night, instead of day time during wear.
> 2) Apple Watch Sport uses glass but the other versions use sapphire crystal and it is just as durable as what goes on nice watches. If you compare the sport to other cheap watches in the $350 or below segment, I think you would be hard-pressed to find sapphire crystal.
> 3) Cost of replacing the "glass" is not an option on cheap watches. If you take your cheap broken watch from Michael Kors, will they replace it for $100? I doubt it. Cost of replacing crystal sapphire from a real watch company is possible but it will always cost more than $100.
> 4) do watch companies give you a loaner while fixing the watch?
> Why would you expect this as a standard service? It's not like you bought a $50000 car. An iPhone only costs $650+ and an Apple Watch $350+.


I don't think 7 days is necessary. Maybe 2-3 is sufficient.

I think tho that the main issue with battery charging is the psychological barrier of "needing" to recharge a watch.

Traditional automatic watches are "use and forget" items. Use them regularly and you won't even think about losing lower. The more you use, the better.

With smartwatches, the opposite is true. The more you use, the more you need to recharge.

Sent from my LG-H818 using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971

I can see them as useful tools but not beautiful. It would be more useful if you didn't have to carry a smart phone too.


----------



## lorsban

oak1971 said:


> I can see them as useful tools but not beautiful.


This one's not bad









Sent from my LG-H818 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fatz028

I wouldn't wear any of those piece of crap smart watches. Tradition vails over technology. Anyone that I see wearing them are tools and are lazy from getting their phones out of their pockets. Stupid Dick Tracey wannabes.


----------



## Fer Guzman

Fatz028 said:


> I wouldn't wear any of those piece of crap smart watches. Tradition vails over technology. Anyone that I see wearing them are tools and are lazy from getting their phones out of their pockets. Stupid Dick Tracey wannabes.


Haters gonna hate.


----------



## shnjb

Fatz028 said:


> I wouldn't wear any of those piece of crap smart watches. Tradition vails over technology. Anyone that I see wearing them are tools and are lazy from getting their phones out of their pockets. Stupid Dick Tracey wannabes.


Meh. I wouldn't wear any of your pieces of crap watches either.


----------



## Fatz028

Yeah that's cause you can't afford a real watch.


----------



## TradeKraft

Well this post has declined... I honestly don't see the purpose in having a smart watch sub-forum. They belong on a tech forum, having it here is just asking for trolls and arguments.


----------



## Fatz028

i am not a hater of the Iwatch. I see it being useless if you have an iPhone. They function both the same way. Why would you wear a watch that fuctions like your phone? It's a waste of money in my book. There is no way that Switzerland would be in trouble over a smart watch. A traditional watch is like a piece of artwork. I don't see an Iwatch having a beautiful dial. Not it has a boring black screen. My brother has a smart watch for his Samsung and yes he looks like a tool wearing it.


----------



## Fer Guzman

It clearly has functions the iPhone doesn't have. And let me add that yes some Swiss watches are works of art. But those in the same price range as the steel and aluminum AW, not really.


----------



## shnjb

Fatz028 said:


> Yeah that's cause you can't afford a real watch.


My one entry level Patek is probably worth more than all your watches combined.

Maybe you are hating on the Apple Watch because you can't afford to add it to your collection?

There are people in the high end section whose servicing costs on watches more than the watches you own.
Take your snobbery elsewhere, away from here.


----------



## Fatz028

For one I am not being a snob. You on the other hand have been. Telling me that everything I own is junk and that you have Patek. You sir are being a snob about the price of you watch. Thank you!!


----------



## oak1971

I don't have an I phone, don't care for IOS, and won't be strapping an I watch to my wrist for those reasons alone. I do like OS X though.


----------



## oak1971

Fatz028 said:


> For one I am not being a snob. You on the other hand have been. Telling me that everything I own is junk and that you have Patek. You sir are being a snob about the price of you watch. Thank you!!


Listing your watches in your sig line and having the temerity to chastise others for mentioning what they own? Pot, Kettle.


----------



## MrDagon007

The entry level AWs sure look nicer manufactured and more deeply engineered than nearly any traditional watch at roughly similar price in the local mall. 
You can't argue that it has less soul than the many generic quartz watches out there.
I do think that they can and will happily coexist with mechanicals though.
My sister in law had a quartz cartier watch, typical elegant lady model, she finds her AW much more useful. Who am I to argue with her preference?


----------



## shnjb

Fatz028 said:


> For one I am not being a snob. You on the other hand have been. Telling me that everything I own is junk and that you have Patek. You sir are being a snob about the price of you watch. Thank you!!


Didn't you just, a few posts above this one, come to the Apple Watch section to call others' apple watches crap and tell me that I cannot afford the nice watches you own?

Clearly, you are neither wise enough to grasp the irony, not rich enough to indiscriminately call others poor.


----------



## Stelyos

Fatz028 said:


> Anyone that I see wearing them *are tools and are lazy *from getting their phones out of their pockets. * Stupid Dick Tracey wannabes*.





Fatz028 said:


> Yeah *that's cause you can't afford a real watch*.





Fatz028 said:


> It's a waste of money in my book.... *My brother has a smart watch for his Samsung and yes he looks like a tool wearing it.*





Fatz028 said:


> *You sir are being a snob about the price of you watch.* Thank you!!


have you read the forum rules???? do you not think they apply to you?


----------



## shnjb

Stelyos said:


> have you read the forum rules???? do you not think they apply to you?


Don't forget this one



Fatz028 said:


> I wouldn't wear any of those piece of crap smart watches.


----------



## scentedlead

Fatz028 said:


> I wouldn't wear any of those piece of crap smart watches. Tradition vails over technology. Anyone that I see wearing them are tools and are lazy from getting their phones out of their pockets. Stupid Dick Tracey wannabes.


When I'm driving in the late afternoon and want to figure out when to turn on my car's lights and I use my watch to check when sunset is, that's being too lazy to pull my cell phone out of the glove compartment where it's charging and feeding the stereo system music. Safety is less important than not being lazy. Gotcha.



TradeKraft said:


> Well this post has declined... I honestly don't see the purpose in having a smart watch sub-forum. They belong on a tech forum, having it here is just asking for trolls and arguments.


It's too much to ask grown adults to have civil conversations about watches with computerized innards? For some reason, this behavior would never be okay in threads about digital quartz altimeter/barometer/compass watches and yet, it's to be expected in threads about smartwatches?


----------



## TradeKraft

scentedlead said:


> When I'm driving in the late afternoon and want to figure out when to turn on my car's lights and I use my watch to check when sunset is, that's being too lazy to pull my cell phone out of the glove compartment where it's charging and feeding the stereo system music. Safety is less important than not being lazy. Gotcha.
> 
> It's too much to ask grown adults to have civil conversations about watches with computerized innards? For some reason, this behavior would never be okay in threads about digital quartz altimeter/barometer/compass watches and yet, it's to be expected in threads about smartwatches?


I don't expect much from grown adults unfortunately. In my experience there are very few topics that remain civil, especially with the anonymity of forums... Though you'd hope something as unimportant as watches(in the scheme of things) would enable us to stay pleasant with one another.
I chock it up to passion. Look at the title of this thread, it's a direct affront to a hobby/interest many hold dear. People will react emotionally to anything that may destroy something they love.


----------



## scentedlead

Passion is why these boards exist. Being jerkwads is why threads devolve.


----------



## scentedlead

MrDagon007 said:


> The entry level AWs sure look nicer manufactured and more deeply engineered than nearly any traditional watch at roughly similar price in the local mall.


There are some really nice affordables. I'll take any Timex IQ (esp. a flyback chronograph) or any Seiko 5 over any Swatch. Anyone in the affordables (f71) can tell you their faves for fit and finish for less expensive watches.

Also, if the AW seems too affordable for its own good, it has economies of scale to leverage the price down. When you see the tens of millions of iPhones sold _per quarter,_ that means _millions_ of AWs sold _per quarter._


----------



## MrDagon007

scentedlead said:


> There are some really nice affordables. I'll take any Timex IQ (esp. a flyback chronograph) or any Seiko 5 over any Swatch. Anyone in the affordables (f71) can tell you their faves for fit and finish for less expensive watches.
> 
> Also, if the AW seems too affordable for its own good, it has economies of scale to leverage the price down. When you see the tens of millions of iPhones sold _per quarter,_ that means _millions_ of AWs sold _per quarter._


Of course, there are nice affordables, I am happy to have some in my collection, yet by and large you don't see these in the malls. My point was that the AW, and certainly so in the more expensive stainless steel variant, feels quite premium in its design and general finish. Plus the innovative straps. Traditionalists may decry it, but I think that it is nicer made than the lion share of affordable quartz watches you can find in malls, these seem a bit... tired nowadays, yet a mechanical watch can survive in its own universe.


----------



## Fatz028

The Iwatch is just a trend and will die off like the iPod.


----------



## shnjb

Fatz028 said:


> The Iwatch is just a trend and will die off like the iPod.


But were the anonimos watches ever a trend?


----------



## Fatz028

That's a negative. Let me ask you this. Would you like to own a watch like a Rolex that ever Tom Dick and Harry owns and they are all similar? ( not knocking on Rolex very good brand with a great history) or would you like to have something unique that someone put a lot of time and thought into such as RGM or Habring? Rolex makes over a million watches a year and everyone and their brother owns one. As for Anonimo the historic brand. The company took over Panerai's old workshop in Florence Italy with all the same people who built Panerai's before they sold themselves out to the Richmont Group and left their craftsman jobless. Anonimo took over where Panerai left off giving these poor people jobs again to support their families. Anonimo wasn't a trend it had a following due to the fact how they made the case of the watch that was machined from a solid chunk of steel.


----------



## Stelyos

Fatz028 said:


> Let me ask you this. Would you like to own a watch like a Rolex that ever Tom Dick and Harry owns and they are all similar?
> 
> As for Anonimo the historic brand. The company took over Panerai's old workshop in Florence Italy with all the same people who built Panerai's before they sold themselves out to the Richmont Group and left their craftsman jobless.
> 
> Rolex makes over a million watches a year...


#1 you do realize that Panerai has two cases right??? not only do they all look alike they use ETA movements...

#2 yo do realize panerai still exists right??? making anonimo an outright rip-off of Panerai designs.

#3 over 700k... get your facts right.


----------



## MrDagon007

Uniqueness may be overrated. I find absolute engineering depth and quality more important than rarity. There is a certain charm in a rare manufacture Habring2 or Damasko of course, but it does not mean that they are better. But what has all this to do with the Apple watch?


----------



## shnjb

Fatz028 said:


> That's a negative. Let me ask you this. Would you like to own a watch like a Rolex that ever Tom Dick and Harry owns and they are all similar? ( not knocking on Rolex very good brand with a great history) or would you like to have something unique that someone put a lot of time and thought into such as RGM or Habring? Rolex makes over a million watches a year and everyone and their brother owns one. As for Anonimo the historic brand. The company took over Panerai's old workshop in Florence Italy with all the same people who built Panerai's before they sold themselves out to the Richmont Group and left their craftsman jobless. Anonimo took over where Panerai left off giving these poor people jobs again to support their families. Anonimo wasn't a trend it had a following due to the fact how they made the case of the watch that was machined from a solid chunk of steel.


Tldr, but I will take an iPod and an Apple Watch over your anonymou watches


----------



## zetaplus93

Fatz028 said:


> The Iwatch is just a trend and will die off like the iPod.


I think you meant to say that you think the Apple Watch is a fad.

Why do you think so?

iPods didn't really die off, it was replaced by the iPhone. The need for listening to music on the go is as strong as ever. The method by which is is done has just shifted.

Whether the Apple Watch becomes a fad depends on whether it solves a customer's need, and continues to do in the future.

So, given that, why do you think it's a fad?


----------



## scentedlead

Fatz028 said:


> The Iwatch is just a trend and will die off like the iPod.





zetaplus93 said:


> iPods didn't really die off, it was replaced by the iPhone. The need for listening to music on the go is as strong as ever. The method by which is is done has just shifted.


I remember Steve Jobs calling the iPhone "the best iPod we've ever made." If you look at it that way, the iPod is actually still going stronger than ever before. In fact, 13 million strong over the past few days with the opening sales weekend of the iPhone 6S.



MrDagon007 said:


> Of course, there are nice affordables, I am happy to have some in my collection, yet by and large you don't see these in the malls. My point was that the AW, and certainly so in the more expensive stainless steel variant, feels quite premium in its design and general finish. Plus the innovative straps. Traditionalists may decry it, but I think that it is nicer made than the lion share of affordable quartz watches you can find in malls, these seem a bit... tired nowadays, yet a mechanical watch can survive in its own universe.


True dat, you'd never find a Timex IQ or Seiko 5 in an american mall-malls are for sub $50 Timex or Seiko quartz. Of all the watches I've seen at my local mall, the AW is the most compelling in a sea of sub $1,000 quartz. And this is important because for the average person, what's sold at the mall (or drugstore) is what they know about watches.



MrDagon007 said:


> Uniqueness may be overrated. I find absolute engineering depth and quality more important than rarity. There is a certain charm in a rare manufacture Habring2 or Damasko of course, but it does not mean that they are better. But what has all this to do with the Apple watch?


Well, the holy grail is engineering depth and quality and rarity all in one-this is the promise of a high-end, hand-assembled mechanical watch. What does an affordable mechanical watch offer? I admit I love the sweeping seconds hand and the balance wheel is mesmerizing. But, at the end of the day, I just want something on my wrist that gives me information with a modicum of quality. (And by modicum, I mean Apple; I wouldn't want to buy a smartwatch with a lesser finish than what Apple puts out.)

What does this have to do with the AW? Good question. Mechanical watches and smartwatches promise very different things to their users. If people expect a set of gears v. a computer to do and deliver the same things . . . then whatev.


----------



## oak1971

Still can't get around the battery life issues. Maybe Apple should team up with citizen for an Eco- Drive.


----------



## oak1971

The reason solar, spring, Kinetic, auto and battery powered watches can exist at all is they require very little power and not much reserve.

I watch can't get around that. The Tech does not exist.


----------



## shnjb

oak1971 said:


> The reason solar, spring, Kinetic, auto and battery powered watches can exist at all is they require very little power and not much reserve.
> 
> I watch can't get around that. The Tech does not exist.


What is I watch?


----------



## Fer Guzman

oak1971 said:


> The reason solar, spring, Kinetic, auto and battery powered watches can exist at all is they require very little power and not much reserve.
> 
> I watch can't get around that. The Tech does not exist.


True, but they also have very limited functionality to the Apple Watch.


----------



## oak1971

Whatever they're calling it. I don't care enough to get it right. 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971

Fer Guzman said:


> True, but they also have very limited functionality to the Apple Watch.


Which limits it's usefulness, and ultimately, appeal.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## MrDagon007

oak1971 said:


> Which limits it's usefulness, and ultimately, appeal.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


It is a v1. Remember that they hired a guy who made a phd out of a sensor that can measure blood sugar. And other people working on non invasive sensors. You can imagine more sensors being added to future versions which could be very good from a health monitoring point of view. Health will be the killer app for this device, more so than notifications, since everyone wants to be healthy.


----------



## oak1971

I never said never.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fer Guzman

oak1971 said:


> Which limits it's usefulness, and ultimately, appeal.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


I don't agree, having to charge it every 1-2 days doesn't limit it at all since your going to charge it when your charging your phone. I've never had a day where I've run out of battery.


----------



## oak1971

If it's selling so well, how come Apple is so reluctant to post sales#s?

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971

Full disclosure. I own a MacBook pro and android devices. Not a fan boy. 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

oak1971 said:


> If it's selling so well, how come Apple is so reluctant to post sales#s?


Dunno. I don't try to read minds.

If you're willing to take circumstantial evidence, their "Other" product category, which includes the AW, Apple TV, iPods, and other odds and ends, was up nearly a billion dollars during the Apr-Jun quarter.


----------



## shnjb

oak1971 said:


> If it's selling so well, how come Apple is so reluctant to post sales#s?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


For a company that sells 13 million $800+ phones on one weekend, I think watches will account for very little, whether they sell 3 million (the lAst number estimated) or 6 million.


----------



## oak1971

As long as they hide the numbers, they can't claim it a smashing success or count on it for a balance sheet item to the shareholders. 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971

It's nothing more than a loss leading technology demonstrator to draw traffic to the store. 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fer Guzman

oak1971 said:


> If it's selling so well, how come Apple is so reluctant to post sales#s?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


Who said its selling that well?


----------



## BarracksSi

We could wait another couple weeks for Apple's next quarterly earnings call and see if they break out the AW's sales numbers. Or, we could infer sales based on year-over-year growth of the AW's product category.

I think it's funny how all the b*tching about sales shuts up every three months. I also think it's funny that what could already be a billion-dollar product line gets called a "failure". "Oh, they only sold three million of them..." Jiminy Christmas, what would I give to sell three million of _anything_.


----------



## scentedlead

oak1971 said:


> As long as they hide the numbers, they can't claim it a smashing success or count on it for a balance sheet item to the shareholders.


In 2007, the iPhone was considered a toy fad that wold go nowhere with sales. Once Apple released the numbers and competitors saw the millions sold, that's when they realized the potential for the market and jumped on board with their own smartphones. There is historical precedent for why Apple would want to hide the numbers or downplay high sales numbers while the smartwatch market is still in its infancy.



oak1971 said:


> It's nothing more than a loss leading technology demonstrator to draw traffic to the store.


Of U.S. retailers, Apple stores generate more sales per square foot than any other retailer and this Fortune.com article is from March before the AW went on sale. I highly doubt Apple needs a loss leader to generate foot traffic.



BarracksSi said:


> I think it's funny how all the b*tching about sales shuts up every three months. I also think it's funny that what could already be a billion-dollar product line gets called a "failure". "Oh, they only sold three million of them..." Jiminy Christmas, what would I give to sell three million of _anything_.


It's hilarious how Apple is a failure because it sells _only_ millions to _hordes_ of loyal of fanboys and fangirls. "Apple's reality distortion field has brainwashed millions into loyally buying their products-what a failure of a company." Haterz, ur jus jellus. 'Cause what company wouldn't want that level of customer loyalty and the sales that come it?


----------



## Alden

We're an Apple family here at the Alden house. 

Mrs. Alden and I have Iphones, the little Alden kid has an Ipad, and another one one the way, but "Watch Out Switzerland"? Really?

You are comparing Apples to Alpine watchmaking...


----------



## whoadude

Alden said:


> We're an Apple family here at the Alden house.
> 
> Mrs. Alden and I have Iphones, the little Alden kid has an Ipad, and another one one the way, but "Watch Out Switzerland"? Really?
> 
> You are comparing Apples to Alpine watchmaking...


^this


----------



## oak1971

Like I said before, which nobody is paying attention to, I own a MacBook pro and am happy with it. My profession involves looking for the dark cloud, and I apply it here. I get paid to find faults. There are many things I dislike about android devices too. I own a couple of those as well. Anytime you try to minturize a computer, which is what these really are, you face challenges and make compromises. It is inevitable.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> We could wait another couple weeks for Apple's next quarterly earnings call and see if they break out the AW's sales numbers. Or, we could infer sales based on year-over-year growth of the AW's product category.


My guess is that we'll need to wait another year or two. With the iPhone's selling so well, no need to release watch sales numbers that can tip off competitors.


----------



## oak1971

I won't buy a android watch either for many of the same reasons. The technology needs to mature before I will open my wallet. 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

oak1971 said:


> Like I said before, which nobody is paying attention to, I own a MacBook pro and am happy with it. My profession involves looking for the dark cloud, and I apply it here. I get paid to find faults. There are many things I dislike about android devices too. I own a couple of those as well. Anytime you try to minturize a computer, which is what these really are, you face challenges and make compromises. It is inevitable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


You're looking at it from the perspective of someone who wears watches. There're more non-watch-wearers who are better target customers for the AW. See the Wristly surveys for more details.

For example, 1-day battery life is acceptable to the youngsters of today who charge their iPhones daily. I don't hear battery life being a huge issues for the AW wearers I've come across. It has been an issue for more active wearers whore exercising for more than 2-3 hours a day (using the exercise app). But even for these people, as long as it lasts until end of day, no issues.


----------



## oak1971

If this is the wave of the future, feel free to castigate the unbelievers later. Until we arrive there, I will remain a skeptic. Anything could derail the wearable tech sector, Economic downturns chief among them.


----------



## oak1971

"The 97% satisfaction rating should be taken with a grain of salt, given the inherent pro-Apple bias in the self-selected sample."

Sample size and composition is everything in stats. Small samples or selective data will skew the curve and distribution of data along the curve .


----------



## BarracksSi

oak1971 said:


> The technology needs to mature before I will open my wallet.


In which ways does it need to improve?


----------



## Alden

oak1971 said:


> Like I said before, which nobody is paying attention to, I own a MacBook pro and am happy with it. My profession involves looking for the dark cloud, and I apply it here. I get paid to find faults. There are many things I dislike about android devices too. I own a couple of those as well. Anytime you try to minturize a computer, which is what these really are, you face challenges and make compromises. It is inevitable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


Oak! How are you man! You're Oak1971 from WI, right?


----------



## xevious

To be fair, only sales will be the true indication of usefulness to the general public. Certainly there was a major spike when the Apple watch came out. If it is sustained, then it means more people are seeing them first hand and liking them enough to buy one. Apple is known for making very well designed devices. Steve Jobs would ride his product teams hard to make sure they do things "right". He had the sensibility to know what is inherently appealing and strive for it.

In a year, I think we'll have a much better indication. Does the watch hold up well to daily use? Are people getting tired of remembering to charge it every day or so, another device plugged in along side the phone? Or is it routine and easy? Maybe the next version will be able to go a full 7 days. Maybe the UI will be refined to shed the kinks and add what is missing.

Personally, I don't like the design. I'd rather the watch sit flatter. And I'd like to see it with a casing more reminiscent of luxury watches. Newer technology will enable that. We'll see down the road...


----------



## oak1971

Like many new releases, it pays to hold off for the 2nd gen.


----------



## oak1971

Alden said:


> Oak! How are you man! You're Oak1971 from WI, right?


yep. still alive.


----------



## Watch Box

People become angry, defensive and argumentative when they are not 100% sure of their choices and beliefs. 
As a result they desperately need others to agree with their opinions (because deep down they themselves aren't secure enough with them) - they then become angry and extremistic (just made up the word).

It happens with sports, religion, politics.

Apple is becoming a religion. SO well marketed and promises happiness, you WANT to believe it, but requires so much sacrifice off you (in this case financial and functional).
Hence you buy into it but deep down you're filled with doubt. When others challenge you and bring your doubts to surface you can't handle it and become aggressive and illogical.

The same goes for anything else that gives people the illusion of belonging.

If you are so sure of your choice with apple watch, what's your need in arguing?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


----------



## MrDagon007

Watch Box said:


> If you are so sure of your choice with apple watch, what's your need in arguing?


Similarly why the need of some to pester those who like it?


----------



## zetaplus93

Watch Box said:


> People become angry, defensive and argumentative when they are not 100% sure of their choices and beliefs.
> As a result they desperately need others to agree with their opinions (because deep down they themselves aren't secure enough with them) - they then become angry and extremistic (just made up the word).
> 
> It happens with sports, religion, politics.
> 
> Apple is becoming a religion. SO well marketed and promises happiness, you WANT to believe it, but requires so much sacrifice off you (in this case financial and functional).
> Hence you buy into it but deep down you're filled with doubt. When others challenge you and bring your doubts to surface you can't handle it and become aggressive and illogical.
> 
> The same goes for anything else that gives people the illusion of belonging.


What I've observed is that both sides of arguments on Apple tends to disintegrate down to name calling and trolling. It's rather unfortunate--it's quite an interesting discussion otherwise.



Watch Box said:


> If you are so sure of your choice with apple watch, what's your need in arguing?


Well, I'd say that these are discussions rather than emotional arguments (though that happens often unfortunately). It's quite intriguing to talk about a totally new type of device and how it fits into our day-to-day lives.


----------



## TradeKraft

oak1971 said:


> Like I said before, which nobody is paying attention to, I own a MacBook pro and am happy with it. My profession involves looking for the dark cloud, and I apply it here. I get paid to find faults. There are many things I dislike about android devices too. I own a couple of those as well. Anytime you try to minturize a computer, which is what these really are, you face challenges and make compromises. It is inevitable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


I'm glad I'm not the only professional fault finder on here.


----------



## Ticonderoga

zetaplus93 said:


> What I've observed is that both sides of arguments on Apple tends to disintegrate down to name calling and trolling. It's rather unfortunate--it's quite an interesting discussion otherwise.


+1


----------



## oak1971

Why is it always "pick a side"? The only side that matters is the customer and meeting their requirements. They haven't met mine just yet.


----------



## jbg7474

A great indicator of whether people are happy with something or not is the selling price on used and gray markets. So far, I don't see any Apple Watches going for less than retail on gray markets. And the used market is still pretty high. Just now I'm starting to see a few used Apple watches going for less than retail, but not a whole lot less. These things are still in demand.


----------



## zetaplus93

oak1971 said:


> Why is it always "pick a side"? The only side that matters is the customer and meeting their requirements. They haven't met mine just yet.


Agreed. Though I do think this is a new type of product, so your requirements may change after you use it because one figures out what is useful and not useful. For example, in my view, battery that lasts one day is sufficient for normal use for most people.

The AW has met my expectations for V1. I like where they're going, so looking forward to new releases.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971

I'm thinking v2 will become iconic. 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

oak1971 said:


> I'm thinking v2 will become iconic.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


What will be the difference in V2 (hardware/software features, distribution, time on market, etc) that makes you think it'd be iconic?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MrDagon007

zetaplus93 said:


> What will be the difference in V2 (hardware/software features, distribution, time on market, etc) that makes you think it'd be iconic?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In my opinion, in Apple's history their V1 of a new product shows interesting promise and with their v2 they really go to the next level.
I posted previously that they hired people who make a career out of noninvasive health related sensors like a guy who made a phd out of creating a blood sugar sensor. Adding more health related sensors will in my opinion be the "killer app" for this product family as everyone wants to be and stay healthy.

Fyi i don't have an apple watch...yet, exactly like I waited for the ipad v2, i expect interesting progress in v2 of the watch.


----------



## shnjb

MrDagon007 said:


> In my opinion, in Apple's history their V1 of a new product shows interesting promise and with their v2 they really go to the next level.
> I posted previously that they hired people who make a career out of noninvasive health related sensors like a guy who made a phd out of creating a blood sugar sensor. Adding more health related sensors will in my opinion be the "killer app" for this product family as everyone wants to be and stay healthy.
> 
> Fyi i don't have an apple watch...yet, exactly like I waited for the ipad v2, i expect interesting progress in v2 of the watch.


Which paper was that?
Noninvasive blood glucose monitoring through spectroscopy sounds rather impossible.


----------



## MrDagon007

I had read an article that they bought a company that had developed such a sensor, but that it was not yet ready at product level, sorry i couldn t immediately find it back

But googling found a few more pointers such as this:
http://www.networkworld.com/article...ing-spree-of-biosensor-experts-continues.html
People with expertise in measuring various items in a non invase way.

Also this meeting minutes report of a meeting with the FDA specifically mentions a glucose sensor (though not explicitely non invasive):
http://appletoolbox.com/2014/06/app...sible-new-mobile-products-sensors-glucometer/

I did read elsewhere that inconsistent results forced apple to drop several sensor from the current applewatch, but I think it is a reasonable assumption that they keep on working on it

Anyway, regulation permitting, expanded health monitoring could be the true killer app for the device.


----------



## zetaplus93

MrDagon007 said:


> Anyway, regulation permitting, expanded health monitoring could be the true killer app for the device.


Nice points, and agreed that health monitoring would be an attractive proposition to get more people on board. It's truly something that phones cannot do.

For myself, I hope more capabilities around wireless authentication/interaction with physical objects are developed long term. Apple Pay is a good start (payments). What about wireless entry/monitoring (to office, home, school, car, laptop, etc)? Problem is of course getting other physical devices onboard and using the same standard (somewhat like what Apple Pay is facing at the moment). Perhaps the proliferation of IoT will help in this regard.


----------



## BarracksSi

zetaplus93 said:


> For myself, I hope more capabilities around wireless authentication/interaction with physical objects are developed long term. Apple Pay is a good start (payments). What about wireless entry/monitoring (to office, home, school, car, laptop, etc)? Problem is of course getting other physical devices onboard and using the same standard (somewhat like what Apple Pay is facing at the moment). Perhaps the proliferation of IoT will help in this regard.


Right -- I would like being able to hold my AW up to the security scanner at work instead of pulling my ID badge out of my pocket.

The drawback, though, is that I could end up with everything on one device -- wallet, house keys, car keys, ID -- and I'd be SOL if I lost that one device. But, on the other hand, one member (can't remember if it was on WUS or another forum) remarked that the AW is a good _backup_ to the iPhone, as when you're traveling and need your airline boarding pass, you could use your AW even if your phone has run out of battery.


----------



## oak1971

Noninvasive Blood Glucose Monitoring


----------



## shnjb

oak1971 said:


> Noninvasive Blood Glucose Monitoring


I can't read the PDF because it requires subscription to the journal but that seems like a review article which just talks about "promising" technologies.
I don't think we are anywhere near application.


----------



## MrDagon007

Interesting that it is an article from 1996, almost 20 years ago. So i cannot judge how far this technology has now come from a concept to a product. I would bet that apple has people working on it. This, and other sensors. Truly a killer app. Then forum questions will evolve towards "which mechanical watch should i wear next to my smart health watch".

Also love the idea of large scale authentication.


----------



## Fer Guzman

Dexcom makes a sensor that doesn't require blood for glucose levels. It is expensive, but I feel that if Apple can nail having something similar on the wrist....WOW.

Dexcom G5 Mobile CGM System | Glucose on your phone | Dexcom


----------



## scentedlead

Dexcom G4® PLATINUM System with Share™ Tutorial: Introduction



> One important thing to note: Your blood glucose meter and [Dexcom] measure glucose from two different types of body fluids-blood and interstitial fluid. Therefore readings from your blood glucose meter and [Dexcom] may not match; this is normal. I recommend to my patients that they focus on the *trend informtion* from their [Dexcom], *not* the glucose value.
> 
> It's important to remember that your [Dexcom] is a supplement to-not a replacement for-your traditional blood glucose meter.
> 
> All of your diabetes treatment decisions, like how much insulin to take, if you need to treat a low glucose value with fast-acting carbohydrate, etc., need to be based on blood glucose values from your blood glucose meter.


Granted the product's website's aim is to sell the product. But apparently, even if accuracy is iffy, the fact that the monitoring is continuous and therefore can give you trends the way sporadic fingerstick tests cannot, is where the value lies.

In a way, it's kind of like the heart rate monitoring. Even if the more battery-conserving method is less accurate, the fact that because it saves battery it can then take the heart rate more often to give long-term trends is valuable itself, and that it's worth giving up some accuracy for.

Editing to add: I'd like to see a teardown of the Dexcom, if only to see how much more miniaturization has to happen before it can fit into a 38 - 42 mm watch.


----------



## rationaltime

Fer Guzman said:


> Dexcom makes a sensor that doesn't require blood for glucose levels. It is expensive, but I feel that if Apple can nail having something similar on the wrist....WOW.
> 
> Dexcom G5 Mobile CGM System | Glucose on your phone | Dexcom





> Dexcom G5 Mobile CGM consists of 3 parts:
> 1 - Small Sensor that measures glucose levels just underneath the skin.
> 2 - Transmitter that is fastened on top of the sensor and sends data wirelessly to your compatible smart device or your receiver.
> 3 - A Display Device which can be a compatible smart device with the Dexcom G5 Mobile app OR the Dexcom G5 Mobile Receiver.
> 
> *The Dexcom G5 Mobile CGM System does not replace a blood glucose meter. Always use the values from your blood glucose meter for treatment decisions.


I guess that technology is only available when prescribed. I hope you
don't wind up with that condition. I would not be surprised if Dexcom
comes up with an app to display the results on an Apple watch or
other smart watch.

Edit:


> Do I need a prescription to obtain Dexcom G5 Mobile?
> 
> Yes, the Dexcom G5 Mobile system requires a prescription from your health care provider.





> Can I view my Dexcom G5 Mobile CGM data on an Apple Watch?
> 
> No, Dexcom G5 Mobile users will not be able to see their data on the Apple Watch. Followers, using the Dexcom Follow app, will able to use the Apple Watch to view the Sharer's CGM data.


note: CGM = continuous glucose monitor

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## scentedlead

Dexcom FAQ: Dexcom G5 Mobile CGM System



> Do I need a prescription to obtain Dexcom G5 Mobile?
> 
> Yes, the Dexcom G5 Mobile system requires a prescription from your health care provider.





> Can I view my Dexcom G5 Mobile CGM data on an Apple Watch?
> 
> No, Dexcom G5 Mobile users will not be able to see their data on the Apple Watch. Followers, using the Dexcom Follow app, will able to use the Apple Watch to view the Sharer's CGM data.


Prescription only? Well that's a bummer. I'd love to know exactly why it's prescription only.

And the user can't get their data onto their AW, but followers can? Maybe there's a round-about way where you're your own follower? But you shouldn't have to do that just to get your own data onto your own device.


----------



## MrDagon007

scentedlead said:


> Prescription only? Well that's a bummer. I'd love to know exactly why it's prescription only.


Possibly because there is regulation attached to medical measurement devices like this one.
In fact Apple has 2 challenges to add multiple extra sensors: a technical one - which I expect is mainly a matter of time for it to work well enough to be a product; and also a regulation one - which may be even more of a delaying/restrictive factor.


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> Dexcom FAQ: Dexcom G5 Mobile CGM System
> 
> Prescription only? Well that's a bummer. I'd love to know exactly why it's prescription only.


Maybe because the sensor is embedded in the skin? At least that's how I read the description.


----------



## rationaltime

scentedlead said:


> Prescription only? Well that's a bummer. I'd love to know exactly why it's prescription only.


I have no expertise in this area, but I see two reasons for
restricting availability. One, the sensor penetrates the skin.
Two, though Dexcom published disclaimers, this therapeutic device
is clearly marketed to diabetics for monitoring a serious disease. 
Therapeutic devices are regulated in most countries for safety
and efficacy.

I think you could argue that sensors used by healthy people not
treating a disease should not be regulated as therapeutic devices.
However, this Dexcom product does not appear to be that kind of 
device.

I also guess the price would limit the market to those with a medical
need.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## oak1971

BarracksSi said:


> Maybe because the sensor is embedded in the skin? At least that's how I read the description.


Not very noninvasive.


----------



## oak1971

And you can now get your very own Apple watch on f29 right now, all that geeked out goodness at a discount. Then you can go with all your apple geek friends to the latest Steve Jobs movie and see what a ..... he was, all the while complaining that it's so unfair. Good times.


----------



## scentedlead

oak1971 said:


> Not very noninvasive.


