While high end watch companies, for the most part, wouldn't be affected by an Apple product, Swatch, and other less expensive watch manufacturing companies would be, and he knows it.
Well, they own pretty much all of the high end watch brands in the world.
Not to mention Swatch doesn't play nice with others; especially if you're an American watchmaker trying to fix their stuff
I doubt Apple would try to replace the iPhone with a watch. Instead, I would image the watch would interact with the phone through Bluetooth or wi-fi. For instance, showing notifications, and perhaps being able to answer or place a call via the watch. It would also be cool to be able to control the music features through a watch. Controlling the phones settings through a watch, might be interesting as well.
The watch would be similar to Google's Glass in that it is a supplement or attachment to a phone.
So now there would two devices we have to keep on our person, keep track of and keep charged? That would be a step backwards.
The only thing I agree with from Hayek's comments is that people who wear watches often like to change them frequently. I may wear three or four different watches each week, so it's unlikely that an Apple watch would become the only watch I wear. However, if it had a heart rate monitor built in or other features that made it useful for working out and doing cardio, it could become my "daily wear" for exercise, if it were well-designed, sturdy and didn't get in the way.
Thanks for the good info but I disagree about the potential longterm affects of a wrist computer on the whole of the watch market. Convenience is a powerful opponent. If Swatch thinks they can keep doing what they've always done without adopting to culture and technological changes they could find themselves in the same position as many others whose names I've never heard of.
Unfortunately that logic does not apply to watches. If it did, quartz watches would have overwhelmed mechanical watches a long time ago. Compared to quartz watch, a mechanical watch is fragile, unreliable and inaccurate. Still, people are willing to pay huge sums of money for them. If convenience trumped everything, then why would people pay $5K-$10K for a Rolex or Omega (which, BTW is owned by the Swatch group) instead of buying a Seiko that does the job far better and costs a couple of hundred?
Of course, there tons more quartz watches sold than mechanical watches but the money is in mechanical watches. The Swiss make more money from watches than anyone and the vast majority of that money is from mechanical watches. Far from "adapting to culture and technological changes", the Swiss are moving away from high-tech - have been for the last 30 years!
The selling point of a mechanical watch is not its technology. It is sold as a work of craftsmanship, hand made as opposed to being run off an assembly line, a piece of jewelry for the wrist, something that can passed on to the next generation as an heirloom. It is an anachronism but it has had surprisingly enduring appeal - so much so that the Japanese brands who dumped mechanical watches during the quartz revolution are looking to get back in. They are the ones who should be worried about the iWatch.
Wow Mr. Ceo. Strawman much? I don't think anyone with a brain is suggestion a smart watch would replace the iPhone. The idea is that a smart watch would be a companion to an iPhone.
Sheesh, if this is the depth of your insight, please do two things for us. 1) Shut up. 2) Don't EVER build a smart watch.
You can add Schmidt to that list. He was convinced that Apple was going to fail if it got back into the tablet market. The conventional wisdom of the pre-iPad world was that tablets were a dead market. One of my Fandroid friends even predicted iPad would be Steve Jobs' undoing.
I don't think he really believes such a watch would be meant to replace phones. He's just exaggerating and trying to poison the public's mind against a possible Apple watch offering. If I were CEO of a watch company and was hearing rumors about Apple entering the market, I'd probably start spouting FUD, too.
But I'd also look into partnering and brain-storming with some Android smartphone makers and developing watches that would interface/integrate with those phones. I wouldn't let the FUD campaign be my only response.
What a joke. We don't even know if an Apple watch exists, or if it does, what Apple's intended purpose is for it and already people are claiming it will be a failure. I guess just like they proclaimed the iPhone and iPad would be failures.
AAPL touting a watch as their next "innovative" product will be a flop. Watches are jewelry/non-essential.
What is essential is my iTV operating as my "all-things" communication & entertainment hub integrated with my vehicle interface, business terminal, etc.!!!
Who cares about a watch you can barely see? Swatch's CEO is correct on this one.
It will be interesting to watch AAPL from here. And all of their "several" interesting products come out...so far only product modification have shown up...nothing anyone, nor I "must"have at the moment. Certainly not a watch!
When did Apple say anything about a watch? What watch product have they been "touting"?
Swatch can and will keep doing what they're doing; some people in this thread really don't get it. Even if Apple sell 20 million iWatches next year Swatch won't have to feel threatened. Why? They make completely different products serving completely different customers. The people Swatch care about are those who will shell out for one of their better brands, i. e. Omega, Breguet, Glashütte Original or Blancpain - we're talking prices that range from 3'000 bucks to basically whatever amount you can think of here.
Do you guys seriously believe that somebody who's in the market for a piece of jewelry and is willing to drop about 5k or more will be distracted by an iWatch for even a second? If anything, that person will buy both, because the cost of Apple's product will be utterly insignificant by comparison.
I'm wearing an Omega Aqua Terra right now and I wouldn't compare it to a smart watch in my dreams. One is an elaborate, beautiful piece of jewelry, the other is a tool that would complement my iDevices.
