Sounds like Hayek knows as much about wearable tech as Apple knows about watches.
It's called "learning." And when you have billions of #cashmoneymoneyhoney to spend on said "learning" then you will eventually, and quickly, know a little something about said product.
Swatch? That is sooooo 1986. What's next, they'll create a Pro version, designed by Keith Haring? Hey, if Michael Jackson can still release a new album...
Swatch basically saved the Swiss watch industry from an onslaught of cheap quartz and digital watches from Japan.
They also make off the shelf movements that power a lot of "Swiss Made" watches under the ETA brand.
In house vs off the shelf movements opens a whole can of worms among watch enthusiasts.
Hmmm now this rumor is making me think that Apple isn't making anything at all in terms of a physical object. But rather has created tech that will help other companies to make MFi smart watches. And perhaps Timex and Swatch are the first couple of companies that are joining in and will be the ones demo'd at the big iOS event in the Fall when the iPhone and iPad (and hopefully a new Apple TV) are introduced.
This I agree I could see Apple going this route. Let watch makers make the watch, with a few specifications from Apple, and Apple supplies the watch crystal and "computer" parts. The watch crystal could be a transparent sapphire microLED display.
- Apple acquired Luxvue, a company that was developing low-power microLED displays, that they claimed were, "a break through in displays." These displays are reportedly brighter while using less power.
- Apple acquired, Passif Semiconductors, designers of an extremely low-power Bluetooth chip.
- Apple also has all the engineering talent for designing their own extremely efficient SoC as well.
Apple will not have numerous types of watches. Apple does things in ones and twos.
They will have two types w different memory sizes.
Version 1 is for the masses and will be $179. "Basic" version
Version 2 will be an FDA subsidized one for $499. High margin. For hospitals and chronic ill.
That's it
Because Apple is run by stupid people who are incapable of change and will force its business model on everything it does no matter how impractical?
I wouldn't be surprised if this rumour is even partially true. I've always contended that an iWatch, or whatever they call it, has to be as much a fashion accessory as a tech device. A phone is something people keep in their pockets. A watch, for most people, is part of their outfit. A whole lot of people are very picky about their outfit. That's why clothes, shoes, bags, belts, scarves,jewelry, and yes, watches, come in all shapes and sizes. A two model line up for the iPhone would address a very small segment of the potential market. I cannot imagine Deneve, Ahrendts, and that new guy from Tag Heuer (?) telling Tim, "Yeah, based on our experience in the fashion and accessories world, two models is going to be enough to crash this market and sell tens of millions of iWatches. Yup, that's the ticket."
I can't think of anyone who has ever sold tens of millions of a single model of a luxury fashion accessory in one year. I might be proved wrong but I doubt it for the reason I just gave.
My thought though was that the partnerships/tie ups will not be with the old line watch companies but with the top line fashion houses or designers.
Within 10 years, the notion of a luxury watch will be synonymous with luxury smart watch and the Rolexes of the world will be on the path to extinction.
You wouldn't have a clue. If you're claiming disruptive technology, take the car industry. The Toyota Prius is now 17 years old and Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Aston Martin, Bugatti et al aren't exactly quaking in their boots. In fact Ferrari reported record profits, revenues and net financial position this last financial year.
People with money (and taste) do not want computers on their wrists.
I don't think that Apple should be too concerned with what old fashioned watch makers are doing.
Did Apple model the iPhone on currently available phones at the time? Hell no.
Reinventing the watch requires completely new thinking, not following ancient norms and tired ways of doing things.
I see Apple's supposed iWatch and regular watches as two different categories of devices, that don't really overlap. Regular watches just tell the time for the most part, and Apple's iWatch will be a technical marvel, jammed full of sensors.
Battery time is an issue with watches that have displays on them. Maybe Apple can make theirs solar powered or kinetic powered, or maybe both!