Yes and no. The sensor is a very thin wire applied near the surface of the skin and if applied right it shouldn't draw blood, unlike a fingerprick test which does require blood drawn, even if only a drop or two. It's also definitely a lot less invasive than a needle into the abdomen.



oak1971 said:


> And you can now get your very own Apple watch on f29 right now, all that geeked out goodness at a discount. Then you can go with all your apple geek friends to the latest Steve Jobs movie and see what a ..... he was, all the while complaining that it's so unfair. Good times.


?


----------



## shnjb

oak1971 said:


> And you can now get your very own Apple watch on f29 right now, all that geeked out goodness at a discount. Then you can go with all your apple geek friends to the latest Steve Jobs movie and see what a ..... he was, all the while complaining that it's so unfair. Good times.


If we do that, can you promise that you will also crawl back to your affordable section maybe?


----------



## oak1971

And deprive you of the honor of my presence? I think not. 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## shnjb

oak1971 said:


> And deprive you of the honor of my presence? I think not.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


Then maybe save money for v2 and come back?


----------



## oak1971

Won't see v2 till Apple recoups the cash it spent on v1.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## shnjb

oak1971 said:


> Won't see v2 till Apple recoups the cash it spent on v1.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


So you're Apple's CFO?
Sounds like small business logic, not what the largest market cap company in the world would do.


----------



## zetaplus93

We were making some progress toward having a nice discussion...

Look, it's fine to criticize the product and company. Just try to resist going down the widespread thoughtless memes, and instead think of good, logical arguments that leads to real discussions rather than pointless bickering. 

Oak, you were saying hat you thought V2 would be iconic. Why so?


----------



## oak1971

Even large corporations, for whom I've worked for some two decades, need to watch the bottom line. 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971

Zeta, Apples past history shows that the second Gen devices usually blow people away. Unless Job's death has changed things. 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fer Guzman

The glucose sensor goes over the skin so it isn't invasive like a needle. One of their devices is almost 1k, I'm not sure how much this newer one is but it's probably expensive as well.



oak1971 said:


> Won't see v2 till Apple recoups the cash it spent on v1.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


Even if they only sold a couple million, that's more than a billion in revenue and and it's supposedly the product with highest margins so I don't think they'll have a problem recouping the money.


----------



## MrDagon007

I wouldn't feel the puns of haterz saying that I fail when selling millions of anything, even paper clips so to speak.


----------



## oak1971

If you sell 10 million and lose 1$ on each sale, it's not a good thing. I have seen it before in other supposedly successful companies. 

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971

For example, my company sells over 6 million units per year, but warranty costs can easily put them in the red. Not to mention liability costs. Everything must be done right at all times or you will lose money.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fer Guzman

^both of your previous statements are irrelevant to the apple watch since 1) we don't know how much they loose and at what point they recoup their investment; 2) we don't know how apple performs in this product segment compared to your company. What we do know is that they probably sold a couple of million units; the average cost is probably 400-550; and it's the product they sell with the highest margins. They probably sold at least 1 billion+ in revenue already. Is it iPhone hit? Of course not. Is it making them money or have they turned a profit form initial investment? I have no idea.


----------



## shnjb

Companies with a product lineup as diverse as Apple can make money from some products while losing money on others.Did Siri make money for Apple? Not directly.

Also we are talking about Apple here, not Amazon; they are one of the most profitable companies in this business and the Apple Watch costs between $350 to $20000.
Although they may have spent a lot of money on developing the product initially, those costs do not need to be recouped this year, because Apple has hundreds of billions of dollars and is not like your company at all.

Your small business accounting logic is completely irrelevant.


----------



## pronstar

Apple is throwing cubic dollars at their "car if the future". Huge, stinking piles of cash. 

The loose change from the ashtray of a single Apple prototype car could fund the entire development of their V2 watch LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## timeexistsjustonyourwrist

The smartwatch seems like a watch you would wear everyday or not at all. You either want the features and can't live without them or don't need it. for me, I don't think the technology is there yet. The day that they can make them solar and without needing to be tied to a cell phone might be the day I would consider getting one. For me, I don't really need one more thing to remember to charge over night.


----------



## MrDagon007

I think it would be interesting to think about extra sensors that would be useful to add in future versions of the apple watch. Depending on regulation these could be true measurement devices or simply indicating a trend.

I am thinking about:
-blood glucose as we already discussed. If this works reliably it could be a killer app

- blood oxygen which i think can be measured non invasively

- blood pressure though i have no idea if this can be done non invasively

- sleep quality

- there are already watches that measure your swimming. With accelerometers this should be possible in the apple watch

- having a gps chip inside the watch instead of relying on the phone. This could also be used to to much more precisely measure elevation than with barometric pressure

- a barometer

Yes, all those things require energy. But i bet that in the Apple labs they are experimenting with these.

What kind of useful sensors have I missed?


----------



## watchVT

I bought one and like it for the alarm feature and exercising. No longer use it at work or when going out however.


----------



## oak1971

pronstar said:


> Apple is throwing cubic dollars at their "car if the future". Huge, stinking piles of cash.
> 
> The loose change from the ashtray of a single Apple prototype car could fund the entire development of their V2 watch LOL
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They have cash laying about and they need to put it to work. Not sure why they want into the car business though. Odd that.


----------



## ZIPPER79

Valmak,
I think you're typical of born yesterdays techies...And I'm laughing out loud at you.....If you're not properly prepared this could happen to you. You're someplace and theres a blackout, you're stuck in a stalled subway car, you're in a elevator during that blackout, you're in jail, or where ever and theres no way to charge your watches battery.

A lot of us, on the other hand, have Swiss, Japanese, Chinese, or Russian MECHANICAL watches that either hand winds or self winds.

I understand your enthusiasm for the Apple watch but, well you know..... 



valmak said:


> I know lots of people get riled up about this but it's the truth. Switzerland is in trouble. Lots of watch companies are going to fold. I tried the demo of the Apple watch today and it's beautiful and can do so much (and only the Apple apps were installed so it can do much much more). Companies like Rolex, PP and Omega and a few others will stay afloat of course but probably over the next 10 years we will see lots of companies die out (I'm guessing about half or more). Sales of the main brands will decrease by a lot and there will be plenty of layoffs. It's just too much watch for ~$600 for any of these other brands to compete with it. I think eventually it will replace the smartphone at some level too. You can deny it all you want but it's going to happen. I saw the future today. Maybe in 10 years when the next wearable (maybe smart glasses?) come along then regular old mechanical watches will make a comeback. So companies are probably better off to take a loss for a while and stay in business.


----------



## Fer Guzman

ZIPPER79 said:


> Valmak,
> I think you're typical of born yesterdays techies...And I'm laughing out loud at you.....If you're not properly prepared this could happen to you. You're someplace and theres a blackout, you're stuck in a stalled subway car, you're in a elevator during that blackout, you're in jail, or where ever and theres no way to charge your watches battery.
> 
> A lot of us, on the other hand, have Swiss, Japanese, Chinese, or Russian MECHANICAL watches that either hand winds or self winds.
> 
> I understand your enthusiasm for the Apple watch but, well you know.....


If your stuck in a subway car or in an elevator and your at 10% battery, you will have time only for about 2-3 days in reserve mode and the time will be more accurate than a mechanical watch. If by then you haven't been rescued the time is the least of your concern.

If your in jail? They don't let you wear watches in jail.

I laughed out loud at your ridiculous hypotheticals because it makes sense to say we shouldn't wear technologically more advanced watches because there may be a blackout impeding us from charging our watches. Keep in mind this will have to be a multi day affair since the AW lasts so long. If this blackout that last for days, charging our watches will not be a priority. I've been wearing my watch 6 hours today, I'm at 91% battery. I think I'll be fine if I get stuck in an elevator.


----------



## zetaplus93

ZIPPER79 said:


> , I think you're typical of born yesterdays techies...
> ...
> A lot of us, on the other hand, have Swiss, Japanese, Chinese, or Russian MECHANICAL watches that either hand winds or self winds.




What do born today techies say?

If there's a blackout or if you're in jail, you have a lot more things to worry about than a silly watch.


----------



## shnjb

zetaplus93 said:


> What do born today techies say?
> 
> If there's a blackout or if you're in jail, you have a lot more things to worry about than a silly watch.


Oh no! Apocalyptic nuclear war happened and I'm in jail!
Good thing I brought my mechanical watch to tell time! Whew! Problems solved.


----------



## utzelu

This is kind of silly coming from a grownup  How can a mechanical watch help in any of these situations?

In reality, the fact is that AW does impact the sub $1000 watch industry. And I am telling this since I did a lot of thinking whether to buy a Steinhart auto or an AW. Though I would love to have them both, it is not feasible for me. In the end I chose the AW. Even as a simple watch, I would be happy just to have more watch faces and straps to change according to the situation and mood. The AW is elegant enough to wear it in most occasions. Should be cheaper than buying that many mechanical watches.



ZIPPER79 said:


> Valmak,
> I think you're typical of born yesterdays techies...And I'm laughing out loud at you.....If you're not properly prepared this could happen to you. You're someplace and theres a blackout, you're stuck in a stalled subway car, you're in a elevator during that blackout, you're in jail, or where ever and theres no way to charge your watches battery.
> 
> A lot of us, on the other hand, have Swiss, Japanese, Chinese, or Russian MECHANICAL watches that either hand winds or self winds.
> 
> I understand your enthusiasm for the Apple watch but, well you know.....


----------



## leograye

Like to see a proper 10-20bar WP version of Apples Watch


----------



## MrDagon007

I was the last few days on a big international financial conference. Audience level in their organisations is typically CxO or at least MD. I saw many Rolexes and also equally many AWs or sometimes other smartwatches.
And in fact, the use case during a conference is fantastic. Not having an AW (yet) I noticed I missed a few instant messages because with all the noise I didn t hear it or notice my phone vibrating at a number of moments.


----------



## fredrick

Smart watches have a long way to go before dumb watches and cell phones will be threatened by their presence. My cell phone can do far more than a smart watch and also has a large display. My watches are self powered, more durable, and more stylish than current smart watches. I doubt that I will be jumping on the smart watch band wagon any time soon.


----------



## MrDagon007

All ok, I just wanted to point out an excellent use case. 
I will probably buy a pair (for my wife and me) for xmas or for valentine day


----------



## Fatz028

OH boy!! Let the bashing begin.


----------



## mi6_

valmak said:


> I know lots of people get riled up about this but it's the truth. Switzerland is in trouble. Lots of watch companies are going to fold. I tried the demo of the Apple watch today and it's beautiful and can do so much (and only the Apple apps were installed so it can do much much more). Companies like Rolex, PP and Omega and a few others will stay afloat of course but probably over the next 10 years we will see lots of companies die out (I'm guessing about half or more). Sales of the main brands will decrease by a lot and there will be plenty of layoffs. It's just too much watch for ~$600 for any of these other brands to compete with it. I think eventually it will replace the smartphone at some level too. You can deny it all you want but it's going to happen. I saw the future today. Maybe in 10 years when the next wearable (maybe smart glasses?) come along then regular old mechanical watches will make a comeback. So companies are probably better off to take a loss for a while and stay in business.


I very much doubt this. I'm sure the same was said about automatic watch movements when Seiko started selling the first Quartz watch. Automatic movements are still alive and well. I don't see the Apple Watch as being a lasting product. It's selling well because it's a new fad.


----------



## powerband

MrDagon007 said:


> I was the last few days on a big international financial conference. Audience level in their organisations is typically CxO or at least MD. I saw many Rolexes and also equally many AWs or sometimes other smartwatches.
> And in fact, the use case during a conference is fantastic. Not having an AW (yet) I noticed I missed a few instant messages because with all the noise I didn t hear it or notice my phone vibrating at a number of moments.


I've had my AW for a week so far, and it has saved me from dozens of potentially missed text and messages that were important. Three was time-sensitive scheduling issues that prevented a loss of revenue. Did not think that the watch could pay for itself in a week. For my circumstances, the AW is very useful.

Sent from my slingshot using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971

leograye said:


> Like to see a proper 10-20bar WP version of Apples Watch


Does flushing one down the toilet count?


----------



## oak1971

Google glass was more useful and never got to market.


----------



## MrDagon007

powerband said:


> I've had my AW for a week so far, and it has saved me from dozens of potentially missed text and messages that were important. Three was time-sensitive scheduling issues that prevented a loss of revenue. Did not think that the watch could pay for itself in a week. For my circumstances, the AW is very useful.
> 
> Sent from my slingshot using Tapatalk


Exactly. I thought that the main killer app would be health (once more sensors are added in upcoming evolutions), or possibly expanded universal authentication, but wearing it for message intercept during my conference would have been very useful as well.


----------



## BarracksSi

MrDagon007 said:


> Exactly. I thought that the main killer app would be health (once more sensors are added in upcoming evolutions), or possibly expanded universal authentication, but wearing it for message intercept during my conference would have been very useful as well.


I might _not_ wear my AW during a seminar next week, because I'm not needed at all at my workplace and I don't want any interruptions. I'll try it the first day and see what happens.


----------



## shnjb

oak1971 said:


> Google glass was more useful and never got to market.


Still bitter about not being able to afford the Apple watch sport?


----------



## BarracksSi

shnjb said:


> Still bitter about not being able to afford the Apple watch sport?


I think he's still bitter about the term, "Glasshole."


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> I think he's still bitter about the term, "Glasshole."


But Google Glass wearers are a--holes.

*shrugs* If I owned a pair, I'd be more bitter that half the restaurants in my city have outright banned them.

I think more places ban cell phones (especially with cameras) than ban smartwatches.


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> But Google Glass wearers are a--holes.
> 
> *shrugs* If I owned a pair, I'd be more bitter that half the restaurants in my city have outright banned them.
> 
> *I think more places ban cell phones (especially with cameras) than ban smartwatches.*


Likely true -- I've got an uncle who uses an old flip phone because his workplace won't let him bring in a camera of any kind. It's a narrow part of the market, but I'd be fine with the AW never having a camera if I end up in the same line of work.

Although, I've got a cousin here whose workplace won't allow electronics of any kind, not even a Fitbit band. Security is super-tight at some of these agencies.


----------



## oak1971

shnjb said:


> Still bitter about not being able to afford the Apple watch sport?


I spent far more on my Omega's. Not a matter of money. Typed on my Apple macbook pro.


----------



## valmak

Swiss watch exports had their biggest quarterly decline since 2009, as the industry struggles with the strong franc and concern that competition from Apple Inc.'s smartwatch may be denting demand for low-end timepieces.
Source: Swiss Watch Exports Have Biggest Quarterly Decline Since 2009 - SWI swissinfo.ch

I started this thread more than 6 months ago and now it looks like my prediction was correct. Personally I love mechanicals and am actually looking at purchasing one right now. But you people need to realize that 99% of the population is not like you and me.


----------



## fastfras

Hmmm, not sure the AW has anything to do with the decline, for me the 30% franc increase combined with the declining value of the CAD has put an intended purchase of a new Rolex on hold. Still buying watches but of the preowned variety. When oil goes up, I'll purchase a new mechanical.


----------



## BarracksSi

fastfras said:


> Hmmm, not sure the AW has anything to do with the decline, for me the 30% franc increase combined with the declining value of the CAD has put an intended purchase of a new Rolex on hold. Still buying watches but of the preowned variety. *When oil goes up,* I'll purchase a new mechanical.


I hadn't thought of this. Probably a good number of oil barons aren't blowing cash on frivolous purchases like watches. If the Chinese still aren't spending like they used to, too, it can't help the Swiss, either.

Anyway, I'd like to see a market-by-market breakdown. If sales are declining where the AW isn't being sold, either (a) those buyers don't care, or (b) those buyers are waiting for the AW to arrive.

[edit]
More detail, but not everything:
https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/swiss-watch-exports-slide-china-105403278.html

Indeed, Asian sales tanked. South Korea, of all places, saw an accelerating decline, from -3.7% in August to -35% (negative thirty-five percent) in September. Not only is the AW getting out there, but I'm sure the new Samsung watches are taking a bite, too.

Apple Insider embellished the story with some reminders of Swiss CEO thoughts:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15...or-september-as-apple-watch-expands-its-reach


> Apart from wrist payments and telling time, Swatch CEO Nick Hayek doesn't expect to compete against Apple Watch in more sophisticated phone calling features, or in introducing a software app platform.
> 
> "We are not a consumer technology company," Hayek stated. "We don't want to produce a reduced, minimized mobile phone on your wrist."
> 
> *In August, Hayek dismissed Apple Watch as being "an interesting toy" and implied that Apple collected "blood pressure and blood sugar values" and stored them on its own servers, revealing either a gross ignorance about his competition or a willingness to knowingly spread false information about rivals.*


----------



## pronstar

People who want fine mechanical art on their wrists, will buy mechanical watches. 

People who want a computer on their wrist, will buy Apple Watches. 

Any similarity ends when you get beyond the fact that both are strapped to your wrist. 

Tablet computers didn't replace books, but the book industry had to change to accommodate. I believe it will be the same for the watch industry. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## utzelu

As the article notes, the drop is in $250-$550 range and this is also the price range of most smartwatches. There seems to be a correlation, but without comparing with sales figures from Apple, Samsung and others, we cannot say for sure.


----------



## BarracksSi

Just an update:



BarracksSi said:


> I might _not_ wear my AW during a seminar next week, because I'm not needed at all at my workplace and I don't want any interruptions. I'll try it the first day and see what happens.


I wore it Monday and switched it to Do Not Disturb halfway through the morning. Same thing for Tuesday, except I had it on DND all day during the seminar. It's a more "traditional" seminar, I guess, in that we're in one room, doing lectures and discussions, and our home offices know to not try to bother us.

Today, I'm not wearing it, because last evening, although I put my AW on the charger, I hadn't reconnected the charger to my laptop (its usual home) after I brought the laptop home. So, it didn't get fully charged. It was still at 35% this morning and would manage fine during the day, but I didn't want to charge it again when I return home tonight. Soooooo, instead of any of my mechanicals, I put on my solar-atomic Citizen because (a) I knew it would be correct, and (b) I didn't want to fuss with setting a watch on my way out the door while letting my wife snooze.


----------



## shnjb

The tablet vs books argument isn't particularly good, because most people, if not all, who have tablets also have books and can use them both simultaneously.

Two watches cannot be reasonably worn simultaneously (except by weirdos like me) and the way Apple Watch or any smart watch intrudes your life is such that it's difficult to not wear them if you find it useful.
Thus the reduced wrist time for other watches is pretty significant.


----------



## scentedlead

I can actually see the comparison between books and watches.

I read a lot and so do a lot of my friends, and some are sticking with hard copies for the old book smell and the meticulously elegant design—nevermind that I have seen some very unreadable print books meant to save paper and nevermind that they can get bulky and heavy. Sounds comparable to mechanical watches and their beauty, nevermind their unreliability with keeping time. But ebooks offer tremendous benefits—change the typeface, change the text size, have your book read out loud to you, look up a word with built-in dictionaries, fit thousands of books in your pocket.

That last one, I think is comparable to having only one wrist on which to wear a watch. If I want to go bagless for a day—or, say, I’ve got an airplane trip and my suitcase is reaching its limit and I need to cut back—an ebook might be my only choice, otherwise that better be one thin book I’m thinking of bringing along. I have a cousin who wants to move to NYC, have you seen how small some of those apartments are? Book collection? You’d have to do some deep soul searching of what physical material goods you want to live with if you wanna live in an apartment that small. For some people, these are the choices they have to make.


----------



## zetaplus93

Yes, but the comparison breaks down soon after.

Watches are very personal items worn on you, so it also serves the purpose of identity to a certain capacity. What you wear says something about you. Books don't do that to the same degree, and it's much less noticeable by others since books are at home and not on you at all times.


----------



## pronstar

BarracksSi said:


> Soooooo, instead of any of my mechanicals, I put on my solar-atomic Citizen because (a) I knew it would be correct, and (b) I didn't want to fuss with setting a watch on my way out the door while letting my wife snooze.


Two words (and a smiley):
Watch Winder 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oak1971

I think we need to wait for the dust to settle for a bit. The asian economy, especially China is in decline and Apple has yet to face any serious competition. The real numbers for AW sales are more closely guarded than the Kremlin.


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> Soooooo, instead of any of my mechanicals, I put on my solar-atomic Citizen because (a) I knew it would be correct, and (b) I didn't want to fuss with setting a watch on my way out the door while letting my wife snooze.





pronstar said:


> Two words (and a smiley):
> Watch Winder


If anything ever illustrated how out of touch mechanical watch users are with watch users:

If you have to spend $50 - $200 on a single watch winder just to keep your watch running-nevermind the time spent keeping them on time-yet solar atomic watches keep perfect time without any other investment on your part . . . Nothing about a mechanical watch is grab 'n' go.

Even a smartwatch is more grab 'n' go. For two hours each day, I let it sit on its charger-which it came with-and once it's charged, I put it on and it's ready to go with the _correct time already._



zetaplus93 said:


> Yes, but the comparison breaks down soon after.
> 
> Watches are very personal items worn on you, so it also serves the purpose of identity to a certain capacity. What you wear says something about you. Books don't do that to the same degree, and it's much less noticeable by others since books are at home and not on you at all times.


True, most people don't use their libraries as status signals. But some do, if you've ever visited the home of someone with a _very_ prominently displayed library, or if you've ever invited over someone who really checked out what you had on your shelves and coffee table. And then there's people like me-thank god for ebooks so I can hide all that from prying eyes, which is a feeling I've _never_ had with my watches. ;-)


----------



## iaymnu

There will always be a market for mechanical watches. It's the phase now with smart watches. Just like dslr cameras, the market for film cameras are high.


----------



## scentedlead

For high end and vintage cameras, yes, there is a market for film cameras. But when was the last time you saw someone buy a point ’n’ shoot film camera? That part of the market went digital over decade ago and that part of the market has been taken over by cell phone cameras in the past half decade.

Fountain pens and watches followed the same path. Sure there are low end fountain pens under $10. But how much of the sub $10 pen market is made of ballpoints? Sure Seiko 5 exists, but how much of the sub $100 mechanical watch is made of quartz?

Quartz pushed mechanical watches out of the sub $100 range. It looks like smartwatches will push out sub $500 watches—quartz being the obvious casualty since so much of this market is quartz. But it’ll be interesting to see how many sub $1000 mechanical watches will be on the market a decade from now. With quartz, mechanical watches left the low end and settled into the mid to high ends. With smartwatches, will mechanical watches settle exclusively into the high end?

Sure there have been fitness watches and fitness wearables in this price range for decades. But fitness and time alone haven’t justified the price or learning curve. However, it seems, add the internet and an easier interface and easier charging while keeping it in this price range, and suddenly you’ve got the next disruption in the watch market.


----------



## Fer Guzman

zetaplus93 said:


> Yes, but the comparison breaks down soon after.
> 
> Watches are very personal items worn on you, so it also serves the purpose of identity to a certain capacity. What you wear says something about you. Books don't do that to the same degree, and it's much less noticeable by others since books are at home and not on you at all times.


To most people a watch says nothing about you.



iaymnu said:


> There will always be a market for mechanical watches. It's the phase now with smart watches. Just like dslr cameras, the market for film cameras are high.


Market for film cameras is not night compared to digital cameras and digital cameras sales keep declining as phone cameras improve.

Quartz Swiss, which make up a lot of watches in the sub 1k segment will be hurt with smart watches. There aren't many Swiss mechanical watches in the sub 1k segment. Higher end mechanical watches probably won't be impacted.


----------



## zetaplus93

Fer Guzman said:


> To most people a watch says nothing about you.


To a certain degree. But it does to you, the wearer. I'd wager that for most people, watches are more personal than books. So the comparison between books and watches only goes so far.


----------



## Mchart

scentedlead said:


> If anything ever illustrated how out of touch mechanical watch users are with watch users:
> 
> If you have to spend $50 - $200 on a single watch winder just to keep your watch running-nevermind the time spent keeping them on time-yet solar atomic watches keep perfect time without any other investment on your part . . . Nothing about a mechanical watch is grab 'n' go.
> 
> Even a smartwatch is more grab 'n' go. For two hours each day, I let it sit on its charger-which it came with-and once it's charged, I put it on and it's ready to go with the _correct time already._
> 
> True, most people don't use their libraries as status signals. But some do, if you've ever visited the home of someone with a _very_ prominently displayed library, or if you've ever invited over someone who really checked out what you had on your shelves and coffee table. And then there's people like me-thank god for ebooks so I can hide all that from prying eyes, which is a feeling I've _never_ had with my watches. ;-)


Uh, I set my seamaster 300m once when I bought it, wear it daily, and take it off for most of the weekend. I never need to re-adjust anything unless I change time zones. I never need to plug it in. It's ready to go and is +1/-1 weekly. I maybe re-adjust it once a month.


----------



## oak1971

Apple Supplier Numbers Suggest Apple Watch Sales Are Below Analyst Expectations - Mac Rumors


----------



## MrDagon007

oak1971 said:


> Apple Supplier Numbers Suggest Apple Watch Sales Are Below Analyst Expectations - Mac Rumors


This is an older article, meanwhile it has become available in several more countries. I also expect it to be often a christmas present.
I see the AWs often in the wild (living in Hong Kong). It may not be a cashcow like the iphones (but then what is) yet I expect them to make a tidy profit, and at the same time they are building an ecosystem.
As I mentioned above I don't have it (yet), i think I will wait for a v2, with I expect more sensors. But it is quite tempting: a price for the base models that is easily affordably for about any wis, and a finish and attention to detail that is better than most mall watches at similar prices.


----------



## oak1971

They released numbers today that once again do not disclose apple watch figures.


----------



## MrDagon007

oak1971 said:


> They released numbers today that once again do not disclose apple watch figures.


And that does not need to mean it sells badly. I believe that rolex doesn t disclose either.


----------



## oak1971

Tim Cook Speaks Out About the Apple Watch - WatchReport.com | Real. Honest. Reviews. | Authentic Watch Reviews |


----------



## MrDagon007

Yes he had said that a few days ago already in an interview.
Btw I don't think it has formidable competition of other smartwatches as the article touts, by and large others feel more primitive, less designed in the smallest details.
Anyway why would it be important exactly how much it sells... I can see in the streets that enough people buy it that it will be a profitable business.
My own favourite watch is my Damasko. On their facebook page a few months ago they posted that they sold 20.000 watches... After around 20 years in business! Numbers are not everything.


----------



## MrDagon007

As an aside, we have sure come a long way:


----------



## valmak

this must be embarrassing for all the naysayers


----------



## cba191

Did you even bother to read the article? The Apple watch is a contributing factor, but it's not the only reason. There are a number of contributing factors.


----------



## durhamcockney

Well I would like to add something to this discussion.

For years I didn't wear a watch. I didn't feel the need to. 

Then my wife bought me a Samsung smart watch which I loved (well still do) but I grew bored of it after a while.

The functionality of it was fantastic, connecting to my phone, car and tablet and even storing music on it was brilliant but the massive downside was the need to charge it every day.

I soon grew tired of it and decided to buy myself my 1st half decent watch a citizen limited edition solely because it was 1 of 1000 and I loved how it looked.

Now I have 11 watches including a Rolex and in the past 6 months I have not worn the Samsung smart watch.

Yes the Apple watch may be better but still people will tire of them and I'm sure quite a few will move onto better watches. 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


----------



## scentedlead

In my experience, what makes me bore of a device is friction for the tasks I want to do with it. How annoying is it to do what I want to do?

Sure that HTC Windows Mobile phone was cool, but surfing the web on it was crap because of the way it had only limited support for CSS or Javascript-and crashed at CSS and Javascript heavy websites-and made for a really crappy web browsing experience. I wanted to toss it but it was my only cell phone and I would've gone back to flip phones if not for the first iPhone in 2007.

That first iPhone that did handle the latest standards in CSS and Javascript-it handled _everything_ (except Flash) web pages needed and zooming in and out was as simple as pinching your fingers on the screen. Sure there were limits-no flash, EDGE only-but, to me, the stability of the web browser and its ability to give me web pages as their designers intended were what made the phone a keeper.

In other words: Internet in your pocket is a deal maker. Internet in your pocket without being annoying is a deal keeper.

As for the Apple Watch, information on your wrist is the deal maker; information on your wrist without being annoying is the deal keeper. Yeah sure, there are people who are annoyed by it but so far. But so far, satisfaction remains high overall: Apple Watch Owners Remain Satisfied.



> Even those who got the watch in the earliest cycles of April-May are still wearing it today. In fact, the largest group that say they still wear it all day, every day are those who got it in April. During my analysis of wearables, dating back to well before Apple announced and released the Watch, I pounded on the point that the vast majority of research surrounding the category and all the existing players was that consumer response indicated they saw little to no value in the product. That trend is roughly in line today with all but the Apple Watch. The hard data is from my own research and from Wristly's as well. *It makes it hard to not conclude that, at least for now, the Apple Watch remains in a category by itself.*


As I said above, some people are annoyed by the AW-that happens to every product. But, in general, Apple is good at making products that annoy the smallest numbers of people-compared to its competitors.


----------



## BarracksSi

Seems like this thread is where a link to Apple's SEC filing would need to be posted:
Form 10-K

Item #8 here estimates about $1.7 billion in AW sales, judging from the growth of the Other category over last year, which included slowing iPod sales:
Apple has sold more than $1.7B in Apple Watches, and 11 other tasty morsels from its annual filing | VentureBeat | Business | by Chris O'Brien

Assuming it's accurate, some quick guesstimation on my part comes up with between 2.5 and 3.5 million watches sold, using $700 and $500, respectively, for "average price". I figure a lot more Sport models are sold, but I see various SS models around town, too. I'm ignoring the Edition models (whose prices are between 25 and nearly 50 times the Sport) since they surely aren't selling in huge numbers.


----------



## Solicitor

I have an apple watch after wearing it a few days, I ditched it. I still prefer this.


----------



## MrDagon007

BarracksSi said:


> Seems like this thread is where a link to Apple's SEC filing would need to be posted:
> Form 10-K
> 
> Item #8 here estimates about $1.7 billion in AW sales, judging from the growth of the Other category over last year, which included slowing iPod sales:
> Apple has sold more than $1.7B in Apple Watches, and 11 other tasty morsels from its annual filing | VentureBeat | Business | by Chris O'Brien
> 
> Assuming it's accurate, some quick guesstimation on my part comes up with between 2.5 and 3.5 million watches sold, using $700 and $500, respectively, for "average price". I figure a lot more Sport models are sold, but I see various SS models around town, too. I'm ignoring the Edition models (whose prices are between 25 and nearly 50 times the Sport) since they surely aren't selling in huge numbers.


Interesting. And with it since recently being available in several more countries and with the holiday season coming up, i would expect by EOY between 4 and 5 million AW. Not bad for any new product in less than a year.


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> Seems like this thread is where a link to Apple's SEC filing would need to be posted:
> Form 10-K
> 
> Item #8 here estimates about $1.7 billion in AW sales, judging from the growth of the Other category over last year, which included slowing iPod sales:
> Apple has sold more than $1.7B in Apple Watches, and 11 other tasty morsels from its annual filing | VentureBeat | Business | by Chris O'Brien
> 
> Assuming it's accurate, some quick guesstimation on my part comes up with between 2.5 and 3.5 million watches sold, using $700 and $500, respectively, for "average price". I figure a lot more Sport models are sold, but I see various SS models around town, too. I'm ignoring the Edition models (whose prices are between 25 and nearly 50 times the Sport) since they surely aren't selling in huge numbers.


Good catch. Wristly reported an ASP of $529 from its panel of respondents some time back:

https://medium.com/wristly-thoughts...pple-watch-asp-at-529-23795ae0f7b3#.fzsaccu05


----------



## Fer Guzman

From the Reuters story on declining watch sales: the biggest drop occured within the $200-$500 segment, where sales fell by 14.5 percent. I doubt this is just apple, but will smart watches have some impact? Of course.


----------



## lorsban

I'm here in HK now and I've seen about 5 different people wearing an AW. That's pretty good!

Android Wear these days is tougher to distinguish because they come in many forms and a lot of the new ones look like regular watches. 

The only ones recognizable are Motorola and older Samsung Gear. 

Sent from my LG-H818 using Tapatalk


----------



## pronstar

While the AW isn't for me, I will say that seemingly half the people I work with have one (I work at a large ad agency in LA), and that ratio looks the same at various production companies we work with in/around the area. 

So basically it looks like the hipsters like them! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TradeKraft

Today at a fast food restaurant the kid working behind the counter had on an Apple watch. Which made the inner WIS in me happy I don't own one.


----------



## scentedlead

TradeKraft said:


> Today at a fast food restaurant the kid working behind the counter had on an Apple watch. Which made the inner WIS in me happy I don't own one.


Irrelevant. There are more relevant discussions that you might be interested in.


----------



## TradeKraft

scentedlead said:


> Irrelevant. There are more relevant discussions that you might be interested in.


Why thank you not-so-kind Sir. I'll eagerly read up on your relevant suggestions.


----------



## shnjb

http://seekingalpha.com/article/366...dot:42b059452a9ffbc7c623fdf35fde19f3&uprof=45

I thought this article was interesting, because it raises the point that most people will not wear two watches simultaneously and as such, Apple Watch will impact sales of even high end watches, simply by the fact that it will take over wrists of their owners.
What do you guys think?


----------



## Chibatastic

shnjb said:


> http://seekingalpha.com/article/366...dot:42b059452a9ffbc7c623fdf35fde19f3&uprof=45
> 
> I thought this article was interesting, because it raises the point that most people will not wear two watches simultaneously and as such, Apple Watch will impact sales of even high end watches, simply by the fact that it will take over wrists of their owners.
> What do you guys think?


I have tried wearing the AW on my other wrist because I missed my other watches. Felt so weird and cumbersome.
Lately I'm back to having it in rotation with all the others. Brought the Sub with me on vacation because of it's WR. Doing a lot of swimming here.
If I get the tickle, I'll still pick up a nice automatic down the road. Not so much a digital.

Chibatastic


----------



## shnjb

Chibatastic said:


> I have tried wearing the AW on my other wrist because I missed my other watches. Felt so weird and cumbersome.
> Lately I'm back to having it in rotation with all the others. Brought the Sub with me on vacation because of it's WR. Doing a lot of swimming here.
> If I get the tickle, I'll still pick up a nice automatic down the road. Not so much a digital.
> 
> Chibatastic


Interesting
I've been unable to stop wearing the Apple Watch because of its fitness functions.
Although it's somewhat meaningless, I just find the fitness data and seeing patterns interesting (e.g. Active calories over a month, walking distance over a month, heart rate etc).
Because of this, all my other watches have been relegated to being inside the drawer.
A big shame, really.


----------



## Snoweagle

shnjb said:


> Interesting
> I've been unable to stop wearing the Apple Watch because of its fitness functions.
> Although it's somewhat meaningless, I just find the fitness data and seeing patterns interesting (e.g. Active calories over a month, walking distance over a month, heart rate etc).
> Because of this, all my other watches have been relegated to being inside the drawer.
> A big shame, really.


Exactly the same as you. Ever since I got the AW, I've been wearing it every single day for a few months and completely neglecting my G-Shocks, TAG Heuer, Rolex and Seiko. But recently, I'm trying to wear back my other watches a while just for rotation purposes and I really have to agree with you, I'm wearing my AW so often mainly for the activity function, just trying to clock my daily goals and score achievements.

