I agree with Swiss watch makers that the ?Watch is not a threat, at least not a big one. The high end watch market is not about telling time, it's about jewelry. Panerai, Blancpain and their ilk are almost like Rube Goldberg devices that do something that today is very simple, telling time, but in a very complicated and complex way. It's all about the craftsmanship that goes into it. ?Watches can approach the beauty and craftsmanship of the casework, but the guts are microelectronics, not micro mechanics. Once designed they can be cranked out by the millions. Fine horological jewelry will continue to hold it's market share.
Cheap mass-Market Swiss watches like the Swatch have little to fear because they occupy a space Apple is not challenging.
Only mid level watches will lose some sales to ?Watch. But because, as others have noted above, it is much less a watch than a sidecar to the iPhone, those losses will be manageable.
The AWatch could be a threat. We don't know. At this point, pretty much no threat. Most people don't seem to really care.
Oh GTFO.
Rolex only sells 1 million watches a year. Apple will sell 30,000,000 next year.
By 2017 Apple will sell more watches than all the luxury swiss watches combined.
Apple and Rolex will not collide, they'll pass through one another as if each were not there. There will be Apple Watch buyers and high end luxury watch buyers, and there will be those who purchase both, but there won't be more than a handful of people (if any) who would purchase an A watch over a Rolex or vice versa. Apple is likely to eventually make a dent in the $1000 watch market though. Check out ablogtowatch for an insight into watch world.
Denial of what? Do you wear only one pair of pants? You wear only one at a time but you own several pairs. It's the same with people that buy automatic watches. Most own more than one and will continue purchasing them.
Denial of what? Do you wear only one pair of pants? You wear only one at a time but you own several pairs. It's the same with people that buy automatic watches. Most own more than one and will continue purchasing them.
You really don't see it coming, do you? Automatic watches are timepieces. That's all they are. They may also be jewelry and they may also be collectables, but their function is as timepieces. The ?Watch is also a timepiece. In fact, it is a better timepiece than any automatic watch at any price ever made or any automatic watch that ever will be made. Its unsurpassed functionality as a timepiece is only the start of the ?Watch's functionality.
The ?Watch can serve as your heart monitor, your credit cards, airline boarding pass, hotel keys, car keys, and so much more. Let's say that I am Skippy Buffett, the son that Warren doesn't like to talk about. I have received delivery of an ?Watch Edition. Now, there is a lot of junk that I don't have to carry around any more. If I have my ?Watch, I am fairly well set. Oh, sure. I might also need my iPhone, but you get the idea.
Warren is a modest man who lives in a middle class neighborhood despite his $1 billions in net worth. I have more money than sense and spend money like water. Among my many purchases is a really nice collection of luxury watches. So I wear a nice $30,000 Swiss watch. Now, I have to load-up on all of the junk that I didn't need the day before when I wore my ?Watch. Where are my car keys, anyway?
You don't have to buy the Edition to get the functionality of the Edition. The lowly Sport has the same functionality. At its best, technology does two things for you. It increases the number of things that you can do, and it reduces your hassle. The health and fitness benefits of the ?Watch are only going to increase. The functionality of some cards and keys already have been assumed by the ?Watch. That is a trend that is also virtually certain to increase.
There is a conception on this forum that the rich buy stuff simply because they can. They also buy stuff despite the available of superior alternatives. Rich people are not stupid. They didn't get rich by being stupid. They don't stay rich by being stupid. Skippy Buffett may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even he knows that a watch that unlocks his hotel room is superior to a watch that allows him to be locked out.
If you think that automatic watches can long stand when their potential customers see how little they get for their money, then more power to you. However, the smart money does not and will not agree with you.
You really don't see it coming, do you? Automatic watches are timepieces. That's all they are. They may also be jewelry and they may also be collectables, but their function is as timepieces. The ?Watch is also a timepiece. In fact, it is a better timepiece than any automatic watch at any price ever made or any automatic watch that ever will be made. Its unsurpassed functionality as a timepiece is only the start of the ?Watch's functionality.
The ?Watch can serve as your heart monitor, your credit cards, airline boarding pass, hotel keys, car keys, and so much more. Let's say that I am Skippy Buffett, the son that Warren doesn't like to talk about. I have received delivery of an ?Watch Edition. Now, there is a lot of junk that I don't have to carry around any more. If I have my ?Watch, I am fairly well set. Oh, sure. I might also need my iPhone, but you get the idea.
