TAG Heuer to take on Apple Watch with smartwatch initiative, plans acquisitions

1246710

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 185
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,827member

    I view conventional watches as personal jewelry and that's the main reason I wear them. The Apple Watch is a whole new world to me and I must admit that I'm not really clear about what it represents beyond being an interesting and compelling gadget. With the iPhone I instantly recognized it as being an always connected evolution of the pocket computer (which I still have a few variations of in my closet) and PDA with added communication capability. With the iPad I instantly envisioned piles of books, magazines, newspapers, music, movies, etc., being compressed down into a beautiful handheld device that was also a killer device for email and web browsing. The iPhone and iPad both clearly nailed a number of very obvious pain points that I was eager to hand over my hard earned cash to remedy. 

     

    The Apple Watch ... what are the pain points that it is nailing? Active health and activity monitoring? Sure, I guess. Personal identification and information? I guess. Remote display for my iPhone? I guess. More immediacy around messaging interactions? I guess. 

     

    The bottom line is that I'm not yet convinced that the Apple Watch presents a solution to a pain point that I have been waiting to hand over my cold hard cash to remedy. But that doesn't mean I won't buy one because I fully expect that Apple has thought a lot harder and longer about this than I have. I expect they will enlighten me to several reasons that I have not yet thought about to buy one. But it will be a harder sell than the iPhone and iPad, which were easy purchase decisions. Apple will have to pull me into this purchase decision. 

  • Reply 62 of 185
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    Your post shows precisely why the Watch will fail.



    Everyone was clamouring for an Apple phone because it was such an obvious thing and everyone wanted one.



    No-one is clamouring for an Apple watch because no-one wants one.



    History will reduce the Apple Watch—if it ever reaches the shop floor—to a footnote in the annals of technology. It will be seen as the gimmick for the thumb twiddlers before the next big thing in years to come.



    No one was clamoring for the iPod when Apple released it either. In fact, the initial reaction by many was, "Another MP3 player? Yawn…" -- until they used it, that is.

     

    I'm convinced the Apple Watch will do well, though it's enough of a niche product that I can't imagine it will do as well as the iPod or iPhone. The watch market is already complicated -- a lot of people simply don't wear a watch at all because their phone tells them the time (or they just don't care); some people wear an inexpensive quartz or digital watch as a basic tool; some wear a more complicated but still not overly expensive watch as a more multifunctional tool; and some wear a much more expensive watch as a piece of jewelry. Then there's a whole niche in the market for those who are fascinated by mechanical watches as intricate machines and exquisite works of craftsmanship.

     

    The mechanical watch makers probably have little to fear from Apple. I've been an Apple guy since 1987, I love my iPhone, but I have no interest whatsoever in an Apple Watch because to me, watches are the one daily-use item that can perfectly blend intricate mechanics with art and design, thus I'm an aficionado of mechanical watches. I already carry an iPhone for all of its functionality; on my wrist I prefer to have the "obsolete" but brilliantly-conceived technology of miniscule gears and springs keeping the time of day (and for the watch I'm wearing at the moment, also displaying day, date, month, and moon phase, plus chronograph seconds, minutes, and hours). People like me aren't going to bother buying an Apple Watch -- just as we don't buy many quartz or digital watches.

     

    But I expect plenty of the people buying quartz and digital watches will be very interested in the Apple Watch, and with good reason. It's smart of TAG Heuer to make an effort to compete, as a lot of their sales could be taken by Apple. TAG makes some nice mechanical watches in the higher end of their lineup, but much of their line is quartz, and I can easily see those sales being disrupted by the Apple Watch.

     

    It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.

  • Reply 63 of 185
    Quote:

    I don't wear a watch, mostly as I neither have a need for nor would I be able to use one in my daily life around machinery. Still, I would be inclined to have one again at some point in time where it would make sense for my other activities. Maybe the Apple watch will be a gimmick, but I suspect that it will end up being quite popular after a few iterations give it more standalone capabilities.