That being said, the AW is really addictive!


----------



## tknospdr

Regular watch on my dominant wrist (left-handed, so right wrist), AW on my other wrist.
It's set to the modular watch face so it's the most data dense I could get it, also set to not auto illuminate. I tap it when I want to see it.
What can I say... I'm a watch stud. LOL

I'd take a pic, but I don't have a convenient 3rd hand (if I did it would probably have a watch on it too.)


----------



## pronstar

I haven't seen anyone "double wrist it" with an AW and conventional watch, but I see it a bit frequently with Fit Bits and conventional watches. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chefmhf

shnjb said:


> http://seekingalpha.com/article/366...dot:42b059452a9ffbc7c623fdf35fde19f3&uprof=45
> 
> I thought this article was interesting, because it raises the point that most people will not wear two watches simultaneously and as such, Apple Watch will impact sales of even high end watches, simply by the fact that it will take over wrists of their owners.
> What do you guys think?


Sorry, folks, just not seeing it. While the fitness tracking items are interesting, they are not indispensable for me. Their value will decrease once the "coolness" wears off. I will need to see better battery life (I wear my watch when I sleep) and some more independent functions. There doesn't seem to be much that it does that the phone I'm already carrying in my pocket doesn't do.

Lastly, my attorney told me that his firm prohibits them in meetings with clients. Seeing someone you're paying constantly checking their wrist as each new email or other notification comes in is VERY frustrating. I'm pleased the firm instituted this rule and would likely fire someone in my employ that was incapable of not looking at his wrist every 45 seconds.


----------



## scentedlead

shnjb said:


> Interesting
> I've been unable to stop wearing the Apple Watch because of its fitness functions.
> Although it's somewhat meaningless, I just find the fitness data and seeing patterns interesting (e.g. Active calories over a month, walking distance over a month, heart rate etc).
> Because of this, all my other watches have been relegated to being inside the drawer.
> A big shame, really.


I thought I wouldn't use the fitness at all. Turns out, the stand reminders are great for reminding myself to take restroom breaks, take a gulp or two of water, put in some eyedrops, and stretch out a bit. And the heart rate monitor is great for seeing just how much I stress out at certain events plus it's one more data set to use when determining sleep quality.

It's a watch I want to wear 24/7 and would if it weren't for the two hours it takes the batter to go from 0% to 100%.

Even though all my other watches are clearly in the affordables category, I do like how they look more than the AW and I do miss them sometimes. But the AW is just so much more useful because even when I'm not using it, it's monitoring me and that data I'll use later.



pronstar said:


> I haven't seen anyone "double wrist it" with an AW and conventional watch, but I see it a bit frequently with Fit Bits and conventional watches.


What kind of Fitbit though? Wearing a one that tells the time with a watch is redundant. Wearing one that doesn't tell the time with a watch isn't. The latter I see all the time but the former I have never seen. Then again, a Fitbit that doesn't tell the time is very thin, almost as thin a bracelet whereas a Fitbit that does tell the time is as large as a watch.

Like the article shjnb linked to says, redundancy is stupid. Anyone who's laughed at Justin Bieber for wearing multiple Rolexes knows why. Why have two things that do the same thing? Or, in the case of smartwatches and fitness wearables with traditional watches, why have two things that do the same thing, especially when one of them is limited to that one thing only whereas the other can do the one thing and then plus some more? Wearing two is redundant and screams of insecurity.



chefmhf said:


> Sorry, folks, just not seeing it. While the fitness tracking items are interesting, they are not indispensable for me. Their value will decrease once the "coolness" wears off. I will need to see better battery life (I wear my watch when I sleep) and some more independent functions. There doesn't seem to be much that it does that the phone I'm already carrying in my pocket doesn't do.
> 
> Lastly, my attorney told me that his firm prohibits them in meetings with clients. Seeing someone you're paying constantly checking their wrist as each new email or other notification comes in is VERY frustrating. I'm pleased the firm instituted this rule and would likely fire someone in my employ that was incapable of not looking at his wrist every 45 seconds.


Restaurants, movie houses, schools, and places of employment have tried to ban cell phones; how did that work out? *shrugs* Things change, people adapt, new rules for manners and conduct happen. Cameras though-people are really big on cameras not being invasive. That's why bans on phones with cameras still exist in some places; it's why smart glasses will never catch on. As long as smartwatches don't have cameras-which is not the same as having a remote app for a camera-I'm not worried about bans on smartwatches. Also, a more thoughtful smartwatch maker will allow you to customize the notifications you receive as well as aim for time limits on watch interactions-Apple's dev tools, iirc, recommend 5 seconds or less.


----------



## tknospdr

chefmhf said:


> Lastly, my attorney told me that his firm prohibits them in meetings with clients. Seeing someone you're paying constantly checking their wrist as each new email or other notification comes in is VERY frustrating. I'm pleased the firm instituted this rule and would likely fire someone in my employ that was incapable of not looking at his wrist every 45 seconds.


It's called self control. I have my AW set to silent. It just taps me when I get a notification, so nobody knows it's happened. If I'm talking to someone, I'm perfectly capable of ignoring it until the time is right to check it.
If you have a lawyer that doesn't have that level of self control... you need a new lawyer.


----------



## BarracksSi

tknospdr said:


> If you have a lawyer that doesn't have that level of self control... you need a new lawyer.


Oh snap!


----------



## BarracksSi

There are certain places that ban smart-anything, but they're fairly specialized, too. I've got relatives working at research labs in the area. Both of their workplaces ban phones with cameras (you try finding a phone _without_ a camera these days), and one of them has said that plain Fitbit tracker bracelets are also forbidden.

You can imagine some spy using a modified Fitbit to listen to a network and record any data it can find, hence the ban.

We've discouraged, but not yet prohibited outright, having our phones on our person where I work. When we have meetings, which are [thankfully] rare, we might as well shut down our phones completely. Other than that, it's been nice to get brief messages on my AW, relay the info to my guys if needed, and continue with our task.


----------



## Fer Guzman

chefmhf said:


> Lastly, my attorney told me that his firm prohibits them in meetings with clients. Seeing someone you're paying constantly checking their wrist as each new email or other notification comes in is VERY frustrating. I'm pleased the firm instituted this rule and would likely fire someone in my employ that was incapable of not looking at his wrist every 45 seconds.


I think that's a tad over the top. I work in a law office, I just put in silent like I do my phone, when I'm in a meeting. Or airplane mode when in court.


----------



## MrDagon007

Interestingly Tim Cook has said in a recent interview that extra sensors may not be included jn the watch since FDA regulation testing would slow them down incredibly, but he vaguely hinted that they might do something else.
It is a pity, I expected the watch to gain sensors with every new iteration.


----------



## shnjb

MrDagon007 said:


> Interestingly Tim Cook has said in a recent interview that extra sensors may not be included jn the watch since FDA regulation testing would slow them down incredibly, but he vaguely hinted that they might do something else.
> It is a pity, I expected the watch to gain sensors with every new iteration.


FDA can be a huge drag on innovation.


----------



## scentedlead

Solving the mysterious failure of Apple's iPad



> iPhone 6 Plus ate up iPad sales the same way iPhones ate into sales of point and shoot cameras: by making "the tablet you have with you" more useful than the more optimized device that gets left at home. In particular, iPhone 6 Plus eroded into the differentiation offered by iPad mini, which was contributing a significant part of iPad unit volumes.


The next question to ask is: Is the iPhone driving sales of the Apple Watch? or: Is the Apple Watch one driver (of many) of iPhone sales.

I would love if the Apple Watch paired with iPads. But now that I'm saving up for an iPad Pro and an iPhone 6S Plus-with its combination of pairing with Apple Watch plus the big enough screen-I'm questioning between an iPad Pro and an iPhone Plus, what need would I have for an iPad or iPad mini?

A flip on the question people are asking: How much does the iPhone drive Apple Watch sales? So, as of the past half year, one in ten iPhone users is interested in the Apple Watch. If more iPad users convert to the iPhone, what does that mean for interest in the Apple Watch? Maybe, instead of, "You buy an Apple Watch because you have an iPhone," it's "You buy an iPhone Plus-instead of an iPad-because you want an Apple Watch."

Back to topic: What the Swiss aren't realizing about the Apple Watch is that AW buyers don't look at the AW in comparison to other watches-they're looking at how the AW will fit into their ecosystem of Apple products and that's something mechanical watches can't compete with.


----------



## timefleas

shnjb said:


> http://seekingalpha.com/article/366...dot:42b059452a9ffbc7c623fdf35fde19f3&uprof=45
> 
> I thought this article was interesting, because it raises the point that most people will not wear two watches simultaneously and as such, Apple Watch will impact sales of even high end watches, simply by the fact that it will take over wrists of their owners.
> What do you guys think?


Many will NEVER give up their "high end" watches in favor of an Apple--a lot of folks prefer separation of powers, and won't even buy an AW. I certainly don't need to be told by my wrist watch when I get a new email, when to stand up, and when to go to the bathroom--in fact NOT having one is quite a comfortable situation.


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> Back to topic: What the Swiss aren't realizing about the Apple Watch is that AW buyers don't look at the AW in comparison to other watches-they're looking at how the AW will fit into their ecosystem of Apple products and that's something mechanical watches can't compete with.


Pretty much, at least for me. Even though just two of my eight watches are Swiss (three if you count my mother-in-law's old Rolex), some of my reasoning for the AW was just how you say -- seeing how tightly it tied in with my iPhone.

The obverse was true, too: standards set by my regular watches needed to be met by the AW, at least to some degree. Water resistance, for example, was on my mind, because I had stopped trying to wear my iPod Nano due to its vulnerability to water. But when Cook stated that he wore his AW in the shower, I figured I wouldn't need to worry.

Same with the brilliant strap attachment, which beats the pants off of the traditional springbars on my other watches, yet leaves open the option of using traditional straps with just a cheap adapter.

In a nutshell:
Tight iOS integration, battery life better than my iPhone, and practical design features which top those of my regular watches meant I happily jumped onto the AW bandwagon.


----------



## shnjb

timefleas said:


> Many will NEVER give up their "high end" watches in favor of an Apple--a lot of folks prefer separation of powers, and won't even buy an AW. I certainly don't need to be told by my wrist watch when I get a new email, when to stand up, and when to go to the bathroom--in fact NOT having one is quite a comfortable situation.


High end watch (which I define as $15000 or higher) wearers are extremely small number compared to the general population.
Also high-end watch wearers tend to have many watches and many things in general.
I would not be surprised if many high-end watch owners already have apple watches. 
(note: I own an apple watch and a patek and have gifted a breguet)


----------



## scentedlead

shnjb said:


> http://seekingalpha.com/article/366...dot:42b059452a9ffbc7c623fdf35fde19f3&uprof=45
> 
> I thought this article was interesting, because it raises the point that most people will not wear two watches simultaneously and as such, Apple Watch will impact sales of even high end watches, simply by the fact that it will take over wrists of their owners.
> What do you guys think?





timefleas said:


> Many will NEVER give up their "high end" watches in favor of an Apple--a lot of folks prefer separation of powers, and won't even buy an AW. I certainly don't need to be told by my wrist watch when I get a new email, when to stand up, and when to go to the bathroom--in fact NOT having one is quite a comfortable situation.


But giving up high end watches is not the angle *shnjb* was talking about? He was talking about whether people would double up on their wristwear. Would people do that and have the best of both worlds-the features of the smartwatch plus the status of a traditional watch? If you read the article they linked to, the article points out that people won't because wearing two watches is redundant. But let's talk about redundancy.

You don't need a watch to tell you when to stand; there are apps for your phone and computer that do that. But it's nice to have on your wrist.

You don't need a watch to tell you when you get an email; your cell phone does that. But it's nice to have on your wrist.

You don't need a watch to tell you the time; your cell phone and computer do that. And if they're networked, then they'll do it much more accurately than any watch that isn't atomic. But it's nice to have on your wrist.

Point is: What is the redundancy that people are or aren't willing to put up with?

People won't put up with two time-telling devices on the wrist because when both are equally convenient, that's a great way to showcase one device's shortcomings. People will wear a traditional watch with a screenless Fitbit-one tells the time, while the other tracks steps and calories. But people won't wear a traditional watch with a Fitbit with a screen-when they both tell time plus the Fitbits tracks steps, calories, and heart rate, the traditional watch does what? look pretty?

But then when you have two different form factors, say a cell phone and a smartwatch-when they are convenient in different ways for different use cases-that's just more convenient. Sometimes, you need that bigger screen and typing input. Sometimes, you need the convenience of your wrist.

You have a cell phone. You have a computer. You don't need a watch. So, why do you have a watch?


----------



## scentedlead

shnjb said:


> High end watch (which I define as $15000 or higher) wearers are extremely small number compared to the general population.
> Also high-end watch wearers tend to have many watches and many things in general.
> I would not be surprised if many high-end watch owners already have apple watches.
> (note: I own an apple watch and a patek and have gifted a breguet)


Wrist Watch Industry Statistics

Swiss watches make up 2 - 3% of unit share but make up 54% of profit share. The Swiss aren't worried about unit share-not with numbers that low-they're worried about losing profit share. Profit share is what proves their status (ironically, the same can be said about Apple products) and declining profit share would be a sign of declining status.


----------



## shnjb

scentedlead said:


> Wrist Watch Industry Statistics
> 
> Swiss watches make up 2 - 3% of unit share but make up 54% of profit share. The Swiss aren't worried about unit share-not with numbers that low-they're worried about losing profit share. Profit share is what proves their status (ironically, the same can be said about Apple products) and declining profit share would be a sign of declining status.


I was discussing high end Swiss watches, not the entire Swiss watch industry.
High end is a vague term, but at least on WUS, it usually means haute horlogerie, not Rolex and other mid-tier watch manufactures.


----------



## scentedlead

shnjb said:


> I was discussing high end Swiss watches, not the entire Swiss watch industry.
> High end is a vague term, but at least on WUS, it usually means haute horlogerie, not Rolex and other mid-tier watch manufactures.


Yeah I know, but it's fairly hard to find stats on that, specifically. Obviously unit share would be smaller, so the question is, what is the profit share? How much of that 54% goes to high end watches?



spiders georg said:


> Turns out, the average selling price of a swiss watch of USD $739 factoid is actually just a statistical error. Average selling price of a swiss watch is actually more affordable. Haute horologie watch, which sells for $$$$$$$ and is sold in a bubble, is an outlier and should not have been counted.


Or something like that. Probably.


----------



## julio13

I am a watch nut who vowed never to buy a AW, I even convinced my boss that he should not get one. I saw one on my friends wrist, he is a watch nut like me who swore about the AW. I tried and I AM HOOKED I still have my Wyler, Hammy's Jadur Chrono and others . I am really excited about my AW so many band combinations watch faces , (I wish they had more) but the biggest selling point for me was how much it does for so little money. I LOVE IT!!


----------



## kjse7en

So far the most impressive aspect of the AW I personally appreciate is the strap changing mechanism and how Apple introduced it to the market mass-uniformly and not tiered this unique yet easy to use mechanism to only the high end (Gold Edition series).

One would not be surprised to see the traditional spring bar becoming more of a hassle as the months go on with more people getting a taste on Apple strap changing method (which is a breeze).

This is one area I felt traditional watch industry has left it largely unchanged for decades.


----------



## julio13

Very true my friend


----------



## scentedlead

kjse7en said:


> So far the most impressive aspect of the AW I personally appreciate is the strap changing mechanism and how Apple introduced it to the market mass-uniformly and not tiered this unique yet easy to use mechanism to only the high end (Gold Edition series).
> 
> One would not be surprised to see the traditional spring bar becoming more of a hassle as the months go on with more people getting a taste on Apple strap changing method (which is a breeze).
> 
> This is one area I felt traditional watch industry has left it largely unchanged for decades.


Well, the watch industry left it unchanged because why bother? If a watch is an accessory, and every watch is unique from each other and a person owns multiple watches, why bother? The watch is unique, and the straps are merely an accessory to an accessory.

Whereas, with a smartwatch, changing straps is important because you'll have only one smartwatch-even if you can afford to buy multiples. Since you have only one watch that pairs with your your phone and only one watch that holds your data, then changing straps becomes more important-the case design is universal, so the individualization must come from the straps.

Editing to add: I have some chronographs where I switched out the Zulu straps for two-piece straps and I do miss the convenience of quick change straps. But still, springbars and springbar tools are usually a minor annoyance-in modern times, thanks to standardization, it's only the rare watch that makes changing straps majorly annoying.


----------



## jjlwis1

I see more and more people wearing smart watches 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## mharris660

iWhat?


----------



## Burgs

I was in the Apple store recently buying a new i Phone. I generally like Apple products. So, the sales kid gives me the compulsory Apple Watch pitch too. I stopped him short by explaining that it might be a generational thing, but I'd rather wear a rusty sundial on my wrist than an Apple Watch. The kid looked around to see who was listening and whispered, "Me too!" It kinda reaffirmed my faith in today's young people :-!


----------



## valmak

Apple is making a dent in the high-end watch industryhttp://www.businessinsider.com/swiss-watch-sales-decline-as-apple-watch-grows-2016-1?r=UK&IR=T


----------



## MrDagon007

As I posted elsewhere : I don't see why it has to be either/or.

Today at work i am having several meetings and the little Apple watch is a handy way to keep track and to discreetly receive updates.

This evening I will wear a mechanical.

This is not a pattern, it can be the other way round.

In short: it is a very accurate watch and the extras are useful for me. At the same time my mechanicals are still attractive as well.

I am an AND person, not an OR person.


----------



## arogle1stus

Switzerland in trouble?
I will believe it when I see it.

Simply Cow patties.

X traindriver Art


----------



## pr1uk

There will always be a demand for quality wrist watches although a lot of people including myself may also have a smartwatch tho i was lucky i did not get caught up in the Apple mini iPhone release so my smartwatch does not need charging everyday and mine constantly shows the time as a watch should.


----------



## briburt

I'm a bit like Marco Arment (mentioned above) in that I too come from the software world, and purchasing and wearing an Apple Watch got me wearing a watch again for the first time in almost 15 years, which then unexpectedly led me down the path of slowly becoming obsessed with watches, in particular mechanical watches (much to my wife's chagrin), which then led me down the rabbit hole that is the WUS forums.

It's interesting that on the same day that Arment wrote his piece, another article appeared on the Hodinkee blog, a generally positive and even-handed article about the Apple Watch written by a mechanical watch enthusiast. who especially focuses on how first-rate the Apple watchbands are. I totally agree they are some of the best-designed, highest quality straps out there at their price levels, and Switzerland (and all watchmakers) definitely have something to learn from the designs.

My own view is that wearing an AW and wearing a non-"smart" watch needn't be mutually exclusive. Depending on an individual's lifestyle and preference, there can be room for both. As with most things regarding taste and fashion, it all depends. I have a feeling that there are a lot of non-watch wearing people for whom the AW will serve as the "gateway drug" into (or, as in my case, _back_ into) the watch-wearing world. And there will be watch-wearing folk who give the Apple Watch a try and love it or hate it or maybe just see it as something that might be useful to wear sometimes and sometimes might be better left at home in favor of their Tangomat or Grand Seiko or Seamaster. Maybe it's not a zero-sum game where if Apple wins, then Switzerland loses, or vice-versa.


----------



## BarracksSi

Here's the Hodinkee link:
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/why-jack-forsters-cant-take-off-the-apple-watch

After an extensive description of the AW, including unboxing, startup, and commentary about the UI, he gets into Switzerland:



> In dismissing the Apple Watch - or in rushing to market with poorly thought out, or obviously overpriced and cynically designed smartwatches - I think the Swiss watch industry is missing something, which is that Cupertino may understand luxury better than Europe right now. If that bracelet had been designed in Switzerland it would probably have added four figures to the cost of the watch it came on, and I'm not sure that there is a watch brand in Switzerland with the imagination to design something like this right now.


----------



## lsuwhodat

MrDagon007 said:


> As I posted elsewhere : I don't see why it has to be either/or.
> 
> Today at work i am having several meetings and the little Apple watch is a handy way to keep track and to discreetly receive updates.
> 
> This evening I will wear a mechanical.
> 
> This is not a pattern, it can be the other way round.
> 
> In short: it is a very accurate watch and the extras are useful for me. At the same time my mechanicals are still attractive as well.
> 
> I am an AND person, not an OR person.


This was the reason I originally wanted it, however I find it to be more of a distraction to me than helping me. Now it just sits on a shelf collecting dust and I am back to my old rotation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## briburt

Thanks, BarracksSi, for posting that link. I was unable to include the link because I've been lurking too long, and didn't have enough posts to include a link.

One further thought: it strikes me that other "smart" watch makers as well as fitness trackers (or other single-purpose wearables) are the ones who have more to fear from the Apple Watch than the mid- to high-end Swiss makers. The Apple Watch is a beautifully engineered physical object in itself, and the bands are a cut above (also forgot to mention the attachment system for the bands, which makes swapping out bands a process that takes several seconds and no tools, versus several minutes and a specialized tool). So the AW hardware is in a completely different universe than other smart watches and fitness trackers. 

And the software is also much more capable than a single-purpose fitness device or a watch with some notification capabilities glommed on to the design. watchOS is pretty well executed with a minumum of glitchiness for a first try, even though it can be slow — and it's getting better and more thoughtful with each new release. Admittedly, some of the AW's features are gimmicky in the extreme (e.g. being able to send your heartbeat to another AW user), but the fitness tracking, notifications, and messaging features are killer and worth the price of admission for me at least. I do wish they'd add some more watch face options, though.


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> Here's the Hodinkee link:
> https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/why-jack-forsters-cant-take-off-the-apple-watch
> 
> After an extensive description of the AW, including unboxing, startup, and commentary about the UI, he gets into Switzerland:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In dismissing the Apple Watch - or in rushing to market with poorly thought out, or obviously overpriced and cynically designed smartwatches - I think the Swiss watch industry is missing something, which is that Cupertino may understand luxury better than Europe right now. If that bracelet had been designed in Switzerland it would probably have added four figures to the cost of the watch it came on, and I'm not sure that there is a watch brand in Switzerland with the imagination to design something like this right now.
Click to expand...

I think the Swiss understand luxury very well. It's premium that they don't understand-or at least, have not clearly delineated luxury vs. premium for themselves.



> I remember, years ago, a Swiss watch executive who told me with absolute, dismissive confidence, "The Blackberry is a real tool. The iPhone is a toy for my wife." I often wonder about him.


Is that representative of how the Swiss watch industry viewed the AW? If that's how they viewed the iPhone, and that's how they viewed the AW, then it makes sense that their smartwatches have that orphaned bastard (or at best, least favored child) look-and-feel and marketing campaigns to them.

PC manufacturers sold utilitarian boxes in bulk to businesses. But Apple understood then and still now understands that user loyalty-critical in the consumer space-demands a product that is elegantly utilitarian. I used to think that Blackberry didn't understand the value of elegant while the Swiss watch industry doesn't understand the value of utilitarian. But, reading the above quote, now I wonder if the Swiss watch industry doesn't understand elegant either-certainly it understands luxury products (priced higher because it can be) but doesn't seem to understand premium products (priced higher because it is designed, made, and works better).

Obviously prestige brands of mechanical watches will probably survive on their prestige. But what's a god to a non-believer? (That said, the song starts with, "What's a mob to a king?")

On a useless tangent: To agree with the article, I really do like the bluetooth pairing particle cloud. I wouldn't mind wasting some battery life to have that as a face-and why not, given the Mickey Mouse face? The appeal of analog watches with interesting textures is the interplay between light and material. Obviously, that is not a thing with digital watches, but that doesn't mean they can't display their own interesting textures-especially if you combine movement on the screen with the movement of your wrist-even if it uses battery life like the iPhone's parallax interface effect (which I have turned off to save battery, hm . . . ).


----------



## MrDagon007

lsuwhodat said:


> This was the reason I originally wanted it, however I find it to be more of a distraction to me than helping me. Now it just sits on a shelf collecting dust and I am back to my old rotation.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


For a pleasant experience (inline with the hodinkee article just linked) it is important not to be notified of everything. My watch notifies with vibrations on calls, calendar events, sms and whatsapp. Not for facebook updates, email or news! Then it is not overly distracting, and a perfect companion for working days.
I originally had cnn and bbc apps working but quickly switched them off, they were awfully irritating and not that useful with only 1 sentence of text.

Also interesting in the hodinkee article is the appreciation of the AW bracelet, I also found it one of the very best engineered watch bracelets I ever encountered (and I have the awesome Damasko bracelet), miles ahead of what comes out of switzerland.


----------



## Chibatastic

And on page 100 of this thread.

Apple Watch Sales Estimated at 5.1 Million in Holiday Quarter, Swiss Watch Sales in Trouble - Mac Rumors

Crazy!


----------



## balzebub

Well some people seem to think that smart watch is killing Swiss watches... 
http://www.cnet.com/news/smartwatches-now-more-popular-than-swiss-watches-thanks-largely-to-apple/

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## valmak

Can everybody now admit that I was right with my prediction? Here's an article from WUS: Things can only get better: Swiss watch industry gets off to a poor 2016 - watchuseek.com. And it doesn't even mention the Apple Watch or smartwatches for some reason :-s Also, the article is wrong because things will only get worse for the Swiss watch industry... Unless they make a huge step in the right direction that is. And I don't mean trying to compete with Apple by making smartwatches. Rolex might make the right move by offering affordable quartz models. They seem to know what they're doing mostly so I think there's a significant chance they might actually do it.


----------



## MrDagon007

valmak said:


> Can everybody now admit that I was right with my prediction? Here's an article from WUS: Things can only get better: Swiss watch industry gets off to a poor 2016 - watchuseek.com. And it doesn't even mention the Apple Watch or smartwatches for some reason :-s Also, the article is wrong because things will only get worse for the Swiss watch industry... Unless they make a huge step in the right direction that is. And I don't mean trying to compete with Apple by making smartwatches. Rolex might make the right move by offering affordable quartz models. They seem to know what they're doing mostly so I think there's a significant chance they might actually do it.


The right move doesn t have to mean that rolex should make quartz. Far from it. I think that in general quartz will suffer most from smart.
I do expect a kind of smart part of a bracelet could be an answer for the mechanical brands.


----------



## lvt

It's like saying McDonalds and Pizza Hut are killing kitchen cabinet's sales, but in fact it didn't and won't happen.

_I'm a professional [desk] diver._


----------



## pr1uk

Chibatastic said:


> And on page 100 of this thread.
> 
> Apple Watch Sales Estimated at 5.1 Million in Holiday Quarter, Swiss Watch Sales in Trouble - Mac Rumors
> 
> Crazy!


Why is it that Apple or anyone else for that mater are not quoting sales figures the estimates seem to be coming from the shipment figures well you can ship 100 million but that only means the shops have full shelves and store rooms.


----------



## BarracksSi

Post _#1000!_

The WUS article mentions Japan having seen a 33% increase in Swiss watch sales. Didn't expect that.



lvt said:


> It's like saying McDonalds and Pizza Hut are killing kitchen cabinet's sales, but in fact it didn't and won't happen.
> 
> _I'm a professional [desk] diver._


Then again, I'd say people are becoming less and less adept at cooking their own food.


----------



## shnjb

BarracksSi said:


> Post _#1000!_
> 
> The WUS article mentions Japan having seen a 33% increase in Swiss watch sales. Didn't expect that.
> 
> Then again, I'd say people are becoming less and less adept at cooking their own food.


Yeah, McDonalds and Pizza Hut did affect people's habits quite a lot.
Personally, I'd rather not cook even once more in my life.


----------



## MrDagon007

I think that a large part of the swiss watch decline is not because of the AW. Many swiss watches are positioned as exclusive jewels, an important market is here where I live in hong kong, and it is very obvious that since the economic downturn in mainland china the many brand boutiques here have very few visitors indeed.

This being said, 5 million AWs last quarter is impressive and will definitely impact the more affordable segment.


----------



## TX-WJ

I gave my fiancé an AW x Xmas (cause I knew she wanted one). I have a small collection of Automatics and Quartz mvmnts. 

After seeing her use her AW frequently I was intrigued, but I can't get past the fact that it needs a charge every night and that it will likely be obsolete in less than 2 yrs. I could buy 2 Seikos and mod them, keep them for decades for that money. Plus I do like to rotate my watches, hence don't see an AW fitting my "watch lifestyle"

Having said that, and having experienced it up close, I get why so many have been sold and will continue to.


----------



## MrDagon007

The obsolesence factor is only partially true. When a new updated submariner is released then would you consider the old one obsolete?
Similarly as long as Apple keeps the time syncing protocol the same it will be a very good watch, and I can imagine that the same would apply to the basic messaging and calendar functions.
Yes new models will likely have more sensors eventually, but that does not make the current one suddenly obsolete.


----------



## teatimecrumpet

Why did we let apple fanboys here? Aren't there apple forums they can hug each other and play tickle war?

Switzerland and japan aren't going anywhere. Sales can drop but there will always be room for luxury goods. 

Quartz came and almost decimated the Swiss...that was 30 years ago.

With 5% drops in sales now I guess watchmakers should just pack it in and go out of business? If that were the case every industry and firm known to man should have called it quits long ago.

Smart watches will dominate for sure. That's a no brainer. 10 year olds and computer illiterate grandmas are getting them. It touches the entire spectrum of people watch buyer or not. Just like how people who only use computers for netflix get top of the line macbook pro super computers to check their facebook.

The watch industry has always been in trouble. It's not apple it's just because people don't wear watches anymore.

Anyone who purchased an analog watch in the past 20 years didn't buy one because of the technology and certainly didn't buy a mechanical one because of it's accuracy. 



Sent from my LGLS660 using Tapatalk


----------



## MHe225

MrDagon007 said:


> The obsolesence factor is only partially true ....


Partially true, yes. But no less of a factor.

About 2 months ago, we've replaced our 10 year old iMac with a brand new one. The hardware of the old one is still fine, it runs and functions as it should. But as of a few years ago, I can no longer upgrade the software and as a consequence, an increasing number of applications and web-pages start to fail. Forcing me to upgrade.

It's a little over 16 years now that I bought my Speedmaster Professional; it's on my wrist, showing correct time and runs consistently within 2 seconds (fast) per day. My vintage watches and my Dad's watches perform slightly poorer but do still great after 50+ years.

I do see why people love the Apple watch and similar smart watches. Just like their smartphones. But I'm not one of them. I think it's too early to decide or tell that smartwatches in general are indeed killing the Swiss watch industry.

As an aside, I did read the article that was linked on the previous page already earlier this week and I'm floored by the sheer numbers of Swiss watches produced and exported. Add to that all the Chinese and Japanese watches ...... I assume all other WPC's (Watch Producing Countries) hide / drown in the noise.


----------



## Watch Box

MrDagon007 said:


> The obsolesence factor is only partially true. When a new updated submariner is released then would you consider the old one obsolete?
> Similarly as long as Apple keeps the time syncing protocol the same it will be a very good watch, and I can imagine that the same would apply to the basic messaging and calendar functions.
> Yes new models will likely have more sensors eventually, but that does not make the current one suddenly obsolete.


I don't agree with the comparison.

AW is powered by a non-swappable battery and driven by silicone hardware, both of which, even with good TLC have a FAR more limited shelf life (or just life) than a mechanical watch.

Hence a mechanical will increase in value over time as its driving force is eternal (physics) as opposed to a finite source of stored power and burnable chips.

Having said that, I think that's factored in with the AW price, which is only a fraction of a Swiss mechanical (except the gold edition which is a bit of a pisstake).

When Apple finds a way to provide small rebate-like rechargeable lithium batteries... THEN there'll be a slightly bigger problem for the Swiss. But only slightly as technology still will become obsolete sooner or later.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

Watch Box said:


> AW is powered by a non-swappable battery &#8230;
> 
> When Apple finds a way to provide small rebate-like rechargeable lithium batteries... THEN there'll be a slightly bigger problem for the Swiss. But only slightly as technology still will become obsolete sooner or later.


Apple's price for an out-of-warranty battery replacement is $79.

http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/26/applecare-apple-watch-80-percent-battery/

You can save money and do it yourself (although it's still not as easy as swapping the battery on a Swatch, who now will do replacements for free if the owner doesn't have a nickel to open a Swatch's battery door).

https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Apple+Watch+Battery+Replacement/41080


----------



## MrDagon007

Indeed Apple will replace the battery. I admit, to be seen for how many years but if the success continues there will be 3rd party services like for iphone batteries.
The silicon might break after a number of years, however the better made old quartz watches still work. And an affordable mechanical or quartz may also break, and since they all are relatively affordable (except for the gold aw) i do think that most consumers will then rather buy a new watch.
If apple keeps the basic time and message protocols the same for 10 years then that would give a useful lifespan that is similar to the habits of many non-wis buyers of affordables.
Anyway I like both my AW and my many mechanicals. Though the AW is now my fave watch during working hours, even my damasko now sees mainly evening and weekend duty.


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> Then again, I'd say people are becoming less and less adept at cooking their own food.





shnjb said:


> Yeah, McDonalds and Pizza Hut did affect people's habits quite a lot.
> Personally, I'd rather not cook even once more in my life.


Well, cooking takes time and time is something people have less of. But judging by the rise of cooking reality shows, I'd say people have an interest in at least seeing food being prepared, although the drama of "who will be the next top chef!?" prolly also adds some interest.



TX-WJ said:


> I gave my fiancé an AW x Xmas (cause I knew she wanted one). I have a small collection of Automatics and Quartz mvmnts.
> 
> After seeing her use her AW frequently I was intrigued, but I can't get past the fact that it needs a charge every night and that it will likely be obsolete in less than 2 yrs. I could buy 2 Seikos and mod them, keep them for decades for that money. Plus I do like to rotate my watches, hence don't see an AW fitting my "watch lifestyle"
> 
> Having said that, and having experienced it up close, I get why so many have been sold and will continue to.


A watch is obsolete only when it doesn't work for you anymore. I kept my iPhone 4S-a phone from 2011-up until last year and upgraded only because it wouldn't work with the new AW.

Meanwhile, of the two watches I had in high school and college in the '90s, while I don't have them anymore and miss them, I know they wouldn't get any wrist time because they'd _look_ outdated-they're not obsolete because of technology, they're obsolete because they don't go with anything in the wardrobe I have now. Very few watches can last decades without looking dated and before you say Rolex Submariner, the original 1953 Sub was 37mm, and modern ones are 40mm-and this 40mm is pushing it for the lowest end of what's an acceptable size for men's watches today. I just saw _Race,_ and while Jason Sudeikis wears a watch that has retro styling, there's no way that the real Larry Snyder would've worn a watch like that in the 1930s, but wearing an authentic vintage watch would just look so wrong to modern audiences.

Watches are jewelry in that they don't appreciate in monetary value except only the most special ones with well documented provenance. For most watches out there, the most you can hope for is an increase in sentimental value, but the tricky thing with this is that your children-especially when they are adults-have their own preferences in aesthetics and their own needs demanded by their own lifestyles. If you want your watch to have sentimental value, your best hope is that your children really really really love you. The timeless watch to pass down from generation to generation is less a reality and more a dream.



