Swatch CEO doesn't believe Apple's rumored 'iWatch' is next tech revolution - Page 3

 

To be exact:

 

Apple originally paid for perpetual exclusive consumer electronics rights to any technology created or acquired by Liquidmetal Technologies through February 2012.

 

In mid 2012, Apple paid to extend that perpetual license to include any LM enhancements through February 2014.

 

In other words, the license has always been perpetual.  What the perpetual license covered, is what was extended.

 

Anyone know who the LM competitors are?  I wonder if Samsung has found a similar supplier.  (They used it in phones since 2002 for hinges and trim, and made a luxury phone out of it in 2008, advertised as being corrosion and scratch resistant.)

 

I think that Apple does that, and should continue to do that... within limitations.  I don't think that Apple should abandon iDevice interaction to 3rd-parties except for very specific uses like HiFi Speakers, etc. -- areas where Apple has no offerings.  Apple makes Display devices, and up until last year made an iPad Nano that could be clipped on a shirt or worn as a watch -- to display time, play iTunes, radio, podcasts, workout data, etc.  With a little enhancement (WiFi and BT), this could be the device that a 3rd-party might to develop to interact with your iDevices.   I don't think that Apple should allow this.

 

To me the biggest phone potential for Apple is the untapped market in places like India and China.

 

Apple has difficulty competing in these markets because their iPhones are too expensive compared to feature phones.  

 

Apple and the carriers have begun to address this problem with older models and interest-free financing -- but still, they can do better.

 

If Apple could enter these markets with a basic phone for a competitive price that would be a start.  But Apple doesn't [like to] compete in these markets.

 

So, what to do?

 

IMO, Apple should offer an entry iPhone an acceptable price -- for sake of argument say this in $150-$300 unlocked, no contract.

 

The acceptable price could be somewhat higher than the competition because 1) it brings the Apple ecosystem, quality, support... 2) it can interact with other iDevices.

 

This is an incentive to the buyer to get the phone he needs and the tablet he wants at the best possible price.

 

In my way of thinking, the iDevice on your wrist is the entry iPhone -- and the tablet iDevice is an iPod Touch or iPad Mini/iPad (without cellular option).

 

 

Edit:  I would have no problem with Apple allowing 3rd-parties to interface TVs or speakers to the iDevice on your wrist.

Edited by Dick Applebaum - 3/6/13 at 12:54pm

 

No offense, but your posts ITT are rather clueless. For one, the poster you replied to didn't state that the watch business was insulated from "all threats". It is, however, most certainly insulated from whatever threat the rumored iWatch could pose, for reasons that were expounded upon time and again, key amongst which is this: an iWatch literally wouldn't compete with any of Swatch's products except the cheapest of fashion watches, which isn't where the money is. 

 

Secondly, your use of the word "fashion" indicates that you know very little about the watch industry. A good watch (3-4k+) is not a fashion item, but a piece of jewelry and craftsmanship. That's an important distinction. Watch aficionados frown upon pure "fashion watches" like the ones peddled by Fossil, Armani, Dolce & Gabbana and whoever. Those are usually chintzy, tasteless, and above all they house cheap quartz movements. The best Swiss watches, the watches Swatch actually make money from, house elaborate Swiss-made mechanical movements, some of which are hand finished or even partly hand built, depending on the price class you're interested in. Again: people who are in this market are not going to consider the iWatch a competitor to such products. The poster above me was spot on, it's like saying the iWatch will compete with Mercedes because there's a clock in the dashboard. 

 

And since you dismissed my other post with a neat helping of disdain, I'll reiterate the point I made therein: the Swiss watchmakers already were complacent and stagnant. Then, Quartz watches came along and the industry fell into a huge crisis. The companies consolidated (that's how Swatch was founded btw) and repositioned the Swiss mechanical watch as a genuine luxury item. The iWatch is not going to pose a problem because the industry has already reinvented itself after being confronted with cheaper, more functional devices built by competitors, i. e. a new cheaper competing device won't bother Swatch. Call me when Apple decide to build their own mechanical watch with in-house movement that costs several thousand dollars (and even then nobody would take them seriously because history and pedigree obviously go a log way in the watch industry). 

