Conventional watch sales slide after Apple Watch launch, NPD says

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 144
    bkkcanuck wrote: »
    That 20K to 30K watch is going to last a lifetime.... period. .....

    I have no qualms about Apple making them, but it is NOT a major source of revenue...

    The 20k-30k watch segment is likely tiny for the Swiss too. Unless you have numbers to show us that say otherwise. And numbers to tell us that what Apple has done in the past couple of months doesn't compare.

    Stop blowing smoke, and come back when you have something concrete to offer, instead of bluster.
  • Reply 102 of 144
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 862member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    The 20k-30k watch segment is likely tiny for the Swiss too. Unless you have numbers to show us that say otherwise. And numbers to tell us that what Apple has done in the past couple of months doesn't compare.



    Stop blowing smoke, and come back when you have something concrete to offer, instead of bluster.

     

    You missed the gist of what I was saying - I don't know if that was on purpose or a reading problem.  Even so lets pick two well known luxury watchmakers Omega and Rolex which between them sold maybe $12+ billion in watches in 2013 (the breakdown of course is not available).... but that was not really the focus. 

     

    You buy a Rolex, or you buy an Omega and it lasts you forever, you buy a gold Apple watch and it is has the same guts as the lowest end watch.... nothing special..... it is obsolete in 3 years.   Time to melt down the gold and recycle.   My elder sister was looking at old Rolexes in a store nearby last year.... prices.... still holding its value to say the least.  My friend in Singapore has an Omega -- which he keeps in a safety deposit box... it has gone up in value.

     

    Nothing special, not anything more than having someone put gold faucets in a bathroom, or gold sleeve around a bic pen, etc.  Not quality just flash.  It is just molded metal.  Not much more special than a gold ingot, except for the fact that the gold ingot probably uses purer gold since they don't have to harden it to withstand daily use.  

  • Reply 103 of 144
    bkkcanuck wrote: »

    You missed the gist of what I was saying - I don't know if that was on purpose or a reading problem.  Even so lets pick two well known luxury watchmakers Omega and Rolex which between them sold maybe $12+ billion in watches in 2013 (the breakdown of course is not available).... but that was not really the focus. 

    You buy a Rolex, or you buy an Omega and it lasts you forever, you buy a gold Apple watch and it is has the same guts as the lowest end watch.... nothing special..... it is obsolete in 3 years.   Time to melt down the gold and recycle.   My elder sister was looking at old Rolexes in a store nearby last year.... prices.... still holding its value to say the least.  My friend in Singapore has an Omega -- which he keeps in a safety deposit box... it has gone up in value.

    Nothing special, not anything more than having someone put gold faucets in a bathroom, or gold sleeve around a bic pen, etc.  Not quality just flash.  It is just molded metal.  Not much more special than a gold ingot, except for the fact that the gold ingot probably uses purer gold since they don't have to harden it to withstand daily use.  

    There is no 'gist' to your posts. All I see is laughably clueless speculation. Comparing a centuries old industry to a two-month old product.

    Go take your trash elsewhere, and stop insulting our intelligence.

    (Hint, for future reference: Two data points (your sister and a friend in Singapore) don't empirical evidence make. I could tell you about my long-dead 1965 Omega Chronomaster that will cost an arm and a leg to repair, and my multi-thousand dollar Baume et Mercier that lies there like a brick since I got my AppleWatch, but that would amount to a hill of beans, no? In case you're wondering, both were gifts).

    (Edit: Added a few words)
  • Reply 104 of 144
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 862member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    There is no 'gist' to your posts. All I see is laughably clueless speculation. Comparing a centuries old industry to a two-month old product.



    Go take your trash elsewhere, and stop insulting our intelligence.



    (Hint, for future reference: Two data points (your sister and a friend in Singapore) don't empirical evidence make. I could tell you about my Omega and my Baume et Mercier compared to my AppleWatch, but that would amount to a hill of beans, no?).

     

    Lets break it down for into simple bits:

     

    - How long before iPhone 1 was obsolete?  How long before iPod 1 was obsolete?  How long was it before iPad 1 was obsolete?  3 years at most.  

    - Do you think that the Watch is a final product, never to be improved, never to be made thinner like other Apple products? 

    - Why do you think the Apple watch will withstand the test of time any better?  