MrDagon007 said:


> The obsolesence factor is only partially true. When a new updated submariner is released then would you consider the old one obsolete?
> Similarly as long as Apple keeps the time syncing protocol the same it will be a very good watch, and I can imagine that the same would apply to the basic messaging and calendar functions.
> Yes new models will likely have more sensors eventually, but that does not make the current one suddenly obsolete.


Well, for a mechanical watch, the obsolescence doesn't happen from technology (let's be real here, mechanical watches have been technologically superseded since atomic clocks and quartz watches in the mid 20th century); mechanical watches are obsolesced by changes in fashion.

With technology, we know the usual upgrade schedules for phones (1 - 2 years) and tablets (a few years) and computers (a few years to a decade) and soon we'll figure out the upgrade cycles for smartphones. Using technologically obsolete equipment requires know-how and patience but if you can do then it will do. Fashion is more fickle-maybe a watch will go out of style in a year, or maybe decades. And pulling off wearing an out-of-style watch requires personality.

As for what will make today's smartwatches obsolete? New sensors are nice, but I'd place more money on smaller yet more powerful processors and memory allowing apps to do more faster.


----------



## lvt

BarracksSi said:


> Post _#1000!_Then again, I'd say people are becoming less and less adept at cooking their own food.


It only affects supermarkets or food retailers, but kitchen cabinet and fridge sales are doing OK.


----------



## Watch Box

BarracksSi said:


> Apple's price for an out-of-warranty battery replacement is $79.
> 
> http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/26/applecare-apple-watch-80-percent-battery/
> 
> You can save money and do it yourself (although it's still not as easy as swapping the battery on a Swatch, who now will do replacements for free if the owner doesn't have a nickel to open a Swatch's battery door).
> 
> https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Apple+Watch+Battery+Replacement/41080


Fair enough about the battery, guess I spoke before fully doing my research. It's pretty decent that Apple offers this service (although personally, by the time a battery change is needed I would probably just opt for a new watch).

However, I still think that obsolescent in a technological device ran by chips is still inherent for a number of reasons. If nothing else just because of updates and new releases, as well as software updates, compatibility etc.

I mean, at the end of the day, Apple is in the business of SELLING devices and that needs constant renewal.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

Watch Box said:


> However, I still think that obsolescent in a technological device ran by chips is still inherent for a number of reasons. If nothing else just because of updates and new releases, as well as software updates, compatibility etc.
> 
> I mean, at the end of the day, Apple is in the business of SELLING devices and that needs constant renewal.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I'm still expecting the AW to have a similar life cycle as the iPod. It's not going to be tasked with as much as an iPhone (the small size limits what can be done, just like how a smartphone still can't do everything a laptop can do), and as long as it doesn't have a cellular radio, it doesn't need to be updated to keep up with evolving cellular technologies.


----------



## Watch Box

BarracksSi said:


> I'm still expecting the AW to have a similar life cycle as the iPod. It's not going to be tasked with as much as an iPhone (the small size limits what can be done, just like how a smartphone still can't do everything a laptop can do), and as long as it doesn't have a cellular radio, it doesn't need to be updated to keep up with evolving cellular technologies.


I guess that's a possibility, but the iPod is different in nature for two main reasons:

1- It's a stand-alone device, besides data transfer , you don't need another device for it to serve its purpose. In that way an iPod could really last a lifetime. An AW relies on a host (iPhone), so unless Apple designs ALL future iPhones to be backward compatible, AW will certainly become close to unusable, or even unusable for all intents and purposes. True, this is just conjecture and the AW may well prove to have far greater longevity than i reckon. Guess we shall wait and see

2- An iPod was originally only designed to serve one purpose: media playback. An AW serves many, so it's easy to see it (like an iPhone or my iPad) becoming slow and annoying, to the point where you just want to upgrade it to the next version.

Again, it's all just personal predictions and conjecture. It will be interesting to see how it turns out, but in the meantime, I'm gonna stay away from it (lets see how long I can resist it )

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## eljay

Silicon (not "silicone", that's a siloxane based rubber) devices tend not to wear out, however the other components often do.

Whether it's beautiful is of course very subjective and whether it's useful us circumstantial.

But who cares? Does anyone (other than shareholders) derive any pleasure from the number of these that get sold? (Or, perversely, from traditional manufacturers selling fewer watches?)


----------



## GoldenCoastBabyxo

Seeing as everything we do with our watches, we can do with our smart phones, I don't really see people who are enthusiastic about watches abandoning it for these smart watches, there's always been a big market for watches, and other than people simply enjoying watches, there's also the fact they're used as status symbols, jewelry, and even small brands have a "cult following", people who truly appreciate their pieces. I find very hard to believe that the watch niche will be significantly affected by this newest tech novelty. Also I don't really like the idea of having to re-charge the smart watch all the time like a phone... Maybe I'm being skeptical because I never used a smart watch before, will have to try it out to experiment myself, but I won't abandon my hobby for watches because of it


----------



## Morrisdog

I don't have an Apple Watch but I do find the notifications a useful feature in my Garmin watch. Its not vital as you say but still useful. I only wear mine when playing golf or going for walks. I leave my phone in my golf bag so it's useful to be able to read any text messages etc on the watch. I think this feature is perhaps the most useful in any smart watch.. I certainly think there will be a segment of the traditional mechanical watch consumer base who will revert to mainly their Apple Watch because of features like this. My Garmin is just not pretty enough to dislodge my mechanical watches but if I had an Apple Watch I am not sure what I would do. At the moment the Apple Watch does not have the features or battery life to make me want to buy one.


----------



## BarracksSi

Morrisdog said:


> I don't have an Apple Watch but I do find the notifications a useful feature in my Garmin watch. Its not vital as you say but still useful. I only wear mine when playing golf or going for walks. I leave my phone in my golf bag so it's useful to be able to read any text messages etc on the watch. I think this feature is perhaps the most useful in any smart watch.. I certainly think there will be a segment of the traditional mechanical watch consumer base who will revert to mainly their Apple Watch because of features like this. My Garmin is just not pretty enough to dislodge my mechanical watches but if I had an Apple Watch I am not sure what I would do. At the moment the Apple Watch does not have the features or battery life to make me want to buy one.


The extra kicker from the Apple Watch is the ability to respond to those texts. I agree that it's nice to leave the phone aside while you can still be reached, but it's pretty cool to be able to send replies. I started leaving my phone in my coat pocket or backpack while I walked to and from work once I trusted the watch to be able to handle basic communications.


----------



## scentedlead

Apple Watch takes 71 percent share of teen market, iPhone remains strong, study says



> Apple's mobile product lines continue to perform well with the all important U.S. teen demographic, as a new spring 2016 survey put Apple Watch far ahead in the nascent smartwatch game, while iPhone exhibited expectedly consistent growth.
> 
> According to fresh numbers from Piper Jaffray's Teen Survey, only 12 percent of respondents owned a wrist-wearable device as of spring 2016. However, of those who did purchase a smartwatch, Apple Watch was the dominant player, capturing a whopping 71-percent marketshare. Analyst Gene Munster notes the trend toward Watch is unsurprising given the device tethers to market leader iPhone.
> 
> Interestingly, the share of teens who actually own a smartwatch is below anticipated just before Apple Watch was unveiled in 2014. At the time, the investment bank noted teen interest in a $350 "iWatch" device stood at 16 percent, while only 7 percent of participants owned a smartwatch.


I wonder what the definition of "wrist-wearable device" is. But interesting that smartwatches went from 7% to 12%, and of that, the AW went from 0% to 71%. So that's 7% - 8% of teens wearing an AW. And I also wonder about "interest" if marketshare went up, yet mindshare went from 16% in 2014 to . . . less than that now.

At a recent wedding, I noticed half the young adults and teens wearing watches. For comparison, in past family reunions up to Christmas 2015, that number was closer to a quarter, maybe less than that, wearing watches, and they're wearing Michael Kors and G-Shocks-contrast that with most older adults wearing watches-Seiko, Citizen, Timex, Casio. And then Christmas happened and after that, I started seeing more and more AWs here and there. At the wedding I went to, almost every watch I saw on a dozen young adults/teens was an AW, no G-Shocks, and two Michael Kors, and one Rolex (or so he claimed). Though, let's be real about the teen boys and young adult men, if your choice is between a G-Shock and an AW, the latter is going to be dressier.

So, in my experience (and recently another cousin of mine got an Android Wear watch), 71% for Apple Watches seems right, maybe even low. As for 12% of teens wearing smartwatches, that number would've seemed right if it were describing what I was seeing before Christmas.

What does this mean for Swiss watches? Of around a dozen teens and young adults in my family, I see: a handful of Michael Kors and G-shocks, one dubious Rolex (automatic), one Android Wear, and the rest are AWs. One argument I see a lot here is that smartwatches will get young people into wearing watches and that will get people into wearing mechanical watches. I do think that smartwatches will get young people into wearing watches again. But I also think that asking young people to make the jump from smartwatches to mechanical watches is going to be like asking them to jump from cell phones to rotary dial.

Also, I think that if a young person already wasn't wearing jewelry on their wrist, they aren't going to start-unless socially pressured to do so. So, to make a young person go from nothing on the wrist to something, that something has to be useful.


----------



## taxg8r00

I don't think traditional watches will ever go away altogether. For men especially, it is the only piece of jewelry they wear. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hishorology

I used my Apple Watch for a month, with great excitement. Then it started getting annoying, so I turned off all notifications on the watch. Then I realized that my Seamaster was still there. Have been wearing my Seamster since then. Then my watch collection started to grow, with the Apple Watch still sitting on its charger. I just use it for working out, measuring my heartbeat. But then, I don't see the point of measuring my heartbeat anymore. Maybe I should just get rid of it now...


----------



## eljay

taxg8r00 said:


> I don't think traditional watches will ever go away altogether. For men especially, it is the only piece of jewelry they wear.


"They"?

Men don't wear rings, chains or body mods?


----------



## Desert89

I wonder if it's worth investigating the idea of the Apple Watch and others like it being a "gateway" into real watches for people who otherwise wouldn't have been interested. It's a process that happened to me (Less than a month between my first smartwatch and my first mechanical, and currently looking to get a Swiss automatic) and I've heard similar stories both here and elsewhere.

Would be an ironic twist if all the doom prophecies got flipped, and smartwatches end up creating a new generation of watch lovers out of tech-oriented young adults.


----------



## taxg8r00

eljay said:


> "They"?
> 
> Men don't wear rings, chains or body mods?


I stand corrected, was thinking more of gold chains and flashy jewelry that used to be in fashion.


----------



## eljay

taxg8r00 said:


> I stand corrected, was thinking more of gold chains and flashy jewelry that used to be in fashion.


Ahh, understood


----------



## scentedlead

Desert89 said:


> I wonder if it's worth investigating the idea of the Apple Watch and others like it being a "gateway" into real watches for people who otherwise wouldn't have been interested. It's a process that happened to me (Less than a month between my first smartwatch and my first mechanical, and currently looking to get a Swiss automatic) and I've heard similar stories both here and elsewhere.
> 
> Would be an ironic twist if all the doom prophecies got flipped, and smartwatches end up creating a new generation of watch lovers out of tech-oriented young adults.


Mechanical watches could be a gateway, but they have to compete against the functionality of a smartwatch. What they have to offer is a romanticism of a pre-digital era, and upper-class status. If mechanical watches are to survive, they have to find ways to make these things appealing to a generation that sees computers as productivity appliances and recognizes class status symbols as arbitrary symbols of conspicuous consumption-i.e. how do you make a unitasking appliance cool? how do you make showing off disposable income cool?

Quartz drove mechanical watches into a small niche into higher price tiers. Time will tell if smartwatches will drive mechanical watches into an even smaller niche at even higher price tiers.

On a tangent: Here on WUS, we romanticize mechanical watches. When quartz happened, some good brands were lost, but some didn't die, and the high-end brands did more than just fine once they figured out that making something exclusive-make something a thing you can't have-is a great way to make someone want something. But we forget a lot of cheap brands also went under (or switched to quartz). I remember when I was a child, my parents and grandparents frequently asked of watches, "Does it keep good time?" and I'd wonder why you'd buy a watch that didn't, not realizing that before quartz, that was the reality of cheap mechanicals. For precision, a cheap quartz beats a cheap mechanical.

It's like with fountain pens. Some old-timers look at me weird. But my experience is that modern fountain pens are of good quality, and the vintage ones still around today must've been of great quality to last all this time, and the inks are of good quality. But they remember cheap pens with scratchy nibs and leaky sections, and cheap inks that either bled or splotched. And the cheap watches of their time, prolly you not only had to wind them every day, but set the time every day. Why were ballpoint pens a godsend for so many people? Why was quartz a godsend for so many people?


----------



## AlejandrOmega

Interesting thread. I agree with the comment that AW/wearable devices have brought wrist wear back into fashion for younger folks.

I'll be interested to see if that transcends into mechanical non smart watches.

Hey, maybe quartz will be the new retro thing in coming years!


----------



## WTSP

A "secular decline in watchwear"? I'll keep my El Primero on thank you. I do have to agree that this new trend in smart-watches may spell the end of sellers like Fossil though.


----------



## valmak

WTSP said:


> A "secular decline in watchwear"? I'll keep my El Primero on thank you. I do have to agree that this new trend in smart-watches may spell the end of sellers like Fossil though.


OP here. I was spot on. So funny how so many of you ridiculed me one year ago. Now you are eating your words. LOL


----------



## shnjb

valmak said:


> OP here. I was spot on. So funny how so many of you ridiculed me one year ago. Now you are eating your words. LOL


I was with you from the beginning

--
Typed while wearing my Apple Watch and not my mechanical watches


----------



## bigclive2011

Valmak,

I eat my words, you were absolutely right and the Apple Watch is the b all and end all of haute horology.

I have now put all my watches on the sales forum and have bought a gold plated I pad to strap to my wrist.


----------



## Klumpster

For my 2 cents worth, electronic crap such as Apple watches and their impersonators are never going to compete with the finest Swiss machinery. The excitement of trawling the net and stores for beautiful vintage watches will never be replicated with smart watches. These bland gadgets are so, so dull. Myself and friends all have fine computers and communication devices, love em. But for us, watches will always belong to the Swiss and their disciples.


----------



## utzelu

While I do acknowledge that the smartwatches will make a considerable dent in the sub $500 category, I am not yet convinced they will destroy the $500 - $1000 category. Only yesterday I had $1000 to spend and I was thinking between an Apple Watch SS or a mechanical. In the end I chose a Hamilton Pan Europ. I believe the buyer in the over $500 category has at least general knowledge about watches and horology and appreciates the design of the mechanical watches.


----------



## WTSP

valmak said:


> OP here. I was spot on. So funny how so many of you ridiculed me one year ago. Now you are eating your words. LOL


Glad to see you following up on your original post! 

I have to say that despite having posted this video, I'm not sure that it really backs the argument that the Apple Watch is taking the market by storm and undermining the Swiss.

First of all, this video was created by The Street, hosted by notorious Wall Street entertainer (read "occasional clown") Jim Cramer, whose track record is anything by exemplary.









Secondly, the Apple Watch seems to be encountering market problems of its own and not meeting its expected sales potential.
Apple Watch is a FLOP as aales of the gadget have fall by 90% since April | Daily Mail Online

Finally, in the video I believe that one of the points which Cramer is making is that people are just not wearing watches as much, as they have "regressed" to using their cellphones as pocket watches. This doesn't benefit either side of the Apple Watch VS Swiss watches argument.


----------



## eljay

Klumpster said:


> Apple watches and their impersonators


Let us not forget that connected smart watches had been around for quite some time before Apple jumped on the bandwagon.


----------



## ronalddheld

I believe smart watches will impact sales at the $1000 level and below. Little impact above that.


----------



## Bradjhomes

valmak said:


> OP here. I was spot on. So funny how so many of you ridiculed me one year ago. Now you are eating your words. LOL


To this day I've still only ever seen two in the wild.

I remain unconvinced.


----------



## bigclive2011

For sure Havnt caught on in the UK!!

Saw plenty on a recent holiday to Mexico, being sported by the Americans, some in the pool??

Not sure about that though eh!!


----------



## shnjb

ronalddheld said:


> I believe smart watches will impact sales at the $1000 level and below. Little impact above that.


I'm not so sure.
You only have two wrists and only one to wear a watch on without looking foolish.


----------



## BarracksSi

Bradjhomes said:


> To this day I've still only ever seen two in the wild.


Depends on the location. I always see a few before I even get to work in the morning.


----------



## Bradjhomes

BarracksSi said:


> Depends on the location. I always see a few before I even get to work in the morning.


If they're on your wrist then they don't count!


----------



## BarracksSi

WTSP said:


> Secondly, the Apple Watch seems to be encountering market problems of its own and not meeting its expected sales potential.
> Apple Watch is a FLOP as aales of the gadget have fall by 90% since April | Daily Mail Online


Journalism 101 teaches reporters (and editors, I assume) to put dates on their articles, preferably under the title or near the byline. It's difficult to say "seems to be" when the article's publication date isn't clear (although it seems to be from last summer).

But, hey, let's go with it --

The writer also said, 


> "Last week an analyst who previously predicted Apple would sell 24 million devices during 2016 has significantly reduced this figure - to 21 million - following the lukewarm reaction to the wearable. "


Well, gosh, 21 million -- a guesstimate made _18 months ahead of the end of 2016_ -- would be a "flop"?


----------



## BarracksSi

Bradjhomes said:


> If they're on your wrist then they don't count!


Do you want me to take pics of each of them, too? Being pretty snarky for a mod, you know.


----------



## Bradjhomes

BarracksSi said:


> Do you want me to take pics of each of them, too? Being pretty snarky for a mod, you know.


Just being light hearted.

Sorry if you didn't get that. I didn't think there was any malice or snark in my post.


----------



## utzelu

When I got my AW, I traveled for a week to US to a software related conference. Suddenly there were now more people wearing the same watch as mine. Somehow my AW didn't feel so special anymore. Did anyone had the same feeling? Here in Europe, the AW or any smartwatch is not that popular. Mostly I see fitness bands on people's wrists.


----------



## WTSP

Bradjhomes said:


> To this day I've still only ever seen two in the wild.
> 
> I remain unconvinced.


I see one or two per day depending on the environment (same people each day if at work). Fitbits are slightly more common.


----------



## ronalddheld

I have only see AWs in the Apple stores.


----------



## OSUMBA2003

The only time I've ever seen AWs is in a meeting with some external IT consultants. One of them was wearing a Rolex GMT II, the rest, AWs.

Other than that, I don't think I've ever seen one. LOTS of fitbits, though. A lot of people at work are competing for steps, and our CFO (who is morbidly obese) claims to have lost 30 pounds. Good for him.


----------



## shnjb

I keep seeing this notion that nobodys wearing Apple watches, but it's outsold Rolex and was probably the number one watch series in the world for 2015-2016.
It obviously depends on where you live.
If you live in a big city, like Los Angeles or Beijing, you will see a lot of Apple Watches, unless you are particularly obtuse.


----------



## hidden by leaves

shnjb said:


> I keep seeing this notion that nobodys wearing Apple watches, but it's outsold Rolex and was probably the number one watch series in the world for 2015-2016.
> It obviously depends on where you live.
> If you live in a big city, like Los Angeles or Beijing, you will see a lot of Apple Watches, unless you are particularly obtuse.


Lol. You might want to look up "obtuse" in the dictionary (hint: it has nothing to do with vision).

The fanbois in this thread are funny, it just keeps delivering!


----------



## shnjb

hidden by leaves said:


> Lol. You might want to look up "obtuse" in the dictionary (hint: it has nothing to do with vision).
> 
> The fanbois in this thread are funny, it just keeps delivering!


Hint: if you can't spot an Apple Watch in LA, you are obtuse (i.e. not very bright). But thanks for the unsolicited lesson.

Also, not everyone who thinks that smart watch will overtake significant market share of mechanical watches is an Apple Watch "fan boy."
I own a Patek, two rolexes, a bunch of Casios and have purchased a Breguet for the lady.
I am totally fine if my Apple Watch becomes a useless toy in a year.


----------



## Gazza74

valmak said:


> OP here. I was spot on. So funny how so many of you ridiculed me one year ago. Now you are eating your words. LOL


So valmak, your "evidence" is a soundbite from Jim Kramer about about Fossil sales declining? Seriously, this is all you've got??? This is what made you come back and post your one-liner, and also made you take the time to PM everyone who disagreed with you when you started the thread like you did with me? I have to say, with you making a big deal of this I thought you'd have more, but since again you haven't made any valid points, I'll give you a few things to think about and respond to, just so you can show us that you can make a reasoned argument.......or not.

1) The decline in watch sales started way before the AW was ever made. People have been using their cell phones instead of watches for years, and this has a much larger effect on watch sales than the introduction of the AW.
2) While the introduction of the AW will have a temporary effect on traditional watch sales, this is just another watch/gadget that someone can add to their stable. It certainly will not replace a Rolex, Omega, Patek on the higher end, and I would wager it won't replace many of the mid-range watches either. Where it will make a dent is the lower-end watch market, but that is not dominated by Switzerland, is it? So again, Switzerland doesn't have much to worry about here.
3) Maybe you should look into the downturn of the economies in Asia, and more specifically China, and see if there is a correlation to lower Swiss watch sales. Who knows, you might find that it's the cause, and not the emergence of the AW.

So, my original comment of "Way to over-react" still stands, and I think it's you who should eat your words. LOL.


----------



## AncientSerpent

Been observing that people have more money than sense, and some whine and complain about nothing. They are watches.


From iPhone 6+


----------



## Henraa

valmak said:


> OP here. I was spot on. So funny how so many of you ridiculed me one year ago. Now you are eating your words. LOL


From my group of friends, family, colleagues, associates I have seen a decline in Apple Watches in the past year. The have either gone back to standard watches or traded for Garmin versions for fitness tracking. There was quite an influx of interest last year but I am seeing less and less Apple watches about of late. The next generation may ignite the interest again, who knows?


----------



## gangrel

Henraa said:


> From my group of friends, family, colleagues, associates I have seen a decline in Apple Watches in the past year. The have either gone back to standard watches or traded for Garmin versions for fitness tracking. There was quite an influx of interest last year but I am seeing less and less Apple watches about of late. The next generation may ignite the interest again, who knows?


I suspect not. The smart phone is a multi-function device that is considered indispensible by many. The smart watch mirrors the non-phone tablet...maybe it's nice to have, but it's another device, it doesn't add very much to the phone, and it's bloody expensive. Tablet sales had their burst, but since then, have slid considerably. (Even counting Amazon's Fire.) The fitness watch does add things that at least a notable segment likes to have.

The Swiss have reported notable sales dips even at the high end; Richemont reported bad sales just the other day. Their lowest-level brand is Baume & Mercier, but you move up fairly fast from there...MB, Dunhill, Panerai, IWC, JLC, Van Cleef, ALS, VC. About the only brand there that might suffer inroads due to any smart watch, would be B&M...and even then, I don't think they'd lose much.


----------



## scentedlead

I see iPads and Android tablets everywhere. They’re especially popular with families with children—they’re great at keeping kids entertained for long stretches of time. And, for grownups, they’re also great reading and drawing devices—it’s easier to cozy up in a bean bag chair with a tablet than a laptop, and buying a drawing app and a stylus for less than $150 beats buying a $1,000 Cintiq. If tablet sales are sliding, it’s not because of unpopularity, it’s because of market saturation. Unlike phones which people replace every two years, people don’t replace their tablets for three years, at least. But, people are still keeping and using their tablets. I can’t think of anyone who has one that would let go of theirs.

In a few years time, the watch market will settle as people figure out what they want in a watch. But it’s undeniable that Apple brought computerized watches out of geeks-only territory and into the mainstream consciousness. Are they going to disrupt the part of the watch market that appeals to 1-percenters? No. Are they going to disrupt watches, quartz and mechanical, in their $100 – 1,000 price range? Who knows, but they certainly have that potential.

At a recent wedding, most teens and young adults were wearing an AW. I don’t think this market is too interested in watches marketed to 1-percenters. But more importantly, these are demographics known for not wearing watches at all, and yet, they were wearing AWs at a formal event. If you wanna know where the future is going, you gotta look at what the kids are doing, not what the old folks are doing.

Looking at old folks at the turn of the 20th century, you would’ve concluded that wrist watches were a fad soon to die because they had not picked up in popularity with old men, ignoring that young men were putting these new-fangled wristwatch thingies through the paces and wristwatch makers responded and improved their products. Oh geez, only one grandpa I know is wearing an AW, while all the other grandpas (and grandmas) are wearing analog watches. Yep, smartwatches are so very doomed.


----------



## utzelu

In a recent interview, Tag Heuer's CEO mentioned that the smartwatch is impacting seriously the quartz market. It kind of makes sense to me, since a quartz is not seen as something you will hold on forever and pass it to the next generation. And they are both in the same price segment.


----------



## lorsban

utzelu said:


> In a recent interview, Tag Heuer's CEO mentioned that the smartwatch is impacting seriously the quartz market. It kind of makes sense to me, since a quartz is not seen as something you will hold on forever and pass it to the next generation. And they are both in the same price segment.


I guess that's why they're making their own.

Whenever a new technology emerges, Tag usually likes to join the fray:


















And now that we have smartwatches, they're trying it out as well:










Gotta give them credit for venturing into the unknown and not just hoping the technology would just die out.

Sent from my LG-H818 using Tapatalk


----------



## utzelu

Yeah, it is part of their strategy to reduce their quartz line and eventually replace it with the Connected line. The CEO is planning to ramp up the Connected line to 30% from their entire production. A big bet for them...


----------



## scentedlead

I look at quartz watches in a few categories:

$50 or less. This cheap end will mostly be quartz, maybe some low-end fitness wearables.

$50 – $100. A notch above, I think this is going to be split between feature fitness watches and quartz, and then there’ll be the rare mechanical and rare bargain basement smartwatch.

$100 – $500. As I see it, this tier here is mostly quartz and some mechanicals. This here will be where it gets the most interesting because this is where most smartwatches are. That buyer of spendy fashion-branded quartz watches that so many here on WUS disdain? Are they going to buy the mechanicals they already weren’t buying? Or are they going spend the money on a smartphone accessory?

$500 - $1,000. This tier is mostly mechanicals, and some quartz. I think this is going to be split between smart watches and mechanicals—who knows what that split will be, but certainly, the quartz watches here will become the rare exceptions.

$1,000+. Obviously there are quartz watches here. But honestly? I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who bought a quartz in this price range. This tier is going to be mechanicals, and the rare smartwatch.

Speaking for myself personally, ever since I got an AW, the only watches I want in the $100 – $500 category (MSRP and grey market) are some G-Shocks and that’s only because of their reputation for being very resistant—something the AW doesn’t have a reputation for. Otherwise, for what watches in this category functionally do, they just stopped being worth the money to me.


----------



## shnjb

scentedlead said:


> I look at quartz watches in a few categories:
> 
> $50 or less. This cheap end will mostly be quartz, maybe some low-end fitness wearables.
> 
> $50 - $100. A notch above, I think this is going to be split between feature fitness watches and quartz, and then there'll be the rare mechanical and rare bargain basement smartwatch.
> 
> $100 - $500. As I see it, this tier here is mostly quartz and some mechanicals. This here will be where it gets the most interesting because this is where most smartwatches are. That buyer of spendy fashion-branded quartz watches that so many here on WUS disdain? Are they going to buy the mechanicals they already weren't buying? Or are they going spend the money on a smartphone accessory?
> 
> $500 - $1,000. This tier is mostly mechanicals, and some quartz. I think this is going to be split between smart watches and mechanicals-who knows what that split will be, but certainly, the quartz watches here will become the rare exceptions.
> 
> $1,000+. Obviously there are quartz watches here. But honestly? I don't think I've ever met anyone who bought a quartz in this price range. This tier is going to be mechanicals, and the rare smartwatch.
> 
> Speaking for myself personally, ever since I got an AW, the only watches I want in the $100 - $500 category (MSRP and grey market) are some G-Shocks and that's only because of their reputation for being very resistant-something the AW doesn't have a reputation for. Otherwise, for what watches in this category functionally do, they just stopped being worth the money to me.


Same here.

The only thing I would ever consider buying mechanical is above $3000, and even chance of that decreased by a lot, because I find that I hardly ever find occasion to wear my mechanical watches.


----------



## ronalddheld

I have TC watches in the $1000+ range.


----------



## valmak

*Me from April, 2015*

1. "Switzerland is in trouble."

2. "Sales of the main brands will decrease by a lot and there will be plenty of layoffs."

3. "It's just too much watch for ~$600 for any of these other brands to compete with it."

*News from July, 2016*

1. "For 11 months straight, exports of luxury watches out of Switzerland have fallen, and it could get worse."

2. "Compagnie Financière Richemont SA - parent of A. Lange & Söhne, IWC Schaffhausen, Jaeger-LeCoultre, and Cartier - erased 350 jobs this year"

3. "The industry has also suffered from a lack of response to the growing threat of technology and attractive gadgets like the Apple Watch."

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-swiss-watch-industry-is-in-trouble-2016-7


----------



## oak1971

Apple Watch is a FLOP as aales of the gadget have fall by 90% since April | Daily Mail Online

Apple Watch Sales Have Plummeted, Analyst Says - Fortune

Apple Watch sales are down 55% - Jul. 22, 2016


----------



## horrij1

Interesting thread, and I honestly don't know enough about the Swiss watch market to comment. I think that there are a bunch of reasons people buy high end Swiss mechanical watches, and truth be told "telling time" is probably pretty far down the list of user requirements. Find that hard to beleive that people buying Swiss watches don't really buy them to tell time? People buying Apple IPhones are not primarily buying them to make phone calls!!

Some people appreciate the mechanics, engineering, artistic design, and of course the joy of owning what could end up being a family heirloom to pass along to your children. So where I appreciate that Apple might be putting a watch on the wrist of many new customers, I am not sure that the "typical" Apple Watch customer is the "typical" Swiss luxury watch customer.

I have been a "Mac Guy" for over 30 years, and a Swiss watch owner for over 25 years, still have my first MAC, and my first Swiss watch, I am still using one of them!!


----------



## scentedlead

horrij1 said:


> Interesting thread, and I honestly don't know enough about the Swiss watch market to comment. I think that there are a bunch of reasons people buy high end Swiss mechanical watches, and truth be told "telling time" is probably pretty far down the list of user requirements. Find that hard to beleive that people buying Swiss watches don't really buy them to tell time? People buying Apple IPhones are not primarily buying them to make phone calls!!


Apple, in 2007: "Hey, check out our latest and greatest iPod! It makes phone calls too!"



> Some people appreciate the mechanics, engineering, artistic design, and of course the joy of owning what could end up being a family heirloom to pass along to your children. So where I appreciate that Apple might be putting a watch on the wrist of many new customers, I am not sure that the "typical" Apple Watch customer is the "typical" Swiss luxury watch customer.


Prolly not. I think most people by now know if they want or need piece of jewelry or a mini computer on their wrist. But how much will smartwatches affect how the average person views luxury watches?

Apple Watch vs. Other Products

vs. Luxury Watch
60% Apple Watch is more important.
15% Apple Watch is less important.

What did you wear on your wrist(s) before your Apple Watch? (check all that apply)

38% A regular watch.
34% Nothing on my wrist.
17% A luxury watch.

I think what gets lost here on WUS is that most people just want a) something useful and b) something that looks nice-and there's no need to spend thousands of dollars to get both. I was at Costco where Seiko was prominently displayed in the jewelry section and I heard an old guy walking by saying, "$300 for a watch! That's too much!" This is the market smartwatches were made for-if $300 is too much for just telling the time (and looking nice), is $300 for a mini computer on your wrist a sweet spot?

Once people get used to getting a kajillion features on a wrist for a few hundred dollars, then how are they going to view a 5-figure watch? How are they going to view more expensive watches? If you can get a computerized planetarium on your wrist for a few hundred dollars, then what's the point of a mechanical planetarium on your wrist for a few hundred thousand dollars?


----------



## scentedlead

Please imagine the following scenario. One morning, you leave your house ten minutes early and suddenly you realize you forgot to put on your Apple Watch. What would be your course of action?

61% It would bother me and I would turn back unless . . .
24% It would bother me but I would not turn back.
11% It would bother me too much and I would turn back no matter what.
4% It would not bother me and I would keep on going.

It'd be interesting to see what these numbers are like for luxury mechanical watch wearers and their luxury mechanical watches. Anyways-

One measure of success for a product is the repurchase rate. Though I haven't seen any such stats for the AW, these numbers bode well for a high repurchase rate.

iPhone and iPod sales drop around this time of year in anticipation of new models and the holiday season. Even though there are no rumors of new Apple Watch models-no speculation, no supply chain leaks-people seem trained from the iPod and iPhone to expect a new AW model.

I'd wait until the holiday numbers come out before worrying about dropping AW sales.


----------



## eljay

scentedlead said:


> One measure of success for a product is the repurchase rate. Though I haven't seen any such stats for the AW, these numbers bode well for a high repurchase rate.


Sales of all smart watches have slowed, which might indicate they're getting close to saturation. Either way, there is definitely going to be a higher repurchase rate for smart watches than for luxury watches, because consumer electronics have a far shorter useful life (and an _even shorter_ supported life).


----------



## scentedlead

eljay said:


> Sales of all smart watches have slowed, which might indicate they're getting close to saturation. Either way, there is definitely going to be a higher repurchase rate for smart watches than for luxury watches, because consumer electronics have a far shorter useful life (and an _even shorter_ supported life).


Well, I think most people would rather have a bare wrist-look at all the threads here mentioning how people now don't wear anything unless it has fitness features or some other such things. My phone, computer, car, microwave, and oven have clocks. Train stations have clocks. Bus stops have clocks. You TV service's schedule guide has a clock. You can get the time anywhere, anytime; who needs a watch. So of course the saturation rates for smartwatches would be lower than for smartphones. (I mean, payphones are ew, right?)

That said, Apple sold 230 million iPhones in CY 2015. Even if Apple hits only 1% of them, that's still 2.3 million watches sold-which is about how many watches were sold on opening weekend of pre-sales. Two percent, and Apple's sold 4.6 million watches. Five percent, and that's 11 million watches. And that's excluding 2016 iPhone sales.


----------



## ronalddheld

Might be SOT but time may be displayed everywhere but how accurate are those values?


----------



## scentedlead

ronalddheld said:


> Might be SOT but time may be displayed everywhere but how accurate are those values?


Well, they're quartz or digital or computerized, so they're as accurate as the people who set them.

I'll always trust my cable provider's schedule guide and I'll usually trust public clocks at banks, train stations, bus stops. Huge outdoor analog display clocks are computerized now (and usually these are on NTP somehow) so most clock towers and outdoor wall clocks I usually trust.