    I've not worn a watch since the battery died in my last one, which was so long ago that the "shadow band" of untanned skin on my wrist has dissipated.  Not that I don't need to know the time of day, but merely because there are enough clocks (and phones) around that I can find out easy enough.

     

    That said, it was amusing on my last Caribbean cruise, which spanned time zones and the shift off of daylight savings time, that nobody was able to rely upon their phones and everyone had to watch the ship clocks because being away from internet, different timepieces and operating systems and utilities told different times, based upon the last cellular tower or internet they saw, the time zone they thought they were in, whether they believed DSL was in effect or not, and the various inconsistent data transmitted by island cell towers and the on-board WiFi. Compounded by the fact that the ship is governed by "ship time" which only changes when the captain says it will change.  Which meant that even in "airplane mode" (supposedly unchanging of time), there were surprises.  Many tardy arrivals to meals, and a few folks missed the boat by late return to the docks because of spurious data their electronics gave them.  An old-fashioned, battery operated, dumb watch was what EVERYONE wanted.  :)

  • Reply 64 of 185
    Somebody need a towel cause somebody sweating!!
    Oh and let's toss Casio and Swatch some terry cloths as well.
  • Reply 65 of 185
    Quote: hill60
    That's the exhibition back, it reminds me of the part in the Steve Jobs book where his father instilled in him that the interior of products require the same level of attention to detail as the exterior, even though the inside is rarely seen.



    I keep thinking why something like an exhibition back is not obvious, but then I realize that most people don't wear watches, and when they do, their no really that interesting as timepieces - quartz movement.

  • Reply 66 of 185
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by torusoft View Post



    Especially when it comes to the Apple Watch, becoming a status symbol is key. It's an aspect of Apple's products not well understood by the media, analysts and pundits alike. I wrote about Apple's success creating status symbols last week: http://halifaxbloggers.ca/straighttech/2014/12/billionaires-phone/



    What exactly would make an Apple Watch a status item, even among watch aficionados?

  • Reply 67 of 185

    The Apple Watch isn't for watch aficionados.

     

    The status it will achieve is that of being the best on the market, like the iPhone before it.  Design, style, and materials reinforce that status.

  • Reply 68 of 185
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Before the iPhone there was something they were labeling as smart phones. In hindsight, they were poorly labeled as such.

    You're funny. Before iPhone OS 2, the iPhone was missing major features to be labelled a smart phone
  • Reply 69 of 185

    You're hilarious. iPhone instantly blew people away and redefined what a smart phone could and would be going forward.  Only fools refused to label it a smart phone.

  • Reply 70 of 185
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,432member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PBRSTREETG View Post

     



    What exactly would make an Apple Watch a status item, even among watch aficionados?




    Trendsetters.

     

    Apple isn't going to spend time on "aficionados" though they expect some of them to be buyers.

  • Reply 71 of 185
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,468member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post





    You're funny. Before iPhone OS 2, the iPhone was missing major features to be labelled a smart phone

     

    They redefined the market and continue to do so as time goes on.  Have to start somewhere.

  • Reply 72 of 185
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    torusoft wrote: »
    You're hilarious. iPhone instantly blew people away and redefined what a smart phone could and would be going forward.  Only fools refused to label it a smart phone.

    Fools? It took almost a year before Apple would allow you to install an application on your "smartphone", now, we refused to call it a smartphone because it wasn't. iPhone OS 2 was closer to being a smartphone OS
  • Reply 73 of 185
    These types of stories make me realize that watch makers are concerned about what ?Watch could do to the market.

    jfanning wrote: »
    Fools? It took almost a year before Apple would allow you to install an application on your "smartphone", now, we refused to call it a smartphone because it wasn't. iPhone OS 2 was closer to being a smartphone OS

    Since when was the definition of "smartphone" a phone that allowed 3rd-party apps to be installed? Oh yeah, when the original iPhone shipped without a finished SDK and app store for 3rd-party developers. It was the anti-Apple crowd that decided that in 2007 it wasn't how "smart" the mobile device was, but something that Apple didn't yet have. Each year those goalposts kept moving. In 2008 it was, "yeah, but, no but, yeah but, it still doesn't have a physical keyboard. whatevs!"
  • Reply 74 of 185
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,432member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post





    Fools? It took almost a year before Apple would allow you to install an application on your "smartphone", now, we refused to call it a smartphone because it wasn't. iPhone OS 2 was closer to being a smartphone OS

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone

     

    Minimally, a phone with an OS.