I also think that Apple should release various models, including high end models. Watches are jewelry, so why can't Apple have a watch that's real gold or platinum? Make it thousands of dollars for the high end model.
Hmmm now this rumor is making me think that Apple isn't making anything at all in terms of a physical object. But rather has created tech that will help other companies to make MFi smart watches. And perhaps Timex and Swatch are the first couple of companies that are joining in and will be the ones demo'd at the big iOS event in the Fall when the iPhone and iPad (and hopefully a new Apple TV) are introduced.
Excuse me but Timex and Swatch are too low brow for Apple. They will not be able to command the prices and margins that would interest Apple. I mean Timex is like the Kia of watches, you really think Apple would associate their brand with that? And that's not snobbery that's going on, it's a cold pragmatic business decision to protect the value, prestige and profitability of the Apple brand.
One thing that not everyone of you might know is the following: 1. If you want a watch to be labelled "Swiss made", then the assembly and a certain amount of pieces have to be done in Switzerland. And being swiss made in the watch industry, especially for a new player is THE most important thing. 2. Swatch not only sells watches but dominates 80% of the component market for brands that are not manufacturing mechanisms on their own (besides the internal brands there's brands like Hublot and the ones made under license, like Armani watches and others).
So one scenario would be that apple seeks components that are watch specific by swatch, to be labelled "Swiss made". One scenario is also that the Iwatch will be assembled in Switzerland with part of Swiss components and part of Asian made ones (the high tech sensors).
Remember: the Swiss are good at keeping secrets so leaks might be zero up to now, also because there already are several assembly lines for third party watches, so figuring out one is for apple might be pretty difficult... The Swiss watch industry (swatch group grew 4% in the quarter), would manufacture the Iwatch under license from apple with some apple components in it but under Apple design and specification. Swatch group knows how to handle materials like sapphire and liquimetal (omega made one liquimetal watch). Swatch knows how to produce watches from 60 dollars (Swiss made, mechanical, 60 dollars is bout as hard as it gets), to the average tissot (with t-touch tech, touchscreen on mechanical watch) to omega.
All this would be: an easy secret to keep, catch the whole smart watch industry flat footed and immediately entrench apple with the traditional watch industry's biggest player. Sharing patents and erecting barriers for competitors. All the rest of the industry of smart watches would look geekish overnight.
Cook is the only guy that can pull this off (jobs would have never been capable). And, for apple, this would really mean entering the wearable markets in style. With their own design (not, like the post suggest, repeating the iTunes Motorola fiasco).
Apply that to luxottica (look up the brands that they own: bonus tip: Ray ban, Oakley)....
You might consider this as a major shift for apple, but it would make total sense.
I don't think that Apple should be too concerned with what old fashioned watch makers are doing.
Did Apple model the iPhone on currently available phones at the time? Hell no.
Reinventing the watch requires completely new thinking, not following ancient norms and tired ways of doing things.
I see Apple's supposed iWatch and regular watches as two different categories of devices, that don't really overlap. Regular watches just the tell the time for the most part, and Apple's iWatch will be a technical marvel, jammed full of sensors.
Battery time is an issue with watches that have displays on them. Maybe Apple can make theirs solar powered or kinetic powered, or maybe both!
I also think that Apple should release various models, including high end models. Watches are jewelry, so why can't Apple have a watch that's real gold or platinum? Make it thousands of dollars for the high end model.
Though I can't imagine spending so much money on a Rolex or Omega, I understand the allure of a finely crafted old world mechanical movement. I've always worn automatic watches, but only Seikos, because I don't like replacing batteries. Imagine, though, a mechanical Omega that is 100% accurate because its movement incorporates an Apple micro motherboard that periodically syncs the time with the official NOAA time. You get the best of both worlds: an old world mechanical movement but information age accuracy, not to mention the host of iWatch functions that Apple offers.
One thing that not everyone of you might know is the following:
1. If you want a watch to be labelled "Swiss made", then the assembly and a certain amount of pieces have to be done in Switzerland. And being swiss made in the watch industry, especially for a new player is THE most important thing.