I trust my own microwave/oven/vcr/car. Well maybe the car's clock goes off a half minute per month so I'm off by a few just before the switch with daylight saving time. But everything else is fairly accurate, not off by more than a minute just before the change in DST. That said, I might not trust someone else's clocks, and this is less about trusting a quartz or digital timepiece and more about knowing how most people are less finicky with how accurate their clocks are than I am.


----------



## Fer Guzman




----------



## yankeexpress

Fer Guzman said:


> View attachment 9286626


Thanks for the photo. What is unbelievable to me is who the heck is buying all the Cartier?

Good to NOT see tag, invicta, and timex


----------



## Fer Guzman

^lol, yeah a very interesting graph. I was very surprised Fossil has that much revenue compared to the other makers.


----------



## Fer Guzman

I agree. Anything less than 1k is an apple competitor. I also don't think the recent trouble in the swiss watch industry is apple related. To some extent yes, but more so other factors.


----------



## Greg Bell

I figure if watches survived the cell phone they will survive this. I am probably going to break down and buy an apple watch 2 but nothing that only runs half a day is replacing a real watch.


----------



## eljay

Fer Guzman said:


> View attachment 9286626


How's it looking for 2016?

There was lots of latent demand to be satisfied in 2015.


----------



## eljay

yankeexpress said:


> Thanks for the photo. What is unbelievable to me is who the heck is buying all the Cartier?
> 
> Good to NOT see tag, invicta, and timex


Looks like either sales revenue or profit, and not units, hence the high end stuff and Apple with its profit margin that's the envy of the world.


----------



## Greg Bell

I guess the failure of the Gold Apple watch shows their is only so high end they can go.


----------



## yankeexpress

eljay said:


> Looks like either sales revenue or profit, and not units, hence the high end stuff and Apple with its profit margin that's the envy of the world.


Yeah, but is Cartier really ripping off the customers THAT much with minuscule volumes?

We know all the others on the list are high volume sellers, but Cartier? I don't THINK so, unless women buy tons more watches from them as jewelry that I realize.


----------



## eljay

yankeexpress said:


> Yeah, but is Cartier really ripping off the customers THAT much with minuscule volumes?
> 
> We know all the others on the list are high volume sellers, but Cartier? I don't THINK so, unless women buy tons more watches from them as jewelry that I realize.


That's a good question, and now I wonder what the real metric is. I should stress that it's just speculation on my part.

Apple's got a long and glorious history of misleading data presentation in sales material so that doesn't help either.


----------



## Fer Guzman

The Swiss watch industry dominates in the area of revenue despite not selling the most units. In 2014, "Vontobel Bank estimates that worldwide Swisswatch sales generate 57 per cent of the total global market value of CHF 40billion for watches . . . In terms of units of wrist watches exported, however, Switzerland lags farbehind China and Hong Kong. Of an estimated 1.2 billion units of wrist watchesproduced worldwide in 2014, only 31.2 million units (2.6 per cent of total globalproduction) were manufactured in Switzerland11." So yes with minuscule volume the Swiss watch industry is making a ton of money. I'm not sure what the figures are now since sales have been declining since peak sales in about 2014. 

Source: http://www.ourplanet.com/swisswatches/6-Swiss-watch-industry-in-the-global-market.pdf


----------



## Nightwind

Hi Quartz watches are generally more accurate than mechanicals due to the micro-chip but they still have a margin of error (afew seconds a month typically which may be cumulative) and require periodic adjustments.

However there are high end GPS Synced watches like the Seiko Astron which connects via GPS to the atomic clock on a satellite. These have global coverage as long as you are out in the open.They are also solar powered so the batteries never have to be replaced.The error margin of a Seiko Astron which syncs automatically and daily (with no button pressing) to a GPS satellite is about +- 1 sec every 100,000years.

They also have a perpetual calendar with leap year adjustments, are waterproof to 20bars and made of titanium with ceramic bezel and sapphire cover, so theoretically these watches can keep on working if you leave them in direct sunlight for decades.

These are watches you can rely on independently if you are marooned on a dessert island lol



scentedlead said:


> Well, they're quartz or digital or computerized, so they're as accurate as the people who set them.
> 
> I'll always trust my cable provider's schedule guide and I'll usually trust public clocks at banks, train stations, bus stops. Huge outdoor analog display clocks are computerized now (and usually these are on NTP somehow) so most clock towers and outdoor wall clocks I usually trust.
> 
> I trust my own microwave/oven/vcr/car. Well maybe the car's clock goes off a half minute per month so I'm off by a few just before the switch with daylight saving time. But everything else is fairly accurate, not off by more than a minute just before the change in DST. That said, I might not trust someone else's clocks, and this is less about trusting a quartz or digital timepiece and more about knowing how most people are less finicky with how accurate their clocks are than I am.


----------



## lorsban

Why is Fitbit not in the list? It trumps all of them. 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## WTSP

yankeexpress said:


> Thanks for the photo. What is unbelievable to me is who the heck is buying all the Cartier?
> 
> Good to NOT see tag, invicta, and timex


Good point concerning Cartier. Also surprising that Timex isn't further up, but I assume that this ranking is based on dollar sales rather than units, so it probably hurts Timex.

Lumping Tag Heuer and Invicta together? I'm not a big fan of TH either, but methinks you are too cruel!


----------



## Joved

Fer Guzman said:


> View attachment 9286626


Hi! First time post, so here we go!!

What I find curious with this list is two things: 1) Swatch Group is presented as individual brands. When analyzing corporate performance group sales should count as one. (though I doubt that it would make any difference in this case). 2) Apple's (and anybody who reports about Apple's success) desire to show that Apple Watch competes in luxury watch segment, while the correct segment would be the "wearable tech" segment. As it has all ready been observed in this thread; anybody who is contemplating to drop 2k+$ on a watch is most likely to steer away from the Apple "watch", unless off course if the buyer is looking for a new tech toy....


----------



## BarracksSi

Welcome! Jumping right into the deep end, I see. 



Joved said:


> it has all ready been observed in this thread; anybody who is contemplating to drop 2k+$ on a watch is most likely to steer away from the Apple "watch", unless off course if the buyer is looking for a new tech toy....


It's also been observed (whether in this thread or the half-dozen others asking the same thing) that people might be less likely to drop big money on a watch when they feel it might not be getting very much wrist time.

On the third side of the coin (heh), some people who haven't worn watches -- or nicely-constructed watches, for that matter -- start to enjoy having a watch on the wrist and begin looking at nicer watches for days when they'd leave the smartwatch at home.

In my case, my interest in a nice, business-like daily wear mechanical pretty much disappeared after I got my AW. I felt less interested in a watch with a date, especially, because I became a little annoyed by needing to set the date on my other autos whenever I wanted to wear them.

I've still got my eyes on a DJ, OP, or Tank if I land a well-paying new job soon (which, in some cases, may require me to _not_ wear a smartwatch for security reasons), but my days of using a regular watch for daily use are pretty much gone.


----------



## Fer Guzman

lorsban said:


> Why is Fitbit not in the list? It trumps all of them.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Total company revenue in 2015 was 1.86 Billion USD, and obviously not everything the company sells tells time, so that's probably why.



Joved said:


> Apple's (and anybody who reports about Apple's success) desire to show that Apple Watch competes in luxury watch segment, while the correct segment would be the "wearable tech" segment. As it has all ready been observed in this thread; anybody who is contemplating to drop 2k+$ on a watch is most likely to steer away from the Apple "watch", unless off course if the buyer is looking for a new tech toy....





BarracksSi said:


> It's also been observed (whether in this thread or the half-dozen others asking the same thing) that people might be less likely to drop big money on a watch when they feel it might not be getting very much wrist time.


I don't consider the apple watch a luxury item but some people do buy it as a status thing. I went to look at watches last week. Tried on some Nomos, Tudor, and Omega. The Nomos I liked but it was more than $4k; the tudor I really liked and it was a little over $2k. The Omega I loved but it was 8k and on the grey market like 5k. I was seriously debating getting one of the three. I am now probably going to get the ceramic or another SS and hold off on the one of the three until a great deal pops up. I completely agree with BarracksSi, I likely won't be purchasing one of the three potential mechanics because I know I've worn the AW almost every day since it came out.

But again, I don't think the problems in the Swiss industry right now are AW caused, it's currency, corruption crackdown in China, and other things.


----------



## zetaplus93

Joved said:


> Hi! First time post, so here we go!!
> 
> What I find curious with this list is two things: 1) Swatch Group is presented as individual brands. When analyzing corporate performance group sales should count as one. (though I doubt that it would make any difference in this case). 2) Apple's (and anybody who reports about Apple's success) desire to show that Apple Watch competes in luxury watch segment, while the correct segment would be the "wearable tech" segment. As it has all ready been observed in this thread; anybody who is contemplating to drop 2k+$ on a watch is most likely to steer away from the Apple "watch", unless off course if the buyer is looking for a new tech toy....


I think it depends on how one wants to present themselves. Apple wanted to make themselves looks good, and so split up the Swatch group into individual brands. On the other hand, I can see a compelling reason for comparing themselves to other brands (and not conglomerates). Omega and Tissot are distinct brands though they're both part of the Swatch group.

Regarding segmentation, it can be done in a variety of ways and there's no "correct" segmentation.

However, I think Apple wants to be compared to the watch industry and not just the wearable tech industry. It's similar to how Apple talked about the phone industry and not the smartphone industry when the iPhone first launched. This shows Apple's ambitions and where they see the AW going. Potentially, once the AW gains more capabilities and gets cheaper, devices like FitBits will eventually decline in the same way that feature phones have declined and "smartphones" have since eclipse it. In fact, "smartphones" aren't used much anymore--they're just "phones" in 2016.


----------



## zetaplus93

Fer Guzman said:


> I don't consider the apple watch a luxury item but some people do buy it as a status thing. I went to look at watches last week. Tried on some Nomos, Tudor, and Omega. The Nomos I liked but it was more than $4k; the tudor I really liked and it was a little over $2k. The Omega I loved but it was 8k and on the grey market like 5k. I was seriously debating getting one of the three. I am now probably going to get the ceramic or another SS and hold off on the one of the three until a great deal pops up. I completely agree with BarracksSi, I likely won't be purchasing one of the three potential mechanics because I know I've worn the AW almost every day since it came out.
> 
> But again, I don't think the problems in the Swiss industry right now are AW caused, it's currency, corruption crackdown in China, and other things.


As bullish as I am about the Apple Watch, I don't think we can attribute declines in the Swiss industry to the Apple Watch and wearables in general or these other factors. There's just not enough information yet.


----------



## madjh

The declines of swiss watch industrie comes fron Asia, they have stoped to buy the most luxury watches (more than 10.000$ ) The CO if the brnds have lot of expesive watches in stock and they don´t sell.


----------



## madjh

The worst thing of the apple watch is the 1 day battery life ... it is awfull. I can image all day charging the watch.

If you want to run a app you take the phone, it has a big screen, better battery life, and it is more confortable.


----------



## Fer Guzman

310runner said:


> The Apple Watch just makes you more aware of your apps


I don't use any 3rd party apps. I use it to read texts, for time, answer calls, exercise, and directions. I don't get as many notification like on the phone.



madjh said:


> The worst thing of the apple watch is the 1 day battery life ... it is awfull. I can image all day charging the watch.
> 
> If you want to run a app you take the phone, it has a big screen, better battery life, and it is more confortable.


I charge it at night and I've never run out of juice, except the handful of times I forgot to charge it. It's not at all a pain. I use it as an alarm clock at nights so I almost never not charge.


----------



## lorsban

Fer Guzman said:


> Total company revenue in 2015 was 1.86 Billion USD, and obviously not everything the company sells tells time, so that's probably why.


That's true.

But majority of their products sold are products that do tell time so at over 21 million devices sold, I'm guessing most of those are technically watches.

Whatever the case may be, Fitbit doesn't seem to be lobbying as hard as apple to be included in the traditional watch segment, so I doubt we'll see the true picture.

In the wearable tech segment tho, where apple clearly belongs, Fitbit is the absolute king.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Fer Guzman

lorsban said:


> That's true.
> 
> But majority of their products sold are products that do tell time so at over 21 million devices sold, I'm guessing most of those are technically watches.
> 
> Whatever the case may be, Fitbit doesn't seem to be lobbying as hard as apple to be included in the traditional watch segment, so I doubt we'll see the true picture.
> 
> In the wearable tech segment tho, where apple clearly belongs, Fitbit is the absolute king.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


If you are referring to units sold then probably fitbit is #1. If you base it on revenue then it's not that clear cut since apple doesn't release revenue from apple watch specifically, only the other products category it reports, but estimates for 2015 are about 1.7 Billion in revenue for apple watch which isn't that far off from fitbit and of course it could be more.


----------



## lorsban

Fer Guzman said:


> If you are referring to units sold then probably fitbit is #1. If you base it on revenue then it's not that clear cut since apple doesn't release revenue from apple watch specifically, only the other products category it reports, but estimates for 2015 are about 1.7 Billion in revenue for apple watch which isn't that far off from fitbit and of course it could be more.


True but I don't think this whole thread is about revenue but about the Apple watch causing problems for the Swiss watch industry, and if that's the case we're talking unit sales.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Fer Guzman

My comment was in response to your statement that fitbit is king. I'm saying if it relates to units sold than yes, revenue maybe.

Units sold doesn't really matter in the discussion of apple causing problems for the Swiss, what matter is the amount of the pie apple is taking from them in terms of revenue. And as I've said before, Apple likely has an impact on cheaper watches less than 1k, but the current downturn is more likely caused by other factors not having to do with apple.

I'm still hoping someone can confirm if the graph apple posted by revenue is correct. Or tell us what the actual numbers are.


----------



## lorsban

Fer Guzman said:


> My comment was in response to your statement that fitbit is king. I'm saying if it relates to units sold than yes, revenue maybe.
> 
> Units sold doesn't really matter in the discussion of apple causing problems for the Swiss, what matter is the amount of the pie apple is taking from them in terms of revenue..


Maybe...but who knows?

I still prefer the unit sales method because it's 1:1.

Besides, as a gadget, apple watch success should be based on unit sales like other gadgets such as smartphones.

And whatever the case may be, there's still no evidence to support the OPs claim that the apple watch is the cause of the decline in sales (which has been in decline even before the apple watch came out).

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Joved

BarracksSi said:


> Welcome! Jumping right into the deep end, I see.
> 
> It's also been observed (whether in this thread or the half-dozen others asking the same thing) that people might be less likely to drop big money on a watch when they feel it might not be getting very much wrist time.
> 
> On the third side of the coin (heh), some people who haven't worn watches -- or nicely-constructed watches, for that matter -- start to enjoy having a watch on the wrist and begin looking at nicer watches for days when they'd leave the smartwatch at home.
> 
> In my case, my interest in a nice, business-like daily wear mechanical pretty much disappeared after I got my AW. I felt less interested in a watch with a date, especially, because I became a little annoyed by needing to set the date on my other autos whenever I wanted to wear them.
> 
> I've still got my eyes on a DJ, OP, or Tank if I land a well-paying new job soon (which, in some cases, may require me to _not_ wear a smartwatch for security reasons), but my days of using a regular watch for daily use are pretty much gone.


Hi, thanks for the welcome!

I am truly sorry to hear about the fate of your regular watches, if you need a place to offload your collection, I'lll make room in my watch box..... 

Kidding aside; to be honest, I have very little interest in the AW, to me it's just..... well Apple just isn't a very interesting brand to me, I'm through and through in the Chrome/Android realm. I tend to view (and I am PRETTY sure that we are not talking about some hidden wisdom here, there's bound to be others...) these smart watches not as better watches, but as mere peripherals to my phone. Therefore my viewpoint is from the other side: Do I need this add-on that can also tell time, or am I more likely to drop that same money as part of a nice watch purchase.

If and when AW and these other smart watches turn into true autonomous comm-gear, then I will surely get one, but even then I'll be Schwarzkopffing with a sw and "something nice"..... and will probably be called a ginormous douche bag in the process......


----------



## valmak

Fer Guzman said:


> View attachment 9286626


I came here to post this this but you beat me to it. You can't look at this without concluding that Apple has taken a bite out of the Swiss Watch Industry.


----------



## eljay

valmak said:


> I came here to post this this but you beat me to it. You can't look at this without concluding that Apple has taken a bite out of the Swiss Watch Industry.


You can't?


----------



## valmak

eljay said:


> You can't?


Well the only way you can conclude that Apple Watch Sales haven't effected Swiss Watch Sales is if a big chunk of those Apple Watch Sales didn't come from people who would have otherwise purchased one of the other brands. This seems really unlikely.


----------



## Joved

Fer Guzman said:


> I don't consider the apple watch a luxury item but some people do buy it as a status thing.


Yes, this is very much true, and herein lies the matter of the fact: I doubt that anything that will need to be upgraded or updated on regular basis for it to continue to have useful life span, will ever be viewed as having inherent value as an objet de desir so to speak. Fine mechanical time pieces on the other hand, continue to have value and to be collectors items even when they seize (sorry about the pun) to be functional as watches, whether this is due to mechanical- or practical failure is only a matter of value in money.


----------



## eljay

valmak said:


> Well the only way you can conclude that Apple Watch Sales haven't effected Swiss Watch Sales is if a big chunk of those Apple Watch Sales didn't come from people who would have otherwise purchased one of the other brands. This seems really unlikely.


Considering the very different functions they offer, it wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## Joved

"lorsban" likes this." Thank You, you are much too kind!


----------



## Fer Guzman

An article John Biggs wrote, whom I've heard on the ablogtowatch podcast/youtube show. Someone posted it on the g-shock forum. https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/08/the-swiss-watch-industry-is-doomed/


----------



## zetaplus93

Joved said:


> Yes, this is very much true, and herein lies the matter of the fact: I doubt that anything that will need to be upgraded or updated on regular basis for it to continue to have useful life span, will ever be viewed as having inherent value as an objet de desir so to speak. Fine mechanical time pieces on the other hand, continue to have value and to be collectors items even when they seize (sorry about the pun) to be functional as watches, whether this is due to mechanical- or practical failure is only a matter of value in money.


While traditional watches are likely to continually be loved by collectors, a potential future is it becoming like what pocket watches are today--loved and cherished by (an ever dwindling set of) passionate collectors, but otherwise irrelevant by the mainstream buyer.

What's there to prevent traditional watches from going down that path?


----------



## scentedlead

Well, that slide covered profit not units. That said, Roles and Omega are up there because their prices are high, whereas, Fossil is up there because it sells a lot of pieces.

Comparing AWs to traditional watches is comparing apples to oranges. But then again, comparing AWs to Fitbits is also comparing apples to oranges. But Apple is saying it’s doing what Fossil is doing—going up against the luxury brands by offering good (not luxurious, but very good) quality at attainable prices and what it’s doing is selling well enough that its profits are comparable to how much profit a luxury brand makes.

As for comparing AWs and Fitbits, that’s like comparing dumbphones to smartphones. Sure the Fitbit tracks your movement and heartrate just like an AW, but the AW does so much more. It’s not a comparison that Apple would make, but it’s not a comparison that hurts the AW—more people buy the uni-tasker gadget because it’s cheaper, big deal.

But with the AW, Apple is offering more functionality with good product quality at prices within reach of the middle class, and that one slide shows that customers have responded to what the AW offers.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> While traditional watches are likely to continually be loved by collectors, a potential future is it becoming like what pocket watches are today--loved and cherished by (an ever dwindling set of) passionate collectors, but otherwise irrelevant by the mainstream buyer.
> 
> What's there to prevent traditional watches from going down that path?


The jewelry angle is what's driving this segment.

Gadgets will never be jewelry. Their lifespans are too short.

A major shift in society has to happen first for jewelry to stop being popular. But when that happens, the apple watch will also be affected since it's trying to shoehorn itself into the luxury swiss watch segment.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> The jewelry angle is what's driving this segment.
> 
> Gadgets will never be jewelry. Their lifespans are too short.
> 
> A major shift in society has to happen first for jewelry to stop being popular. But when that happens, the apple watch will also be affected since it's trying to shoehorn itself into the luxury swiss watch segment.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


As I recall, the younger crowd have been less likely to wear watches. It's an observation from at least 2 years ago (and hence really separate from the effects of AW). I certainly continue to see many youngsters not have anything on their wrists.

So it would seem that wearing watches as jewelry has been on the decline.

For the older crowd, watches continue to be prevalent and relevant for all the reasons we wear watches, including as jewelry and for status. But if the trend continues with the younger crowd, we will eventually not be he mainstream, and watch companies will need to cope with that.

The AW may be less impacted (if it continues to be around for that long)--it has functionalities that jewelry does not.


----------



## zengineer

I like my Rolex, Sinn and Omega watches but at least 20 times a day I find myself thinking "if only this thing would light up or beep every time the phone in my pocket received one of the hundred messages I get each day, I must know instantly that this has happened"

Seriously, stop calling them watches. They are phone accessories that happen to strap to your wrist. Anyone I've seen wearing one was wearing no watch or a mall kiosk special prior to getting it. Will they sell millions? Of course, but if they put anyone out of the watch business it will be Casio long before it is Omega.

The luxury watch industry is in a very deep slump right now and long term (I'm talking decades) it may go the way of the typewriter, but it won't be because of anything Apple, Samsung or Motorola develops.


----------



## Morrisdog

Joved said:


> Yes, this is very much true, and herein lies the matter of the fact: I doubt that anything that will need to be upgraded or updated on regular basis for it to continue to have useful life span, will ever be viewed as having inherent value as an objet de desir so to speak. Fine mechanical time pieces on the other hand, continue to have value and to be collectors items even when they seize (sorry about the pun) to be functional as watches, whether this is due to mechanical- or practical failure is only a matter of value in money.


First generation apple products also have a collectors value. How much do first generation iPods, iPhones and Mac computers go for.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fer Guzman

zengineer said:


> Seriously, stop calling them watches.


How do you define a watch? Cause to me it's a watch.



Morrisdog said:


> First generation apple products also have a collectors value. How much do first generation iPods, iPhones and Mac computers go for.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


haha, I sold a 1st gen apple phone like a year ago for 30 or 40 dollars. I'm certainly not going to keep mine to collect.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> As I recall, the younger crowd have been less likely to wear watches. It's an observation from at least 2 years ago (and hence really separate from the effects of AW). I certainly continue to see many youngsters not have anything on their wrists.
> 
> So it would seem that wearing watches as jewelry has been on the decline.
> 
> For the older crowd, watches continue to be prevalent and relevant for all the reasons we wear watches, including as jewelry and for status. But if the trend continues with the younger crowd, we will eventually not be he mainstream, and watch companies will need to cope with that.
> 
> The AW may be less impacted (if it continues to be around for that long)--it has functionalities that jewelry does not.


When we talk about watches, we're looking at 2 segments: practical and luxury.

I've been talking about the awatch in the luxury segment where the Swiss industry is (and basically what this thread is about).

Luxury, even back then, is mainly to show wealth and social status. So, even when the luxury segment started, few people had them.

It doesn't surprise me that there's a decline because times are tough for a lot of people. The world going through financial meltdowns is the main reason for the decline in luxury sales.

But I agree, wearables are changing how we see watches. But more than the smartwatches, it's the fitness bands that I see making an impact.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Morrisdog

I believe the Apple Watch and its Android equivalents do pose a serious threat to luxury mechanical watches. My reasons:
1. Most of us will only want to wear one watch (I know there some in this forum who wear a mechanical alongside their Apple Watch but I don't think that's going to catch on!!) and at some point the usefulness of these watches are going to be too difficult to resist. 
2. When this happens people are going to really question whether they really need that say new Datejust . Watch fans like us may have some thing special to go out with but I think we will be in the minority.
3. The cost of buying and maintaining these mechanicals are becoming a little crazy. 

So I think smart watches are a serious threat . Hell I am even considering buying the new Apple Watch (series 2) with its built in GPS and better water resistance. If I do then I am not sure what I will do with my Seamaster and Oyster perpetual which are my main 'go to work' watches. I already own a Garmin but only wear it during my early morning walks or runs and when I play golf. I find it too unattractive for day to day wear but quite like to little map and stats it generates from these activities. 

So I really don't think there is any doubt that the Apple Watch poses a threat!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Joved

zetaplus93 said:


> What's there to prevent traditional watches from going down that path?


What is there to prevent Apple from going down (also) that path; just imagine this! A "Hipster wet dream" Apple Pocket Watch! Fob and all, in faux antique silver!!!!

Now seriously; like I said before, AW is just another peripheral to a phone, feature packed yes, but still just a peripheral. When the phone in your pocket becomes obsolete, that is the day that AW will die, and that will happen sooner than the death of the Swiss watch industry. What happens then, is any body's guess, but that will be a majos change in the comm gear industry and the Swiss watch industry will persevere! Remember; AW may be slick tech, but it's still just tech and tech evolves and takes new shapes constantly.


----------



## ronalddheld

Strange thread. When next year's AW has a cellular connect and functions separately from an IPhone, then what? Stranger is the notion that only mechanical watches are "true" watches.


----------



## WTSP

ronalddheld said:


> Strange thread. When next year's AW has a cellular connect and functions separately from an IPhone, then what? Stranger is the notion that only mechanical watches are "true" watches.


Yes, next year's Apple product is always the one to get, or wait until the next, or maybe the one after that, or maybe even the next next next...

I'm still waiting and wearing my mechanicals.


----------



## zetaplus93

Joved said:


> What is there to prevent Apple from going down (also) that path; just imagine this! A "Hipster wet dream" Apple Pocket Watch! Fob and all, in faux antique silver!!!!
> 
> Now seriously; like I said before, AW is just another peripheral to a phone, feature packed yes, but still just a peripheral. When the phone in your pocket becomes obsolete, that is the day that AW will die, and that will happen sooner than the death of the Swiss watch industry. What happens then, is any body's guess, but that will be a majos change in the comm gear industry and the Swiss watch industry will persevere! Remember; AW may be slick tech, but it's still just tech and tech evolves and takes new shapes constantly.


What happens when the AW becomes untethered from the iPhone? Once it gets its own cellular connection, it should be able to operate independently. Add in the AirPods and Siri for more discrete voice interactions. That sounds pretty compelling to me.

I don't think the AW will displace the iPhone, but certainly it could be more than a peripheral.

The biggest advantage of the AW is indeed the fact it's a gadget. It have functionality that at least some of us find useful.

Of course, something could come along and replace the functionality that AW and similar devices offers (perhaps just the AirPods like in the movie Her), at which point we may happily go back to just phones and our trusted and beautiful traditional watches.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> When we talk about watches, we're looking at 2 segments: practical and luxury.
> 
> I've been talking about the awatch in the luxury segment where the Swiss industry is (and basically what this thread is about).
> 
> Luxury, even back then, is mainly to show wealth and social status. So, even when the luxury segment started, few people had them.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me that there's a decline because times are tough for a lot of people. The world going through financial meltdowns is the main reason for the decline in luxury sales.
> 
> But I agree, wearables are changing how we see watches. But more than the smartwatches, it's the fitness bands that I see making an impact.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Good points. I don't see the AW competing with the luxury segment, but certainly in the lower price practical segment.


----------



## zetaplus93

Morrisdog said:


> I believe the Apple Watch and its Android equivalents do pose a serious threat to luxury mechanical watches. My reasons:
> ...
> So I really don't think there is any doubt that the Apple Watch poses a threat!!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Indeed. Perhaps the AW may get some customers from the "lower" segment of he luxury market, but it wouldn't make much sense for it to compete with, say, Patek. If you can afford a Patek, chances are costs aren't an issue and (likely) status is very important. As great as the Apple brand is, I don't think TD up there for watch guys and status-sensitive folks.


----------



## ronalddheld

I see no competition in the $1000 range and up. AW might take shares from less costly mechanicals,Casio,Timex,etc.


----------



## lorsban

Fact is, the worldwide watch industry is HUGE at 1.2 BILLION watches sold annually.

2015 smartwatch sales were 36 million total. Apple watch did less than half that.

The watch industry is over a century old and has survived wars, famine, depressions.

At the most, wearables will just give us more options or simply add to electronic watch sales numbers.

The more new things come up, the harder we cling to the familiar.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/wrist-watch-industry-statistics/

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Fer Guzman

zetaplus93 said:


> What happens when the AW becomes untethered from the iPhone? Once it gets its own cellular connection, it should be able to operate independently. Add in the AirPods and Siri for more discrete voice interactions. That sounds pretty compelling to me.


Oddly I had not thought about answering calls with the airpods but what a great point.


----------



## BarracksSi

"Discreet" and "voice interactions" don't go together.


----------



## Fer Guzman

BarracksSi said:


> "Discreet" and "voice interactions" don't go together.


But it's more discreet that talking on the aw on speaker. Plus you don't have to awkwardly hold your wrist up to your face.


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> "Discreet" and "voice interactions" don't go together.


Well, _more_ discrete...

I'd feel less awkward talking via the AirPods and asking for, say, where the nearest Dunkin' Donuts are. Or read my latest email messages etc. Or weather. Things they do in the movie "Her" don't look too awkward.


----------



## Joved

zetaplus93 said:


> What happens when the AW becomes untethered from the iPhone?....


When that happpens, I'll be Schwarzkopfing my new AW with my mechanical. Untill that happens I'll Schwarzkopf my SKX and my Jim Beam® Apple Watch!!!!


----------



## Morrisdog

zetaplus93 said:


> Indeed. Perhaps the AW may get some customers from the "lower" segment of he luxury market, but it wouldn't make much sense for it to compete with, say, Patek. If you can afford a Patek, chances are costs aren't an issue and (likely) status is very important. As great as the Apple brand is, I don't think TD up there for watch guys and status-sensitive folks.


I agree.. Special occasion watches like a Patek or perhaps a nice vintage depending on your tastes may be immune. Also the ultra rich who don't need the convenience of say getting on the subway by waving their wrist on a card reader (because they have a driver to take them where they want to go) will be not need these conveniences.. But many who buy luxury watches are not ultra rich and at some point some of the features offered by smart watches will become too much to resist.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

Joved said:


> When that happpens, I'll be Schwarzkopfing my new AW with my mechanical. Untill that happens I'll Schwarzkopf my SKX and my Jim Beam Apple Watch!!!!


Not sure what "Schwarzkopfing" means, but perhaps this is your cup of tea? 

http://www.ablogtowatch.com/sinn-dual-strap-system-apple-watch/


----------



## Fer Guzman

zetaplus93 said:


> Not sure what "Schwarzkopfing" means, but perhaps this is your cup of tea?
> 
> http://www.ablogtowatch.com/sinn-dual-strap-system-apple-watch/


I'm flabbergasted Sinn released that. I'm sure there's a least a small market for it but still.


----------



## Joved

zetaplus93 said:


> Not sure what "Schwarzkopfing" means....


During the operation Desert Storm general "Stormin" Norman Schwarzkopf wore a watch in each wrist set to different time zones. Hence Schwarzkopfing.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site568/2012/1227/20121227_074104_Obit Schwarzkopf.JPG


----------



## AvantGardeTime

Fer Guzman said:


> I'm flabbergasted Sinn released that. I'm sure there's a least a small market for it but still.


I you can't against them, why just not join them?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## montelatici

I bought an iWatch at the end of July to try it out. It was a 42mm gold with blue band, very nice looking. I went on vacation for a month to our place in Italy. Wore it on my right wrist. My Panerai on my left wrist. With the battery life of sometimes less than 12 hours, this piece of junk isn't going to threaten mechanical watches any time soon. I put it up for sale on Ebay starting at 100 bucks, hopefully I will get something back for it.


----------



## Morrisdog

They do need to sort out there battery life issues. My Garmin can run for at least one week without a charge. It can also run for about ten hours of GPS mode. I wonder how the new Apple Watch will fare on GPS mode. It needs at least 5 hours to be useful. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## valmak

Swiss Watch Industry Outlook Worsens - WSJ


----------



## MrDagon007

valmak said:


> Swiss Watch Industry Outlook Worsens - WSJ


Unfortunately a payable article, I can only read the beginning.


----------



## eljay

Apple just experienced a year-on-year decline in watch shipments of 70% and a decline in smartwatch market share from 70% to 40%. The entire market is down 50% over the same period.

https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS41875116

I think this is what market saturation looks like.


----------



## Fer Guzman

eljay said:


> Apple just experienced a year-on-year decline in watch shipments of 70% and a decline in smartwatch market share from 70% to 40%. The entire market is down 50% over the same period.
> 
> https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS41875116
> 
> I think this is what market saturation looks like.


I wonder how it the numbers will stack up after the 4th quarter. 70% decline is crazy.


----------



## Joved

Here it is straight from the professional: smart watches are not competing with watches but with smart devices....

"Jitesh Ubrani, a senior research analyst for IDC Mobile Device Trackers put it bluntly in the press release:"
_"It has also become evident that at present smartwatches are not for everyone. Having a clear purpose and use case is paramount, hence many vendors are focusing on fitness due to its simplicity. However, moving forward, differentiating the experience of a smartwatch from the smartphone will be key and we're starting to see early signs of this as cellular integration is rising and as the commercial audience begins to pilot these devices."

__

_


----------



## lorsban

http://gizmodo.com/no-one-is-buying-smartwatches-anymore-1788153001

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## WTSP

Thank goodness I sold mine when I had the chance.


----------



## scentedlead

Joved said:


> Here it is straight from the professional: smart watches are not competing with watches but with smart devices....
> 
> "Jitesh Ubrani, a senior research analyst for IDC Mobile Device Trackers put it bluntly in the press release:"
> _"It has also become evident that at present smartwatches are not for everyone. Having a clear purpose and use case is paramount, hence many vendors are focusing on fitness due to its simplicity. However, moving forward, differentiating the experience of a smartwatch from the smartphone will be key and we're starting to see early signs of this as cellular integration is rising and as the commercial audience begins to pilot these devices."_


In other words: Now that people are using smartwatches, they're beginning to realize how they differ from smartphones, and will eventually figure out what they're _really_ good for. (As happened with smartphones ten years ago-"Why do you need a smartphone when you have a computer?")


----------



## Morrisdog

They really shine for fitness related activities.. love my Garmin for golf, running and cycling .. that's the only time I wear it . I lost interest in how many steps I walk during the day and the notifications are more of a pain than a help with me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lorsban

Apple Watch Sales DOWN 72%

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-watch-3q-shipments-down-716-2016-10

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## MrDagon007

Curious how sales will pick up again with v2. It is a sensible upgrade and like with other apple gear like iphones people tend to postpone buying the quarter before an expected new release.
I wear my v1 at least 2 days per week. It is splendid and useful during working hours.


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> Apple Watch Sales DOWN 72%
> 
> Apple Watch 3Q shipments down 71.6% - Business Insider





> This trend towards lower sales is obviously a bad sign for Apple's smartwatch, but it is worth noting that Apple did not ship a new version of the device with GPS until September, towards the end of the quarter.
> 
> The well-telegraphed launch of Apple Watch Series 2 in September could have muted sales as customers waited for the new model.


Also, I tried to buy a Series 2, only to find that those had sold out-online pre-sales within hours, and in store within hours. It's kinda hard to buy something that's sold out. Hopefully, the Nike watch won't share the same fate (now that that's the one I want.)

I'd be more interested in holiday quarter sales before coming to a conclusion.