Edited by Parkettpolitur - 3/6/13 at 1:19pm

To be clear, you're saying that jewelry is not fashion.

Way to pick out a single point from my long effortpost and nitpick it :D Are you always like this?

 

And yeah, there is a rather clear distinction between "fashion watches" and, well, serious, good, well-made watches. The latter are not mere fashion items because they're 1) fine pieces of jewelry (is an expensive Collier just a fashion item to you?) and 2) the result of actual craftsmanship and huge engineering efforts (look into the work involved in the production of a Grand Seiko watch, or check out the huge sums Swatch/omega invested into the creation of the Calibre 8500 if you want to see the difference between a great watch and a mere fashion item). 

 

And no matter what your or my opinion is on these things: the people who care about this stuff, i. E. Swatch's current and future customers, think like that. That's all that matters to Swatch. 

The point is you're holding it up on a pedestal instead of looking at it rationally or objectively, as clearly noted by your comment that watches are not fashion but are instead jewelry. For ****'s sake!

Let's be clear, in now way did I say anything negative about watches or that the watch industry will fail., i merely stated that saying you're immune any change has a long of proving such myopic and hubris to be wrong.

And do I try to be clear, correct, direct, objective in my comments? You better fucking believe it. As for nitpicking, that's what you're doing by claiming that jewelry is not fashion as you've warped the context to fit a very select meaning that allows you to scoff as certain watches as you deems as "fashion watches" while considering others as jewelry. Again, neither objective nor rational. If you were on a watch forum I would understand your nitpicking for this elitist definition but it's not germane in this context.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/6/13 at 1:41pm

 

You're putting words in my mouth. I wasn't putting anything onto a pedestal; rather, I was trying to point out why the watch industry and its customers will not consider the iWatch a serious threat. You're implying that my account of these things is emotional and irrational when in fact it's quite objective. As to why I even posted, well, you'll find a host of moronic posts in this thread stating that Swatch ought to be really afraid of Apple and that Hayek was Steve Ballmer 2.0. That's stupid beyond words since, as I've tried to explain, the iWatch wouldn't be competing with any products offered by Swatch. 

 

And duh, of course they're not immune to other market forces. But their competition isn't Apple, it's Rolex, LVMH, Patek Philippe, Seiko...

So you're noting EXACTLY what I noted.

 

Of course it's germane. Hint: there's nothing elitist about pointing out that there's a huge difference between a 300$ Armani watch and a 5000$ Omega. It's relevant to this thread because some people here aren't making this very important distinction (i. e. they assume that Apple's sure to be moderately priced smart watch will compete with actual luxury watches). 

 

It's like saying oh no, Rolls Royce better watch out, they're gonna lose their entire business to the Tata Nano (yeah, car analogy, whatever).

 

I think your post is pretty funny. We're in a forum that routinely "scoffs" at computers, tablets and smartphones that cost less than Apple's offerings but provide similar functionality - because around here, Apple's superiority is simply assumed (sometimes rightfully so, mind you). I'm just trying to bring the same level of precise differentiation to this particular debate. 

 

That particular point wasn't (just) directed at you, but rather at the large number of people in this thread who think Swatch should be quaking in their boots at the prospect of an Apple watch. 

1) No, it's not. I can find jewelry at the Dollar Store and all way the up to many millions of dollars but it's all fashion. You saying that one is more or less a fashion statement based on how much it costs is elitist.

2) Who where said that a moderately priced smart watch will compete with luxury watches? Show me one person that made such a claim.

3) I have no idea what your last paragraph is about. Are you saying that I should be elitist and not call my Mac a personal computer because I feel it's development, manufacturing, materials, and OS are better suited for my needs than other vendor's options?Are you saying I should call my Mac jewelry but refer to Android phones as "fashion phones"?


No, your replies to me were that the watch industry has nothing to worry about when I clearly noted that it's often folly to make such blanket statements.

