Fossil joins Apple Watch competition with Moto 360-like Android Wear product

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 66
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,787member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    I have absolutely no idea why you would read my statements questioning your comments about easily buying "technical experts" as a comment that suggests Apple has never bought another company for their tech. How are those even related to this conversation unless you're trying to move the conversation off point. But you win, I'll bit… RiM is a prime example when they bought QNX (and probably others) and yet it was far too late for them to make that work to counter the affects of their crumbling empire even as they were at the apex of their sales, revenue and profits so why do you think that simply buying a company, its people, its products, or its IP enough to weather any paradigm shift in a market? History clearly shows us that it's not. Buying don't mean shit if you don't know what to do with it and have it ready in time.

    So explain to me why your comments about Fossil (which I assume holds for every other traditional watch maker in existence today) will exceed in the wearable CE market simply because they can throw money at the problem?

    I've already explained this pretty thoroughly. All I would be doing is repeating myself.

    You pick the worst examples. Examples that have nothing to do with this discussion, because they don't relate . RIM buying QNX is nothing like a watch company hiring a few electronics engineers. These watches are pretty simple. They consist of an SoC, a battery, a screen, a couple of extra chips, and a button or two. They buy the SoC. They buy the other couple of chips, the battery, the screen and the buttons. This isn't a big deal. I could probably do it myself if I had the interest. The software co es from Google.

    You're making this harder than it is. And you're doing it deliberately. You also ignore most of my argument, and don't even respond to it. It's because you have no answer to it.
  • Reply 62 of 66
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    melgross wrote: »
    I've already explained this pretty thoroughly. All I would be doing is repeating myself.

    You pick the worst examples. Examples that have nothing to do with this discussion, because they don't relate . RIM buying QNX is nothing like a watch company hiring a few electronics engineers. These watches are pretty simple. They consist of an SoC, a battery, a screen, a couple of extra chips, and a button or two. They buy the SoC. They buy the other couple of chips, the battery, the screen and the buttons. This isn't a big deal. I could probably do it myself if I had the interest. The software co es from Google.

    You're making this harder than it is. And you're doing it deliberately. You also ignore most of my argument, and don't even respond to it. It's because you have no answer to it.

    What you "explained" equates to:
    1. Step one – hire more people
    2. Step two – buy more companies
    3. ????
    4. PROFIT!!!

    That is not a salient argument why all these companies will be perfectly fine in the wearable CE market. You even mention who they can just use Android and be fine, and yet how many handset companies were lost since 2008 when Android came on the scene? I just don't see it and despite your assurances of having explained it great detail you really didn't.

    My position on the higher-end watches will not to be jump headfirst into the smartwatch market but instead create a feature-watch that includes some modern and intelligence aspects found in various smartwatches, fitness bands and other devices that will help tie your traditional watch to your digital world in subtle yet profound ways. NFC-based payments; movement, altitude, and depth monitoring; and/or O2 levels, heart rate, and glucose that talks to your smartphone via Bluetooth. These are not smartwatches but merely smarter traditional watches. Here are some examples, most of which (if not all) are currently vaporware: http://www.wallpaper.com/watches-and-jewellery/baselworld-2015-as-the-battle-of-the-smartwatches-commences-heres-our-connected-watch-update/8645#114785
  • Reply 63 of 66
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,833member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    We all seem to be talking about different things here.



    These companies don't have to approach Apple's standards. Does anyone expect a $200 mechanical watch to approach the standards of mechanical watches costing more? No, they don't. Yet, many people buy a $200 watch over a $400 watch, and far more $100 watches are bought than $200 watches. That's how companies like Fossil exist.

    You missed the basic point. Many of these cheap watches are going to look unsurprisingly like Fossil watch knockoffs; the net result is that there is brand dilution. So yeah, big overall market, little or no profits. Race to the bottom. 

     

    This is exactly the world that Android Wearables market will create, just like the world that Android OS created.

  • Reply 64 of 66
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,833member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    You're wrong. You are pretending to yourself, despite that you must know better, that Apple develops every technology internally. It doesn't. You mentioned the OS, surely you know that it was bought, when Apple bought Next?



    I'm not saying that after Apple buys technology and software, and technology companies, and software companies, that it then doesn't continue development. Of course it does. But the nexus of that development are the people from the companies it bought, even as some drift away from Apple over time.remember that Apple bought what was going to be one FCP from Macromedia. And it bought Logic Pro. And, while I forget the name right now, it bought what turned into iTunes. And it bought from Astarte, what became the DVd writing software. I could go on for a while. Then there are all the hardware tech companies they bought.



    Do you really have to be reminded of all this?



    But if you do, then we can look to the vehicle work Apple now really does appear to be doing. Did they go to their people and ask who wanted to be on that project, and pick people to lead it? No, they hired prominent people from the automotive and battery industry, and built the R&D around them. Then they took people from within Apple to fill it out with people they needed to add to it. They've been talking to BMW about manufacturing and technology transfer, as BMW themselves admitted.



    Does this drop Apple to the level you're trying to put the Android Wear manufacturers into? No, it doesn't.



    Im not saying it's a cake walk. I'm saying that it's not as difficult as you are saying. I've mentioned the mechanical watch industry in several posts here now, and it applies to this.



    Google takes the work and responsibility of the OS and ecosystem to themselves. The OEMs don't need to do that. That's a large part of the battle. If third parties, such as the Swatch Group decide to build modules in various sizes and possibly, performance levels, then the smartwatch industry will mirror the watch industry today. You can't believe that, but it's true. And don't denigrate the Swatch Group, as they are a very high technology company. If they want to build watch modules, they will. Motorola has done the work for fossil with this first model from them.

    Only technically did Apple buy Next. Apple bought Steve Jobs as well, subsumed itself under him and the NeXT OS, and bingo, Apple Chapter Two. You might want to note, that Apple buys technology and then integrates it into its products, but always controlling it.

     

    Your point only demonstrates that the Traditional Watch industry is risking its patina on a commodity OS. I'm not so sure that I would be so optimistic about the result.

     

    Truth be told, I don't care what happens to the Traditional Watch in its quest for smarts, but you seem to have a great psychological need to see it happen. Good luck with that.

  • Reply 65 of 66
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,833member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    I've already explained this pretty thoroughly. All I would be doing is repeating myself.



    You pick the worst examples. Examples that have nothing to do with this discussion, because they don't relate . RIM buying QNX is nothing like a watch company hiring a few electronics engineers. These watches are pretty simple. They consist of an SoC, a battery, a screen, a couple of extra chips, and a button or two. They buy the SoC. They buy the other couple of chips, the battery, the screen and the buttons. This isn't a big deal. I could probably do it myself if I had the interest. The software co es from Google.



    You're making this harder than it is. And you're doing it deliberately. You also ignore most of my argument, and don't even respond to it. It's because you have no answer to it.

    You just pointed out the facts; everybody and their brother can build a smartwatch from off the shelf components, or will be able to anyway.

     

    I see a flood of usable, but second and third tier products from huge numbers of builders diluting your brands. You don't.

Sign In or Register to comment.