Anyways.



> It's important to note that Apple still has the best-selling smartwatch worldwide, beating the likes of Garmin, Samsung, and Lenovo. And Google's own smartwatch project seems to be stuck in neutral.


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> Also, I tried to buy a Series 2, only to find that those had sold out-online pre-sales within hours, and in store within hours. It's kinda hard to buy something that's sold out. Hopefully, the Nike watch won't share the same fate (now that that's the one I want.)
> 
> I'd be more interested in holiday quarter sales before coming to a conclusion.
> 
> Anyways.


My point was that there's really just one conclusion to make here: The Apple Watch IS NOT giving the Swiss watch Industry any trouble.

That's what this whole thread is about.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/wrist-watch-industry-statistics/

Just look how tiny the Apple Watch numbers are compared to the whole watch business.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## scentedlead

lorsban said:


> My point was that there's really just one conclusion to make here: The Apple Watch IS NOT giving the Swiss watch Industry any trouble.
> 
> That's what this whole thread is about.


That AW sales dropped before the widely known release of new models doesn't support your thesis.

A better argument might be: People buy smartwatches and mechanical watches for completely different reasons-smartwatches are bought for function (such as fitness tracking); mechanical watches are bought as jewelry.



> Wrist Watch Industry Statistics - Statistic Brain
> 
> Just look how tiny the Apple Watch numbers are compared to the whole watch business.


That's like saying-in 1986, two years after cellular networks went live-look how tiny the cell phone numbers are compared to touch tone and rotary dial.

I will admit though, mechanical watches have prestige and status as jewelry going for them which is something rotary dial phones never had, no matter how artful some of the old ones were-there will always be a market for jewelry.

But no matter how long mechanical watches live on, that doesn't change the fact that they are a technological dead end in horology. Sure, there will be new materials and new manufacturing processes that will keep mechanical watches interesting-but these things don't advance mechanical watches as the latest in horology, only as the latest in jewelry.

But, let's see how this plays out in the long-term, decades from now. Some food for thought:

Apple Insider: Apple Watch Series 2 sees strong demand from upgraders, millennials



> In a shift to Apple Watch's customer demographic, millennials were the largest pre-order group over the four day sample period, accounting for some 39 percent of initial Series 2 purchases. Millennials take over for Gen X buyers, the largest buying group during the pre-order period of the first Apple Watch model last year, the firm says.


How many millennials do you see with mechanical watches vs. smartwatches?

How many millennials do you see with mechanical watches vs. quartz or digital? And ditto mechanical watches vs. fitness trackers, like Fitbits. How many millennials want a Rolex for the time it tells, vs want a Rolex because it's expensive? And then compare that with how many millennials want a mechanical watch in the USD $100 - $1,000 range which is where fitness trackers and smartwatches are.

To a millennial, a mechanical watch isn't a thing to buy to use. A mechanical watch is a thing to buy to show off how much money you have at an event, like a party, where you don't have to care about the time. Mechanical watches are going to survive the smartwatch the exact same way they survived the quartz watch-by going up in price and becoming more exclusive.


----------



## Joved

scentedlead said:


> Apple Insider: "BLAH BLAH BLAH"


As a source, that's like asking tobacco industry if people are dropping smoking as a habit because of health interests.


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> That AW sales dropped before the widely known release of new models doesn't support your thesis.


What "thesis?" It's simple mathematics. 1.2 billion watches sold worldwide.

How many of those are Apple Watches? 3%? That's nothing.

The OP clearly insinuated that the AW meant death to the Swiss Watch industry like what happened when quartz came which caused a 70% reduction in sales in a matter of a few years.

Clearly that's not the case and modern smartwatches have been around since 2013 when Samsung released theirs.



> But no matter how long mechanical watches live on, that doesn't change the fact that they are a technological dead end in horology. Sure, there will be new materials and new manufacturing processes that will keep mechanical watches interesting-but these things don't advance mechanical watches as the latest in horology, only as the latest in jewelry.


Right. 2 different markets: Luxury, Electronics

Usefulness has never been a factor in luxury goods.

But they're absolutely vital for electronic gadgets where the AW is categorized.



> But, let's see how this plays out in the long-term, decades from now.


I don't see wearables supplanting regular watches. But rather, living alongside them: standard watch on left, fitness band on right.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## eljay

scentedlead said:


> To a millennial, a mechanical watch isn't a thing to buy to use. A mechanical watch is a thing to buy to show off how much money you have at an event, like a party, where you don't have to care about the time.


Way to pigeonhole an entire generation.


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> Right. 2 different markets: Luxury, Electronics
> 
> Usefulness has never been a factor in luxury goods.
> 
> But they're absolutely vital for electronic gadgets where the AW is categorized.
> 
> ...
> 
> I don't see wearables supplanting regular watches. But rather, living alongside them: standard watch on left, fitness band on right.


Keep in mind that the 1.2 billion units of mechanical watches that was quoted includes watches under $1,000, which aren't luxury watches and may likely be replaced by AW and similar products.

But I agree. True luxury watches purchased for status etc will stick around while AW and similar products will become mainstream.

I don't see a watch on one hand and a fitness band on the other though. More likely people will own a AW or similar product and wear a mechanical for special occasions.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> Keep in mind that the 1.2 billion units of mechanical watches that was quoted includes watches under $1,000, which aren't luxury watches and may likely be replaced by AW and similar products.


When do you think that will happen? It's been almost 4 years already.

Maybe in small 1st world markets you'll see a lot of wearables on the street but in the rest of the world, standard watches still rule.

For example, Gshock belongs in the $1000 and under category and there's Absolutely no way wearables will supplant Casio. And they've already got GShocks that alert you when you have messages, emails and calls. AND it's solar.

I think tho that once tech companies figure out the battery issue and give us solar/kinetic technology, maybe then we'll see wearables replacing a larger chunk of the $1000 and under.



> But I agree. True luxury watches purchased for status etc will stick around while AW and similar products will become mainstream.
> 
> I don't see a watch on one hand and a fitness band on the other though. More likely people will own a AW or similar product and wear a mechanical for special occasions.


But I'm already seeing this now. I personally know 5 people who do exactly that; wear their main watch on the left and fitbit on the right.

The more common use is fitness. I have an HR monitor but I only use it when working out.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## ronalddheld

Does Casio watch sales exceed that of the AW?


----------



## scentedlead

Joved said:


> scentedlead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apple Insider: Apple Watch Series 2 sees strong demand from upgraders, millennials "BLAH BLAH BLAH"
> 
> 
> 
> As a source, that's like asking tobacco industry if people are dropping smoking as a habit because of health interests.
Click to expand...

If you read the article, you'd realize that the article said nothing about mechanical watches-it simply states that with the original AWs, the largest group of buyers was Gen X'rs, but with the new AW Series 2, the largest group was millennials. That said, you are welcome to dispute Slice Intelligence on who their numbers state AW's customers are.

I thought the stats were interesting because it might show that the appeal of the AW and shifting towards younger buyers.



lorsban said:


> What "thesis?" It's simple mathematics. 1.2 billion watches sold worldwide.
> 
> How many of those are Apple Watches? 3%? That's nothing.
> 
> The OP clearly insinuated that the AW meant death to the Swiss Watch industry like what happened when quartz came which caused a 70% reduction in sales in a matter of a few years.
> 
> Clearly that's not the case and modern smartwatches have been around since 2013 when Samsung released theirs.



Wrist Watch Industry Statistics



> Number of smartwatches sold in 2015 36,000,000
> 
> Number of Swiss Watches sold annually 29,200,000
> 
> Number of watches produced by China annually 663,000,000
> 
> Number of watches produced by Hong Kong annually 354,000.000


I know what the numbers are, and I pointed out that pointing saying that smartwatches have barely made a dent in the watch market is like saying cell phones weren't popular in 1985 therefore, they were not going to have an impact on telephone communications. You're looking at the short-term impact; I'm looking at the short-term and potential long-term impact.



> Right. 2 different markets: Luxury, Electronics
> 
> Usefulness has never been a factor in luxury goods.
> 
> But they're absolutely vital for electronic gadgets where the AW is categorized.


Usefulness has never been a factor in luxury goods-exclusiveness is a huge part of their appeal. After quartz killed the market for mechanical watches under $100, mechanical watches differentiated themselves as products that cost more due to high labor-exclusivity. Will that appeal of mechanical watches in the $100 - $1,000 price point hold as smartwatches fill in this space? Or will the appeal fade as the mechanical watches go towards more exclusiveness at higher price points to remain relevant?

Outside of WUS, where are mechanical watches popular? They're popular in social circles where the appearance of money is important. They're popular among enthusiasts of watches. They're popular among enthusiasts of retro technology. But where else do you find large numbers of mechanical watches? To most people, a quartz watch does fine both as a timepiece and as costume jewelry.



eljay said:


> Way to pigeonhole an entire generation.


At a wedding I went to this spring, of the young adults and teens-Gen Y and millennials-of around a dozen women, half were wearing quartz and half were wearing smartwatches; of around a dozen men, most were wearing smartwatches, a few wore quartz, one wore a Rolex. Of people older-Gen X and older-half wore quartz, a few wore smartwatches, a few wore mechanical watches.

But feel free to provide your anecdotes that mechanical watches are popular in significant numbers with millennials _outside of niche groups_ and why. A lot of us here on WUS love watches-mechanical included-but we forget that we are a niche group.


----------



## lorsban

scentedlead said:


> Wrist Watch Industry Statistics
> 
> I know what the numbers are, and I pointed out that pointing saying that smartwatches have barely made a dent in the watch market is like saying cell phones weren't popular in 1985 therefore, they were not going to have an impact on telephone communications. You're looking at the short-term impact; I'm looking at the short-term and potential long-term impact.


That's different tho.

Cellfones have the exact same use and function as regular phones.

Wearables are electronic gadgets and standard watches are jewelry.

Different uses. That's why I believe they can coexist.



> Usefulness has never been a factor in luxury goods-exclusiveness is a huge part of their appeal. After quartz killed the market for mechanical watches under $100, mechanical watches differentiated themselves as products that cost more due to high labor-exclusivity. Will that appeal of mechanical watches in the $100 - $1,000 price point hold as smartwatches fill in this space? Or will the appeal fade as the mechanical watches go towards more exclusiveness at higher price points to remain relevant?


Actually, mechanicals in all price ranges were affected. Many manufacturers survived by making quartz versions of high end mechanicals. They basically just adopted the technology. Even Rolex made the Oysterquartz.

They started pushing exclusivity just to differentiate themselves from the Japanese. But this occurred mostly in the 90s.

We are seeing a similar trend today with wearables, Casio has watches with notifications, Tag has a smartwatch. If in case wearables become more than a fad, more Swiss will likely adopt it and continue to dominate.



> Outside of WUS, where are mechanical watches popular?


I see them all over here in Asia. In all market segments. In fact, it's a toss up between gshocks, japanese quartz and seiko mechanicals among minimum wage earners.

Main reason is most of these people don't even use high end smartphones.



> They're popular in social circles where the appearance of money is important. They're popular among enthusiasts of watches. They're popular among enthusiasts of retro technology. But where else do you find large numbers of mechanical watches? To most people, a quartz watch does fine both as a timepiece and as costume jewelry.


Seiko/Citizen machanicals are still very popular among minimum wage earners. They're cheap, look good and work well.

I see them on department store clerks, bus drivers, gas station attendants, farmers.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> When do you think that will happen? It's been almost 4 years already.


The AW was first released in Apr 2015, so it's been a bit more than 1.5 years.

I'd revisit around year 4 or 5.



lorsban said:


> But I'm already seeing this now. I personally know 5 people who do exactly that; wear their main watch on the left and fitbit on the right.
> 
> The more common use is fitness. I have an HR monitor but I only use it when working out.


I do see people wear a Fitbit along with a regular watch. But the past year, many of these folks seems to have moved to an AW or similar product.

I think (1) the products continue to evolve, and (2) people are learning what's useful and not. So I'd give it another 2-3 years to get a better sense of where things are going.

Product adoption is an interesting phenomenon to look at. Smartphone took many years to catch on. So looking at this in about 2-3 years should be more clear. Take a look at the product adoption history at the following link if interested, it's an interesting read:

http://www.asymco.com/2014/05/08/how-close-is-the-uk-to-smartphone-saturation/


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> The AW was first released in Apr 2015, so it's been a bit more than 1.5 years.
> 
> I'd revisit around year 4 or 5.


Modern smartwatches came out 2013 when Samsung released their Galaxy Gear.

Android marketshare is also 83% compared to iOS' 13%. Making it all the more difficult for Apple to dominate wristwatches as speculated.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> Modern smartwatches came out 2013 when Samsung released their Galaxy Gear.
> 
> Android marketshare is also 83% compared to iOS' 13%.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


True. But then again, Android smart watches don't seem to have gained much traction, so I'd probably calibrate to AW's launch date.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> True. But then again, Android smart watches don't seem to have gained much traction, so I'd probably calibrate to AW's launch date.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Doesn't matter.

The OP speculated dominance by AW, which is all the more unlikely given the low market presence Apple has even in the smartphone market.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

lorsban said:


> Doesn't matter.
> 
> The OP speculated dominance by AW, which is all the more unlikely given the low market presence Apple has even in the smartphone market.


I agree. My guess is that many of us here don't think smart watches will completely replace traditional watches.

As I mentioned earlier, it's likely traditional watches will exist alongside newer smart watches in 5-10 year timeframe. People in higher income households will likely have a smart watch of some sort, with a few of these also owning traditional watches. I would think that people mostly wear their smart watches and swap into traditional watches for special occasions. Of course, as you mentioned before, many parts of the world will continue to wear <$100 watches, but likely many of these folks would aspire to a smart watch as well.

Let's give these new type of product another 2-3 more years. It takes some time for change to show up in the data.


----------



## lorsban

zetaplus93 said:


> I agree. My guess is that many of us here don't think smart watches will completely replace traditional watches.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, it's likely traditional watches will exist alongside newer smart watches in 5-10 year timeframe. People in higher income households will likely have a smart watch of some sort, with a few of these also owning traditional watches. I would think that people mostly wear their smart watches and swap into traditional watches for special occasions. Of course, as you mentioned before, many parts of the world will continue to wear <$100 watches, but likely many of these folks would aspire to a smart watch as well.
> 
> Let's give these new type of product another 2-3 more years. It takes some time for change to show up in the data.


Indeed.

For me, if they make an Android smartwatch with very accurate HR with a sim card, I'd be on it like a flash!

Now I use my HR monitor AND bring my cellfone when I bike. It would be far far more convenient if I just had a HR watch that I could do phone stuff on.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## ItnStln

clarken said:


> I think it is interesting but I'm more inclined to call it a wrist gadget than a watch.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This


----------



## Chasen KM

The friends I have wearing smart watches usually have a few nice auto pieces that'll they'll wear to events. I have to say, when I'm out and about running errands or at a low tier event, an Apple Watch is surely more useful than any of my hobby/passion time pieces. 

I think this year I'll make the switch to one as a daily. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## denmarker

im thinking of buying an apple watch for my daily life too.
been thinking about it.
do u think apple would launch a round face apple watch soon?


----------



## BarracksSi

denmarker said:


> do u think apple would launch a round face apple watch soon?


Nope. All the apps written so far are meant to take advantage of the rectangular display. Making it round would either leave less room for content (which nobody wants) or require a bigger watch (which enough users wouldn't want, especially when some already call the current one "bulky").


----------



## MrDagon007

BarracksSi said:


> Nope. All the apps written so far are meant to take advantage of the rectangular display. Making it round would either leave less room for content (which nobody wants) or require a bigger watch (which enough users wouldn't want, especially when some already call the current one "bulky").


It could be done with an internal rectangular section for backward compatibility with apps, and space for the complications at the sides.


----------



## scentedlead

To be honest, I wish the AW had a square dial. Technically speaking, a square is a rectangle.


----------



## Taerid

I just got my first Apple Watch, a Series 1. I got it as I thought it was the best value for me, updated processor and basically the same as the Series 2, bar the GPS, brighter screen and waterproofing.

Anyways, I was wondering what you guys use your Apple Watch for, apart from telling the time, and tracking fitness. I'm just wondering as apps like Instagram aren't really useful for me as the screen is just too small for that sort of stuff.

Any suggestions are appreciated.


----------



## Zoogleboogle

ive had one for a year now, and I only use it to track cardio workouts now. It loses its luster pretty quick and having a blank black square on my wrist isnt exactly nice looking.


----------



## ronalddheld

Mostly the time and notifications. Do not use a unit the fitness apps.


----------



## mharris660

Not as long as they have the fallback chocolate. They'll be fine


----------



## luderchris3

i have a hard time putting digital screen technology on my arm. I already have it in front of me all day in the form of 2 monitors, a smart phone, and a laptop, tablet or TV at night. It's nice to look at an analog watchface.


----------



## MrDagon007

Taerid said:


> I just got my first Apple Watch, a Series 1. I got it as I thought it was the best value for me, updated processor and basically the same as the Series 2, bar the GPS, brighter screen and waterproofing.
> 
> Anyways, I was wondering what you guys use your Apple Watch for, apart from telling the time, and tracking fitness. I'm just wondering as apps like Instagram aren't really useful for me as the screen is just too small for that sort of stuff.
> 
> Any suggestions are appreciated.


Mainly notifications from my most important contacts (messages and WhatsApp) that I can easily answer on the watch, and calendar reminders.
The maps function, the camera remote occasionally
I usually have the watch face that combines with the activity circles.


----------



## BarracksSi

Taerid said:


> I just got my first Apple Watch, a Series 1. I got it as I thought it was the best value for me, updated processor and basically the same as the Series 2, bar the GPS, brighter screen and waterproofing.
> 
> Anyways, I was wondering what you guys use your Apple Watch for, apart from telling the time, and tracking fitness. I'm just wondering as apps like Instagram aren't really useful for me as the screen is just too small for that sort of stuff.
> 
> Any suggestions are appreciated.


A couple threads of mine:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f586/apple-watch-owners-first-impressions;-what-were-yours-2217986.html
After a few months:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f586/comparing-my-aw-rest-my-collection-pic-heavy-2699457.html

TL;DR:

- NOT HAVING TO HOLD MY PHONE ALL THE TIME ANYMORE <-- best part!
- Keeping time;
- Waking up in the morning (either the audible alarm or by wearing it overnight so it taps my wrist);
- Paying for stuff via Apple Pay;
- Easily seeing the time in the dark;
- Checking the weather while standing in my closet before I get dressed;
- Get navigation directions;
- Logging workouts;
- Skimming news headlines while I'm on the can;
- Playing a couple games while I'm on the can;
- Deleting marketing emails which I keep forgetting to unsubscribe from;
- At Grandma's house, quietly receiving updates about how badly my team is losing;
- Seeing a text come in without having to grab my phone only to discover it can wait until later;
- Seeing a phone call come in and _not_ having to grab my phone only to discover it's a telemarketer;
- Knowing when an email from my family or boss comes in because I've set the email notification to trigger _only_ for them;
- Setting a timer for my laundry in my apartment building's laundry room;

And I think I'm only scratching the surface of what people can do with all the apps already written for it.


----------



## MrDagon007

Oh yes forgot to mention apple pay. It's wonderful!

And siri for my homekit lamps. Siri, switch on living room light.


----------



## Taerid

I've been using my AW now for around a week and all I use it for is the fitness tracking side of things. I don't need it for notifications or anything like that as I always have my phone with me. It's a good device, it must be said. But for me, it's not that useful yet, maybe in a few more iterations.


----------



## ItnStln

Taerid said:


> I've been using my AW now for around a week and all I use it for is the fitness tracking side of things. I don't need it for notifications or anything like that as I always have my phone with me. It's a good device, it must be said. But for me, it's not that useful yet, maybe in a few more iterations.


I agree. I got one three days ago and I already miss wearing a real watch.


----------



## Derekwd

I like my apple watch but I miss wearing a nice analog watch. I love the craftsmanship that goes in to a nice time piece.


----------



## valmak

OP here. I called it.


----------



## Boblalock1

I just purchased an Apple Watch and still love my mechanical watches.


----------



## srvwus

I've got a collection of multiple nice mechanical chronographs plus a couple GMTs.










I've spent the past few days playing around with this.










And I haven't missed my others as much as I've thought but it took me awhile to get to this point. I've owned the Apple Watch series 1 for a year or so and only wore it for workouts at first. I couldn't figure out what good it would do over a nice AP or VC. But the other day I saw a more regular bracelet for sale and figured I'd try it. I really like it and it seem more like a watch to me this way.

As for function, I'm not a huge text message or email guy, but I have found it nice to be able to discretely check those things keeping my phone outside my patient rooms. I initially used the chronograph face because I love chronographs but it just didn't seem right. If I was going to use a digital watch, I should have a digital display. So now at a glance I can tell the time, date, weather and a second time zone. With one click I can bring up a stopwatch function.

I'm learning more about the various apps and trying to see if they're truly useful (like Apple Pay, maps) or more gimmicks. And while my mechanicals are safe from the chopping block, I can certainly see why people may hesitate to fork over $5000+ for a new mechanical watch these days.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ItnStln

srvwus said:


> I've got a collection of multiple nice mechanical chronographs plus a couple GMTs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've spent the past few days playing around with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I haven't missed my others as much as I've thought but it took me awhile to get to this point. I've owned the Apple Watch series 1 for a year or so and only wore it for workouts at first. I couldn't figure out what good it would do over a nice AP or VC. But the other day I saw a more regular bracelet for sale and figured I'd try it. I really like it and it seem more like a watch to me this way.
> 
> As for function, I'm not a huge text message or email guy, but I have found it nice to be able to discretely check those things keeping my phone outside my patient rooms. I initially used the chronograph face because I love chronographs but it just didn't seem right. If I was going to use a digital watch, I should have a digital display. So now at a glance I can tell the time, date, weather and a second time zone. With one click I can bring up a stopwatch function.
> 
> I'm learning more about the various apps and trying to see if they're truly useful (like Apple Pay, maps) or more gimmicks. And while my mechanicals are safe from the chopping block, I can certainly see why people may hesitate to fork over $5000+ for a new mechanical watch these days.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nice collection! How do you like the Steinhart GMT?


----------



## srvwus

ItnStln said:


> Nice collection! How do you like the Steinhart GMT?


Love the Steinhart. Great travel watch

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ItnStln

srvwus said:


> Love the Steinhart. Great travel watch
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks, I'm considering getting one! I just noticed the West Lafayette on the Apple Watch, I have a friend who works there.


----------



## zetaplus93

srvwus said:


> I've got a collection of multiple nice mechanical chronographs plus a couple GMTs.


Nice Sinn 903!

I'd say give it a few more weeks. As I recall, my opinion changed several times over the weeks and months. I did find Apple Pay useful, enough that I continue to use it on my phone.


----------



## eljay

valmak said:


> OP here. I called it.


Called what?


----------



## srvwus

zetaplus93 said:


> Nice Sinn 903!
> 
> I'd say give it a few more weeks. As I recall, my opinion changed several times over the weeks and months. I did find Apple Pay useful, enough that I continue to use it on my phone.


That is very true. In fact one of the reasons my collection has grown so much is that before I sell, I wear the watch a bit and see if I still like it. And inevitably I remember why I bought it is the first place. I've had the top row all on the potential chopping block at one time or another and now I'm glad I've kept them. Who knows what will happen in the future but yes tastes and situations change.


----------



## Morrisdog

eljay said:


> Called what?


The op called that the Swiss watch industry is in trouble because of the Apple Watch . He is certainly correct with the Swiss watch industry being in some sort of trouble. Sales are down 10% last year on the background of a drop of 8% the previous year. I think the cause of this is multifaceted and not all to do with Apple Watch . The Chinese crack down on corruption probably has as much to do with their sales predicament than anything else. The western world has also been through some tough economic times

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eljay

Morrisdog said:


> The op called that the Swiss watch industry is in trouble because of the Apple Watch . He is certainly correct with the Swiss watch industry being in some sort of trouble. Sales are down 10% last year on the background of a drop of 8% the previous year. I think the cause of this is multifaceted and not all to do with Apple Watch . The Chinese crack down on corruption probably has as much to do with their sales predicament than anything else. The western world has also been through some tough economic times


I agree.

To gloat about having predicted something that was already happening, and which had done so independently of the claimed cause, well...


----------



## srvwus

Back on topic though I agree that the assertions may be true true and unrelated. I have spent quite a bit of money on my mechanical collection but haven't in awhile because I'm not convinced that the prices are reflective of the value right now. Currency, new watch releases, and other factors certainly play a role. Apple watches do seem to be gaining traction and I do see them quite a bit in the wild-way more than any mechanical watches. But to say that Swiss watch industry is in trouble solely because of the Apple Watch and smart watches is a pretty big stretch to me. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## eljay

srvwus said:


> I have spent quite a bit of money on my mechanical collection but haven't in awhile because *I'm not convinced that the prices are reflective of the value right now*.


I agree with this too. Join us!


----------



## dscustoms

I've now had one for two days. Unless I figure out some miraculous use for this, it's going back. I'm paying a grand for this amazing phone that does everything, what's the watch really doing for me? Saving me 2 seconds from looking at my phone, while costing me 10-20 trying to do anything on the watch that takes a second to do on the phone?

its also too small, and dainty looking. I'm sure many of you have smaller wrists, but this thing is far too small and round for a mans watch. All it makes me do is miss one of my big divers... 

Apple Pay is convenient but if I'm walking to the checkout line at a store, I'm pulling out my phone anyways. Looking like a nerd waving your wrist over the terminal isn't helping. 

the screen is too small for real interaction, and things are sloooooooooooooow. 

So so what else is there? What really saves so much time that it's worth wearing this thing? There are far better and cheaper fitness devices with real battery life.


----------



## BarracksSi

^^^ Put your phone away (leave it on your bedside table, or by the car keys, or wherever) and let the watch do its job for a few days, then see if it has made its case.


----------



## dscustoms

Again. Why would I put the phone away. You can't functionally reply to messages or emails on the watch, plus the phone just does everything better. Putting the phone away is forcing a situation where you have to adapt to the watch, instead of the watch improving my life. The phone cost a grand for all that cool stuff it does. Why would I leave it behind for a subpar experience on a watch?


----------



## dscustoms

What is something that the watch does better than the phone. Let's keep it simple. Better.


----------



## rationaltime

dscustoms said:


> What is something that the watch does better than the phone. Let's keep it simple. Better.


OK. The Apple Watch measures your heart rate, and the iphone cannot.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## dscustoms

But it doesn't do that as well as say a Fitbit or any other device which does 24/7 hr tracking. As a feature, the hr tracking on the Apple Watch really isn't that good. There are even fitness trackers which don't replace your watch, if that's the only thing the Apple Watch makes slightly easier than the phone.


----------



## ItnStln

dscustoms said:


> But it doesn't do that as well as say a Fitbit or any other device which does 24/7 hr tracking. As a feature, the hr tracking on the Apple Watch really isn't that good. There are even fitness trackers which don't replace your watch, if that's the only thing the Apple Watch makes slightly easier than the phone.


This is exactly why I'm selling my Apple Watch Series 2 Nike+ and going back to my Fitbit.


----------



## BarracksSi

So...

Does your phone replace your laptop?


----------



## dscustoms

BarracksSi said:


> So...
> 
> Does your phone replace your laptop?


Most of the time, yes. My laptop doesn't fit in my pocket, and unless I'm sitting down to do some actual work where it's just faster to use a keyboard, I'm on my phone.


----------



## BarracksSi

dscustoms said:


> Most of the time, yes. My laptop doesn't fit in my pocket, and unless I'm sitting down to do some actual work where it's just faster to use a keyboard, I'm on my phone.


But it's not a _complete_ replacement, is it?

Does your laptop do everything a multi-bay tower computer can do? Or does the bigger computer do everything that a server farm or mainframe can do? No, of course not.

My point is, the watch is good at a lot of small tasks that don't need a full interface, like with a QWERTY keyboard or image viewer. In some things, like screening calls or checking the weather, I'd say that it's _better_ than a phone because it's a lot more convenient.

For example, I'm wearing my SKX009 at the moment, and was walking out of the bedroom when I became curious about the temperature outside. Out of habit, I wanted to look at my wrist, because I've got the local temperature set as a complication on my AW -- but, nope, it's just my SKX, and my phone was out in the living room.

A watch is more convenient than a phone (really, watches have always been more convenient for the job of timekeeping) just as your phone is more convenient than your laptop. But, both the watch and the phone trade away some capability to gain portability -- and besides, the laptop gained portability by trading away the expandability and electricity-sucking CPU grunt of a desktop tower, too.

Now that I've got a smartwatch, my phone isn't glued to my hand _all the friggin' time_ like it had been a year and a half ago. I didn't really notice it until I tried going without the smartwatch, and because I had to go back to the phone more often, it started to bug me.

Would I own a smartwatch as my _sole_ wristwatch? Well, no, because my other watches are nearly maintenance-free, which is a major convenience of its own. But can it be part of my [hypothetical] two- or three-watch collection? Absolutely, yes.

Much more in my older thread:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f586/comparing-my-aw-rest-my-collection-pic-heavy-2699457.html


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> My point is, the watch is good at a lot of small tasks that don't need a full interface, like with a QWERTY keyboard or image viewer. In some things, like screening calls or checking the weather, I'd say that it's _better_ than a phone because it's a lot more convenient.


This. I do miss being able to check quick things like weather, messages, calls, etc. It's hard to know how valuable these things are without actually having and using the AW yourself for a few weeks' time.


----------



## Morrisdog

It's not the same watch but I found the notifications a bit annoying on my Garmin and eventually switched them off. However I only use the Garmin for running and golf so there is no great need for notifications. On a seperate note my wife loves her Apple Watch. It's much more useful for women who often keep their phone in a hand bag and hence can easily miss calls and texts. 
I don't think I need one at the moment but I suspect there will come a time when some of the smart phone features will become increasingly important in city life. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dscustoms

barracks you are making a lot of broad stroke guesses there, and really trying to justify something for minimal gain. I only have a laptop, not a server rack, not even a functioning tower anymore. Don't need it, don't do the things someone might need it for. MacBook Pro and iPhone 7+. Laptop for work, phone all the time. I'm on day four? Of the Apple Watch, and liking it even less. I'm not getting any convenience out of it. Here's how it seems to go. 

Check the time? Oh it's not on so I have to make an exaggerated wrist movement so it knows I'm looking. Otherwise I get that black screen again. 
Check the weather? Well I could have it on my watch face, but then I don't have details, so I have to click the crown, look for the weather icon, scroll around a bit, tap it, wait for it to load... oh there's the weather, minimal info.
Incoming message from my wife, she asked a question, wait for Facebook messenger to work.... loading..... oh, I need to answer that. Better get out the phone.

I'm struggling to find the apple genius in it. I have my phone, nearby or in my pocket. It's an amazing device that does basically anything. I have my AirPods in, because those are genius, best headphones I've used.. if I need a quick update I can ask siri. The watch is just getting in the way between me and my phone. 

I gave it the honest try. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how it saves me enough time to be worth wearing instead of a nice watch, or does something better than the phone.


----------



## dscustoms

zetaplus93 said:


> This. I do miss being able to check quick things like weather, messages, calls, etc. It's hard to know how valuable these things are without actually having and using the AW yourself for a few weeks' time.


I have all of that on my notifications or widget screen on the phone. How is scrolling around on the watch display faster than the one action of lift phone up, swipe down.


----------



## scentedlead

Morrisdog said:


> It's much more useful for women who often keep their phone in a hand bag and hence can easily miss calls and texts.


It's not about whether you have a bag or not-it's about whether your phone is inaccessible or not. I have a jacket with zippered pockets that I wear with gloves. Between fumbling with the zipper pull and how it's easier to drop a phone with gloves on, it's kinda a pain to pull out my phone. With a smartwatch, all you need is a glove with at least one conductive fingertip on each hand and ends-of-sleeves that easily move out of the way.

(Although, if you have a jacket that has zippered pockets *and* sleeves that fit very snug around the wrist, then that sucks.)



dscustoms said:


> barracks you are making a lot of broad stroke guesses there, and really trying to justify something for minimal gain. I only have a laptop, not a server rack, not even a functioning tower anymore. Don't need it, don't do the things someone might need it for. MacBook Pro and iPhone 7+. Laptop for work, phone all the time. I'm on day four? Of the Apple Watch, and liking it even less. I'm not getting any convenience out of it. Here's how it seems to go.
> 
> Check the time? Oh it's not on so I have to make an exaggerated wrist movement so it knows I'm looking. Otherwise I get that black screen again.
> Check the weather? Well I could have it on my watch face, but then I don't have details, so I have to click the crown, look for the weather icon, scroll around a bit, tap it, wait for it to load... oh there's the weather, minimal info.
> Incoming message from my wife, she asked a question, wait for Facebook messenger to work.... loading..... oh, I need to answer that. Better get out the phone.
> 
> I'm struggling to find the apple genius in it. I have my phone, nearby or in my pocket. It's an amazing device that does basically anything. I have my AirPods in, because those are genius, best headphones I've used.. if I need a quick update I can ask siri. The watch is just getting in the way between me and my phone.
> 
> I gave it the honest try. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how it saves me enough time to be worth wearing instead of a nice watch, or does something better than the phone.


The point about servers and towers and laptops is that you buy the devices you need. Not everyone needs to go bigger. There is a compromise between size and functionality sure, but some people can live with the compromise and for other people, the "compromise" is exactly what they needed.

Is checking the time so cumbersome? I'm sitting at a desk and I had to flick my wrist only 30° for the screen to turn on. When I first got my watch, the first thing I did was test how much movement the screen needed to turn on. After a few days, I realized that it works best when it thinks you are upright and it is angled to look at your face.

I used to use Google for checking the weather, but once I switched to the AW, I just use Apple Weather now. All I need is the weather conditions-sun, clouds, rain-and if I need a more detailed hour-by-hour forecast for the rest of the day, then I just tap the icon which quickly brings me into the app. If i need the forecast for the next week, another tap brings me to that screen of the Weather app. Sure Apple Weather on the AW gives me much more simplified info than what Google gives me but, if it's enough for you, then it works.

If you're using Facebook Messenger then well. :-\ Messaging is a much nicer experience on Apple Messages-it has handwriting recognition (Scribble) built in for English, Chinese, French, Italian, and Spanish.

When people are thinking of the AW, I tell them 1) the experience is nicer when you use Apple apps and, 2) look at the apps on your phone and think about a) what you can put onto your watch and b) do you want that on your watch? For me, I don't need a dictionary or Instagram or Groupon on my wrist. But a sleep tracker, and Twitterrific and Tumblr notifications, and remotes for Pandora and Radio.com have been a plus. (VLC on the watch was a great idea-sadly, the AW app was too buggy to be useful.)



dscustoms said:


> I have all of that on my notifications or widget screen on the phone. How is scrolling around on the watch display faster than the one action of lift phone up, swipe down.


Scrolling? I get most of my notifications on my AW with a lift and a swipe, and then another swipe to dismiss. There might be a tap or two in there depending on things.


