Don't hold your breath 'cause it ain't gonna happen.
You honestly don't see the wrist-worn device market moving to include more "smartwatches" that mimic the functionality of ?Watch, the way the handset market shifted to mimic the functionality of the iPhone? I don't see how it can't.
You honestly don't see the wrist-worn device market moving to include more "smartwatches" that mimic the functionality of ?Watch, the way the handset market shifted to mimic the functionality of the iPhone? I don't see how it can't.
It makes zero sense to do so, and they'll fail miserably at it, just like every other smartphone maker is failing. Any device they make will be crippled from the start because they can't offer the same functionality as the Watch. They have a strength that has survived several previous disruptions, and they should play that up.
When it doesn't need the iPhone anymore, when it communicates directly to iCloud, it'll be great. Give it 5-7 years. I think it's the most well designed smart watch so far. The dependancy of the iPhone is a downer though.
Actually I think that's exactly what this particular article is about, and whether people who wear traditional watches will embrace Apple so completely so as to put the existing watchmakers out of business.
Actually, this article is about the world underestimating and misrepresenting Apple. The bigger picture, which I think I painted quite succinctly, is indeed about what the wrist-worn device will become and its impact on the world of watch makers.
Actually, this article is about the world underestimating and misrepresenting Apple. The bigger picture, which I think I painted quite succinctly, is indeed about what the wrist-worn device will become and its impact on the world of watch makers.
Most people buy one smartphone, and one tablet (more for family members), but people that buy timepieces usually buy more than one. They'll buy an Apple Watch for their daily driver, but will choose an elegant timepiece in social settings where they'd rather not be so connected.
Any device they make will be crippled from the start because they can't offer the same functionality as the Watch. They have a strength that has survived several previous disruptions, and they should play that up.
Well I agree and disagree. The most recent doom scenario to the watch industry were cheap quartz watches from Asia in the 80s. The luxury watches were unaffected, but the under $1,000 realm suffered pretty dramatically. Yet the European watchmakers pulled it out and survived. Now it's the entire watch industry, and they really have no choice but to band together on this one and offer some of the things Apple offers in the same price range. I for one believe they don't have to compete with everything the ?Watch can do, but rather those things the consumer needs at a particular price point and style/design. Personally I don't need everything the ?Watch can do. What I would like in a wrist-worn device is the ability to submerge it in water, and use it to pay for things. Anything else is icing on the cake for me. And I'd rather have it with a beautiful watch face that is legible all the time, not just when I press a button, or tilt my wrist just so, and not just a black glass square, otherwise. My guess is I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Think about it. When person walks into a watch store today, there are already many options a person chooses about their watch, and compromises they make -- looks, materials, day/date, timer, stopwatch, adjustable bezel, illumination, water resistance, etc. So how is ?Watch any different? Not everybody needs everything it can do, especially for that price, nor will everyone like the way it looks (there isn't even a gold tone option in the under $1,000 class). So the traditional watchmakers will fill the void between those who want a full-on smart watch and those who want a watch that does specific things. So, the watchmakers must evolve. They can't just sit back and do nothing, consolidating their business solely into luxury watches -- which like you I think will persist un-harmed by the smart watch "invasion". Some will compete head on with Apple with full-on smart watch features and some may succeed and others won't. Apple has the home field advantage in that any watch they produce will have access to inside software access, whereas a third party watchmaker will have to contend with the tools available for developers. Nevertheless, for a watch with limited smart watch features, I don't see this as a particular impediment.