    - How long do people keep their Omega/Rolex watches for?  They last a lifetime.  That is quality.

    - If you add molded gold casing to stuff does it automatically make them into quality devices.  Does adding a gold cover with sprinkles of diamonds on a standard Samsung Android Phone automatically make it a quality device?  If it is not, then how is Apple any different??

     

    Just adding molded gold alloy around a microchip and a screen does not make it any more likely to withstand the test of time.  

  • Reply 105 of 144
    bkkcanuck wrote: »

    Lets break it down for into simple bits:

    - How long before iPhone 1 was obsolete?  How long before iPod 1 was obsolete?  How long was it before iPad 1 was obsolete?  3 years at most.  
    - Do you think that the Watch is a final product, never to be improved, never to be made thinner like other Apple products? 
    - Why do you think the Apple watch will withstand the test of time any better?  
    - How long do people keep their Omega/Rolex watches for?  They last a lifetime.  That is quality.
    - If you add molded gold casing to stuff does it automatically make them into quality devices.  Does adding a gold cover with sprinkles of diamonds on a standard Samsung Android Phone automatically make it a quality device?  If it is not, then how is Apple any different??

    Just adding molded gold alloy around a microchip and a screen does not make it any more likely to withstand the test of time.  

    More clueless speculation.

    Btw, you might want to tell Gatorguy and a bunch of Swiss watchmakers (who apparently are on a quest to produce a Watch killer) that it's a fool's errand to wrap a gold alloy around a microchip. They missed the memo! :lol:

    Do us a favor: take your cluelessness elsewhere.
  • Reply 106 of 144
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,516member
    bkkcanuck wrote: »
    Lets break it down for into simple bits:
    tell Gatorguy... yada yada.

    Since you invited me to comment Anant.

    [@]bkkcanuck[/@]I personally wouldn't waste any more time responding. I don't think the OP is even hearing you. Everyone else understands just as he does but won't admit (never give up a talking point, eh?) that these mobile devices have a fairly limited useful life. 5 or 6 years from now they'll be considered quaint IMHO.

    But keep in mind that's no guarantee that the first-gen Apple Watches might not have nostalgic value one day. Look at what some of the very first consumer computers now go for, particularly Apple ones. Huge prices in some cases. Years from now some might still want old Apple Watches as collectibles even tho they outlived their usefulness. It could happen.
  • Reply 107 of 144
    gatorguy wrote: »
    bkkcanuck wrote: »
    Lets break it down for into simple bits:
    tell Gatorguy... yada yada.

    Since you invited me to comment Anant.

    [@]bkkcanuck[/@]I personally wouldn't waste any more time responding. I don't think the OP is even hearing you. Everyone else understands just as he does but won't admit (never give up a talking point, eh?) that these mobile devices have a fairly limited useful life. 5 or 6 years from now they'll be considered quaint IMHO.

    But keep in mind that's no guarantee that the first-gen Apple Watches might not have nostalgic value one day. Look at what some of the very first consumer computers now go for, particularly Apple ones. Huge prices in some cases. Years from now some might still want old Apple Watches as collectibles even tho they outlived their usefulness. It could happen.

    That's a bit strange, considering that he has spent many hundreds of words trashing the strategy that the Swiss watchmakers too -- according to your numerous posts here -- are adopting in spades.

    So, you'd agree with him that'd be a waste of time?
  • Reply 108 of 144
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,516member
    So, you'd agree with him that'd be a waste of time?
    Trying to have a rational discussion with you on the topic of watches? In this particular instance I believe you're being intellectually dishonest so no benefit to engaging. It will be a waste of time IMO.
  • Reply 109 of 144
    gatorguy wrote: »
    So, you'd agree with him that'd be a waste of time?
    Trying to have a rational discussion with you on the topic of watches? In this particular instance I believe you're being intellectually dishonest so no benefit to engaging. It will be a waste of time IMO.

    Let's see, there's news of vaporware on your part, and some odd speculative points about the Watch Edition on his.

    Since you're bring up the need for a 'rational discussion on watches', tell me which of my specific, fact-based inferences in Post #101 you disagree with?
  • Reply 110 of 144
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,516member
    Since you're bring up the need for a 'rational discussion on watches', tell me which of my specific, fact-based inferences in Post #101 you disagree with?
    I would always enjoy a rational discussion but it won't happen on this topic IMO.