Warren is a modest man who lives in a middle class neighborhood despite his $1 billions in net worth. I have more money than sense and spend money like water. Among my many purchases is a really nice collection of luxury watches. So I wear a nice $30,000 Swiss watch. Now, I have to load-up on all of the junk that I didn't need the day before when I wore my ?Watch. Where are my car keys, anyway?
You don't have to buy the Edition to get the functionality of the Edition. The lowly Sport has the same functionality. At its best, technology does two things for you. It increases the number of things that you can do, and it reduces your hassle. The health and fitness benefits of the ?Watch are only going to increase. The functionality of some cards and keys already have been assumed by the ?Watch. That is a trend that is also virtually certain to increase.
There is a conception on this forum that the rich buy stuff simply because they can. They also buy stuff despite the available of superior alternatives. Rich people are not stupid. They didn't get rich by being stupid. They don't stay rich by being stupid. Skippy Buffett may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even he knows that a watch that unlocks his hotel room is superior to a watch that allows him to be locked out.
If you think that automatic watches can long stand when their potential customers see how little they get for their money, then more power to you. However, the smart money does not and will not agree with you.
Let's look at the iPhone. It's a phone, a computer, and has a camera. With all that people still buy phones, cameras, and computers. Which goes against your logic.
The Apple watch is a threat to any company that makes watches in its price range. While seemingly not a direct competitor to luxury
watches in the $20,000-plus price range, I think it will chip away at those markets as well. The Apple watch is an attractive, well-made, multi-purpose device whose functionality is only going to increase rapidly as app developers devise new functions. A recent ad for a Breitling watch emphasizes its position on the wrist of a stunt pilot with a date (according to a handwritten note) with a voluptuous woman. The watch adds nearly nothing to his ability to fly the airplane. I suppose it does help to get him to the airport on time. Multi-function digital watches have been around for decades and many do some functions better than the Apple watch currently does. But the breadth of functions Apple is introducing is unprecedented while its attractiveness as a piece of high-precision jewelry is considerable. The Swiss watch industry isn't in denial. They are scrambling to catch up to a software-hardware product they have little experience in building. Good luck. Meanwhile, the Apple watch equipped pilot has sent a heart beat to the babe on the ground, booked the hotel room and Ubered a taxi.
Let's look at the iPhone. It's a phone, a computer, and has a camera. With all that people still buy phones, cameras, and computers. Which goes against your logic.
What percentage of people buy cameras? And would that percentage be higher if the smart phone had never happened? Go look at the photo sharing and publishing sites and see what percentage of photos are taken on iPhones. Not all of those people would have bought cameras otherwise, yes, and many of them have a camera besides their iphone, yes. But some percentage that would have bought a camera in some alternate universe where the smart phone never happened, didn't.
What percentage of people buy a phone rather than a laptop? Again, very few. But it does happen. I have students who work exclusively on phones and tablets. They don't own a computer, and if they need to do something that their mobile devices can't do, they use the schools computers. How many of them would own a computer if Apple had never made the first iPhone?
And the phone part. What percentage of people only have a mobile phone? And how fast is that growing?
Yes, some people will still buy watches no matter what the Apple Watch does. And many, many potential customers will never consider an old school watch. Just as many kids born post smartphone revolution will never consider another type of phone.
The smart watch is not going to kill off watches for the current generation.
The smartphone has replaced many stand-alone appliances (a word I use to describe any item that provides functionality, like a camera, an alarm clock, a music player, a calculator, etc). And in replacing these many appliances, the smartphone has become ubiquitous and essential.
But there are some appliances that it is less suitable to replace versus a wrist mounted wearable. Credit cards and other payment cards, electronic tickets, access cards and fobs to shared work spaces, and eventually keys to personal spaces, like a car and later, homes. Remote controllers for thermostats, TV, stereo, lights. All these appliances are better replaced by a device that is more ready at hand than a smartphone, which spends much of its existence in the user's pocket, or set somewhere, such as on its charger. For the appliances listed here, and perhaps others, a smartwatch is ideal. It's here that traditional mechanical watches, no matter how well crafted and jeweled, will lose out to the change in paradigm that the modern smartwatch represents.