Well I agree and disagree. The most recent doom scenario to the watch industry were cheap quartz watches from Asia in the 80s. The luxury watches were unaffected, but the under $1,000 realm suffered pretty dramatically. Yet the European watchmakers pulled it out and survived. Now it's the entire watch industry, and they really have no choice but to band together on this one and offer some of the things Apple offers in the same price range. I for one believe they don't have to compete with everything the ?Watch can do, but rather those things the consumer needs at a particular price point and style/design. Personally I don't need everything the ?Watch can do. What I would like in a wrist-worn device is the ability to submerge it in water, and use it to pay for things. Anything else is icing on the cake for me. And I'd rather have it with a beautiful watch face that is legible all the time, not just when I press a button, or tilt my wrist just so, and not just a black glass square, otherwise. My guess is I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Think about it. When person walks into a watch store today, there are already many options a person chooses about their watch, and compromises they make -- looks, materials, day/date, timer, stopwatch, adjustable bezel, illumination, water resistance, etc. So how is ?Watch any different? Not everybody needs everything it can do, especially for that price, nor will everyone like the way it looks (there isn't even a gold tone option in the under $1,000 class). So the traditional watchmakers will fill the void between those who want a full-on smart watch and those who want a watch that does specific things. So, the watchmakers must evolve. They can't just sit back and do nothing, consolidating their business solely into luxury watches -- which like you I think will persist un-harmed by the smart watch "invasion". Some will compete head on with Apple with full-on smart watch features and some may succeed and others won't. Apple has the home field advantage in that any watch they produce will have access to inside software access, whereas a third party watchmaker will have to contend with the tools available for developers. Nevertheless, for a watch with limited smart watch features, I don't see this as a particular impediment.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but what 'me too' company has had any success against Apple? At what point do you realize that nobody can win against them? None of these companies have the departments ready to develop a smartwatch. They're already years behind, and by the time they catch up to now Apple will be years ahead. They should do what they do best, and it's far from nothing.
When it doesn't need the iPhone anymore, when it communicates directly to iCloud, it'll be great. Give it 5-7 years. I think it's the most well designed smart watch so far. The dependancy of the iPhone is a downer though.
May be sooner when battery problem is solved.
Can't see any other company being able to leverage battery efficiencies better than Apple...maybe 2 years.
...still, most will want a screen larger than 1.5" anyway. Siri interaction (and eye strain) only goes so far.
...and longer (self-assured) battery life for voice calls will still be important
...hence carrying an iPhone 99.5% of the time regardless. Because REALLY, the iPhone isn't that big (yes, I'm FINE with the 4.0" or 4.5" screen!).
I could be wrong in that voice calls are decreasing dramatically...but I think most are still committed to it for the next 5+ yrs.
Most people buy one smartphone, and one tablet (more for family members), but people that buy timepieces usually buy more than one. They'll buy an Apple Watch for their daily driver, but will choose an elegant timepiece in social settings where they'd rather not be so connected.
Dude, go back and read my posts. I've been saying, when the expectation for the thing on your wrist is to BE your car/home/office keys, your TV remote, you credit card, etc, etc, then you will not think in terms of a timepiece anymore. Yes, you may want several of these new gadgets, some more elegant and others more utilitarian or sporty than the others, but they will ALL be required to do the things people will, in the years head, expect of such a device. What you're saying is that sometimes you'll walk out the door with your iPhone, and other times with a highly stylized solid gold and diamond encrusted flip phone. No, the world has moved on. They are diamond encrusting smartphones now. And in the future they will make very elegance smart watches (they will need to partner with Apple or another tech company to do so). The days of the watch as timepiece, whether fashionable timepiece or $500k luxury statement timepiece are coming to an end. Once you put down your keychain with its home and car keys, gym locker key, and workplace access fob for the last time (because they are all incorporated into a smart watch, you will not put down your Apple Watch, strap on a timepiece and put all those keys in your pocket on your way out the door. Those days will be over. What part of that has not been coming through in my posts?
It makes zero sense to do so, and they'll fail miserably at it, just like every other smartphone maker is failing. Any device they make will be crippled from the start because they can't offer the same functionality as the Watch. They have a strength that has survived several previous disruptions, and they should play that up.
Let me get his straight, because every smartphone maker has yet to make a successful wrist-worn device you don't think that a wrist-worn device will ever break away from the traditional watch design, not even ?Watch.
Your reasoning, besides smartphone makers have failed — which completely ignores multiple, recent upendings to markets Apple has jumped into even decades after they began — is because "technology" has yet disrupted the traditional analog watch market?
Most people buy one smartphone, and one tablet (more for family members), but people that buy timepieces usually buy more than one. They'll buy an Apple Watch for their daily driver, but will choose an elegant timepiece in social settings where they'd rather not be so connected.
