Patent could delay Apple Watch debut in Switzerland, report says

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 56
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     



    Thats a stretch seeing Apple hasn't sold a single watch yet and Rolex was founded in 1905 and moved to Switzerland in 1919. To compare a first generation Apple Watch to a Rolex is a bit much even for this forum. Rolex made the first waterproof watch in 1926 so far in 2015 the best Apple could do is let you wash your hands with it on. 

     

    Apple is trying to push this as fashion putting the full court press on the fashion industry, the jury is still out if the consumer will see it as fashion or wearable technology. Apple may sell these like crazy or there may be no bullet to dodge. 




    OMG!  Are you Steve Balmer?  That is exactly what Steve Balmer said about the iPhone.

    Look back at the introduction of the iPhone and ask yourself if there is a bullet to dodge.

    Wanna play Ostrich?  Be my guess... :no:

  • Reply 42 of 56
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post





    So you're saying it took Rolex over 20 years to finally produce a waterproof version. Hmm how long do you think it will take Apple? Be honest.



    It took Apple 30 years before they could manage to make an iPhone, so your implied criticism is a bit rich.  The O-ring was still ten years away from being invented when Rolex managed to make a watch waterproof.

     

    It would take little effort for Apple to make a watch waterproof, thanks to the state of current technologies.  Einstein said: "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."

  • Reply 43 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

     



    OMG!  Are you Steve Balmer?  That is exactly what Steve Balmer said about the iPhone.

    Look back at the introduction of the iPhone and ask yourself if there is a bullet to dodge.

    Wanna play Ostrich?  Be my guess... :no:




    He sounded like he was hedging his bets.

  • Reply 44 of 56
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,309member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post



    It took Apple 30 years before they could manage to make an iPhone, so your implied criticism is a bit rich.  The O-ring was still ten years away from being invented when Rolex managed to make a watch waterproof.

     

    It would take little effort for Apple to make a watch waterproof, thanks to the state of current technologies.  Einstein said: "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."


    Yeah, the AppleWatch is standing on a giant Rolex.... <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

  • Reply 45 of 56
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    I'm unaware of a cliché that Swiss women are blond. However, Swedish girls are clichéd to be blondes, so there may be some confusion going on there. Then there are actually four national languages, of which three are not German (nor Swiss German) and the fact that the army is mandatory is quickly losing significance. About 50% of drafts are unfit for service or don't want to serve in the army and choose a civil alternative. Legislation for keeping your rifle after having served has become stricter too, consequently the per capita gun count is arguably on a long time low. We also still have one of the lowest gun crime rates, so the whole cliché is kind of moot.

    Getting back on topic: Those who think the watch industry is in trouble need to read more news.
    Firstly, the watch industry has been in trouble before, which led to things such as the Swatch. The Apple watch still doesn't compete with that <150$ market and arguably never will.
    Secondly, the strong Swiss Franc, or sickly Euro, really, is MUCH more of a problem to the export oriented wa tch industry than the emergence of Apple as a smart watch competitor. It's not like the industry doesn't have answers to the smartwatch, it's just not Apple. Swatch for instance is working on interesting projects in that area.
    Thirdly, I guarantee that no smartwatch will ever have the longevity (and I don't mean battery life) of a well made, high quality traditional watch. In fact, the rumors of upcoming chipsets being able to sustain power for months or even years already indicates that the first generation Apple watch will be obsolete in probably no more than three years. Or is anyone here still using an original iPad?
  • Reply 46 of 56
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,309member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by G-News View Post



    Getting back on topic: Those who think the watch industry is in trouble need to read more news.

    Firstly, the watch industry has been in trouble before, which led to things such as the Swatch. The Apple watch still doesn't compete with that <150$ market and arguably never will.

    Secondly, the strong Swiss Franc, or sickly Euro, really, is MUCH more of a problem to the export oriented wa tch industry than the emergence of Apple as a smart watch competitor. It's not like the industry doesn't have answers to the smartwatch, it's just not Apple. Swatch for instance is working on interesting projects in that area.

    Thirdly, I guarantee that no smartwatch will ever have the longevity (and I don't mean battery life) of a well made, high quality traditional watch. In fact, the rumors of upcoming chipsets being able to sustain power for months or even years already indicates that the first generation Apple watch will be obsolete in probably no more than three years. Or is anyone here still using an original iPad?

    Re your first point, yes, it is indeed true. But it may be different this time around, for a couple of reasons. One, I am not aware of any area in which the Swiss have outshone others with their software abilities. Two, the AppleWatch is part of a staggeringly successful ecosystem that almost no one -- not even Google or Microsoft -- has been able to replicate. Something like the AppleWatch will live or die based on its software and ecosystem capabilities.

     

    Re your second point, the appreciated Swiss Franc is certainly a factor currently. But currencies sometimes appreciate and at other times, depreciate. The SFR itself has been through those sorts of cycles since it floated.

     

    Third, I believe that real competition from Apple will be in the $200 - $1,500 segment. I don't know what the numbers are, but I have to believe that is where most of the profits in the industry are. For example, I have one very expensive watch and six or seven $100 - $300 watches (including three Swatches) that I've acquired over the past two decades. I still rotate and wear most of them. I can see Apple absolutely making a killing in that segment.