You're just being obtuse at this point. Whatever, I'll bite. First off, yes, in terms of semiotics, dime-store jewelry and a Patek Philippe are both, very, very broadly speaking, fashion statements. They both speak "the language of fashion", as Roland Barthes might say. That's a very banal and generic thing to say though; both items send such different messages about their owners and have such different intrinsic value that the comparison makes no sense. Hence my distinction between fine jewelry and fashion items. The iWatch, by the way, would be neither. It would be a functional gadget that might, in time, provided it is successful, become a fashionable object. Anyway, this is nitpicky as hell and ill gladly concede the point: fine watches are fashion too, just like Fossil watches. That's like saying that the Tata Nano and the Porsche 911 are both cars, but whatever.

 

Anyway, as to your second point, that was said or at least implied by every poster who gleefully stated that Hayek would, in a few years' time, find himself in a similar position to the makers of smartphones who didn't take the iPhone seriously. That assumes that the iWatch will compete with his company's products and emerge as the victor. I've pointed out why that assumption is spurious; I'm not going to do it again.

 

My last paragraph concerned the hypocrisy of your labeling me an elitist because I have the temerity to distinguish between mass-produced fashion watches and marvelous pieces of jewelry while you would most probably make the very same distinction between, say, a Dell PC for 400 bucks and a Mac Mini for 1000. You'd be right in making that distinction, mind you, but so am I in distinguishing between a Fossil and an Omega. 

 

As for your very last point, well, that's just a truism. Of course no company is immune to competition. I've already pointed out Swatch's main competitors - none of them is Apple, and Apple will never be amongst them. That was my point all along.

 

EDIT: by the way, I take issue with your claim that price is my sole differentiator when I call certain watches superior to others. That's not the case at all. The differentiator lies in the level of fit and finish, the quality of the movements used, the quality of the craftsmanship and the design, and ultimately, to some degree, in the intangible quality of the brand's history and pedigree. Price is not as significant a factor as you might think. A watch aficionado will gush at a hideously expensive Jaeger le Coultre Tourbillon, yes, but they will also gush at a - frankly - very commonplace watch like, say, a Rolex Submariner. Why? They're both beautiful, well-designed objects with incredible craftsmanship (moreso in the JLC's case) and history. There are overpriced brands (Rolex is certainly one of them), but generally there's a certain amount of parity, i. e. there's a point at which you will get great quality for your money regardless of which brand you pick - and at that point it's a matter of taste, personality, temperament which one you go for. In other words: once you're willing to pay the price for a good watch, it's not the money that's going to drive your choice, but your own appreciation for different kinds of craftsmanship. Maybe you want a particular complication, maybe the history of a particular brand strikes a chord with you, maybe the engineering and craftsmanship of a certain movement has got you all hot and bothered... And so on. Price is a secondary concern.

Edited by Parkettpolitur - 3/6/13 at 2:30pm

 

 

Just one point on this. My wife has jewelry that has been handed down through a couple of generations of her family. None of this is stuff that you can pick up from a dollar store. Same thing is true for fine watches. 

 

 

Hence my contention that the Swatch Group has not all that much to fear from such a watch and that the ones who should be really worried are the people who play in the low to mid-priced quartz watch market - such as Seiko, Citizen, Fossil et al. The Swatch Group has brands that play in this space but even those brands are emphasizing mechanical watches to a greater and greater extent. So, their exposure to this is pretty minimal. The other big Swiss watch manufacturers like Richemont, Rolex and LVMH have even less to fear. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, implying that the Swatch Group's market is in any way insulated from competition. Its just that the iWatch is does not affect the Swatch Group in the same way that the iPhone affected RIM. This is a fairly uncontroversial point I am making and Parkettpolitur has said essentially the same thing.

 

 

 

- HCE

 

Edited by HCE - 3/6/13 at 2:51pm

Great post, but I'd take Seiko out of that list. Yes, they make a ton of cheap watches, but their luxury products (Grand Seiko, Ananta, Credor) are absolutely amazing and on par with anything the big Swiss manufacturers have to offer. So they're certainly a bit more exposed to competition from something like an iWatch, but their brilliant high-end models would make up for that. They're also very innovative, as their hi-beat and especially their spring drive movements show.

iWatch: O iPhone, you are so smart and elegant!

 

No question about how good Seiko's premium products are. However, I believe they still make the vast majority of their income from mid-priced quartz watches and hence they will feel the heat if the iWatch proves to be a game-changing product.