I disagree. I think that the Stainless Steel and Edition versions of the Watch are set perfectly for consumers to use them for all occasions. This is where Apple want to push their marketing towards. Making their Watch desirable and functional for iPhone owners.
Well I agree and disagree. The most recent doom scenario to the watch industry were cheap quartz watches from Asia in the 80s. The luxury watches were unaffected, but the under $1,000 realm suffered pretty dramatically. Yet the European watchmakers pulled it out and survived. Now it's the entire watch industry, and they really have no choice but to band together on this one and offer some of the things Apple offers in the same price range. I for one believe they don't have to compete with everything the ?Watch can do, but rather those things the consumer needs at a particular price point and style/design. Personally I don't need everything the ?Watch can do. What I would like in a wrist-worn device is the ability to submerge it in water, and use it to pay for things. Anything else is icing on the cake for me. And I'd rather have it with a beautiful watch face that is legible all the time, not just when I press a button, or tilt my wrist just so, and not just a black glass square, otherwise. My guess is I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Think about it. When person walks into a watch store today, there are already many options a person chooses about their watch, and compromises they make -- looks, materials, day/date, timer, stopwatch, adjustable bezel, illumination, water resistance, etc. So how is ?Watch any different? Not everybody needs everything it can do, especially for that price, nor will everyone like the way it looks (there isn't even a gold tone option in the under $1,000 class). So the traditional watchmakers will fill the void between those who want a full-on smart watch and those who want a watch that does specific things. So, the watchmakers must evolve. They can't just sit back and do nothing, consolidating their business solely into luxury watches -- which like you I think will persist un-harmed by the smart watch "invasion". Some will compete head on with Apple with full-on smart watch features and some may succeed and others won't. Apple has the home field advantage in that any watch they produce will have access to inside software access, whereas a third party watchmaker will have to contend with the tools available for developers. Nevertheless, for a watch with limited smart watch features, I don't see this as a particular impediment.
What you envision will work, for a while and in a limited context, but after a couple generation of these devices, the baseline functionality that will be acceptable to the vast majority of the then initiated, will require that Rolex and the other high-end luxury watchmakers be integrated into the ecosystems that will have evolved. And they are not going to develop their own electronics for this purpose. They will partner. And who will Rolex and Patek Philippe and others partner with? Android? Microsoft? Blackberry? Tizen? Nope, they are likely already talking to Apple.
Let me get his straight, because every smartphone maker has yet to make a successful wrist-worn device you don't think that a wrist-worn device will ever break away from the traditional watch design, not even ?Watch.
Your reasoning, besides smartphone makers have failed — which completely ignores multiple, recent upendings to markets Apple has jumped into even decades after they began — is because "technology" has yet disrupted the traditional analog watch market?
Forget wrist worn devices, they haven't been able to make a successful phone which was their speciality, so where do you see watch makers being able to compete with Apple?
Dude, go back and read my posts. I've been saying, when the expectation for the thing on your wrist is to BE your car/home/office keys, your TV remote, you credit card, etc, etc, then you will not think in terms of a timepiece anymore. Yes, you may want several of these new gadgets, some more elegant and others more utilitarian or sporty than the others, but they will ALL be required to do the things people will, in the years head, expect of such a device. What you're saying is that sometimes you'll walk out the door with your iPhone, and other times with a highly stylized solid gold and diamond encrusted flip phone. No, the world has moved on. They are diamond encrusting smartphones now. And in the future they will make very elegance smart watches (they will need to partner with Apple or another tech company to do so). The days of the watch as timepiece, whether fashionable timepiece or $500k luxury statement timepiece are coming to an end. Once you put down your keychain with its home and car keys, gym locker key, and workplace access fob for the last time (because they are all incorporated into a smart watch, you will not put down your Apple Watch, strap on a timepiece and put all those keys in your pocket on your way out the door. Those days will be over. What part of that has not been coming through in my posts?
And they will fail in doing so. Btw they won't walk out of the door with their iPhone which will do everything you described, so they could leave the watch behind for a different timepiece.