2. Swatch not only sells watches but dominates 80% of the component market for brands that are not manufacturing mechanisms on their own (besides the internal brands there's brands like Hublot and the ones made under license, like Armani watches and others).
So one scenario would be that apple seeks components that are watch specific by swatch, to be labelled "Swiss made".
One scenario is also that the Iwatch will be assembled in Switzerland with part of Swiss components and part of Asian made ones (the high tech sensors).
Remember: the Swiss are good at keeping secrets so leaks might be zero up to now, also because there already are several assembly lines for third party watches, so figuring out one is for apple might be pretty difficult...
The Swiss watch industry (swatch group grew 4% in the quarter), would manufacture the Iwatch under license from apple with some apple components in it but under Apple design and specification.
Swatch group knows how to handle materials like sapphire and liquimetal (omega made one liquimetal watch).
Swatch knows how to produce watches from 60 dollars (Swiss made, mechanical, 60 dollars is bout as hard as it gets), to the average tissot (with t-touch tech, touchscreen on mechanical watch) to omega.
All this would be: an easy secret to keep, catch the whole smart watch industry flat footed and immediately entrench apple with the traditional watch industry's biggest player. Sharing patents and erecting barriers for competitors.
All the rest of the industry of smart watches would look geekish overnight.
Cook is the only guy that can pull this off (jobs would have never been capable).
And, for apple, this would really mean entering the wearable markets in style. With their own design (not, like the post suggest, repeating the iTunes Motorola fiasco).
Apply that to luxottica (look up the brands that they own: bonus tip: Ray ban, Oakley)....
You might consider this as a major shift for apple, but it would make total sense.
How I wish that this would be true. Maybe the CEO of Swatch Group was engaging in classic misdirection when he said those dismissive things about Apple. Maybe this is why Eddy Cue said "most exciting product rollout in the last 25 years". Maybe this is why Deneve and Ahrendts were hired. A major new branch in Apple's line of business, high fashion/high tech.
Makes for an interesting read. Remember: you might not be "into it". But developing countries, and affluent middle aged people are buying watches in droves. And the luxury market doesn't know the meaning of recession. Moreover: swatch is not an amateur company, it had gross sales of 8.4 billion Swiss francs in 2013 (up 8% from previous year).
Apple is not dumb. They want to tap in that market. High margins, high sales.
There are some really informative comments following the article, especially from Dick Applebaum.
I was reading up on SOS (Silicon on Sapphire) and one of the current leading companies using this technique is a company called, Peregrine Semiconductor in San Diego. In fact the company was tapped for producing an antenna switch in the iPhone 4S' dual-antenna design. However it was dropped with the release of the 5C and 5S, causing their stock to plunge.
Possibly a good opportunity for Apple to acquire them?
======
After reading a little about SOS, and taking into account all the sapphire Apple is buying up, I'm really beginning to wonder if Apple is producing the A8 using an SOS fabrication process? It seems that very few others make use of it in microprocessors because it is considered to be fairly expensive (the sapphire). But the properties of using such a process would allow processors to use a lot less power and run much, much faster.
This news fits well with what I've been posting on this subject:
In the fullness of time, all of the traditional watch makers are vulnerable. The utility of a watch as a timepiece has already been wholly disrupted by technology. Gone are the days when people check the time 100 times a day; smartphones with reminders and appointment calendars inform us of our time-based commitments, and these devices are looked at for a variety of purposes throughout the day, with the time ever present on screen. Smart watches will first supplant ordinary watches as a more functional fashion accessory. And with smart watch functionality soon becoming expected, luxury smart watches will come on the scene where they will displace those luxury watches whose functionality extends only to telling the time and a few other time-based functions. A technology ecosystem will be a critical part of the picture, and this is something none of the existing luxury watchmakers can bring to the market in any meaningful way compared with the technology giants currently moving into this space. Within 10 years, the notion of a luxury watch will be synonymous with luxury smart watch and the Rolexes of the world will be on the path to extinction.