Some of these appliances can be built into the cases or bands of traditional watches, or into luxury mechanical/smart watch hybrids. But there will be ecosystems, with interfaces and APIs built out by Apple and other smartwatch vendors that will be needed to interface any watch to the external Internet of things. Apple will likely have the most well designed ecosystem, with the best security and the best tools for develops and partners. Will the world's ultra luxury watch makers offer their customers $100k+ watches that utilize an OS and ecosystem that's known to be less than ideal? Less secure? Less exclusive, than Apple's? Only if they are not offered a partnership with Apple. So Apple sits in the position of power as the world shifts away from the traditional paradigm of luxury watch as status symbol and fashion to a paradigm of smartwatch as an extension of person and controller of one's physical environment.
Let's look at the iPhone. It's a phone, a computer, and has a camera. With all that people still buy phones, cameras, and computers. Which goes against your logic.
Oh, don't be silly. I know that's not possible so let me phrase this another way. I own a Canon DSLR. I find that I rarely use it. There is a saying in photography: "The best camera is the one that you have with you." Photographs taken with my iPhone are automatically uploaded to iCloud. This saves several steps required by my DSLR. With the Canon, I must connect the camera to my computer, launch Photos, and then import my photographs. This is a hassle that does not exist with my iPhone. As such, it is a serious threat to my ever buying another dedicated camera.
Your mention of computers is a head-scratcher. I have the iOS version of Microsoft Office. However, I am not aware of anyone who has suggested that I or anyone else write a business letter with the iOS version of Word or that I develop the budget for gproposal using the iOS version of Excel. You may feel free to knock down all of the straw men that you can stand up. However, I am not impressed by straw men. I'll tell you what impresses me. My father was a marvelous craftsman who extolled me to use the proper tool for the job. The ?Watch is the focal point for the convergence of several current trends. It is also unsurpassed as a timepiece. Watches from traditional watch makers do just one thing. At their best, they are only as accurate as the ?Watch. This makes the products of traditional watchmakers less than the best tool for the job.
Your point appears to be that there is still a market for older tools despite the existence of newer ones. I have no dispute with this assertion. However, this is besides the point. The automatic watch has now gone through several generations of obsolescence. It was obsoleted by the advent of the electric watch. With the advent of the quartz crystal watch, the standard electric watch was now obsolete. With the ability to fit a time signal receiver into a watch such as the Casio G-Force line, standard quartz watches were obsolete. Watches like this gave each wearer the time as broadcast from the US Government's WWV time signal radio station. No longer was the accuracy of your timepiece limited by your ability to set your watch. With the advent of GPS time, clocks and watches that passively synchronize themselves to a single radio transmitter were obsolete. GPS time eliminates the error due to propagation delays between the radio transmitter and receiving clock. It also has the ability to set each clock based on its global coordinates, eliminating the need to manual select its time zone.
If telling time were all that the ?Watch does, then the future of the automatic watch might have been relatively secure despite the fact that it simply cannot compete on accuracy. However, the ?Watch does so much more tell time and will do even more going forward. People may own more than one watch, they wear only one at a time. If one owns a collection of automatic watches, then choosing which to wear can be made in the knowledge that functionality is not sacrificed by the choice. If one owns an ?Watch, then virtually all functionality is lost by choosing to wear another brand of watch.
Functionality is seductive. After you get used to the ?Watch, then you may still buy traditional watches. However, you will keep your traditional watches in their cases. You will wear your ?Watch. Eventually, it will dawn on you that the money spent of traditional watches is money wasted. Then you will stop buying them.
I was in the Apple Store this afternoon and it was super crowded as usual. Lots of people just using the iPads and computers to browse the web. There was a Mac training session going on in one corner. The new 12" Retina Macbook Pro was very popular, they had a space grey and gold one on show on the side of the table I was looking at, over the other side some guy was picking it up to admire the thinness while being careful not to set off any alarms.
The main front window contained an Apple Watch display (the one with all the circles) and the Apple Watch table was right in the centre of the Store. The table had 38mm down one side and 42mm down the other. Sport, regular and Edition were all on show. But there was no-one at that table, and because the store was so crowded otherwise it really stood out. People swarming around all the tables expect for the Apple Watch table. I was half expecting a tumbleweed to blow by it.