What you envision will work, for a while and in a limited context, but after a couple generation of these devices, the baseline functionality that will be acceptable to the vast majority of the then initiated, will require that Rolex and the other high-end luxury watchmakers be integrated into the ecosystems that will have evolved. And they are not going to develop their own electronics for this purpose. They will partner. And who will Rolex and Patek Philippe and others partner with? Android? Microsoft? Blackberry? Tizen? Nope, they are likely already talking to Apple.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but what 'me too' company has had any success against Apple? At what point do you realize that nobody can win against them? None of these companies have the departments ready to develop a smartwatch. They're already years behind, and by the time they catch up to now Apple will be years ahead. They should do what they do best, and it's far from nothing.
But what are we talking about here? Smartphones and tablets? As so many defenders of the ?Watch keep espousing with respect to how Apple will handle the watch -- it's a whole new product category for them, so all bets are off with respect to Apple's previous behavior: 'Maybe they WILL build the watch so the internals can be easily upgraded'. 'Maybe they won't upgrade the case design for years'. So why can't the watch makers be able to maybe compete with Apple in the smart or "semi-smart" watch area unlike any previous device competitor has been able to with Apple ( a far more likely scenario than upgradable smart watches IMO).
Apple seems to be gambling that fitness bands alone don't excite people, but add in the ability to pay with it, play mp3s, view photos, interact with your phone, and share your heartbeat, will. That or "if Apple builds it, they will come". And if either is true, and eventually a "swiss army" smart watch can unlock your door, and start your car, and be your gym access, work ID, drivers license, grocery club pass, tickets to the theater, and transportation, etc. And no one ever needs anything else to get through their day, then the watch makers are screwed if no one can at least keep up with Apple.
So I disagree. Most people will opt for personal style over mass produced homogeny that is the current ?Watch. But they will also likely eventually give it up if it means wearing one device on their wrist can make their life so much easier. So the watch makers have to find ways to integrate smart technologies into their traditional designs, or get out of the market completely now, leaving traditional watchmaking to the elite craftsman who create $100,000+ functional art pieces for horologists.
Comments
I’ve heard that before.
Don't hold your breath 'cause it ain't gonna happen.
You honestly don't see the wrist-worn device market moving to include more "smartwatches" that mimic the functionality of ?Watch, the way the handset market shifted to mimic the functionality of the iPhone? I don't see how it can't.
It makes zero sense to do so, and they'll fail miserably at it, just like every other smartphone maker is failing. Any device they make will be crippled from the start because they can't offer the same functionality as the Watch. They have a strength that has survived several previous disruptions, and they should play that up.
Actually I think that's exactly what this particular article is about, and whether people who wear traditional watches will embrace Apple so completely so as to put the existing watchmakers out of business.
Actually, this article is about the world underestimating and misrepresenting Apple. The bigger picture, which I think I painted quite succinctly, is indeed about what the wrist-worn device will become and its impact on the world of watch makers.
Most people buy one smartphone, and one tablet (more for family members), but people that buy timepieces usually buy more than one. They'll buy an Apple Watch for their daily driver, but will choose an elegant timepiece in social settings where they'd rather not be so connected.
Any device they make will be crippled from the start because they can't offer the same functionality as the Watch. They have a strength that has survived several previous disruptions, and they should play that up.