----------



## dscustoms

It's been returned now, I couldn't see a future where I wanted that. How do you use the aw as a sleep tracker? Every day I wore it, my battery was down to 10% or less by evening. I took off the non apple stuff, as they really didn't function well, but things I tried like the scribble writing just sucked. It was one character at a time. Writing a single word made it faster to pull out the phone and write a quick message. 

Anyways, if it works for you, enjoy. I was just sharing my impressions of the first (and last) few days with an Apple Watch. I'd bet we are two years from a device which really makes an improvement on the phone interface. Get siri working really well, put lte into the watch, and give me a display with gesture recognition and a secondary display blasted onto my retina from my iGlasses, I'll be there. (iGlasses / eyeglasses works really well for an obvious product name)


----------



## ronalddheld

The AW is not for everyone, as this megathread shows. I find it useful when it is inconvenient to pull out my phone.


----------



## zetaplus93

dscustoms said:


> I have all of that on my notifications or widget screen on the phone. How is scrolling around on the watch display faster than the one action of lift phone up, swipe down.


It's more convenient in that I don't need to fish around for my phone. Quick interactions are where the AW shines most for me. Also I tend to miss calls and messages less with the AW.

But agreed about it being slow, though I would've thought Series 1 or 2 made things faster than the Series 0 that I had.

Evidently the AW isn't working out for you. Everyone has different needs after all, grab whatever works for you!


----------



## scentedlead

dscustoms said:


> It's been returned now, I couldn't see a future where I wanted that. How do you use the aw as a sleep tracker? Every day I wore it, my battery was down to 10% or less by evening. I took off the non apple stuff, as they really didn't function well, but things I tried like the scribble writing just sucked. It was one character at a time. Writing a single word made it faster to pull out the phone and write a quick message.
> 
> Anyways, if it works for you, enjoy. I was just sharing my impressions of the first (and last) few days with an Apple Watch. I'd bet we are two years from a device which really makes an improvement on the phone interface. Get siri working really well, put lte into the watch, and give me a display with gesture recognition and a secondary display blasted onto my retina from my iGlasses, I'll be there. (iGlasses / eyeglasses works really well for an obvious product name)


re sleep tracker: Just use your favorite sleep tracking app that has an AW app. A phone-only app needs your phone to be on your bed to measure your bed's movements, but with an AW app, you just need to wear the watch-no need to keep the phone on the bed.

Charging takes about 1 minute per 1%. Even from a fully drained battery I've never needed more than two hours to charge it. It's charging when I wash the dishes and when I take a shower.

The way I look at Scribble, true that writing out sentences is a chore, but it shines at responses that take only a few words, but aren't any of your canned responses. "What wine are you bringing?" "Cab Sauv." If most of you text messages are like this, then you're whom it was designed for.

Smart watches are never going to be an improvement on the phone interface just like the iPad was never and will never be an improvement on Macbook interfaces. But two years from now, the AWs then will be an improvement in smartwatch interfaces.

LTE won't be in there until Apple finds a way to make it not confusing for non-techies-try to explain battery drain or device handoff for phone calls-involving multiple SIMs-to people like my parents.

After Google Glass, you still want smart glasses? After the privacy issues they raised? and how eye gestures as input methods were panned as unnatural by interface experts?

You seem like a person who loves complexity. You should jump over to the Android ecosystem. I think you'll find more there to like.


----------



## dscustoms

Complexity? No the reason I have stuck with Apple devices for the last few years is that they work reliably, which I can't say for any android device I've used. Not sure what I said that made you draw that conclusion. My vision for the future, and it should be fairly obvious for anyone into cutting edge tech, is going to be some sort of glasses display. We don't need to hold up a phone and look at a screen when we can have a huge heads up display in our eyes. There are much worse things to be concerned with re: privacy. If someone is in the same room as I am, I don't make any assumptions of privacy. Google glass made the mistake of launching to sensational media, not real people. Look at the Snapchat spectacles ? Where were the grave privacy concerns there? 

We will have displays in our glasses in the future, for a decade or so before we can get implants.


----------



## BarracksSi

Quick tip --

You can tap a complication and it'll take you to the corresponding app.

Tap a Weather complication on the face and it'll open the watch's Weather app (as an obvious example).

It's become the best way to open my most-used apps on the watch.


----------



## scentedlead

Snapchat spectacles aren’t smart glasses but instead, they’re cameras mounted onto glasses. They’re like GoPro, but for people who’d rather wear their cameras than hold them. And people don’t worry about privacy because a series of lights turn on while recording, whereas Google Glass gave people no recording indicator.

Just because people don’t expect privacy doesn’t mean they are okay with the fact.


----------



## BarracksSi

Snapchat "spectacles" still exist?


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> Snapchat "spectacles" still exist?


Apparently they're huge for the youngsters. I wouldn't write them off, a derivative of that may be the next big thing in a few years time.


----------



## BarracksSi

zetaplus93 said:


> Apparently they're huge for the youngsters. I wouldn't write them off, a derivative of that may be the next big thing in a few years time.


For an eyeglasses wearer like me, they're more than useless.


----------



## ronalddheld

BarracksSi said:


> For an eyeglasses wearer like me, they're more than useless.


True for all of those devices that require one to not use prescription glasses.


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> For an eyeglasses wearer like me, they're more than useless.


What if they work as prescription glasses too?

The equivalent of the modern smartphone wasn't very useful for mainstream back in say, 1999. But products change and evolve. It's hard to rule products years before they hit the design that takes it mainstream.


----------



## BarracksSi

zetaplus93 said:


> What if they work as prescription glasses too?
> 
> The equivalent of the modern smartphone wasn't very useful for mainstream back in say, 1999. But products change and evolve. It's hard to rule products years before they hit the design that takes it mainstream.


Then I'd have three -- regular glasses, reading glasses, and sunglasses.

I can have one phone.

The bigger point is, you can "put away" a phone, and you can "put away" a watch -- but you can't "put away" your glasses. That's how the privacy aspect of smart glasses became such a big stink.

Anybody can make little displays that fit on your face. They've been doing it in the military for years. Google tripped over themselves because they didn't stop and wonder if they _should._


----------



## buochie

a digital watch will never replace ones love for a mechanical watch. It will only be another in the collection.


----------



## Bajoporteno

A mechanical watch is like Classical music. Younger people always gravitate to new popular music styles ( which die out just as quicly as they appear) but the music of the great Classical composers carries on and it is still enjoyed just as much today as upon it's premier.
No doubt about it, it requires education and will only appeal to a specific group of people who appreciate art and culture.
" Smart waatches" will come and go every few years, but that fine mechanical timepiece is just like that great opera or Beethoven symphony. You will appreciate it throughout your entire life and always be in awe of its quality!


----------



## Myth76

Apple watches are ..... Maybe someday they will have a use, when they don't need to be tethered and have a decent battery life. But they will still probably be .... even then.


----------



## Cecoulter

My opinion is that people will need to upgrade their Apple watches every couple of years like they do their smart phones.
mechanical watches are works of art that can last a lifetime. I think it is a completly different customer altogether.
But certainly the cheaper automatic watches will struggle for sales, just not the high end ones....


----------



## MrDagon007

It doesnt have tonbe A or B, it can be A and B.
I like both my AW and my too many mechanicals. I esp like the notifications on my AW, since recently including the babycam at home when it notices something.


----------



## scentedlead

Bajoporteno said:


> A mechanical watch is like Classical music. Younger people always gravitate to new popular music styles ( which die out just as quicly as they appear) but the music of the great Classical composers carries on and it is still enjoyed just as much today as upon it's premier.
> No doubt about it, it requires education and will only appeal to a specific group of people who appreciate art and culture.
> " Smart waatches" will come and go every few years, but that fine mechanical timepiece is just like that great opera or Beethoven symphony. You will appreciate it throughout your entire life and always be in awe of its quality!


1) Centuries old folk-music-the pop music of their day-is still every bit as evocative as today as it was centuries ago, despite not being the music of the educated elite.

2) What you say of pop music now, people said about jazz a century ago.

3) If you can't name socially important of artists and songs of pop music from the 1950s onward, you've been living in a bubble for the past century.

I hope you can at least identify different genres of pop music-rock, r&b, hip hop, rap, country, folk, and et. al. Also, if you've studied music history, you'd see that musical styles don't die as much as they evolve into something else, just like they evolved from something else.

4) If by classical music, you mean John Cage, yes, classical music will live forever.

Mechanical watches are status symbols and they are jewelry. How they do in the future largely depends on how reverent or irreverent people are to these things. That's the $1.2B 
question, isn't it?


----------



## Terrakotte

Considering that my 4 m.o. Rolex start loosing 2 minutes per day and went to RSC for month (!), I don't rely on mechanical watches anymore and even I've canceled pre-order for my next Rolex. 
My next watch will be Apple Watch 3. Don't know what to do with Rolex when it back from service, keep it or flip it..


----------



## Joved

Terrakotte said:


> Considering that my 4 m.o. Rolex start loosing 2 minutes per day and went to RSC for month (!), I don't rely on mechanical watches anymore and even I've canceled pre-order for my next Rolex.
> My next watch will be Apple Watch 3. Don't know what to do with Rolex when it back from service, keep it or flip it..


ROTFLMAO!!!!! (I never knew I would find that one useful ever again....)

Prediction: in 6 months you will have had to update the AWOS(?) twice, and you are all ready surfing the internet for news on AW4.
Luckily you will have the cash ready to buy AW4 since you flipped your Rollie.

You and your AW3(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)................ will live happily ever after!


----------



## BarracksSi

Terrakotte said:


> Considering that my 4 m.o. Rolex start loosing 2 minutes per day and *went to RSC for month (!)*, I don't rely on mechanical watches anymore and even I've canceled pre-order for my next Rolex.
> My next watch will be Apple Watch 3. Don't know what to do with Rolex when it back from service, keep it or flip it..


Contrast:

When I dropped my first-gen steel Watch and cracked its ceramic back, Apple straight-up _gave_ me a Series 2 as a replacement because they felt that the two weeks I was without a watch was too long.

That's what they told me when they offered the replacement. They said that they sent it to the repair center twice and it got turned away, but because they promised that I would receive a working watch, they'll give me a new one off the shelf.

Customer service is how you retain owners of your product. For the past nineteen years of owning Apple products, they've done right by me.


----------



## Terrakotte

Exactly! I can't say what Rolex customer service even exist. "We really sorry" was all I got.


----------



## Terrakotte

Joved said:


> ROTFLMAO!!!!! (I never knew I would find that one useful ever again....)
> 
> Prediction: in 6 months you will have had to update the AWOS(?) twice, and you are all ready surfing the internet for news on AW4.
> Luckily you will have the cash ready to buy AW4 since you flipped your Rollie.
> 
> You and your AW3(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)................ will live happily ever after!


Well, I have to say that the same story about Rolex or Omega, or...whatever: as soon you buy one, few months later you surfing the internet looking for another models (GMT Master II? Speedmaster?), BASEL predictions etc.


----------



## Fer Guzman

BarracksSi said:


> Contrast:
> 
> When I dropped my first-gen steel Watch and cracked its ceramic back, Apple straight-up _gave_ me a Series 2 as a replacement because they felt that the two weeks I was without a watch was too long.
> 
> That's what they told me when they offered the replacement. They said that they sent it to the repair center twice and it got turned away, but because they promised that I would receive a working watch, they'll give me a new one off the shelf.
> 
> Customer service is how you retain owners of your product. For the past nineteen years of owning Apple products, they've done right by me.


Yeah the Apple service is great. My mom's ceramic back became unglued, they sent her a box next day, with a next day label to ship out, they had the watch like 2 days, got the watch back like 5 days later. Same experience with mine that I just sent. Made a service request Saturday night, received box Tuesday, just got an email that they received the watch and will service it soon.


----------



## Fer Guzman

Article on impact to Fossil.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/forget-the-swiss-its-fossil-that-apple-is-threatening


----------



## BarracksSi

Fer Guzman said:


> Article on impact to Fossil.
> 
> https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/forget-the-swiss-its-fossil-that-apple-is-threatening


Rough times for them. Many of us on WUS were wringing our hands about smartwatches affecting the luxury watch category, but there were also a lot of us thinking that the fashion watch tier -- in roughly the same price range as Apple Watch(es) -- was at greater risk of getting smoked.

Fossil's statements, like, "We're going to be injecting technology into the traditional watch business and injecting fashion into the wearables business," sound like they're being proactive. They're not, though. They missed the signals from all the other wearables -- Fitbit, Jawbone, Garmin, Samsung, Polar, Mio, and a whole gaggle of other companies were snagging buyers left and right. They were waiting to see if smartwatches would ever become fashionable.

Then Apple comes along, equips its watch with a flock of trendy-colored interchangeable straps, takes out multi-page ads in _Elle_ and other fashion rags, and NOW Fossil thinks it can catch up? Do they really understand how many years has gone into the software, custom hardware, and supply chain that it takes to be a high-production-volume, high-performing smartwatch? Color me skeptical.


----------



## 88Keys

BarracksSi said:


> Customer service is how you retain owners of your product. For the past nineteen years of owning Apple products, they've done right by me.


Yep. I'm sure some have had not so stellar experiences, but they have done me amazingly well, the couple of times I had a problem. I had a THREE-YEAR-OLD MacBook Pro which started to show the AR coating coming off the screen in a couple of places. They told me to take it a to a store where, in two days, they put in an entire new screen. That was an $880 repair on a three-year-old machine... gratis.

I also called them about problems getting my my heart rate readings on an Apple Watch that I purchased from a Best Buy returns rack. It turns out that I just have that kind of skin, and no wrist-borne heart rate monitor works for me (I've tried them all). But they sent me a brand new watch anyway.

Colour me impressed with Apple support.


----------



## Joved

Apple Watch Series 3 has LTE problems: How to cancel your preorder
https://venturebeat.com/2017/09/20/apple-watch-3-has-lte-problems-how-to-cancel-your-preorder/

.....just saying.....


----------



## scentedlead

Terrakotte said:


> Considering that my 4 m.o. Rolex start loosing 2 minutes per day and went to RSC for month (!), I don't rely on mechanical watches anymore and even I've canceled pre-order for my next Rolex.
> My next watch will be Apple Watch 3. Don't know what to do with Rolex when it back from service, keep it or flip it..


But who buys mechanical watches for the time? If you want the time, you get a Timex or Casio or smartwatch-i.e., quartz or silicon. If you want jewelry, you buy a Rolex.


----------



## BarracksSi

Joved said:


> Apple Watch Series 3 has LTE problems: How to cancel your preorder
> https://venturebeat.com/2017/09/20/apple-watch-3-has-lte-problems-how-to-cancel-your-preorder/
> 
> .....just saying.....


It's an existing bug, Apple knows, and a software fix is on its way.

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/09/20/caldwell-series-3-lte

Just saying...


----------



## Jonpod

My watches to me are like living mechanical things. When you get right down it, time is the most important thing we are all granted. To me the watch represents more than just time telling. Yes time moves forward but in reality it is counting down. I look at this in a joyful way. My watch connects me to my time here. It is a constant reminder to enjoy and make the most of life. Yes it also works daily in cooking steaks and getting to meetings. The thing I choose to wear on my wrist for me will show a level of design and quality that gives me a feeling of joy and also a reminder to the greater things. I simply personally get no feeling of joy thinking of having a smart device on my wrist. Plugging it in every night and wondering how many years before it either quits or is obsolete. That is just me and to each his own.


----------



## scentedlead

Fer Guzman said:


> Article on impact to Fossil.
> 
> https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/forget-the-swiss-its-fossil-that-apple-is-threatening





> "The number one trend right now in fashion is technology,"


LOL. If they think tech is a phase for fashion to cycle in and out of, they clearly don't understand how tech is expanding into everything about our lives and how the role of fashion is to bring an aesthetic to tech-e.g., Hermès and Nike bring very different aesthetics to what is essentially the same product.

They think fashion is driven by tech and other phases, when really it is more that fashion integrates tech with personal statement. Fashion is driven by consumer desire to signal values; tech is driven by its usefulness in our everyday lives. The problem with Fossil and Swatch is they haven't yet found a compelling personal statement that they can confidently say that their customers would like to signal through wearables.


----------



## Terrakotte

scentedlead said:


> But who buys mechanical watches for the time? If you want the time, you get a Timex or Casio or smartwatch-i.e., quartz or silicon. If you want jewelry, you buy a Rolex.


I considered Rolex Explorer 1 ref 214270 as reliable evreryday tool watch with good shock and magnetic resistance, which well serve me at least 10-15 years. This model not blingy and "flies under radars".







I believe that"jewerly" it's about others Rolex, like Daytona, Day-Date, Datejust with WG, GMT or bi-color Submariner.
Anaway, thanks to this situation, I focused on AW3 and was amazed how functional it is


----------



## Joved

Terrakotte said:


> I considered Rolex Explorer 1 ref 214270 as reliable evreryday tool watch with good shock and magnetic resistance, which well serve me at least 10-15 years. This model not blingy and "flies under radars".
> 
> I believe that"jewerly" it's about others Rolex, like Daytona, Day-Date, Datejust with WG, GMT or bi-color Submariner.
> Anaway, thanks to this situation, I focused on AW3 and was amazed how functional it is


Well, one should always be open to new ideas and alternatives to existing ones.

For me, the "smart watch" is not something that I (personally) would consider to be an alternative to my wrist watch(es), but I am waiting for the day when I can ditch my cell phone.

As to the Rolexes, IMHO Rolex Explorer 1 ref 214270, is about as perfect as a Rolex can be, all these more blingy specimen are a bit too Flavio B. to my tastes.

But then again, I am a simple man, living a simple life and enjoying life's simple pleasures...


----------



## BarracksSi

Joved said:


> For me, the "smart watch" is not something that I (personally) would consider to be an alternative to my wrist watch(es), but I am waiting for the day when I can ditch my cell phone.


We're probably closer than you expect. Ben Clymer at Hodinkee says he's been leaving his phone at home for several days while using his Series 3 AW.
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/apple-watch-series-3-edition-review


----------



## 88Keys

Jonpod said:


> My watches to me are like living mechanical things. When you get right down it, time is the most important thing we are all granted. To me the watch represents more than just time telling. Yes time moves forward but in reality it is counting down. I look at this in a joyful way. My watch connects me to my time here. It is a constant reminder to enjoy and make the most of life. Yes it also works daily in cooking steaks and getting to meetings. The thing I choose to wear on my wrist for me will show a level of design and quality that gives me a feeling of joy and also a reminder to the greater things. I simply personally get no feeling of joy thinking of having a smart device on my wrist. Plugging it in every night and wondering how many years before it either quits or is obsolete. That is just me and to each his own.


Very eloquent and compelling. Although I straddle the fence, as it were, and wear both, I can certainly relate.


----------



## jchabalk

Another variable with mechanical watches is service. With a service interval maybe every 6 years (on average?) the person with 3 rolex-ish watches shelling out ~$1k every 2 years (on average) it's not a stretch to see people buying a new edition version of the Apple Watch on the reg. 

(I know service intervals are variable as are the costs, but for the the general buyer who likes a few watches and goes to factory service providers that's probably not too far off from reality.)


----------



## jchabalk

The Hodinkee review is great, packed with information and objective from an (of course) very well informed perspective. I think the final paragraph summarizes things relevant to this thread pretty well. Another example of the innovator's dilemma:

"Putting the price of this Edition aside, I think this Friday, as the Apple Watch Series 3 begins to deliver all over the world, we are about to begin a new chapter for smartwatches and perhaps for watches in general. Will Swiss watchmaking do as Nokia did with the iPhone and downplay the threat until it's far too late? Or will Swiss watchmaking thrive due to the very reason that it stands for hand-craft, longevity, and multi-generational appeal – the very antithesis of most digital products? The answer is likely neither one nor the other. The watch industry doesn't move as a whole – some resist, some accept. Now the question becomes where each brand will stand as the dust settles on what is very likely a new era for the watch world, all ushered in by the Apple Watch Series 3."


----------



## imaCoolRobot

Meh...the Swiss have been beating the dead horse about how good their mechanical watches are for far too long. If they're gone...they're gone. I don't care. I prefer German watches and my Casio GShock.


----------



## Dynamite Kid19

Not sure if said on 1 of the many other pages on this thread but I think the Apple Watch will pass. Not because it isn't successful or people won't want it but because as the tech gets smaller, it won't need to be watch size. It can be smaller, maybe like a calculator battery size and placed on your chest, under your arm or maybe under the skin even in the not to distant future. I would be surprised if in 5 or 6 generations of the AW it remains watch sized. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## igorneus

valmak said:


> I know lots of people get riled up about this but it's the truth. Switzerland is in trouble. Lots of watch companies are going to fold. I tried the demo of the Apple watch today and it's beautiful and can do so much (and only the Apple apps were installed so it can do much much more). Companies like Rolex, PP and Omega and a few others will stay afloat of course but probably over the next 10 years we will see lots of companies die out (I'm guessing about half or more). Sales of the main brands will decrease by a lot and there will be plenty of layoffs. It's just too much watch for ~$600 for any of these other brands to compete with it. I think eventually it will replace the smartphone at some level too. You can deny it all you want but it's going to happen. I saw the future today. Maybe in 10 years when the next wearable (maybe smart glasses?) come along then regular old mechanical watches will make a comeback. So companies are probably better off to take a loss for a while and stay in business.


Funny thread...funny post....
If I knew all the things the OP does, I would not bother posting here and spent my time on making market bets and getting rich.....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

Clymer also said,


> Still, we now have smartwatches from two of the three big luxury watch groups, and likely more to come. And that's before we actually talk about sales numbers of Apple versus the traditional players or the fact that all of theirs use what is the equivalent of an off-the-shelf caliber in Android OS while Apple's is, to borrow a term they'll understand, completely in-house. Ironic, really.


What I find craziest is how people disparaged the AW and said, "Well, Apple's not a _real_ watchmaker," only to drool all over themselves about the TAG Connected with its box-stock Intel components and the same OS you get with a free-with-new-Verizon-contract LG smartwatch.


----------



## BarracksSi

igorneus said:


> Funny thread...funny post....
> If I knew all the things the OP does, I would not bother posting here and spent my time on making market bets and getting rich.....
> 
> Sent from my *iPhone* using Tapatalk


Hope you're practicing what you preach.


----------



## igorneus

BarracksSi said:


> Hope you're practicing what you preach.


Hmmmm...
"Idioms
practise what you preach
to do the things yourself that you tell other people to do"

I am not sure that idiom applies to my post, but whatever....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

igorneus said:


> Hmmmm...
> "Idioms
> practise what you preach
> to do the things yourself that you tell other people to do"
> 
> I am not sure that idiom applies to my post, but whatever....
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is, if you were as savvy of an investor as you recommend the OP should be, you would've bought Apple stock as soon as the first version of your iPhone was announced (or better yet, the iPod... or maybe even the iMac).


----------



## Joved

BarracksSi said:


> That is, if you were as savvy of an investor as you recommend the OP should be, you would've bought Apple stock as soon as the first version of your iPhone was announced (or better yet, the iPod... or maybe even the iMac).


Now that is only with the assumption that the OP does have the critical knowledge.

Igorneus'(?not quite sure here) post was sarcasm, you must be aware of that....

Anyways; I don't believe that the mechanical watch is quite yet ready to go the way of the dodo. The divide between mechanical and digital as technology is only going to increase and that will eventually make the mechanical only more relevant. Both will have their uses and fanboys, but most people will use them interchangeably.

Mostly the wrist wearables are going to chip away from the popularity of the equivalent price category electronic watches because of the added functionality, and from the crowd that run after the "next big thing", you know; pour over coffee, artesanal beer gin whisky, facial hair, wet shaving, vintage bikes cars watches.....

It was iPhones back in the day, but now half the telephoning world uses iPhones, so this could very well be their The Next Big Thing, who knows?


----------



## Pimmsley

I have no interest in a smart watch, thats why i lug around my phone, for those features...


----------



## igorneus

Joved said:


> Now that is only with the assumption that the OP does have the critical knowledge.
> 
> Igorneus'(?not quite sure here) post was sarcasm, you must be aware of that....
> 
> Anyways; I don't believe that the mechanical watch is quite yet ready to go the way of the dodo. The divide between mechanical and digital as technology is only going to increase and that will eventually make the mechanical only more relevant. Both will have their uses and fanboys, but most people will use them interchangeably.
> 
> Mostly the wrist wearables are going to chip away from the popularity of the equivalent price category electronic watches because of the added functionality, and from the crowd that run after the "next big thing", you know; pour over coffee, artesanal beer gin whisky, facial hair, wet shaving, vintage bikes cars watches.....
> 
> It was iPhones back in the day, but now half the telephoning world uses iPhones, so this could very well be their The Next Big Thing, who knows?


Nicely done! Of course it was a sarcasm. If you remember, Tim Cook said during his latest keynote "Apple Watch is the number one watch in the world" while on the slide they moved it above Rolex....Well....it took many others to clarify what exactly number one meant. Such bold statements, as well as the name of this thread and the sentiment of the first post, make me cringe. Cause they have nothing to do with reality, let's be honest. 
Toyota is the number one car in the world. But there are Porsches, Mercedeses and Ferraris...
Similarly....things produced in bulk for mass consumption and relatively affordable will have their own slice of market, alternatively, mechanical watches produced with the highest quality standards, classic design and history will continue to appeal to many as well...... 
BTW, I have all 3 Apple Watch models and use it just for a very specific purpose. Maybe 10% of my watch use. And about a dozen of mechanical that take the remaining 90%.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ronalddheld

I wonder if this thread has passed its usefulness, if there are more personal snipes, even if sarcastic?


----------



## igorneus

ronalddheld said:


> I wonder if this thread has passed its usefulness, if there are more personal snipes, even if sarcastic?


I agree. Sorry for posting. I kept looking at it for awhile and tried to stay away. There was no "personal snipe" thou, just the expression of disagreement with the assertiveness of the topic and statements made along those lines. This is my last post on this topic, I promise. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

Yup, I knew the post was a bit sarcastic —

What I didn’t know was, because I was viewing the thread on my laptop, that Tapatalk displays the signature line, “Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk”, in small italic font. I had bolded the word “iPhone” in my earlier reply, but the bold styling doesn’t get rendered on Tapatalk.

Eh, oh well. A joke is all about delivery.


----------



## Jonpod

Recently, I was waiting in the airport boarding area in Clearwater, Florida, and being bored, I was people watching. A really well dressed lady came through the security area and she stood out like a sore thumb since most were dressed in casual wear. On one wrist she wore a man's stainless sport model Rolex. On the other wrist she wore an Apple smart watch. In a different lifetime where I was not totally happily married, I could imagine striking up a conversation with her. She wore them both with authority and confidence. Honestly, why not? If you love watches and want technology on your wrist then I say use both wrists. I don't care about technology that much but I have considered doing the two wrist thing and I am guilty of it around the house from time to time.


----------



## Terrakotte

I think the most of watch fans and usual people would prefer to see Apple smart band, now watch


----------



## ItnStln

igorneus said:


> Nicely done! Of course it was a sarcasm. If you remember, Tim Cook said during his latest keynote "Apple Watch is the number one watch in the world" while on the slide they moved it above Rolex....Well....it took many others to clarify what exactly number one meant.


What exactly did he mean?


----------



## igorneus

ItnStln said:


> What exactly did he mean?


Units sold

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ItnStln

igorneus said:


> Units sold
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's what I was thinking.


----------



## Fer Guzman

igorneus said:


> Units sold
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





ItnStln said:


> That's what I was thinking.


It is not units sold otherwise companies like Casio and Fossil, etc. Would have been on top of the list. It refers to revenue. The interesting thing is while the Swiss release export # as an industry Rolex doesn't release how many unties it sells a year. Although there's probably a way to make a very good approximation.


----------



## BarracksSi

ItnStln said:


> What exactly did he mean?





igorneus said:


> Units sold


I'm pretty sure it was revenue, not units sold. I can go watch it again.


----------



## ItnStln

BarracksSi said:


> I'm pretty sure it was revenue, not units sold. I can go watch it again.


I don't recall him saying anything other than apple is now the number one watch maker. However, I just Googled it and articles reference sales and the popularity of the apple watch.


----------



## Fer Guzman

Cook did not mention how they arrived at that number, he just said Apple is now #1. But it can't be units sold. It has to be revenue. People get really irked by this for some reason, but it makes sense. Ferrari revenue is no where near BMW.


----------



## igorneus

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...came-the-number-one-watch-in-the-world-2017-9

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edhchoe

According to this data (2013) Omega sells more watches than Rolex. But Rolex makes more money than Omega. fossil's revenue was 3,042 MM USD in 2016.
Rolex and Omega sell about 750K pieces annually.

Tim Cook's order was

Apple 11.900.000 pieces / 3.460 MM/CHF (2016 est.)
Rolex 600.000 pieces / 3.200 MM/CHF (2013)
Fossil ???????? pieces / 2.900 MM/CHF (2016)
Omega 800.000 pieces / 2.300 MM/CHF (2013)
Cartier 450.000 pieces / 2.280 MM/CHF (2013)

Therefore, Fossil has to sell a lot more pieces than Rolex or Omega to make that much money with much lower unit prices.


----------



## T1meout

igorneus said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...came-the-number-one-watch-in-the-world-2017-9
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This article is nothing more than an opinion presented as fact without a single piece of hard data to substantiate those claims.


----------



## Robotaz

I was OK with the concept of an Apple watch up until now.

Once they added LTE to it, it’s starting to seem “cyborg-ish” and creepy. It’s not a watch that happens to integrate with a phone now. It’s a creepy integration into the human experience. 

Next, Apple will have outpatient facilities in the mall to implant devices on your brain stem.


----------



## sntangerbgbg

Apple Watch is (IMHO) pretty pathetic. 
If one has to charge his/her watch every day... that person is a slave of their watch, when it should be the other way around. 
I wear Rolex, Seiko, occasional G-Shock, and lately a Garmin Fenix 5. 
Paid $600 for the Fenix 5, but will never pay $300 for an Apple Watch. Sorry. One colleague bought the AW2. The poor thing made it two weeks on the barge. 
For the record- the family has a bunch of iPhones, iPads and Macs and we are happy with these. 
AW....meh. Will pass. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WIS_Chronomaster

I really like the Apple watch, i know its not a Rolex Or Omega, but i love it, and i own both Omega and Rolex.


----------



## edhchoe

sntangerbgbg said:


> Apple Watch is (IMHO) pretty pathetic.
> If one has to charge his/her watch every day... that person is a slave of their watch, when it should be the other way around.
> I wear Rolex, Seiko, occasional G-Shock, and lately a Garmin Fenix 5.
> Paid $600 for the Fenix 5, but will never pay $300 for an Apple Watch. Sorry. One colleague bought the AW2. The poor thing made it two weeks on the barge.
> For the record- the family has a bunch of iPhones, iPads and Macs and we are happy with these.
> AW....meh. Will pass.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I feel differently. 
Apple watch is the leading technology. It is not a necessity but certainly makes my life more convenient.


----------



## WIS_Chronomaster

If anything can do it then this will!



philskywalker said:


> yes I agree


----------



## sntangerbgbg

edhchoe said:


> I feel differently.
> Apple watch is the leading technology. It is not a necessity but certainly makes my life more convenient.


How is it making it "more convenient "? 
By having to charge another device daily? 
I am leaving on a business trip tomorrow. Have chargers with me for a laptop, phone, tablet. Do I need another one??? 
And how much utility does the AW bring to the table. As a fitness tracker it's mediocre at best. It's not a serious sports watch (I paid 600 USD for my Fenix 5 and this thing blows the AW out of the water as a sports watch) 
So you guys are THAT MUCH LOW DRAG-HIGH SPEED in the comms department, you REALLY need everything on your wrist
That's awesome. My Fenix 5 has the option to show all notifications that my iPhone gets. I turned the damn thing off. 
And I am upper management in a 24/7/365 sensitive industry (Oil and Gas) 
If my phone vibrates, I check it. That's all. 
But hey, your mileage might vary...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 88Keys

These brand arguments, and the aggression that it brings out in some people, are inane. You choose what you want, for your own purposes. If you’re happy with it, you use it. If you feel the need to validate that by bashing others’ choices, you have a problem greater than can be solved by a watch–smart or otherwise.


----------



## zetaplus93

sntangerbgbg said:


> How is it making it "more convenient "?


You could read various threads to help answer this question. If you haven't tried it, then it might not make sense.



sntangerbgbg said:


> I am leaving on a business trip tomorrow. Have chargers with me for a laptop, phone, tablet. Do I need another one???


I had it with me last week for an overseas work trip and found it quite useful, the 2nd and 3rd time zone feature was quite handy (don't have a GMT with me at the moment). I had a little charging case, much like watch cases one would bring for carrying a 2nd Watch, and it worked well and I didn't need to plug it into the wall at all since the charging case had enough juice to power it for over a week (Series 3 seems much more energy efficient compared to the original series I had before).



sntangerbgbg said:


> So you guys are THAT MUCH LOW DRAG-HIGH SPEED in the comms department, you REALLY need everything on your wrist
> That's awesome. My Fenix 5 has the option to show all notifications that my iPhone gets. I turned the damn thing off.
> And I am upper management in a 24/7/365 sensitive industry (Oil and Gas)
> If my phone vibrates, I check it. That's all.


There's a common misconception. I found the notifications useful because I filter out everything but the essentials (comm from close family and other important people). So if there's a notification, chances are it's important enough to look at it.

Also, I turn the sound off so that notifications are discrete and no one other than myself knows when it comes in. I can ignore notifications while I'm in a meeting or talking to someone, and check when I have a chance. If a call comes in, I can stop the silent taps on my watch by pressing the crown under my cuffs without looking at it and it goes unnoticed since I'm not looking at it.

The Apple Watch is a great tool. One just has to figure out if it's useful for them, and if not, simply move on. No need to get high and mighty about it.


----------



## sntangerbgbg

zetaplus93 said:


> You could read various threads to help answer this question. If you haven't tried it, then it might not make sense.
> 
> I had it with me last week for an overseas work trip and found it quite useful, the 2nd and 3rd time zone feature was quite handy (don't have a GMT with me at the moment). I had a little charging case, much like watch cases one would bring for carrying a 2nd Watch, and it worked well and I didn't need to plug it into the wall at all since the charging case had enough juice to power it for over a week (Series 3 seems much more energy efficient compared to the original series I had before).
> 
> There's a common misconception. I found the notifications useful because I filter out everything but the essentials (comm from close family and other important people). So if there's a notification, chances are it's important enough to look at it.
> 
> Also, I turn the sound off so that notifications are discrete and no one other than myself knows when it comes in. I can ignore notifications while I'm in a meeting or talking to someone, and check when I have a chance. If a call comes in, I can stop the silent taps on my watch by pressing the crown under my cuffs without looking at it and it goes unnoticed since I'm not looking at it.
> 
> The Apple Watch is a great tool. One just has to figure out if it's useful for them, and if not, simply move on. No need to get high and mighty about it.