This is thinking way into the future and perhaps pure fantasyland, but how awesome would it be to have an Apple Watch that included the internals of a traditional watch. This hybrid would showcase the beauty of a mechanical watch design under the display, which would turn on with all the Apple Watch functionality when needed. This would address the silly problem of not being able to see what time it is without a wrist flick and would make the Watch look great when not on. Once the Watches become thinner and technology improves, I think we'll see this type of customization. If people are willing to spend $100k on watches, they'll also spend it to trick out an Apple Watch. Perhaps the tech will trickle down to the masses in the years to come.
If I were to buy a Watch or any smartwatch, it would not get used/worn every day. The selection of a watch on a particular day largely depends on mood and attire. Less on the function of a particular watch.
Sure, if I am going to visit a car race, I will put on a chronograph. And going to the beach, there will be a diver-type watch.
If it is a suit-day, I will probably wear an older classic. If it is a pink sock day something frivolous like a Swatch. Other day's are more suitable for something well designed, like a Braun or a Mondaine. A watch with a moonphase will never be picked to actually see what phase the moon is in. Will it fit with my shoes will probably be more of a motivation.
The Watch would go the same route. Some days it would be suitable attire, other days not.
So I can see why the Swiss watch industry is not to worried. Wearing a watch of any kind does not have any logic to it. There is no rationale. Is it a Paul Smith sock-day or is it an Armani sock-day are far more important to your watch choice.
I was in the Apple Store this afternoon and it was super crowded as usual. Lots of people just using the iPads and computers to browse the web. There was a Mac training session going on in one corner. The new 12" Retina Macbook Pro was very popular, they had a space grey and gold one on show on the side of the table I was looking at, over the other side some guy was picking it up to admire the thinness while being careful not to set off any alarms.
The main front window contained an Apple Watch display (the one with all the circles) and the Apple Watch table was right in the centre of the Store. The table had 38mm down one side and 42mm down the other. Sport, regular and Edition were all on show. But there was no-one at that table, and because the store was so crowded otherwise it really stood out. People swarming around all the tables expect for the Apple Watch table. I was half expecting a tumbleweed to blow by it.
Interesting. A picture would have been helpful. Where was this? Or rather, which store in London? (Just kidding.)
People will continue to buy high and mid-level Swiss automatic timepieces because they are singularly focused. I'll also suggest that cheaper electronic / mechanical watches will also continue to sell, regardless of what Apple does, because people want choices for what they wear (when a watch is looked at like a piece of jewelry).
As a mechanical timepiece made to exacting standards in small volumes the Swiss watch market brings man (and woman) back to a time when the watch was one, if not the only, piece of technology we could own, and one that helped guide our lives.
Just compare the traditional watch to vinyl records. Vinyl's history took it from the only game in town to something less than an afterthought, but the past few years, there has been a revival of vinyl as people look for something more - a connection to the past or a way to question whether what we have now really is the best way to deliver sound. The same could be said for high end tube amplifiers. For those that have a McIntosh, or pine after one (like me), settling for a cheap modern Sony or the like amplifier will never be acceptable.
I pulled my grandfather's Elgin pocket watch out a few weeks ago and simply marvel at the technology that went into making a mechanical watch of such precision given the technology available in the 1920's. Unscrewing the finely machined and polished back to expose the mechanism itself, doing something I know my grandfather did countless times, to see the gears working, is something Watch will never be able to offer.
I know that Apple is pushing this thing about the Watch being their most personal of devices, but just like the iPhone, we're really not owning a Watch, but rather borrowing it from Apple for a period of time (really until the next better version comes out).
I think about exactly this point each time I've had to take my iPhone in for repair / replacement. There is nothing that makes "my" iPhone, my iPhone. It's a vessel, a piece of technology, that today with iCloud, it could be replaced every day with a new version and we would not see any difference, because the device itself is simply a clone of itself.
So when this most personal of devices has an issue, you take it to Apple and they're just as likely to give you a new one than "fix" it, and it will sync up with your iPhone and once you put your bands on it, it will be as if it was "your" Watch. With mechanical watches, if there is a problem, they don't just replace the unit, like Apple will, but rather fix whatever needs to be fixed (new springs, gears, etc.). What you get back is your watch, not some replaceable vessel that holds the magic somewhere between your iPhone and the cloud.