Well I agree and disagree. The most recent doom scenario to the watch industry were cheap quartz watches from Asia in the 80s. The luxury watches were unaffected, but the under $1,000 realm suffered pretty dramatically. Yet the European watchmakers pulled it out and survived. Now it's the entire watch industry, and they really have no choice but to band together on this one and offer some of the things Apple offers in the same price range. I for one believe they don't have to compete with everything the ?Watch can do, but rather those things the consumer needs at a particular price point and style/design. Personally I don't need everything the ?Watch can do. What I would like in a wrist-worn device is the ability to submerge it in water, and use it to pay for things. Anything else is icing on the cake for me. And I'd rather have it with a beautiful watch face that is legible all the time, not just when I press a button, or tilt my wrist just so, and not just a black glass square, otherwise. My guess is I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Think about it. When person walks into a watch store today, there are already many options a person chooses about their watch, and compromises they make -- looks, materials, day/date, timer, stopwatch, adjustable bezel, illumination, water resistance, etc. So how is ?Watch any different? Not everybody needs everything it can do, especially for that price, nor will everyone like the way it looks (there isn't even a gold tone option in the under $1,000 class). So the traditional watchmakers will fill the void between those who want a full-on smart watch and those who want a watch that does specific things. So, the watchmakers must evolve. They can't just sit back and do nothing, consolidating their business solely into luxury watches -- which like you I think will persist un-harmed by the smart watch "invasion". Some will compete head on with Apple with full-on smart watch features and some may succeed and others won't. Apple has the home field advantage in that any watch they produce will have access to inside software access, whereas a third party watchmaker will have to contend with the tools available for developers. Nevertheless, for a watch with limited smart watch features, I don't see this as a particular impediment.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but what 'me too' company has had any success against Apple? At what point do you realize that nobody can win against them? None of these companies have the departments ready to develop a smartwatch. They're already years behind, and by the time they catch up to now Apple will be years ahead. They should do what they do best, and it's far from nothing.
When it doesn't need the iPhone anymore, when it communicates directly to iCloud, it'll be great. Give it 5-7 years. I think it's the most well designed smart watch so far. The dependancy of the iPhone is a downer though.
May be sooner when battery problem is solved.
Can't see any other company being able to leverage battery efficiencies better than Apple...maybe 2 years.
...still, most will want a screen larger than 1.5" anyway. Siri interaction (and eye strain) only goes so far.
...and longer (self-assured) battery life for voice calls will still be important
...hence carrying an iPhone 99.5% of the time regardless. Because REALLY, the iPhone isn't that big (yes, I'm FINE with the 4.0" or 4.5" screen!).
I could be wrong in that voice calls are decreasing dramatically...but I think most are still committed to it for the next 5+ yrs.
Most people buy one smartphone, and one tablet (more for family members), but people that buy timepieces usually buy more than one. They'll buy an Apple Watch for their daily driver, but will choose an elegant timepiece in social settings where they'd rather not be so connected.
Dude, go back and read my posts. I've been saying, when the expectation for the thing on your wrist is to BE your car/home/office keys, your TV remote, you credit card, etc, etc, then you will not think in terms of a timepiece anymore. Yes, you may want several of these new gadgets, some more elegant and others more utilitarian or sporty than the others, but they will ALL be required to do the things people will, in the years head, expect of such a device. What you're saying is that sometimes you'll walk out the door with your iPhone, and other times with a highly stylized solid gold and diamond encrusted flip phone. No, the world has moved on. They are diamond encrusting smartphones now. And in the future they will make very elegance smart watches (they will need to partner with Apple or another tech company to do so). The days of the watch as timepiece, whether fashionable timepiece or $500k luxury statement timepiece are coming to an end. Once you put down your keychain with its home and car keys, gym locker key, and workplace access fob for the last time (because they are all incorporated into a smart watch, you will not put down your Apple Watch, strap on a timepiece and put all those keys in your pocket on your way out the door. Those days will be over. What part of that has not been coming through in my posts?
Let me get his straight, because every smartphone maker has yet to make a successful wrist-worn device you don't think that a wrist-worn device will ever break away from the traditional watch design, not even ?Watch.
Your reasoning, besides smartphone makers have failed — which completely ignores multiple, recent upendings to markets Apple has jumped into even decades after they began — is because "technology" has yet disrupted the traditional analog watch market?
I disagree. I think that the Stainless Steel and Edition versions of the Watch are set perfectly for consumers to use them for all occasions. This is where Apple want to push their marketing towards. Making their Watch desirable and functional for iPhone owners.