    #1. Speculative not fact-based. (and a red herring. Neither Canuck nor I claimed otherwise)
    #2. Another red herring.
    #3. Red herring again.
    #4. Guessing just as you said, not fact-based. (and yet another red herring)
    #5. Assumptions and opinions with a sprinkling of historical references to companies in the past. But that one is better than the others since it's related to something I did actually mention.

    Of course it OK to state opinions. That's what we often do here.

    But IMO no matter what you have no intention of admitting that electronic devices historically outlive their usefulness, eventually becoming scrap-worthy. That was the OP's contention wasn't it? At least in the case of the gold Apple Watch it does have intrinsic value, reportedly approx. half ounce of gold in it's casing, which will always be worth something even if it no longer has value as a smart watch.

    So barring a surprise admission from you I'm back to post 109.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Trying to have a rational discussion with you on the topic of watches? In this particular instance I believe you're being intellectually dishonest so no benefit to engaging. It will be a waste of time IMO.

    EDIT: I happened to glance up at my mantle , looking at the 1860's French-made marble clock there with a huge mercury pendulum happily swinging away. It keeps nearly perfect time, losing less than a minute a month and notifying me of the hour and half-hour with a soft unobtrusive chime. Seven turns of the key keeps it going for over a week. Still very useful as the clock and notifier it was crafted to be 150 years ago. . .

    In it's working condition it has a lot more lot value today than when it left the clock-maker's hands.

    EDIT2: To note the plentiful red-herrings in your post Anant. They must be in season?
  • Reply 111 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    I would always enjoy a rational discussion but it won't happen on this topic IMO.



    #1. Speculative not fact-based.

    #4. Guessing just as you said, not fact-based.

    #5. Assumptions and opinions with a sprinkling of historical references to companies in the past.

    Glad to see you get back into the world of fact-based inferences, instead of the personal attacks (which, btw, you are prone to when you are losing an argument, as I've seen from your past posting history).

     

    #1) So, you're saying that Apple has not sold more in the first two months (the mean estimate based on revised, post-earnings announcement data is 2.53 million) than Android did last year (mean estimate is less than 1 million)?

     

    See (for AppleWatch sales): http://fortune.com/2015/07/22/apple-watch-revised-sales/

    See (for Android sales): http://www.pcworld.com/article/2883592/slow-android-wear-sales-underline-challenges-google-and-its-partners-face.html, or better yet, http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/28/after-crushing-rival-smartwatch-sales-apple-watch-portrayed-as-doomed-by-cnbc

     

    #4) That is based entirely on the premise of this article, one that you've felt compelled to respond to dozens of times. The only part of the statement where I admit to guessing -- and I say so quite explicitly -- is entirely consistent with the quote in the article: "The head of NPD's luxury division, Fred Levin, noted that watches costing less than $1,000 were most likely to be impacted by the Apple Watch, since that's the range in which people have said they're most likely to buy Apple's product. Indeed watches costing between $50 and $999 suffered setbacks in June, although the most damage came in the form a 24 percent drop for pieces costing between $100 and $150."

     

    Are you suggesting that the competition could be outside these price segments? Why?

     

    #5) What I said was "The Swiss are scrambling. They don't have a viable response yet, but there are lots of announcements about what's coming. It remains to be see whether it will come, when, and how successful it will be."

     

    OK, perhaps the word "scrambling" had a hint of overstatement, but many Swiss watchmaker did come out with pretty snarky and dismissive comments about the Watch when it was initially announced. And what part of "no viable response yet", "lots of announcements", and "remains to be seen how successful it will be" is not fact-based?

     

    Sometimes, you should have the decency to admit that you don't have a leg to stand on. That's what, in my experience, intellectually honest people do.

  • Reply 112 of 144
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    EDIT: I happened to glance up at my mantle , looking at the 1860's French-made marble clock there with a huge mercury pendulum happily swinging away. It keeps nearly perfect time, losing less than a minute a month and notifying me of the hour and half-hour with a soft unobtrusive chime. Seven turns of the key keeps it going for over a week. Still very useful as the clock and notifier it was crafted to be 150 years ago. . .