     

    Your definition is invalid.

  • Reply 75 of 185
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    You sound like the people that predicted Apple couldn't make a good smartphone.

    your example fails -- apple was good at smartphones because they're small computers. watch companies aren't good at computers to begin with.
  • Reply 76 of 185
    I have to agree with everyone else, [@]dasanman69[/@]. Apple was able to capitalize on the miniaturization of computers paired with their long history of portable music devices to create the iPhone. That's not a synergy that comes along too often, and certainly not one I can see watch makers easily jumping into if it involves "computers" with radios, an OS and an interactive UI.

    That's not to say that Apple will have an easy go of it, but we're talking about furthering the miniaturization and refining HW processes, which I think are much easier than trying to become a CE company when you aren't one. And we know this is harder because TAG is apparently partnering with at least one CE maker to make it happen. That in itself makes me think it'll be DOA.
  • Reply 77 of 185
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Just saying that the obvious isn't always so. There are countless of examples where a 'can't miss' did just that, and something bound to fail became a big success.

    wow, you've just something completely vapid and without meaning. your argument fails.
  • Reply 78 of 185
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    your example fails -- apple was good at smartphones because they're small computers. watch companies aren't good at computers to begin with.

    How can my example fail if what the OP said hasn't been proven true, or false?
  • Reply 79 of 185

    Hello everyone...

     

    This is my first post on this forum. I've been reading AI posts for over a year now. I find it all informative and entertaining.

     

    The rabbit trails folks go down really shows the passion and interest some people have.

     

    Although there is no real way to prove it, my company of study in my Masters of Management program was Apple. I learned a thing or two while studying them. They (it) is more than one might think. I suggest this "more" is why success visits them regularly.

     

    What I don't see much of here is the true understanding of what Apple is today, how it got here and where it may go. I read the back and forth on marketability, viability, uniqueness of products etc. I get it. Fun, passionate, even sometimes accurate.

     

    A lot pf people here comment from the view of a product consumer...and indeed we all are. I would like to see more conversations on how and why APPL does what it does and the significant global industrial disruption it seems to have mastered. What is the strategy and specifically, what do you think are the tactics behind their actions? Yes, to make money, but there are other goals that may not be so obvious.

     

    Have we ever really seen an organization of any kind (ok, perhaps the Catholic Church for one) have such a pervasive, visceral impact on the human race? 

     

    Oh, and APPL is not a consumer electronics company, but they do happen to sell consumer electronics. They clearly state this, but not to the every day public.

     

    Thoughts anyone?

  • Reply 80 of 185
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post



    I have to agree with everyone else, @dasanman69. Apple was able to capitalize on the miniaturization of computers paired with their long history of portable music devices to create the iPhone. That's not a synergy that comes along too often, and certainly not one I can see watch makers easily jumping into if it involves "computers" with radios, an OS and an interactive UI.



    That's not to say that Apple will have an easy go of it, but we're talking about furthering the miniaturization and refining HW processes, which I think are much easier than trying to become a CE company when you aren't one. And we know this is harder because TAG is apparently partnering with at least one CE maker to make it happen. That in itself makes me think it'll be DOA.



    And if not DOA, they'll face a difficult period of integration of resources and product design. I'm assuming they'll want to maintain their current investments in their own hardware no matter what is developed. It's a bit like the New York Times keeping the printing presses running even after proof that they'd be saving money and reaching more customers by capitalizing on the web and with digital subscriptions.

Sign In or Register to comment.