Well I agree and disagree. The most recent doom scenario to the watch industry were cheap quartz watches from Asia in the 80s. The luxury watches were unaffected, but the under $1,000 realm suffered pretty dramatically. Yet the European watchmakers pulled it out and survived. Now it's the entire watch industry, and they really have no choice but to band together on this one and offer some of the things Apple offers in the same price range. I for one believe they don't have to compete with everything the ?Watch can do, but rather those things the consumer needs at a particular price point and style/design. Personally I don't need everything the ?Watch can do. What I would like in a wrist-worn device is the ability to submerge it in water, and use it to pay for things. Anything else is icing on the cake for me. And I'd rather have it with a beautiful watch face that is legible all the time, not just when I press a button, or tilt my wrist just so, and not just a black glass square, otherwise. My guess is I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Think about it. When person walks into a watch store today, there are already many options a person chooses about their watch, and compromises they make -- looks, materials, day/date, timer, stopwatch, adjustable bezel, illumination, water resistance, etc. So how is ?Watch any different? Not everybody needs everything it can do, especially for that price, nor will everyone like the way it looks (there isn't even a gold tone option in the under $1,000 class). So the traditional watchmakers will fill the void between those who want a full-on smart watch and those who want a watch that does specific things. So, the watchmakers must evolve. They can't just sit back and do nothing, consolidating their business solely into luxury watches -- which like you I think will persist un-harmed by the smart watch "invasion". Some will compete head on with Apple with full-on smart watch features and some may succeed and others won't. Apple has the home field advantage in that any watch they produce will have access to inside software access, whereas a third party watchmaker will have to contend with the tools available for developers. Nevertheless, for a watch with limited smart watch features, I don't see this as a particular impediment.
What you envision will work, for a while and in a limited context, but after a couple generation of these devices, the baseline functionality that will be acceptable to the vast majority of the then initiated, will require that Rolex and the other high-end luxury watchmakers be integrated into the ecosystems that will have evolved. And they are not going to develop their own electronics for this purpose. They will partner. And who will Rolex and Patek Philippe and others partner with? Android? Microsoft? Blackberry? Tizen? Nope, they are likely already talking to Apple.
Forget wrist worn devices, they haven't been able to make a successful phone which was their speciality, so where do you see watch makers being able to compete with Apple?
And they will fail in doing so. Btw they won't walk out of the door with their iPhone which will do everything you described, so they could leave the watch behind for a different timepiece.
And why would Apple help them in any way?
ok, i have to nominate this as the all-time DED rant. or at least one of the top five. when i got to Jim Jones i knew he was all-in.
his basic points are certianly valid, if hardly news. there are probably a lot of cheap shots and poorly qualified statements in there too.
but mainly, it's just a lot of fun to read. keep 'em coming Dan, and don't worry about who you piss off. especially here.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but what 'me too' company has had any success against Apple? At what point do you realize that nobody can win against them? None of these companies have the departments ready to develop a smartwatch. They're already years behind, and by the time they catch up to now Apple will be years ahead. They should do what they do best, and it's far from nothing.
But what are we talking about here? Smartphones and tablets? As so many defenders of the ?Watch keep espousing with respect to how Apple will handle the watch -- it's a whole new product category for them, so all bets are off with respect to Apple's previous behavior: 'Maybe they WILL build the watch so the internals can be easily upgraded'. 'Maybe they won't upgrade the case design for years'. So why can't the watch makers be able to maybe compete with Apple in the smart or "semi-smart" watch area unlike any previous device competitor has been able to with Apple ( a far more likely scenario than upgradable smart watches IMO).
Apple seems to be gambling that fitness bands alone don't excite people, but add in the ability to pay with it, play mp3s, view photos, interact with your phone, and share your heartbeat, will. That or "if Apple builds it, they will come". And if either is true, and eventually a "swiss army" smart watch can unlock your door, and start your car, and be your gym access, work ID, drivers license, grocery club pass, tickets to the theater, and transportation, etc. And no one ever needs anything else to get through their day, then the watch makers are screwed if no one can at least keep up with Apple.
So I disagree. Most people will opt for personal style over mass produced homogeny that is the current ?Watch. But they will also likely eventually give it up if it means wearing one device on their wrist can make their life so much easier. So the watch makers have to find ways to integrate smart technologies into their traditional designs, or get out of the market completely now, leaving traditional watchmaking to the elite craftsman who create $100,000+ functional art pieces for horologists.
oh, about the AWatch ...
either it's really super-convenient or it's not. if it is, it will be a huge hit. otherwise, so-so.
like i wonder, can you really hear/talk a phone call on it?
have to wait and see when it finally gets into real world use.