Who said that the watch would replace the phone? I don't recall reading that anywhere.
Here's what makes the most sense, in the long run, IMO:
Apple release a small headless "radios device" containing GPS, cell radios, WiFi, BT
Apple release several ancillary devices that contain additional hardware (Siri, display, kb, RAM, Storage, GPU, WiFi, BT, etc) that can be BT or WiFi tethered to the "radios device".
iPod Touch
iPad Mini
iPad
MacBook
wrist display
Currently, Apple packages the iPod Touch with the "radios device" into an iPhone.
In the Future, Apple could package the wrist display with the "radios device" into a wearable wrist iPhone.
So, if you only needed/wanted basic services (phone, iPod, Internet Appliance), you could just wear the wrist iPhone.
If/when desired, you could carry ancillary devices (iPod Touch, iPad Mini, iPad, MacBook) in your purse, pocket or pack) -- to give you more advanced capabilities.
Now, Here are the good parts:
Apple can release the wrist iPhone.in addition to the current line of iDevices (no one-size-fits-all or early obsolescence)
New buyers have the choice to buy ancillary devices with or without "radios" to suit their specific needs
With the wrist iPhone, users can save money on ancillary devices (no "radios" hardware needed)
With the wrist iPhone, users can save money on services (only 1 cell plan)
But, maybe the biggest benefit... the cost of entry for an Apple iPhone and the Apple ecosystem could be $150-$300 unlocked, without contract!
The CEO of a business that could be in competition with a possible new product category from Apple says that the possible new product wouldn't be a big deal. Where have we heard that before?
The CEO of VMWare said something similar recently about defections to Amazon's cloud computing. He said they can certainly compete against a "seller of books".
His basic mistake of course is in the assumption that a wrist based device would "replace" an iPhone, when pretty much no one has suggested it could.
IMO all the swirling confusion about what this device may or may not be can be removed if you simply stop using the word "watch," and replace it with "bracelet." No one wants to do that of course because bracelet is a "girls word." There seems to be no other word for wrist-based device of sufficient manliness than "watch."
How about these: Wrist bands, Slap Bracelets and Bracelets... these are pretty manly or uni-gender.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
While high end watch companies, for the most part, wouldn't be affected by an Apple product, Swatch, and other less expensive watch manufacturing companies would be, and he knows it.
Well, they own pretty much all of the high end watch brands in the world.
Not to mention Swatch doesn't play nice with others; especially if you're an American watchmaker trying to fix their stuff
http://tinyurl.com/a4m7nu7
Sounds EXACTLY like what people said before the iPhone was launched - until everyone and their dog started copying it, of course...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
I doubt Apple would try to replace the iPhone with a watch. Instead, I would image the watch would interact with the phone through Bluetooth or wi-fi. For instance, showing notifications, and perhaps being able to answer or place a call via the watch. It would also be cool to be able to control the music features through a watch. Controlling the phones settings through a watch, might be interesting as well.
The watch would be similar to Google's Glass in that it is a supplement or attachment to a phone.
So now there would two devices we have to keep on our person, keep track of and keep charged? That would be a step backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Thanks for the good info but I disagree about the potential longterm affects of a wrist computer on the whole of the watch market. Convenience is a powerful opponent. If Swatch thinks they can keep doing what they've always done without adopting to culture and technological changes they could find themselves in the same position as many others whose names I've never heard of.
Unfortunately that logic does not apply to watches. If it did, quartz watches would have overwhelmed mechanical watches a long time ago. Compared to quartz watch, a mechanical watch is fragile, unreliable and inaccurate. Still, people are willing to pay huge sums of money for them. If convenience trumped everything, then why would people pay $5K-$10K for a Rolex or Omega (which, BTW is owned by the Swatch group) instead of buying a Seiko that does the job far better and costs a couple of hundred?
Of course, there tons more quartz watches sold than mechanical watches but the money is in mechanical watches. The Swiss make more money from watches than anyone and the vast majority of that money is from mechanical watches. Far from "adapting to culture and technological changes", the Swiss are moving away from high-tech - have been for the last 30 years!
The selling point of a mechanical watch is not its technology. It is sold as a work of craftsmanship, hand made as opposed to being run off an assembly line, a piece of jewelry for the wrist, something that can passed on to the next generation as an heirloom. It is an anachronism but it has had surprisingly enduring appeal - so much so that the Japanese brands who dumped mechanical watches during the quartz revolution are looking to get back in. They are the ones who should be worried about the iWatch.
- HCE
Sheesh, if this is the depth of your insight, please do two things for us. 1) Shut up. 2) Don't EVER build a smart watch.
You can add Schmidt to that list. He was convinced that Apple was going to fail if it got back into the tablet market. The conventional wisdom of the pre-iPad world was that tablets were a dead market. One of my Fandroid friends even predicted iPad would be Steve Jobs' undoing.