Comments
Negative interest rates?, does that mean they pay you to borrow money off them?
Cheap mass-Market Swiss watches like the Swatch have little to fear because they occupy a space Apple is not challenging.
Only mid level watches will lose some sales to ?Watch. But because, as others have noted above, it is much less a watch than a sidecar to the iPhone, those losses will be manageable.
The AWatch could be a threat. We don't know. At this point, pretty much no threat. Most people don't seem to really care.
Oh GTFO.
Rolex only sells 1 million watches a year. Apple will sell 30,000,000 next year.
By 2017 Apple will sell more watches than all the luxury swiss watches combined.
Apple and Rolex will not collide, they'll pass through one another as if each were not there. There will be Apple Watch buyers and high end luxury watch buyers, and there will be those who purchase both, but there won't be more than a handful of people (if any) who would purchase an A watch over a Rolex or vice versa. Apple is likely to eventually make a dent in the $1000 watch market though. Check out ablogtowatch for an insight into watch world.
Give me an example of a Swiss watchmaker who has successfully navigated technological issues (in the sense that you mean it).
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Denial of what? Do you wear only one pair of pants? You wear only one at a time but you own several pairs. It's the same with people that buy automatic watches. Most own more than one and will continue purchasing them.
No, it means that you lend them, say, SFR1000 to get get back SFR990 one year from now. You're paying them to take your money.
You really don't see it coming, do you? Automatic watches are timepieces. That's all they are. They may also be jewelry and they may also be collectables, but their function is as timepieces. The ?Watch is also a timepiece. In fact, it is a better timepiece than any automatic watch at any price ever made or any automatic watch that ever will be made. Its unsurpassed functionality as a timepiece is only the start of the ?Watch's functionality.
The ?Watch can serve as your heart monitor, your credit cards, airline boarding pass, hotel keys, car keys, and so much more. Let's say that I am Skippy Buffett, the son that Warren doesn't like to talk about. I have received delivery of an ?Watch Edition. Now, there is a lot of junk that I don't have to carry around any more. If I have my ?Watch, I am fairly well set. Oh, sure. I might also need my iPhone, but you get the idea.
Warren is a modest man who lives in a middle class neighborhood despite his $1 billions in net worth. I have more money than sense and spend money like water. Among my many purchases is a really nice collection of luxury watches. So I wear a nice $30,000 Swiss watch. Now, I have to load-up on all of the junk that I didn't need the day before when I wore my ?Watch. Where are my car keys, anyway?
You don't have to buy the Edition to get the functionality of the Edition. The lowly Sport has the same functionality. At its best, technology does two things for you. It increases the number of things that you can do, and it reduces your hassle. The health and fitness benefits of the ?Watch are only going to increase. The functionality of some cards and keys already have been assumed by the ?Watch. That is a trend that is also virtually certain to increase.
There is a conception on this forum that the rich buy stuff simply because they can. They also buy stuff despite the available of superior alternatives. Rich people are not stupid. They didn't get rich by being stupid. They don't stay rich by being stupid. Skippy Buffett may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even he knows that a watch that unlocks his hotel room is superior to a watch that allows him to be locked out.
If you think that automatic watches can long stand when their potential customers see how little they get for their money, then more power to you. However, the smart money does not and will not agree with you.
Let's look at the iPhone. It's a phone, a computer, and has a camera. With all that people still buy phones, cameras, and computers. Which goes against your logic.
"Should the watch industry be worried? No. Unless they do nothing about the changing tide."
Hmmm.... Sounds like you are basically admitting they have to be worried.
The Apple watch is a threat to any company that makes watches in its price range. While seemingly not a direct competitor to luxury
watches in the $20,000-plus price range, I think it will chip away at those markets as well. The Apple watch is an attractive, well-made, multi-purpose device whose functionality is only going to increase rapidly as app developers devise new functions. A recent ad for a Breitling watch emphasizes its position on the wrist of a stunt pilot with a date (according to a handwritten note) with a voluptuous woman. The watch adds nearly nothing to his ability to fly the airplane. I suppose it does help to get him to the airport on time. Multi-function digital watches have been around for decades and many do some functions better than the Apple watch currently does. But the breadth of functions Apple is introducing is unprecedented while its attractiveness as a piece of high-precision jewelry is considerable. The Swiss watch industry isn't in denial. They are scrambling to catch up to a software-hardware product they have little experience in building. Good luck. Meanwhile, the Apple watch equipped pilot has sent a heart beat to the babe on the ground, booked the hotel room and Ubered a taxi.