Advice to the luxury watch makers: partner with tech giants, if they'll even have you.
You wouldn't have a clue. If you're claiming disruptive technology, take the car industry. The Toyota Prius is now 17 years old and Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Aston Martin, Bugatti et al aren't exactly quaking in their boots. In fact Ferrari reported record profits, revenues and net financial position this last financial year.
People with money (and taste) do not want computers on their wrists.
Yes. If technology could disrupt the watch industry then digital watches would be the only watches available now. Clearly while smart phones are about technology, watches are about fashion and displays of wealth. The function - telling the time - can be done with a cheap $5 watch just as well. Or just use your phone. To convince people to put accessories on their wrists, in particular to convince men who tend to never do this , takes brand, design, and style.
If the traditional watch market was disruptable it would already have been disrupted.
Swatch? That is sooooo 1986. What's next, they'll create a Pro version, designed by Keith Haring? Hey, if Michael Jackson can still release a new album...
the Swatch line, yes. Swatch Group... Omega, Harry Winston, Longines, Rado, Tissot...
One thing that not everyone of you might know is the following:
1. If you want a watch to be labelled "Swiss made", then the assembly and a certain amount of pieces have to be done in Switzerland. And being swiss made in the watch industry, especially for a new player is THE most important thing.
"The watch industry" - is that the one where people wear timepieces on their wrist which are nothing to do with telling the time but everything to do with displaying your wealth and making a statement?
No company with Apple's tech savvy or cachet, outside the watch industry, has ever been expected to make a "watch" before. So far (ignoring the strange items made by Samsung and Google) nobody has made something for your wrist that isn't a watch. People will not ditch their Rolex or other luxury fashion marques mentioned in earlier posts for an Apple watch unless Apple is looking to provide something that fits on your wrist (?) but isn't a watch. They would need to appeal to a completely different market. I expect that Apple's product may not need to be Swiss Made if they are not entering the watch industry. They may well be creating a new industry that doesn't currently exist. They have done it before ...
Comments
Sounds like Hayek knows as much about wearable tech as Apple knows about watches.
It's called "learning." And when you have billions of #cashmoneymoneyhoney to spend on said "learning" then you will eventually, and quickly, know a little something about said product.
Swatch basically saved the Swiss watch industry from an onslaught of cheap quartz and digital watches from Japan.
They also make off the shelf movements that power a lot of "Swiss Made" watches under the ETA brand.
In house vs off the shelf movements opens a whole can of worms among watch enthusiasts.
Ah yes, Luxvue. Here is the AI article:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/05/02/apple-acquires-luxvue-a-power-efficient-micro-led-maker---report
There are some really informative comments following the article, especially from Dick Applebaum.
Because Apple is run by stupid people who are incapable of change and will force its business model on everything it does no matter how impractical?
I wouldn't be surprised if this rumour is even partially true. I've always contended that an iWatch, or whatever they call it, has to be as much a fashion accessory as a tech device. A phone is something people keep in their pockets. A watch, for most people, is part of their outfit. A whole lot of people are very picky about their outfit. That's why clothes, shoes, bags, belts, scarves,jewelry, and yes, watches, come in all shapes and sizes. A two model line up for the iPhone would address a very small segment of the potential market. I cannot imagine Deneve, Ahrendts, and that new guy from Tag Heuer (?) telling Tim, "Yeah, based on our experience in the fashion and accessories world, two models is going to be enough to crash this market and sell tens of millions of iWatches. Yup, that's the ticket."
I can't think of anyone who has ever sold tens of millions of a single model of a luxury fashion accessory in one year. I might be proved wrong but I doubt it for the reason I just gave.
My thought though was that the partnerships/tie ups will not be with the old line watch companies but with the top line fashion houses or designers.