     

    (As an aside, we're -- at least some of us are -- just having some fun with cliches about the Swiss. You live in a lovely country, with some of the most wonderful, happy, contended people on earth. Of all the cities I've traveled to around the world, Zurich still remains one of my favorites! :))

  • Reply 47 of 56
    citycity Posts: 522member

    Deleted

  • Reply 48 of 56
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    city wrote: »
    Just cover the word "Apple" with an iWatch stickers for the Swiss market.
    It's amazing how many people call it the "iWatch". I've seen several newscasts where they report on it and the anchors and pundits call it "iWatch" the whole time without anyone correcting them.
  • Reply 49 of 56
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,309member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

    It's amazing how many people call it the "iWatch". I've seen several newscasts where they report on it and the anchors and pundits call it "iWatch" the whole time without anyone correcting them.

    The one that would bug me the most, for some reason, is "iTouch."

  • Reply 50 of 56
    timgriff84timgriff84 Posts: 912member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    incorrect - it's the perfect analogy. feature phones are dumbphones because they don't do anything, which is why they get much better battery life. same with non-smartwatches -- they get better battery life because they can't do much.

    what's not clear?
    People have multiple watches they only had one feature phone.

    Battery life didn't matter so much on phones as you use it every day and therefore charge every night. If a watch only lasts 18 hours you have to plan to wear it the day before.

    Won't be a problem for a lot of people, but for others it will turn into the watch that's always flat.
  • Reply 51 of 56
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    boredumb wrote: »
    Good thing Apple hasn't tried developing a new line of chocolates...

    Yet! ;)
  • Reply 52 of 56
    idreyidrey Posts: 647member
    The disruption is inevitable!
  • Reply 53 of 56
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

     



    It took Apple 30 years before they could manage to make an iPhone, so your implied criticism is a bit rich.  The O-ring was still ten years away from being invented when Rolex managed to make a watch waterproof.


     

    nonsense. while apple has been in business for 30 years, they certainly havent been working on a phone that long. dur. but rolex had been working on nothing *but* watches for those 21 years it took to introduce what was certainly a highly prized feature.

     

    again -- how long do you think until apple has a waterproof version? they didnt make the AW waterproof despite the fact that people would *love* for it to be, and i must believe that wasnt "just because". there were other complications or design considerations that we dont know that precluded it from happening. but i suspect they will solve those problems more rapidly than your example of rolex's innovation...

     

    and thats my point -- AW is a starting point, and it will advance quickly.

  • Reply 54 of 56
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by G-News View Post



     In fact, the rumors of upcoming chipsets being able to sustain power for months or even years already indicates that the first generation Apple watch will be obsolete in probably no more than three years. Or is anyone here still using an original iPad?

     

    1) i have a first gen ipad sitting on my coffee table. amusingly it still keeps a long charge, and there is something very organic about its case design that i enjoy more than the ultra-slim air2 sitting next to it. this is similar to the difference between the iphone 6 and the 3, which had a great hand-feel.

     

    2) im not familiar w/ the solution to the problem plaguing multiple industries (battery tech) being just around the corner. care to enlighten?

     

    3) if i only get 3 years of useful life out of a gen1 AW, id consider that of useful value to me.

  • Reply 55 of 56
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post



    People have multiple watches they only had one feature phone.



    Battery life didn't matter so much on phones as you use it every day and therefore charge every night. If a watch only lasts 18 hours you have to plan to wear it the day before.



    Won't be a problem for a lot of people, but for others it will turn into the watch that's always flat.

     

    the point was lower-capacity devices enjoy longer battery life, but that doesnt mean theyre "better" for it. feature phones enjoyed better battery, but did very little. 

     

    according to those who have actually, you know, used the apple watch, it has enough juice to go your entire waking day -- and then it requires charging at bed time. just like....wait for it...an iphone. im envisioning putting both devices onto a bedside charger. doesnt require much planning.

     

    i dont wear a decorative watch, not since i was a teenager, when i thought the original casio data bank and later a g-shock were mightly cool. i got over them pretty quickly. im only planning on trying the apple watch because of the activity tracking (and reminders) use case. wearing a watch is con in my book, but the pro is the anti-sedentary behavioral change i hope to see (standing more, walking more, etc). it's all too easy for me as a software dev to stick to my work and forget about these goals.

  • Reply 56 of 56
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">1) i have a first gen ipad sitting on my coffee table. amusingly it still keeps a long charge, and there is something very organic about its case design that i enjoy more than the ultra-slim air2 sitting next to it. this is similar to the difference between the iphone 6 and the 3, which had a great hand-feel.</span>


    2) im not familiar w/ the solution to the problem plaguing multiple industries (battery tech) being just around the corner. care to enlighten?

    3) if i only get 3 years of useful life out of a gen1 AW, id consider that of useful value to me.

    http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/new-arm-powered-chip-aims-for-battery-life-measured-in-decades/

    Does the ipad just sit there, like my first gen ipod on the desk, or does it get used daily? How much can it still do apart from e-mail and surfing?

    Would you also consider three years acceptable if you got the 15'000$ Edition version?

    Catch my point yet?
Sign In or Register to comment.