    In it's working condition it has a lot more lot value today than when it left the clock-maker's hands.

    And I have a 1965 Omega Chronograph (not 'Chronomaster' as I originally posted) that is worthless.

     

    So what? Your data point trumps mine, or mine yours, or are they both silly?

  • Reply 113 of 144
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,516member
    Glad to see you get back into the world of fact-based inferences, instead of the personal attacks (which, btw, you are prone to when you are losing an argument, as I've seen from your past posting history).

    #1) So, you're saying that Apple has not sold more in the first two months (the mean estimate based on revised, post-earnings announcement data is 2.53 million) than Android did last year (mean estimate is less than 1 million)?

    See (for AppleWatch sales): http://fortune.com/2015/07/22/apple-watch-revised-sales/
    See (for Android sales): http://www.pcworld.com/article/2883592/slow-android-wear-sales-underline-challenges-google-and-its-partners-face.html, or better yet, http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/28/after-crushing-rival-smartwatch-sales-apple-watch-portrayed-as-doomed-by-cnbc

    #4) That is based entirely on the premise of this article, one that you've felt compelled to respond to dozens of times. The only part of the statement where I admit to guessing -- and I say so quite explicitly -- is entirely consistent with the quote in the article: "The head of NPD's luxury division, Fred Levin, noted that watches costing less than $1,000 were most likely to be impacted by the Apple Watch, since that's the range in which people have said they're most likely to buy Apple's product. Indeed watches costing between $50 and $999 suffered setbacks in June, although the most damage came in the form a 24 percent drop for pieces costing between $100 and $150."

    Are you suggesting that the competition could be outside these price segments? Why?

    #5) What I said was "The Swiss are scrambling. They don't have a viable response yet, but there are lots of announcements about what's coming. It remains to be see whether it will come, when, and how successful it will be."

    OK, perhaps the word "scrambling" had a hint of overstatement, but many Swiss watchmaker did come out with pretty snarky and dismissive comments about the Watch when it was initially <span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">announced. And what part of "no viable response yet", "lots of announcements", and "remains to be seen how successful it will be" is not fact-based?</span>


    <span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">Sometimes, you should have the decency</span>
    <span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> to admit that you don't have </span>
    a leg<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> to stand on. That's what, in my experience, intellectually </span>
    honest<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> people do.</span>
    Except other than #5 they're all red herrings, not at all pertinent to the points you're arguing against. Neither Canuck nor I had talked about about any of them did we? Nope, we didn't.

    Any comment on the big point we DID make in these last dozen posts, that these electronic devices will likely lose their usefulness within a relatively short number of years? Obtuseness never looks attractive and I'm certain wouldn't be patiently tolerated from even a 20-year old in his first university class.
  • Reply 114 of 144
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,516member
    And I have a 1965 Omega Chronograph (not 'Chronomaster' as I originally posted) that is worthless.

    So what? Your data point trumps mine, or mine yours, or are they both silly?
    Why is your watch worthless? Does it no longer work, "not fit for purpose" or what? If it's broken then yes my data point trumps yours. If it's not broken then you can send it to me. I'll give you $20 and pay the shipping.
    http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=1965 omega watch&clk_rvr_id=881037736363&adpos=1t2&MT_ID=69&crlp=86067999131_2416792&device=c&geo_id=10232&keyword=1965+omega+watch&crdt=0
  • Reply 115 of 144
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Any comment on the big point we DID make in these last dozen posts, that these electronic devices will likely lose their usefulness within a relatively short number of years? Obtuseness never looks attractive and I'm certain wouldn't be patiently tolerated in a university class.

    Yes. Let me repeat what I said multiple times above: (1) Vaporware (your posts); (2) Clueless speculation (bkcanuck).

  • Reply 116 of 144
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,516member
    Yes. Let me repeat what I said multiple times above: (1) Vaporware (your posts); (2) Clueless speculation (bkcanuck).
    ...and this is why I believe you're being intellectually dishonest. Nothing fruitful is going to come from continuing.

    So post 109 it is.
  • Reply 117 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

     


    Why is your watch worthless? Does it no longer work, "not fit for purpose" or what? If it's broken then yes my data point trumps yours. If it's not broken then you can send it to me. I'll give you $20 and pay the shipping.

    http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=1965 omega watch&amp;clk_rvr_id=881037736363&amp;adpos=1t2&amp;MT_ID=69&amp;crlp=86067999131_2416792&amp;device=c&amp;geo_id=10232&amp;keyword=1965+omega+watch&amp;crdt=0

    It does not work.