What percentage of people buy cameras? And would that percentage be higher if the smart phone had never happened? Go look at the photo sharing and publishing sites and see what percentage of photos are taken on iPhones. Not all of those people would have bought cameras otherwise, yes, and many of them have a camera besides their iphone, yes. But some percentage that would have bought a camera in some alternate universe where the smart phone never happened, didn't.
What percentage of people buy a phone rather than a laptop? Again, very few. But it does happen. I have students who work exclusively on phones and tablets. They don't own a computer, and if they need to do something that their mobile devices can't do, they use the schools computers. How many of them would own a computer if Apple had never made the first iPhone?
And the phone part. What percentage of people only have a mobile phone? And how fast is that growing?
Yes, some people will still buy watches no matter what the Apple Watch does. And many, many potential customers will never consider an old school watch. Just as many kids born post smartphone revolution will never consider another type of phone.
The smart watch is not going to kill off watches for the current generation.
...just for the future ones.
But there are some appliances that it is less suitable to replace versus a wrist mounted wearable. Credit cards and other payment cards, electronic tickets, access cards and fobs to shared work spaces, and eventually keys to personal spaces, like a car and later, homes. Remote controllers for thermostats, TV, stereo, lights. All these appliances are better replaced by a device that is more ready at hand than a smartphone, which spends much of its existence in the user's pocket, or set somewhere, such as on its charger. For the appliances listed here, and perhaps others, a smartwatch is ideal. It's here that traditional mechanical watches, no matter how well crafted and jeweled, will lose out to the change in paradigm that the modern smartwatch represents.
Some of these appliances can be built into the cases or bands of traditional watches, or into luxury mechanical/smart watch hybrids. But there will be ecosystems, with interfaces and APIs built out by Apple and other smartwatch vendors that will be needed to interface any watch to the external Internet of things. Apple will likely have the most well designed ecosystem, with the best security and the best tools for develops and partners. Will the world's ultra luxury watch makers offer their customers $100k+ watches that utilize an OS and ecosystem that's known to be less than ideal? Less secure? Less exclusive, than Apple's? Only if they are not offered a partnership with Apple. So Apple sits in the position of power as the world shifts away from the traditional paradigm of luxury watch as status symbol and fashion to a paradigm of smartwatch as an extension of person and controller of one's physical environment.
Your mention of computers is a head-scratcher. I have the iOS version of Microsoft Office. However, I am not aware of anyone who has suggested that I or anyone else write a business letter with the iOS version of Word or that I develop the budget for gproposal using the iOS version of Excel. You may feel free to knock down all of the straw men that you can stand up. However, I am not impressed by straw men. I'll tell you what impresses me. My father was a marvelous craftsman who extolled me to use the proper tool for the job. The ?Watch is the focal point for the convergence of several current trends. It is also unsurpassed as a timepiece. Watches from traditional watch makers do just one thing. At their best, they are only as accurate as the ?Watch. This makes the products of traditional watchmakers less than the best tool for the job.
Your point appears to be that there is still a market for older tools despite the existence of newer ones. I have no dispute with this assertion. However, this is besides the point. The automatic watch has now gone through several generations of obsolescence. It was obsoleted by the advent of the electric watch. With the advent of the quartz crystal watch, the standard electric watch was now obsolete. With the ability to fit a time signal receiver into a watch such as the Casio G-Force line, standard quartz watches were obsolete. Watches like this gave each wearer the time as broadcast from the US Government's WWV time signal radio station. No longer was the accuracy of your timepiece limited by your ability to set your watch. With the advent of GPS time, clocks and watches that passively synchronize themselves to a single radio transmitter were obsolete. GPS time eliminates the error due to propagation delays between the radio transmitter and receiving clock. It also has the ability to set each clock based on its global coordinates, eliminating the need to manual select its time zone.
If telling time were all that the ?Watch does, then the future of the automatic watch might have been relatively secure despite the fact that it simply cannot compete on accuracy. However, the ?Watch does so much more tell time and will do even more going forward. People may own more than one watch, they wear only one at a time. If one owns a collection of automatic watches, then choosing which to wear can be made in the knowledge that functionality is not sacrificed by the choice. If one owns an ?Watch, then virtually all functionality is lost by choosing to wear another brand of watch.
