or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Swatch denies rumor it's working with Apple on 'iWatch'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Swatch denies rumor it's working with Apple on 'iWatch'

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
Swiss watchmaker Swatch has moved to quickly extinguish rumors that claimed it is working with Apple on the company's hotly anticipated "iWatch."




The Swatch Group issued a statement to Reuters on Thursday to publicly say that it is not collaborating with Apple on an anticipated wrist-worn connected device. A spokeswoman reportedly said that Swatch has supplied integrated circuits and other components to some mobile phone makers, but claims of any collaboration on a full-blown watch made with Apple are false.

VentureBeat first reported on Wednesday that it was told by anonymous sources that Apple has been working with Swatch and other watchmakers to introduce multiple "iWatch" devices to the market. The strategy was said to be to offer a range of products that could appeal to a wide range of potential buyers with varying fashion tastes and budgets.

That report alleged that Apple was talking with multiple companies, and that the deal with Swatch was apparently a lock. But Swatch quickly put that claim to rest on Friday with its outright denial.

The rumor, even before it was debunked, was somewhat surprising as Swatch Chief Executive Nick Hayek Jr. said last year that he didn't think an Apple smartwatch would be a big deal. He suggested that an "interactive terminal on your wrist" would be difficult since there is limited space for an adequate display.

Swatch, along with Suunto and Fossil, previously produced watches using Microsoft's now defunct Smart Personal Object Technology (SPOT) platform, what can be considered a first-foray into the smartwatch world.
post #2 of 42

Once again, the problem with rumors.

post #3 of 42
With all this denying, Swatch is going to be the Blackberry of watches

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply
post #4 of 42
At least Swatch didn't go on record stating something along the lines of 'Apple don't know how to make a watch ... we have been making them for blah blah blah ...' Or have a mock funeral for an iWatch. 1biggrin.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #5 of 42

Apple isn't working on an iWatch with Swatch or anyone else. They are working on the 2014 iPod which just happens to have an wrist-band form factor and biosensors.

post #6 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaceslin View Post

Once again, the problem with rumors.

Indeed. Why VentureBeat didn't call Swatch to verify the rumour is beyond me. Come to think of it, actually not; they rather publish this than publishing a denied rumour.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #7 of 42

i knew this was total bs.

 

Apple won't risk their empire by allowing another company to design, build, and market their hardware.  Pure silliness.  You think they would allow Sony to design the iTV?  Or Nokia to design the iPhone?

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #8 of 42

Actually my point was not aimed toward VentureBeat, but the rest of us as consumers.  Read the 'news' on this and other sites with a full understanding that most of what we hear are rumors - not fact.  Entertaining at times - but not necessariliy true. 

post #9 of 42
Thank goodness. But I'll echo what many have already said in that the Omega brand would have made perfect sense.
post #10 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaceslin View Post

Actually my point was not aimed toward VentureBeat, but the rest of us as consumers.  Read the 'news' on this and other sites with a full understanding that most of what we hear are rumors - not fact.  Entertaining at times - but not necessariliy true. 

I get that, and fully agree. You know what the mantra within Apple is?

"If it's not on Apple.com, we don't know about it"
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #11 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

i knew this was total bs.

 

Apple won't risk their empire by allowing another company to design, build, and market their hardware.  Pure silliness.  You think they would allow Sony to design the iTV?  Or Nokia to design the iPhone?

Or car accessories.

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #12 of 42
Meanwhile, Swatch has never received so much free photographic advertising in it's life.
post #13 of 42

Anyway, another rumour from AppleInsider squashed by the AppleInsider rumour squashers at AppleInsider.

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #14 of 42

"A spokeswoman for Swatch Group said on Thursday the report was unfounded. She said the only business relationship Swatch Group had with mobile phone makers was as a supplier of integrated circuits and other electronic components."

Technically, this statement does not rule out that Apple is being supplied parts from Swatch though.

Their statements boil down to:

 

1. They are not collaborating with Apple on any watch;

2. They are supplying parts to unnamed smart phone manufacturers.

post #15 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

i knew this was total bs.

Apple won't risk their empire by allowing another company to design, build, and market their hardware.  Pure silliness.  You think they would allow Sony to design the iTV?  Or Nokia to design the iPhone?

Well actually for a brief moment of madness Apple did get Moto to design the iPhone....it wasn't a pretty sight!
post #16 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post
 

"A spokeswoman for Swatch Group said on Thursday the report was unfounded. She said the only business relationship Swatch Group had with mobile phone makers was as a supplier of integrated circuits and other electronic components."

Technically, this statement does not rule out that Apple is being supplied parts from Swatch though.

Their statements boil down to:

 

1. They are not collaborating with Apple on any watch;

2. They are supplying parts to unnamed smart phone manufacturers.

i thought similarly to you when i read the quote. "Plausible deniability" comes to mind.

post #17 of 42

This was a ridiculous rumor to begin with. Today's Apple would never concede the design process to some other company.