NOW THEY USE IPADS.
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers
Swatch better prepare their lawyers for when Samsung copies the iWatch with their S-watch.
They'd use "Galaxy Watch".
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
Who said that the watch would replace the phone? I don't recall reading that anywhere.
No one said it, it's an absurd thing for this guy to have said.
A potential iWatch seems like it could be completely synergistic rather than a substitute of any sort.
I don't think he really believes such a watch would be meant to replace phones. He's just exaggerating and trying to poison the public's mind against a possible Apple watch offering. If I were CEO of a watch company and was hearing rumors about Apple entering the market, I'd probably start spouting FUD, too.
But I'd also look into partnering and brain-storming with some Android smartphone makers and developing watches that would interface/integrate with those phones. I wouldn't let the FUD campaign be my only response.
What a joke. We don't even know if an Apple watch exists, or if it does, what Apple's intended purpose is for it and already people are claiming it will be a failure. I guess just like they proclaimed the iPhone and iPad would be failures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJRSV
AAPL touting a watch as their next "innovative" product will be a flop. Watches are jewelry/non-essential.
What is essential is my iTV operating as my "all-things" communication & entertainment hub integrated with my vehicle interface, business terminal, etc.!!!
Who cares about a watch you can barely see? Swatch's CEO is correct on this one.
It will be interesting to watch AAPL from here. And all of their "several" interesting products come out...so far only product modification have shown up...nothing anyone, nor I "must"have at the moment. Certainly not a watch!
When did Apple say anything about a watch? What watch product have they been "touting"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
What about band, loop, cord, or wrap?
I would think so unless there is specific wording that would exclude that from their meaning of mobile device.
I'm guessing "band" is the closest. Like the Nike fuel band etc.
Swatch can and will keep doing what they're doing; some people in this thread really don't get it. Even if Apple sell 20 million iWatches next year Swatch won't have to feel threatened. Why? They make completely different products serving completely different customers. The people Swatch care about are those who will shell out for one of their better brands, i. e. Omega, Breguet, Glashütte Original or Blancpain - we're talking prices that range from 3'000 bucks to basically whatever amount you can think of here.
Do you guys seriously believe that somebody who's in the market for a piece of jewelry and is willing to drop about 5k or more will be distracted by an iWatch for even a second? If anything, that person will buy both, because the cost of Apple's product will be utterly insignificant by comparison.
I'm wearing an Omega Aqua Terra right now and I wouldn't compare it to a smart watch in my dreams. One is an elaborate, beautiful piece of jewelry, the other is a tool that would complement my iDevices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
Who said that the watch would replace the phone? I don't recall reading that anywhere.
Here's what makes the most sense, in the long run, IMO:
Apple release a small headless "radios device" containing GPS, cell radios, WiFi, BT
Apple release several ancillary devices that contain additional hardware (Siri, display, kb, RAM, Storage, GPU, WiFi, BT, etc) that can be BT or WiFi tethered to the "radios device".
iPod Touch
iPad Mini
iPad
MacBook
wrist display
Currently, Apple packages the iPod Touch with the "radios device" into an iPhone.
In the Future, Apple could package the wrist display with the "radios device" into a wearable wrist iPhone.
So, if you only needed/wanted basic services (phone, iPod, Internet Appliance), you could just wear the wrist iPhone.
If/when desired, you could carry ancillary devices (iPod Touch, iPad Mini, iPad, MacBook) in your purse, pocket or pack) -- to give you more advanced capabilities.
Now, Here are the good parts:
Apple can release the wrist iPhone. in addition to the current line of iDevices (no one-size-fits-all or early obsolescence)
New buyers have the choice to buy ancillary devices with or without "radios" to suit their specific needs
With the wrist iPhone, users can save money on ancillary devices (no "radios" hardware needed)
With the wrist iPhone, users can save money on services (only 1 cell plan)
But, maybe the biggest benefit... the cost of entry for an Apple iPhone and the Apple ecosystem could be $150-$300 unlocked, without contract!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The CEO of a business that could be in competition with a possible new product category from Apple says that the possible new product wouldn't be a big deal. Where have we heard that before?
The CEO of VMWare said something similar recently about defections to Amazon's cloud computing. He said they can certainly compete against a "seller of books".
Ahem, whatever.
Whenever I want insight about the future of technology, I'm always sure to go to Swatch's CEO, a company I've never thought one about in my life.
Seriously, why the **** is this a story here? And who the hell said Apple is planning to REPLACE their phones with a watch? Obviously they aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
His basic mistake of course is in the assumption that a wrist based device would "replace" an iPhone, when pretty much no one has suggested it could.
IMO all the swirling confusion about what this device may or may not be can be removed if you simply stop using the word "watch," and replace it with "bracelet." No one wants to do that of course because bracelet is a "girls word." There seems to be no other word for wrist-based device of sufficient manliness than "watch."
How about these: Wrist bands, Slap Bracelets and Bracelets... these are pretty manly or uni-gender.