Good reply man. 
Again, what works for you might not for me and vice versa. 
My main thing is, as a dedicated running and navigation watch it's inferior to garmin. And the battery life is short. 
And I don't need the notifications.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 88Keys

zetaplus93 said:


> There's a common misconception. I found the notifications useful because I filter out everything but the essentials (comm from close family and other important people). So if there's a notification, chances are it's important enough to look at it.


What is often overlooked-which I find incredibly useful-is the ability to take action on notifications, and make replies. To be able to shoot off a quick dictated reply when, say, driving, or walking my dog, or simply away away from my phone works great for me.

Also things like "remind me to...", "remind me when I get to...", "remind me on Tuesday at eleven to...", "remind me when I leave here...". I find these thing priceless.

In short, if you just get the notification, that's of limited use. Being able to deal with it quickly, there and then on the watch, is a whole other matter.


----------



## ronalddheld

Different watches serve different people's need. The AW is not for everyone.


----------



## BarracksSi

88Keys said:


> What is often overlooked-which I find incredibly useful-is the ability to take action on notifications, and make replies.


Yup.

My increasingly-threadbare analogy for semi-smart watches - the ones that only tell you that an email or call is incoming but with no other info - is an office assistant (what we used to call a "secretary") who doesn't take messages, doesn't tell you who called, won't offer to dial a return call, won't even tell you _when_ the other person called...

You'd fire such a secretary, too.


----------



## zetaplus93

88Keys said:


> To be able to shoot off a quick dictated reply when, say, driving, or walking my dog, or simply away away from my phone works great for me.


Well, I try my best not to look at the phone or watch when driving... but I get what you're saying.



88Keys said:


> Also things like "remind me to...", "remind me when I get to...", "remind me on Tuesday at eleven to...", "remind me when I leave here...". I find these thing priceless.


This is quite valuable. But it sucked on the 0G, and I got used to doing this on the phone after selling the 0G and it was actually a better experience (Siri sucked back then, though it seems better on the Series 3). Plus I feel a bit less ridiculous using my phone to do this than to speak to my watch...



88Keys said:


> In short, if you just get the notification, that's of limited use. Being able to deal with it quickly, there and then on the watch, is a whole other matter.


I guess it depends on how you want it to work. I get what the both of you are saying, that actioning when something comes in is more efficient.

But I don't want actionable things coming in through my watch in the first place. So I avoid things like checking emails (where I'm compelled to reply) and notifications from apps like the New York Times (where I'm compelled to read something) or something to that affect. I want to cut out these small distractions because it just takes too much focus away from being in the present, if you know what I mean.

I like a zen-like experience. My working life is hectic enough without needing to action items on my watch. I just want it to tell me when something really important comes in, and these tend to be things I use other tools to address.



BarracksSi said:


> My increasingly-threadbare analogy for semi-smart watches - the ones that only tell you that an email or call is incoming but with no other info - is an office assistant (what we used to call a "secretary") who doesn't take messages, doesn't tell you who called, won't offer to dial a return call, won't even tell you _when_ the other person called...
> 
> You'd fire such a secretary, too.


The act of having to deal with everything that comes in is exhausting to me.

I would hire someone who triaged things and only notified me when something really important comes up.

I'm not too worried if both things aren't responded to. My time is overloaded and dropping things is a daily occurrence.


----------



## BarracksSi

zetaplus93 said:


> The act of having to deal with everything that comes in is exhausting to me.
> 
> I would hire someone who triaged things and only notified me when something really important comes up.
> 
> I'm not too worried if both things aren't responded to. My time is overloaded and dropping things is a daily occurrence.


I have the AW triage incoming messages by _not_ telling me about most news alerts and all emails (as two examples). The only emails it tells me about are from VIPs (immediate family, a couple coworkers), and I think one news app has permission to notify me, but it's rare.

The key is, though, I still don't need to reach for my phone unless it's necessary to respond in more detail right away.

I can also go through my inbox in the morning via the watch while sitting on the john, swiping left on each one in the list and hitting Delete. When I get to my computer later, I have fewer unnecessary emails to throw out. I wouldn't be able to do the same thing with a Citizen Proximity (as an example of an "incompetent secretary" smartwatch from a major brand).


----------



## sntangerbgbg

BarracksSi said:


> I have the AW triage incoming messages by _not_ telling me about most news alerts and all emails (as two examples). The only emails it tells me about are from VIPs (immediate family, a couple coworkers), and I think one news app has permission to notify me, but it's rare.
> 
> The key is, though, I still don't need to reach for my phone unless it's necessary to respond in more detail right away.
> 
> I can also go through my inbox in the morning via the watch while sitting on the john, swiping left on each one in the list and hitting Delete. When I get to my computer later, I have fewer unnecessary emails to throw out. I wouldn't be able to do the same thing with a Citizen Proximity (as an example of an "incompetent secretary" smartwatch from a major brand).


God, you can delete most of your emails while dropping one!!!! 
Most of my emails are actionable. I have to find me a more relaxed job.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

sntangerbgbg said:


> God, you can delete most of your emails while dropping one!!!!
> Most of my emails are actionable. I have to find me a more relaxed job.


Most of 'em are marketing lists that I haven't unsubscribed from (yet!) and job postings (which I hope I won't need for a while longer).

All my work stuff is on my work-issued laptop, and none of it comes to my personal accounts anyway. It's actually a big change from my previous job where my personal phone was how I was reached, so most of my AW usage was work-related, too.


----------



## Terrakotte

Here is my story in pictures:
Rolex Explorer 1, was bought in May 2017. In the mid of September they started lose 2 minutes per day and were sent to service center. And since then my Rolex still at RSC (WHAT?!)







OK, since I planned my 2-weeks trip to US and I can't stay without watches, I bought Hamilton Khaki Automatic 38 mm. Happiness was short - after first flight to Moscow there appears the drops of water under saphire. I bring them to service, they tested them, said that all gaskets OK, dryed them and gave them me back. Next flight to NY - it happens again..Next flight to LV - more water! And again I have no watches!







I gave up in Las vegas and bought AW3. They are great: runs 3 days after charge, shows another time zones, temperature and can do many other things 







TO SUM UP, I can't rely on swiss watches anymore. Rolex and Hamilton are in service and AW3 on my wrist


----------



## sauuce

Terrakotte said:


> Here is my story in pictures:
> Rolex Explorer 1, was bought in May 2017. In the mid of September they started lose 2 minutes per day and were sent to service center. And since then my Rolex still at RSC (WHAT?!)
> View attachment 12607123
> 
> OK, since I planned my 2-weeks trip to US and I can't stay without watches, I bought Hamilton Khaki Automatic 38 mm. Happiness was short - after first flight to Moscow there appears the drops of water under saphire. I bring them to service, they tested them, said that all gaskets OK, dryed them and gave them me back. Next flight to NY - it happens again..Next flight to LV - more water! And again I have no watches!
> View attachment 12607125
> 
> I gave up in Las vegas and bought AW3. They are great: runs 3 days after charge, shows another time zones, temperature and can do many other things
> View attachment 12607129
> 
> TO SUM UP, I can't rely on swiss watches anymore. Rolex and Hamilton are in service and AW3 on my wrist


I agree with you that the AW is more utilitarian than the Rolex, but they're different things altogether except for them telling the time. The Rolex is more of a luxury good nowadays

Sent from my SM-N920S using Tapatalk


----------



## mitar98

Not sure why apple watch is even represented here... it is a smartphone thats on your wrist , not a watch. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yankeexpress

mitar98 said:


> Not sure why apple watch is even represented here... it is a smartphone thats on your wrist , not a watch.


Smartphones are not phones, they are pocket computers that happen to make phone calls.


----------



## BarracksSi

yankeexpress said:


> Smartphones are not phones, they are pocket computers that happen to make phone calls.


And pocket watches are not clocks, they are little wind-up machines that happen to tell time.


----------



## iroh

Terrakotte said:


> Here is my story in pictures:
> Rolex Explorer 1, was bought in May 2017. In the mid of September they started lose 2 minutes per day and were sent to service center. And since then my Rolex still at RSC (WHAT?!)
> View attachment 12607123
> 
> OK, since I planned my 2-weeks trip to US and I can't stay without watches, I bought Hamilton Khaki Automatic 38 mm. Happiness was short - after first flight to Moscow there appears the drops of water under saphire. I bring them to service, they tested them, said that all gaskets OK, dryed them and gave them me back. Next flight to NY - it happens again..Next flight to LV - more water! And again I have no watches!
> View attachment 12607125
> 
> 
> TO SUM UP, I can't rely on swiss watches anymore. Rolex and Hamilton are in service and AW3 on my wrist


If you had bought a Grand Seiko instead of a Rolex or a Hamilton then your watch wouldn't have had to be serviced so often. Grand Seiko's quality control is much better, however with Rolex you are buying the brand. You better have the repair and maintenance money set aside to go along with that Rolex if you really want to play their game.

Rolex can put out second rate watches because they have more than enough rich people buying them and the buyers don't mind paying a little bit of extra money (by their wealth standards) to service it from time to time. Only the middle class wannabe rich people who live above their means complain about Rolex and maintenance money.


----------



## ItnStln

iroh said:


> If you had bought a Grand Seiko instead of a Rolex or a Hamilton then your watch wouldn't have had to be serviced so often. Grand Seiko's quality control is much better, however with Rolex you are buying the brand. You better have the repair and maintenance money set aside to go along with that Rolex if you really want to play their game.
> 
> Rolex can put out second rate watches because they have more than enough rich people buying them and the buyers don't mind paying a little bit of extra money (by their wealth standards) to service it from time to time. Only the middle class wannabe rich people who live above their means complain about Rolex and maintenance money.


Well said!


----------



## Hoppyjr

iroh said:


> If you had bought a Grand Seiko instead of a Rolex or a Hamilton then your watch wouldn't have had to be serviced so often. Grand Seiko's quality control is much better, however with Rolex you are buying the brand. You better have the repair and maintenance money set aside to go along with that Rolex if you really want to play their game.
> 
> Rolex can put out second rate watches because they have more than enough rich people buying them and the buyers don't mind paying a little bit of extra money (by their wealth standards) to service it from time to time. Only the middle class wannabe rich people who live above their means complain about Rolex and maintenance money.


That's just silly talk.

I've seen numerous Rolex watches that are 20-30 years old and worn by original purchaser AND have not been serviced.

I'be owned a Grand Seiko and it's finish work was very nice, but it would require the same "recommended service interval" as a Rolex, if not more. It was Spring Drive so that's not going to be cheap either.

The statement about "rich people and "wannabe rich people" is both ignorant and condescending at the same time. Plenty of people at all income levels appreciate Rolex for the history, innovation, and timeless styling of Rolex watches. I don't claim Rolex is "the best watch" but it's a solid contender and certainly holds value better than most others, including Grand Seiko.


----------



## ronalddheld

Should stick to the topic and not personally criticize others.


----------



## love mechanicals

Title of this ancient thread is comedy, probably posted by an Apple employee shill. Switzerland and mechanical watches are NOT in trouble. Watch people see a disposable cup on a wrist when we see the blank plastic screen. Never will swap out my cool mechanical that has been running for 4 years now with no battery to wear yesterdays Dixie cup on my wrist.


----------



## stevenliu0923

Having owned a smartwatch i highly doubt theyre competitors at all.....people who have luxury timepieces may also happen to own an apple watch but they would not stop buying timepieces because of the AW. On the other hand people who wears their AW everyday would not suddenly go purchase a timepiece unless they are genuinely interested or see an upside....these two markets hardly collide and neither one should be watching out for the other. just my two cents


----------



## MrDagon007

iroh said:


> If you had bought a Grand Seiko instead of a Rolex or a Hamilton then your watch wouldn't have had to be serviced so often. Grand Seiko's quality control is much better, however with Rolex you are buying the brand. You better have the repair and maintenance money set aside to go along with that Rolex if you really want to play their game.
> 
> Rolex can put out second rate watches because they have more than enough rich people buying them and the buyers don't mind paying a little bit of extra money (by their wealth standards) to service it from time to time. Only the middle class wannabe rich people who live above their means complain about Rolex and maintenance money.


Rubbish and not on topic either.


----------



## MrDagon007

love mechanicals said:


> Title of this ancient thread is comedy, probably posted by an Apple employee shill. Switzerland and mechanical watches are NOT in trouble. Watch people see a disposable cup on a wrist when we see the blank plastic screen. Never will swap out my cool mechanical that has been running for 4 years now with no battery to wear yesterdays Dixie cup on my wrist.


I like both, don't see a conflict in that.


----------



## ronalddheld

I cannot see how a wearer of smartwatches will somehow start buying mechanicals.


----------



## flame2000

I almost fell off from my seat just by reading the title of this thread. LOL!


----------



## zetaplus93

Funny how this topic/thread continues to bring in odd comments that’s not really on topic...

While I’ve moved on from the AW and continue to love my traditional watches, I don’t doubt that the AW has changed the industry quite a bit in just 3 years.

We still need a few more years to judge the initial impact the AW and similar devices (though there really isn’t a viable competitor out there today) on the watch industry overall.

It seems we’re going to see some consolidation of watch brands in the next few years, especially those who sell products in the $100-$1000 range (e.g. Fossil).


----------



## ItnStln

zetaplus93 said:


> I've moved on from the AW and continue to love my traditional watches,


Same here!


----------



## BarracksSi

ItnStln said:


> Same here!


Not same here.


----------



## ronalddheld

It can be difficult to moderate this type of thread.


----------



## ItnStln

ronalddheld said:


> It can be difficult to moderate this type of thread.


I bet!


----------



## utzelu

My theory is that as we age, we start appreciating more things that do not age and are eternal, probably because we start thinking about our own mortality. So as we cross 40 years some of us may move on from smartwatches to mechanical. At least that's what the Swiss industry hopes for.



ronalddheld said:


> I cannot see how a wearer of smartwatches will somehow start buying mechanicals.


----------



## ronalddheld

Maybe for those who value objects and not experiences?


----------



## Morrisdog

I think the role of smart watches will just grow in time. In that sense the mechanical watch industry is certainly in a little bit of trouble. I think there will always be a demand for mechanicals but more and more will switch to SWs as their tool sets expand. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

ronalddheld said:


> I cannot see how a wearer of smartwatches will somehow start buying mechanicals.


You might be surprised.

I took a hiatus from mechanical watches. 10 years ago I owned several Rolexes, a Seamaster, and a few others. Then I got crushed in the financial crisis and had to sell everything. After that, my first watch in over 5 years was a smartwatch.

The funny part is that while I was watchless, I didn't notice other people's watches. But once I had a smartwatch, I did. I started seeing the beautiful mechanical watches people wore, and that's what got me back into wearing mechanical watches again. I gave the smartwatch away and I'm back into the automatics.


----------



## ronalddheld

What I should have said: Someone going from wearing no watch to a smartwatch is not likely to migrate to mechanicals.


----------



## arogle1stus

Valmac:
I've bought, wore, collected and flipped dozens of watches since 1949.
I heard that same ole song and dance when the Quartz Revolution hit
Swiss watch producers. They're still making a zillion diollars a year.
Smart watches or ney!
Current stats in USA (CBS News) is that 32% of us wear watches.
Conversely 68% use cell phones to get the time.
In GB 1 of 6 watch wearers cannot tell the time with analogs but wear
analogs to imply they can tell time with analogs. How loony is that?

My daughter kicked her 2 Tag Heuer F1's under the bus for one of
Billy Gates contraptions! IronMan son and DIL now wearing Garmins.

X Traindriver Art


----------



## edhchoe

I love the silent alarms on my apple watch. I have 7 alarms set. My G shock had only 5. and it beeps. But with silent alarm, no one else notices it. It is super nice.

I love the weather app, reminder app, and calendar app.

I use the timers when cooking noodles.

I am taking a break from exercising so I have not used the activity app for a while.

I really wish Apple will have second function on modular face. HH:MM:SS. I suggested to Apple on their website a long time ago...

I cannot wait to see what Apple watch 4 will offer.


----------



## barihunk

ronalddheld said:


> What I should have said: Someone going from wearing no watch to a smartwatch is not likely to migrate to mechanicals.


Again you'd be surprised. While I may not fit your strict (and arbitrary IMHO) criteria I only really started wearing watches regularly when I was gifted an Apple watch. And now I'm spending too much time here. And it's really affecting my bank balance.


----------



## scentedlead

zetaplus93 said:


> I've moved on from the AW and continue to love my traditional watches





ItnStln said:


> Same here!





BarracksSi said:


> Not same here.


Since moving onto Apple's WatchOS, although I continue to love my collection of traditional watches, I have not looked back and use both my Series 3 and Series 0 everyday.


----------



## scentedlead

ronalddheld said:


> I cannot see how a wearer of smartwatches will somehow start buying mechanicals.





ronalddheld said:


> What I should have said: Someone going from wearing no watch to a smartwatch is not likely to migrate to mechanicals.


If they want functionality, they are going to either wear a computer on their wrist, or wear a traditional watch that can survive the abuse they'll put a watch through-regardless of what they were wearing before. Pretty doesn't matter as much when you need your watch to perform.

If someone wants jewelry, they are going to use a traditional watch, no matter what they were using before. 132 pages of this thread has taught me that smart watches and mechanical watches signal completely different values.


----------



## barihunk

scentedlead said:


> If they want functionality, they are going to either wear a computer on their wrist, or wear a traditional watch that can survive the abuse they'll put a watch through-regardless of what they were wearing before. Pretty doesn't matter as much when you need your watch to perform.
> 
> If someone wants jewelry, they are going to use a traditional watch, no matter what they were using before. 132 pages of this thread has taught me that smart watches and mechanical watches signal completely different values.


Once they figure out how to have always on time display, and perhaps a custom watch face store, it might be bye bye to traditional watches for me, though there is just a certain charm in a physical time telling device.


----------



## utzelu

That is my thinking as well. I am waiting for the Apple Watch Series 4 to come out this fall before deciding what to do. Too bad that there are no real alternatives for iPhone users.

In a way, I am disappointed by the traditional watch industry. Seeing how the media and people went crazy over the "new" and "innovative" Rolex Pepsi GMT, which is just like the previous Rolexes but in SS, left me a bitter taste. There is just too much BS around and no innovation. It seems the traditional Swiss watches may re-position on the upper price segment, leaving the lower and mid segments to microbrands and smartwatches. I think even Seiko is starting doing this.

For me, although I really like watches, I just cannot justify spending more than $1500 for any watch. Smartwatches may be a way to keep my interest alive with an upgrade cycle of 3 years and constant software upgrades.



barihunk said:


> Once they figure out how to have always on time display, and perhaps a custom watch face store, it might be bye bye to traditional watches for me, though there is just a certain charm in a physical time telling device.


----------



## scarrz

Interesting take take on noticing the mechanicals more.



Hotblack Desiato said:


> You might be surprised.
> 
> I took a hiatus from mechanical watches. 10 years ago I owned several Rolexes, a Seamaster, and a few others. Then I got crushed in the financial crisis and had to sell everything. After that, my first watch in over 5 years was a smartwatch.
> 
> The funny part is that while I was watchless, I didn't notice other people's watches. But once I had a smartwatch, I did. I started seeing the beautiful mechanical watches people wore, and that's what got me back into wearing mechanical watches again. I gave the smartwatch away and I'm back into the automatics.


----------



## Larsjeee

Let's not forget that Apple isn't the only company/platform creating smartwatches. The Android ecosystem is also expanding its wearable catalogue and companies such as Casio and Tag Heuer have already jumped on the bandwagon. Hence, I think smartwatches will become a bigger part of the watch-wearing consumer market, but I agree that in the long term, luxury watches (or solid, value offerings such as Seiko) will not disappear.


----------



## RLC

If a dumb person is wearing a smart watch is it still a smart watch? 😂😂
FWIW...my smart phone is in its 3rd semester of 2nd grade.

Bob


----------



## utzelu

Unnecessary comment, which does not bring any value to this discussion. People should self-asses more their contribution to the discussions in order to maintain a high quality forum and a constructive atmosphere.



RLC said:


> If a dumb person is wearing a smart watch is it still a smart watch? 
> FWIW...my smart phone is in its 3rd semester of 2nd grade.
> 
> Bob


----------



## valmak

OP here checking in on my original prediction. It’s been almost 5 years since my original post. About the halfway mark of the 10 years I expected for the Apple Watch to cause huge problems for the Swiss Watch Industry.

Apple Watch is hugely popular. It’s expected to outsell the entire Swiss Watch industry this year. SWI has taken hits recently but it is unclear exactly how much of it can be attributable to the AW. AW seems to be mostly taking a bite out of quartz watches around $500. But many people are still buying high end mechanical watches.

So what’s next? The full capability of the Apple Watch hasn’t been reached yet. There are still plenty of health features I believe Apple will implement in future iterations, making it more appealing to older generations. Probably the biggest threat Apple Watch holds right now is causing younger generations to dismiss mechanical watches altogether.

What do you guys think? How accurate was my original prediction and what does the future hold?


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

valmak said:


> OP here checking in on my original prediction. It's been almost 5 years since my original post. About the halfway mark of the 10 years I expected for the Apple Watch to cause huge problems for the Swiss Watch Industry.
> 
> Apple Watch is hugely popular. It's expected to outsell the entire Swiss Watch industry this year. SWI has taken hits recently but it is unclear exactly how much of it can be attributable to the AW. AW seems to be mostly taking a bite out of quartz watches around $500. But many people are still buying high end mechanical watches.
> 
> So what's next? The full capability of the Apple Watch hasn't been reached yet. There are still plenty of health features I believe Apple will implement in future iterations, making it more appealing to older generations. Probably the biggest threat Apple Watch holds right now is causing younger generations to dismiss mechanical watches altogether.
> 
> What do you guys think? How accurate was my original prediction and what does the future hold?


I don't think Apple watch, or any smartwatch for that matter, affects the Swiss watch market very much. Every person I know that wears a smartwatch was not wearing a mechanical watch before they bought it. Most of them used their phone to check the time. Those that have jumped to smart watches use them to connect to their smartphone. I know that's why I got mine, prior to coming back to mechanical watches.

Doc Savage


----------



## Morrisdog

valmak said:


> OP here checking in on my original prediction. It's been almost 5 years since my original post. About the halfway mark of the 10 years I expected for the Apple Watch to cause huge problems for the Swiss Watch Industry.
> 
> Apple Watch is hugely popular. It's expected to outsell the entire Swiss Watch industry this year. SWI has taken hits recently but it is unclear exactly how much of it can be attributable to the AW. AW seems to be mostly taking a bite out of quartz watches around $500. But many people are still buying high end mechanical watches.
> 
> So what's next? The full capability of the Apple Watch hasn't been reached yet. There are still plenty of health features I believe Apple will implement in future iterations, making it more appealing to older generations. Probably the biggest threat Apple Watch holds right now is causing younger generations to dismiss mechanical watches altogether.
> 
> What do you guys think? How accurate was my original prediction and what does the future hold?


I am seeing a bit of a backlash against high technology with lots younger people wearing slightly retro looking watches. But these probably represent small numbers. Overall I basically agree with the concept that these smart watches will one day just become too useful to ignore. I certainly see them replacing credit cards as safer way to purchase products. Perhaps they will replaces keys, tickets security passes...

I for one tried the AW but it didn't last long with me. Battery life was a little too short and I felt that Garmin was a better option for me for both running and playing golf.. for day to day I have persisted with my mechanicals. I found the wrist notifications a little annoying.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## utzelu

In my town, the general trend seems to be wide adoption of smartwatches. At my work place, where the majority is young people (from 25 to 35 yrs), nobody wears a mechanical watch or even a Swiss watch. Most wear fashion quartz watches or smartwatches. At my kids school, where most parents are quite OK financially (e.g. mid-to-high management or business owners), I also noticed smartwatches are replacing luxury watches on people's wrists, mostly due to lifestyle (people doing more sports and physical activities).


----------



## kirth

Hotblack Desiato said:


> I don't think Apple watch, or any smartwatch for that matter, affects the Swiss watch market very much. Every person I know that wears a smartwatch was not wearing a mechanical watch before they bought it. Most of them used their phone to check the time. Those that have jumped to smart watches use them to connect to their smartphone. I know that's why I got mine, prior to coming back to mechanical watches.
> 
> Doc Savage


This. I don't personally know anyone who has given up wearing a Swiss mechanical watch for an Apple watch. I do know plenty of people who wear Apple watches, but they weren't wearing any type of watch before.


----------



## Palmettoman

No idea about predictions, but there's no denying Apple's impact. I've started using my Apple Watch pretty much daily. It just does what I need it to do. I still enjoy my regular watches and wear those also. There's room for both.


----------



## utzelu

There's one thing we're not taking into account: demographic variation. The world is still on a demographic increase, which means new potential customer are entering the market every year. The traditional watch industry is still small compared with the demographic potential. Asia is still growing both in size and wealth and Africa is starting to do that as well. That is a huge market which was not very active for luxury products. If the marketing is done right, the industry can still grow in spite of smartwatches. Though, when you see last quarter results for Apple, at almost 30 million Apple Watches sold, we kind of need to put everything in perspective.


----------



## SpolaR

I’m sure smart watches, and Apple watches in-particular, will continue to evolve, but they still can’t compete with a well-made mechanical watch at this point


----------



## BarracksSi

SpolaR said:


> I'm sure smart watches, and Apple watches in-particular, will continue to evolve, but they still can't compete with a well-made mechanical watch at this point


A mechanical watch can't show me the weather. It loses there.


----------



## Prdrers

BarracksSi said:


> A mechanical watch can't show me the weather. It loses there.


Also always perfectly accurate time - there's that. Show me a mechanical watch that runs +/- 0 sec per day and sweeps as smoothly as my AW... I'll be waiting.

I also have and enjoy mechanicals, so don't go crazy...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gbphilli

I think the recent release of the Apple Watch Series 5, with its AOD (always on display), will put further pressure on Swiss mid-tier mechanicals. If and when an iPhone is an option and not a requirement for setting up an Apple Watch with LTE, then i think that would have a much more dramatic effect on the mid-tier market.


----------



## meking

kirth said:


> This. I don't personally know anyone who has given up wearing a Swiss mechanical watch for an Apple watch. I do know plenty of people who wear Apple watches, but they weren't wearing any type of watch before.


Agreed 100%.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## valmak

I called it 5 years ago!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2020/02/07/how-apple-killed-the-swiss-watchindustry/


----------



## BarracksSi

valmak said:


> I called it 5 years ago!
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2020/02/07/how-apple-killed-the-swiss-watchindustry/


Check the number of your post, too: 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=1337+meaning&t=iphone&ia=about


----------



## usa

Apple watches can measure heartbeat rate, monitor one's health, etc. Soon enough, Apple will know about people's health better than people's own doctors. 
I personally prefer watches that are not collecting information about me, upload it and store it somewhere unknown to me. 
Just a personal opinion and preference.
Folks are free to do whatever they want with their information, if they are aware that Apple collects them.


----------



## BarracksSi

usa said:


> Apple watches can measure heartbeat rate, monitor one's health, etc. Soon enough, Apple will know about people's health better than people's own doctors.
> I personally prefer watches that are not collecting information about me, upload it and store it somewhere unknown to me.
> Just a personal opinion and preference.
> Folks are free to do whatever they want with their information, if they are aware that Apple collects them.


Apple doesn't know who uploaded what. They don't care.


----------



## Calier

Swiss watches = jewelry that tells the time. 
Apple Watch = tiny computer that tells the time.
Two completely different animals to me...


----------



## BSG75

Omega referred to the Speedmaster as a "wrist computer"in their original advertising. I guess at the time, with available technology, it was a computer.


----------



## edhchoe

Apple watch is so functional.
My fascination with the mechanical watches has diminished to 1/200 or less than what it used to be.
I just don't have time to wear a mechanical watch.
I sold Speedmasters, Submariners, and Seamaster.
Although I was in love with the mechanics of the mechanical watches, I was never happy with their inaccuracy.
I just cannot stand to be 1 or 2 seconds off a day.
So basically the mechanical watches became man jewelry.
Apple watch with Siri face shows my whole day's plan plus tomorrow's while showing atomic time.
It is the remote control for my Tesla, weather forecaster, fitness data collector, sleep tracker, communication tool, smart home tool, etc. etc. etc.
My iPhone is the mother computer and the Apple Watch is the terminal.
Maybe after I retire, when I am on vacation and when I don't care about time or anything else, I will wear a mechanical watch. I doubt even that..


----------



## Calier

edhchoe said:


> Apple watch is so functional.
> My fascination with the mechanical watches has diminished to 1/200 or less than what it used to be.
> I just don't have time to wear a mechanical watch.
> I sold Speedmasters, Submariners, and Seamaster.
> Although I was in love with the mechanics of the mechanical watches, I was never happy with their inaccuracy.
> I just cannot stand to be 1 or 2 seconds off a day.
> So basically the mechanical watches became man jewelry.
> Apple watch with Siri face shows my whole day's plan plus tomorrow's while showing atomic time.
> It is the remote control for my Tesla, weather forecaster, fitness data collector, sleep tracker, communication tool, smart home tool, etc. etc. etc.
> My iPhone is the mother computer and the Apple Watch is the terminal.
> Maybe after I retire, when I am on vacation and when I don't care about time or anything else, I will wear a mechanical watch. I doubt even that..


Sometimes I think of getting an Apple Watch, but I cannot stand the thought of having one more device to regularly charge. can barely keep up with charging my iPhone & laptop. Maybe when they get the battery to last a couple of months between charges. Pretty soon they'll have us pugging ourselves into an outlet...You also have a car to charge on top of that! You must not mind looking for an outlet and charging cable all the time! To each their own, glad you like the Apple Watch, many do. Teslas seem pretty sweet too.


----------



## edhchoe

Calier said:


> Sometimes I think of getting an Apple Watch, but I cannot stand the thought of having one more device to regularly charge. can barely keep up with charging my iPhone & laptop. Maybe when they get the battery to last a couple of months between charges. Pretty soon they'll have us pugging ourselves into an outlet...You also have a car to charge on top of that! You must not mind looking for an outlet and charging cable all the time! To each their own, glad you like the Apple Watch, many do. Teslas seem pretty sweet too.


As far as charging an AW, I put it on the charger when I get home. It takes about 1 hour to go from 45% to 100%. After sleeptracking overnight, it goes down to about 85%. After wearing it all day, it goes to about 45%.

I also charge my iPad, toothbrush, shaver, mini vacuum, Roomba, earphones, and the flashlight on my tactical rifle. I have three wall mounted Ryobi chargers in the garage for my screwdriver/drill, impact wrench, saw, leaf blower, and air compressor. I love lithium ion batteries. I grew up with NiCd but always had to manually drain after each use to minimize memory build up. NiMH was better but it still built memory. Finally, after entering Lithium era, I can pretty much let the chargers maintain the batteries. 
Tesla is pretty sweet. I love the instant torque. It is the new American muscle car. I also love that I don't have to go to gas stations. I guess it is better for the environment as well.


----------



## CSG

edhchoe said:


> Apple watch is so functional.
> My fascination with the mechanical watches has diminished to 1/200 or less than what it used to be.
> I just don't have time to wear a mechanical watch.
> I sold Speedmasters, Submariners, and Seamaster.
> Although I was in love with the mechanics of the mechanical watches, I was never happy with their inaccuracy.
> I just cannot stand to be 1 or 2 seconds off a day.
> So basically the mechanical watches became man jewelry.
> Apple watch with Siri face shows my whole day's plan plus tomorrow's while showing atomic time.
> It is the remote control for my Tesla, weather forecaster, fitness data collector, sleep tracker, communication tool, smart home tool, etc. etc. etc.
> My iPhone is the mother computer and the Apple Watch is the terminal.
> Maybe after I retire, when I am on vacation and when I don't care about time or anything else, I will wear a mechanical watch. I doubt even that..


Congratulations, you are officially a drone...


----------



## esdunbar

I went through my Apple Watch phase. I've seen others do it too. I spent a couple years wearing only an Apple Watch, but eventually I started gravitating back to my autos. The Apple Watch just has no sole and got boring. My Dad has been 100% Apple Watch for many years now. He's lost to the Dark Side, but I've seen many come back.


----------



## Morrisdog

I bought one.. a few years back. I think it was a series 3. But I ended up returning it and sticking with my mechanicals watches and a Garmin watch. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Robotaz

edhchoe said:


> I love the instant torque. It is the new American muscle car. I also love that I don't have to go to gas stations. I guess it is better for the environment as well.


It's interesting with all the new electrics coming out that the Tesla is not the "new" one anymore. How times are changing.

Here's an interesting visual aid to help understand the equivalent MPG of using an electric car. It equates the fossil fuels burned at a power plant to charge the car, versus tailpipe emissions. Keep in mind it's from 2018.

My Civic gets 50 mpg on the highway and about 40 mixed. I'm not far behind a Tesla on total emissions generated.


----------



## Morrisdog

Robotaz said:


> It's interesting with all the new electrics coming out that the Tesla is not the "new" one anymore. How times are changing.
> 
> Here's an interesting visual aid to help understand the equivalent MPG of using an electric car. It equates the fossil fuels burned at a power plant to charge the car, versus tailpipe emissions. Keep in mind it's from 2018.
> 
> My Civic gets 50 mpg on the highway and about 40 mixed. I'm not far behind a Tesla on total emissions generated.


But your Civic has no where near the acceleration of a Tesla..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Robotaz

Morrisdog said:


> But your Civic has no where near the acceleration of a Tesla..
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's a Civic Si. I think it's closer than nowhere, although I really don't know or care. I've never floored it. How fast my car is doesn't mean anything to me.


----------



## CSG

edhchoe said:


> Apple watch is so functional.
> My fascination with the mechanical watches has diminished to 1/200 or less than what it used to be.
> I just don't have time to wear a mechanical watch.
> I sold Speedmasters, Submariners, and Seamaster.
> Although I was in love with the mechanics of the mechanical watches, I was never happy with their inaccuracy.
> I just cannot stand to be 1 or 2 seconds off a day.
> So basically the mechanical watches became man jewelry.
> Apple watch with Siri face shows my whole day's plan plus tomorrow's while showing atomic time.
> It is the remote control for my Tesla, weather forecaster, fitness data collector, sleep tracker, communication tool, smart home tool, etc. etc. etc.
> My iPhone is the mother computer and the Apple Watch is the terminal.
> Maybe after I retire, when I am on vacation and when I don't care about time or anything else, I will wear a mechanical watch. I doubt even that..


They really sold you the dream, didn't they? Congrats, you're now absorbed by Apple's version of the Borg...


----------



## edhchoe

Robotaz said:


> It's a Civic Si. I think it's closer than nowhere, although I really don't know or care. I've never floored it. How fast my car is doesn't mean anything to me.


I never cared about the environment when I bought the Tesla.
All I saw was 0-60 in 3.7 sec.


----------



## edhchoe

CSG said:


> They really sold you the dream, didn't they? Congrats, you're now absorbed by Apple's version of the Borg...


I picked up four Echo dots ( 4th gen) few days ago. 
I tell Alexa to do things for me. 
Alexa is more user friendly than Siri in Smart home business.
Siri is better in answering questions. 
I wish I could talk to Alexa on my Apple watch also.


----------