 

The only thing this shows is how low some media outlets will stoop to gain page views by publishing unbelievable nonsense.

post #18 of 42
Wait, analysts/unnamed sources are wrong? Nope, Swatch is lying. That's the only logical conclusion. /s
post #19 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post

With all this denying, Swatch is going to be the Blackberry of watches

They are just doing the responsible thing as a publicly traded company! You can't let rumors like this hang if there is no basis what so ever for the rumor.
post #20 of 42

I have said it before that Apple is not going to make a watch. I am however at the point that I wish they would so all the f***ing rumors would stop. Talk about beating a dead horse. But alas they all will move on to the next rumor and babble on endlessly about that one. I can't imagine a goal for myself to spend four years of my life getting a degree in journalism to get a job writing about idiotic rumors endlessly. So much time so little to talk about.

post #21 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

i thought similarly to you when i read the quote. "Plausible deniability" comes to mind.

Even this part about supplying electronic parts means little. I'm not sure but I thought Swatch owned a crystal manufacture. Crystals as in components of oscillators or clock generators. Even if I'm wrong it is conceivable that they have been supplying Apple for ages with parts.
post #22 of 42
Rumours will continue until the products, whatever they are, are revealed by Apple. A good marketing ploy. I hope we will be pleasantly surprised.
post #23 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

You think they would allow Sony to design the iTV?  Or Nokia to design the iPhone?

Never again anyway:

http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/07/the-motorola-rokr-e1-apple-itunes-phone/


Quote:
Originally Posted by AjbDtc826 
the Omega brand would have made perfect sense.

They just need to work through every manufacturer and have them all deny it. Any that doesn't is suspect.

Personally, I think they're working with Tesla on their watch.
post #24 of 42

Like I've said before, who is responsible for false rumors effect on stock prices? When will some government agency step in and protect investors from this ever escalating pile of rumors, lies, and half truths.

post #25 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post
 

… I wish…all the f***ing rumors would stop.

You're no fun. :grumble:

 

I can't imagine a goal for myself to spend four years of my life getting a degree in journalism to get a job writing about idiotic rumors endlessly.

Think of it as entry level training to be a financial analyst. :smokey: 

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #26 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Apple isn't working on an iWatch with Swatch or anyone else. They are working on the 2014 iPod which just happens to have an wrist-band form factor and biosensors.

I agree completely. Apple rarely "collaborates" its way into new territory, preferring to go its own way. They may buy a related company for people or parts, but not to buy its way in. Even the Beats buy has yet to prove otherwise. The iPod name is known and respected. A wrist version would not be seen as a risky new thing, but the next iteration of a popular product.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #27 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


I get that, and fully agree. You know what the mantra within Apple is?

"If it's not on Apple.com, we don't know about it"


Ahh yes.

 

I still unfortunately have to repeat this daily to customers who obviously don't know what a search engine is.

post #28 of 42

notice the word choose here

 

Quote:
A spokeswoman reportedly said that Swatch has supplied integrated circuits and other components to some mobile phone makers, but claims of any collaboration on a full-blown watch made with Apple are false.

 

The spokeswoman could have simply said they are not working with Apple, But she went on to put some clarification around her statement.

 

So they may not be working with Apple on an Apple Design, but they could still be working on their own designs if apple is doing the car play concept. 

post #29 of 42
Well that was fun gossip fodder while it lasted.
post #30 of 42

They always deny deny deny and then you find out they are working with Apple...

post #31 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Indeed. Why VentureBeat didn't call Swatch to verify the rumour is beyond me. Come to think of it, actually not; they rather publish this than publishing a denied rumour.

That's why it's a rumor. However, companies lie all the time. 

post #32 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Apple isn't working on an iWatch with Swatch or anyone else. They are working on the 2014 iPod which just happens to have an wrist-band form factor and biosensors.

This is the best theory I've heard yet. If they just call it iPod nano, they won't show their hand with any new trademarks.
post #33 of 42
Apple's iWatch as revealed by Jimmy Kimmel in the past few hours.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 42
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
Apple's iWatch as revealed by Jimmy Kimmel in the past few hours.

 

When these things don’t happen, can he please be fired?

post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

i knew this was total bs.

Apple won't risk their empire by allowing another company to design, build, and market their hardware.  Pure silliness.  You think they would allow Sony to design the iTV?  Or Nokia to design the iPhone?
as well as the rokr by Motorola, the first PowerBooks were designed by Sony.
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
post #36 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post
 

Or car accessories.


ISWYDT ;)

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


I agree completely. Apple rarely "collaborates" its way into new territory, preferring to go its own way. They may buy a related company for people or parts, but not to buy its way in. Even the Beats buy has yet to prove otherwise. The iPod name is known and respected. A wrist version would not be seen as a risky new thing, but the next iteration of a popular product.


This new iteration of the iPod would need to be iPod "XYZ" unless all bandless forms of the iPod were discontinued, no? I don't see the nano, shuffle, touch, and classic going away any time soon.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #38 of 42
Could it be - Apple supplies the "smart parts" with iOS and Apps while the other watch manufacturers or craftsmen put them as options into or onto their watches! The "smart parts" includes sapphire glass with touch interface and LCD, base electronics encased in liquid metal. Whoa lah! The possibilities can be endless....
iMac i7
Reply
iMac i7
Reply
post #39 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys View Post


as well as the rokr by Motorola, the first PowerBooks were designed by Sony.

Not true, Apple did a join design with Sony one a model long after the first Powerbooks, It came out about the same time as the performa products and it was suppose to be less feature lower cost product.

post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

When these things don’t happen, can he please be fired?

:lol:  Did you watch the video?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Swatch denies rumor it's working with Apple on 'iWatch'