Functionality is seductive. After you get used to the ?Watch, then you may still buy traditional watches. However, you will keep your traditional watches in their cases. You will wear your ?Watch. Eventually, it will dawn on you that the money spent of traditional watches is money wasted. Then you will stop buying them.
I was in the Apple Store this afternoon and it was super crowded as usual. Lots of people just using the iPads and computers to browse the web. There was a Mac training session going on in one corner. The new 12" Retina Macbook Pro was very popular, they had a space grey and gold one on show on the side of the table I was looking at, over the other side some guy was picking it up to admire the thinness while being careful not to set off any alarms.
The main front window contained an Apple Watch display (the one with all the circles) and the Apple Watch table was right in the centre of the Store. The table had 38mm down one side and 42mm down the other. Sport, regular and Edition were all on show. But there was no-one at that table, and because the store was so crowded otherwise it really stood out. People swarming around all the tables expect for the Apple Watch table. I was half expecting a tumbleweed to blow by it.
The Cuckoo Clock is a GERMAN device, not SWISS.
If I were to buy a Watch or any smartwatch, it would not get used/worn every day. The selection of a watch on a particular day largely depends on mood and attire. Less on the function of a particular watch.
Sure, if I am going to visit a car race, I will put on a chronograph. And going to the beach, there will be a diver-type watch.
If it is a suit-day, I will probably wear an older classic. If it is a pink sock day something frivolous like a Swatch. Other day's are more suitable for something well designed, like a Braun or a Mondaine. A watch with a moonphase will never be picked to actually see what phase the moon is in. Will it fit with my shoes will probably be more of a motivation.
The Watch would go the same route. Some days it would be suitable attire, other days not.
So I can see why the Swiss watch industry is not to worried. Wearing a watch of any kind does not have any logic to it. There is no rationale. Is it a Paul Smith sock-day or is it an Armani sock-day are far more important to your watch choice.
Interesting. A picture would have been helpful. Where was this? Or rather, which store in London? (Just kidding.)
People will continue to buy high and mid-level Swiss automatic timepieces because they are singularly focused. I'll also suggest that cheaper electronic / mechanical watches will also continue to sell, regardless of what Apple does, because people want choices for what they wear (when a watch is looked at like a piece of jewelry).
As a mechanical timepiece made to exacting standards in small volumes the Swiss watch market brings man (and woman) back to a time when the watch was one, if not the only, piece of technology we could own, and one that helped guide our lives.
Just compare the traditional watch to vinyl records. Vinyl's history took it from the only game in town to something less than an afterthought, but the past few years, there has been a revival of vinyl as people look for something more - a connection to the past or a way to question whether what we have now really is the best way to deliver sound. The same could be said for high end tube amplifiers. For those that have a McIntosh, or pine after one (like me), settling for a cheap modern Sony or the like amplifier will never be acceptable.
I pulled my grandfather's Elgin pocket watch out a few weeks ago and simply marvel at the technology that went into making a mechanical watch of such precision given the technology available in the 1920's. Unscrewing the finely machined and polished back to expose the mechanism itself, doing something I know my grandfather did countless times, to see the gears working, is something Watch will never be able to offer.
I know that Apple is pushing this thing about the Watch being their most personal of devices, but just like the iPhone, we're really not owning a Watch, but rather borrowing it from Apple for a period of time (really until the next better version comes out).
I think about exactly this point each time I've had to take my iPhone in for repair / replacement. There is nothing that makes "my" iPhone, my iPhone. It's a vessel, a piece of technology, that today with iCloud, it could be replaced every day with a new version and we would not see any difference, because the device itself is simply a clone of itself.
So when this most personal of devices has an issue, you take it to Apple and they're just as likely to give you a new one than "fix" it, and it will sync up with your iPhone and once you put your bands on it, it will be as if it was "your" Watch. With mechanical watches, if there is a problem, they don't just replace the unit, like Apple will, but rather fix whatever needs to be fixed (new springs, gears, etc.). What you get back is your watch, not some replaceable vessel that holds the magic somewhere between your iPhone and the cloud.