     

    The rest of your post makes no sense. You mantelpiece trumps mine, not your data point.

     

    (Perhaps I should explain in a less pithy manner. Here goes. Your data point was that you have something from the 1800s on your mantel that is worth more than when it was made; mine was a data point about a (then) expensive Swiss watch that is essentially worthless, except for its sentimental value.

     

    So, whose data point trumps whose?

     

    Should I try explaining it differently?)

  • Reply 118 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



    Yes. Let me repeat what I said multiple times above: (1) Vaporware (your posts); (2) Clueless speculation (bkcanuck).


    That's why I believe you being intellectually dishonest.

    To say that you posts link to products and services from places like Tag Heuer that are planned but not available yet -- i.e., vaporware -- is "intellectually dishonest"?

     

    To say that bkcanuck's rants about the likely worthlessness of the Watch Edition based on his view that it is a piece of gold wrapped around a 'microchip' and the experience of his sister and a friend in Singapore is "intellectually dishonest"?

     

    Yet, you still haven't answered the question about how bkcanuck's useless speculation, which if true, would be inconsistent with the 'digital strategy' for a supposed $1400 watch from TH. Considering that goes to the premise of much of your posting in this thread, how is that consonant with intellectual honesty?

     

    As I noted before, you tend to get personal when you're losing an argument. That's your wont. I'll just keep calling out trolls like you and bkcanuck for as along as it takes.

     

    (Fixed a couple of minor typos).

  • Reply 119 of 144
    The simple, unassailable points are as follows:

    1) Apple has sold more smartwatches within the first couple of months than all the rest put together did in the past year.

    2) Satisfaction rates for the product are off the charts.

    3) It is the largest selling new product in Apple's history, selling even more than the iPhone or the iPad.

    4) Overall watch sales seem to have fallen quite a bit in the month of June, in the U.S. It seems reasonable to attribute some of it to the Watch, especially in certain price segments. (My guess is that those are the most profitable -- in terms of aggregate profits -- price segments for higher-end watchmakers).

    5) The Swiss are scrambling. They don't have a viable response yet, but there are lots of announcements about what's coming. It remains to be see whether it will come, when, and how successful it will be. What we do know from the past is that such incumbent trash talk and bravado (e.g., Blackberry, Palm, Motorola) amounted a hill of beans.

    We'll have to see how it all plays out in the next couple of years, won't we? I can't wait. But I know where my bets lie. 8-)

    Great recap.
    Additionally, the ?watch adds to the Apple ecosystem, adding more reason to buy into the experience while sliding Apple's products toward the luxury, but affordable, perception.
  • Reply 120 of 144
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,825member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Why is your watch worthless? Does it no longer work, "not fit for purpose" or what? If it's broken then yes my data point trumps yours. If it's not broken then you can send it to me. I'll give you $20 and pay the shipping.

    http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=1965 omega watch&amp;clk_rvr_id=881037736363&amp;adpos=1t2&amp;MT_ID=69&amp;crlp=86067999131_2416792&amp;device=c&amp;geo_id=10232&amp;keyword=1965+omega+watch&amp;crdt=0

    This is a fail on the part of traditional watch purists defending the honor of the Swiss. Neither side is actually competing with the other except in the under $1000 range, a few tens of thousands of potential Apple Edition sales aside. Future value of a traditional watch means little against the real and perceived benefits of the actual utility of smartwatches. The fact that there will be hybrids isn't really going to effect the under $1000 market either.

     

    I saw a Bloomberg video with a guest who was a watch aficionado, and blogger, and he agreed that smartwatches would wreak havoc in traditional watch brands under $1000, but would have little, if any,  impact on the higher end. The only negative that the guest stated about the Apple Watch is that it really wasn't a very good watch (not always on), but of course, that will not be an issue a few generations out.

     

    The bottom line is that nobody really cares what the future value of smartwatches is; they have limited lifetimes, they aren't investments, and shouldn't be considered as such. Arguing about it makes absolutely no sense.

Sign In or Register to comment.