Within 10 years, the notion of a luxury watch will be synonymous with luxury smart watch and the Rolexes of the world will be on the path to extinction.
You wouldn't have a clue. If you're claiming disruptive technology, take the car industry. The Toyota Prius is now 17 years old and Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Aston Martin, Bugatti et al aren't exactly quaking in their boots. In fact Ferrari reported record profits, revenues and net financial position this last financial year.
People with money (and taste) do not want computers on their wrists.
I don't think that Apple should be too concerned with what old fashioned watch makers are doing.
Did Apple model the iPhone on currently available phones at the time? Hell no.
Reinventing the watch requires completely new thinking, not following ancient norms and tired ways of doing things.
I see Apple's supposed iWatch and regular watches as two different categories of devices, that don't really overlap. Regular watches just tell the time for the most part, and Apple's iWatch will be a technical marvel, jammed full of sensors.
Battery time is an issue with watches that have displays on them. Maybe Apple can make theirs solar powered or kinetic powered, or maybe both!
I also think that Apple should release various models, including high end models. Watches are jewelry, so why can't Apple have a watch that's real gold or platinum? Make it thousands of dollars for the high end model.
Excuse me but Timex and Swatch are too low brow for Apple. They will not be able to command the prices and margins that would interest Apple. I mean Timex is like the Kia of watches, you really think Apple would associate their brand with that? And that's not snobbery that's going on, it's a cold pragmatic business decision to protect the value, prestige and profitability of the Apple brand.
1. If you want a watch to be labelled "Swiss made", then the assembly and a certain amount of pieces have to be done in Switzerland. And being swiss made in the watch industry, especially for a new player is THE most important thing.
2. Swatch not only sells watches but dominates 80% of the component market for brands that are not manufacturing mechanisms on their own (besides the internal brands there's brands like Hublot and the ones made under license, like Armani watches and others).
So one scenario would be that apple seeks components that are watch specific by swatch, to be labelled "Swiss made".
One scenario is also that the Iwatch will be assembled in Switzerland with part of Swiss components and part of Asian made ones (the high tech sensors).
Remember: the Swiss are good at keeping secrets so leaks might be zero up to now, also because there already are several assembly lines for third party watches, so figuring out one is for apple might be pretty difficult...
The Swiss watch industry (swatch group grew 4% in the quarter), would manufacture the Iwatch under license from apple with some apple components in it but under Apple design and specification.
Swatch group knows how to handle materials like sapphire and liquimetal (omega made one liquimetal watch).
Swatch knows how to produce watches from 60 dollars (Swiss made, mechanical, 60 dollars is bout as hard as it gets), to the average tissot (with t-touch tech, touchscreen on mechanical watch) to omega.
All this would be: an easy secret to keep, catch the whole smart watch industry flat footed and immediately entrench apple with the traditional watch industry's biggest player. Sharing patents and erecting barriers for competitors.
All the rest of the industry of smart watches would look geekish overnight.
Cook is the only guy that can pull this off (jobs would have never been capable).
And, for apple, this would really mean entering the wearable markets in style. With their own design (not, like the post suggest, repeating the iTunes Motorola fiasco).
Apply that to luxottica (look up the brands that they own: bonus tip: Ray ban, Oakley)....
You might consider this as a major shift for apple, but it would make total sense.
And that's not snobbery that's going on, it's a cold pragmatic business decision to protect the value, prestige and profitability of the Apple brand.
Sorry, but after Beats, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised about Timex or Swatch.
Though I can't imagine spending so much money on a Rolex or Omega, I understand the allure of a finely crafted old world mechanical movement. I've always worn automatic watches, but only Seikos, because I don't like replacing batteries. Imagine, though, a mechanical Omega that is 100% accurate because its movement incorporates an Apple micro motherboard that periodically syncs the time with the official NOAA time. You get the best of both worlds: an old world mechanical movement but information age accuracy, not to mention the host of iWatch functions that Apple offers.