 

 - HCE

 

It's certainly possible. But since they're one if the most integrated companies in the business - they really make everything themselves, even the oils used for lubrication in their movements - they could probably shift their focus rather quickly if need be. Also, I think their staid Grand Seiko designs are still huge in Japan, and they would be huge amongst watch buyers here in Europe if they were widely available. They're really some of the most beautiful objects I've ever seen, not exaggerating here :) Check out the "Snowflake" model; it's incredible. The creation of the dial alone takes days and comprises like eight distinct manufacturing steps.

 

We're getting waaaay off topic here but this is probably the first and last time I get to discuss watches on an Apple form :-) 

 

I think the biggest problem Seiko has is their branding - which is, I am sorry to say, hopelessly confused. They cannot use the Seiko brand for everything that they produce - Seiko is indelibly associated in most Western consumers' minds as a mid-priced quartz watch. I recall an issue of WatchTime where an unnamed Swiss watch CEO waxed lyrical about how good the watches are but ended up saying that their biggest problem is their name. Not many people are going to pay several thousand dollars for a watch that says "Seiko" on the dial. 

 

Their other big problem is that they are still pretty reluctant to commit to really pushing their mechanical watches - which is a pity since they are capable of doing almost anything that the Swiss can. For the longest time, they kept their mechanical watches hidden away in Japan and even now when they have finally started to sell mechanical watches in the west, they still appear tentative.

 

 - HCE

Aren't Swatches kids' watches? I got one when I was five, I think. Are we going to hear from the makers of Leapster that the next iPad won't be a big deal?

@drblank Swatch is indeed still around, and is dominating its industry. Lots of watchmakers are dependent upon it for parts.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21571943-industry-ripe-shake-up-time-money

 

This made me think of one model I read about in A History of Engineering and Science in the Bell System 1875-1925. It was one of the first to support automated switching (entering digits to a control system instead of using a human operator). The digits were entered with a single button: you pressed quickly a number of times equal to the digit, pause, another set of pushes for the next digit, pause, etc.

 

That's sort of humorous from a UI design standpoint in light of the early one button Apple mouse.

I agree completely, but it seems like they're starting to open up a bit. There's a Grand Seiko store in my (European) town, for example :)

this is so funny! reminds me of microsoft saying the ipad was doomed cause they had tried tablets and people didnt like them, like many ditched the iphone before; decca telling beatles to give up cause four-member bands were out, and funny enough too even steve jobs when he said computers didnt need color back in the day. i may not like many of the ways apple has gone in the past ten years, but the jury is still out, i was wrong with fcp x so with the closed itunes ecosystem strategy it is early to tell.. but i do know that if apple makes a watch it will be useful!

the apple camera days are gone.. they have patents on screen projection so maybe this is where they are going.. maybe watches will soon have a bigger screen then even the huge galaxys, but floating up in the air like a hologram. maybe flexible screens will do the trick. and even if battery is an issue for sure at some point for rf, if there is one thing im sure of is that this swatch ceo comment will one day go down in history as a funny anecdote

" Certainly not a watch!"

 

No, but is it a coincidence that this came about near the time of the shareholders voting?

 

Newpapers love to sell stories so maybe this 'iBangle' was all a bit concocted.

Saying that the Google glasses onslaught might soon mean retro is now cool. 

Ah, but an accessory can be a revolution.

Nice to read an informed and open-minded discussion here on an old art form, mechanical timekeeping, and that it's still very much alive. Thanks.
Edited by Flaneur - 3/7/13 at 11:49am

Right, especially an accessory that's connected to the noösphere.

I was going to post the same thing. They are also the worlds largest manufacturer of watch mechanisms, both cheap, and high end. Many other companies buy from them.

Did you take a big loss on it or something? You posted several months ago that seeing multiple executives sell large percentages of their shares made you nervous. Edit : not nervous but commented that something wasn't right if I remember correctly.

 

edit edit: It's hard for me to see this as feasible unless a watch makes more sense than a phone in your pocket. The trend has been largely in favor of consolidation when it comes to mobile devices. The rumors take on a life of their own because it's such a large company that constantly feeds off media attention.