Beats commands prices and margins that Timex only dreams about.
How I wish that this would be true. Maybe the CEO of Swatch Group was engaging in classic misdirection when he said those dismissive things about Apple. Maybe this is why Eddy Cue said "most exciting product rollout in the last 25 years". Maybe this is why Deneve and Ahrendts were hired. A major new branch in Apple's line of business, high fashion/high tech.
http://www.swatchgroup.com/en/content/download/4992/168686/version/3/file/2013_annual_report_complete_en.pdf
Swatch group assembly
http://www.swatchgroup.com/en/brands_and_companies/production/swatch_group_assembly
Makes for an interesting read. Remember: you might not be "into it". But developing countries, and affluent middle aged people are buying watches in droves. And the luxury market doesn't know the meaning of recession.
Moreover: swatch is not an amateur company, it had gross sales of 8.4 billion Swiss francs in 2013 (up 8% from previous year).
Apple is not dumb. They want to tap in that market. High margins, high sales.
Ah yes, Luxvue. Here is the AI article:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/05/02/apple-acquires-luxvue-a-power-efficient-micro-led-maker---report
There are some really informative comments following the article, especially from Dick Applebaum.
I was reading up on SOS (Silicon on Sapphire) and one of the current leading companies using this technique is a company called, Peregrine Semiconductor in San Diego. In fact the company was tapped for producing an antenna switch in the iPhone 4S' dual-antenna design. However it was dropped with the release of the 5C and 5S, causing their stock to plunge.
Possibly a good opportunity for Apple to acquire them?
======
After reading a little about SOS, and taking into account all the sapphire Apple is buying up, I'm really beginning to wonder if Apple is producing the A8 using an SOS fabrication process? It seems that very few others make use of it in microprocessors because it is considered to be fairly expensive (the sapphire). But the properties of using such a process would allow processors to use a lot less power and run much, much faster.
Tim. What did Apple's board tell you about posting on AppleInsider? Steve never did. Don't do it again.
Em,no.
Yes. If technology could disrupt the watch industry then digital watches would be the only watches available now. Clearly while smart phones are about technology, watches are about fashion and displays of wealth. The function - telling the time - can be done with a cheap $5 watch just as well. Or just use your phone. To convince people to put accessories on their wrists, in particular to convince men who tend to never do this , takes brand, design, and style.
If the traditional watch market was disruptable it would already have been disrupted.
Wow. Thanks guys, I had no idea they were this big!
One thing that not everyone of you might know is the following:
1. If you want a watch to be labelled "Swiss made", then the assembly and a certain amount of pieces have to be done in Switzerland. And being swiss made in the watch industry, especially for a new player is THE most important thing.
"The watch industry" - is that the one where people wear timepieces on their wrist which are nothing to do with telling the time but everything to do with displaying your wealth and making a statement?
No company with Apple's tech savvy or cachet, outside the watch industry, has ever been expected to make a "watch" before. So far (ignoring the strange items made by Samsung and Google) nobody has made something for your wrist that isn't a watch. People will not ditch their Rolex or other luxury fashion marques mentioned in earlier posts for an Apple watch unless Apple is looking to provide something that fits on your wrist (?) but isn't a watch. They would need to appeal to a completely different market. I expect that Apple's product may not need to be Swiss Made if they are not entering the watch industry. They may well be creating a new industry that doesn't currently exist. They have done it before ...
Looking at the iTime Smart Watch design ...
Either Apple will make a watch that looks like this..
Or the square design is a misdirection, and Apple actually produces a round watch like the Moto360...
.... that functions like these Moto360 Design Face Off watch face designs.
You will find the designs in the blog here:
https://plus.google.com/communities/100528130097464336279
Or something like the Arrow Smartwatch Concept with the rotating camera in the bezel.
http://www.arrowsmartwatch.com/#home2