It just does not match your pre-conceived biases of what a watch should look like.
But that will change for most people in a couple of years.
Oh c'mon, really? "Pre-conceived notion of what a watch should look like"? No, it is against my pre-conceived notion of what anything should look like, which is: not ugly.
On a more serious note: clearly Apple understands that a watch is primarily about fashion ( I agree with them on that and posted accordingly here about 18 months ago when the Apple Watch was just a rumour); so they are selling it as "Fashion, plus functionality", rather than "It does great things, and it looks good, too".
So we will see, if success is indeed all about fashion, and functionality is a nice to have, then Swatch may have a viable product. Besides, we are not talking about a winner take all industry; unlike phones, many people own and use a number of watches. Some people may want to use an Omega with Notifications for work, but an Apple Watch when they are out and about on weekends.
I only stated that Swatch have an interesting concept, apparently to be offered at many price points. Whether that can be implemented, I don't know.
It just does not match your pre-conceived biases of what a watch should look like.
But that will change for most people in a couple of years.
Oh c'mon, really? "Pre-conceived notion of what a watch should look like"? No, it is against my pre-conceived notion of what anything should look like, which is: not ugly.
On a more serious note: clearly Apple understands that a watch is primarily about fashion ( I agree with them on that and posted accordingly here about 18 months ago when the Apple Watch was just a rumour); so they are selling it as "Fashion, plus functionality", rather than "It does great things, and it looks good, too".
So we will see, if success is indeed all about fashion, and functionality is a nice to have, then Swatch may have a viable product. Besides, we are not talking about a winner take all industry; unlike phones, many people own and use a number of watches. Some people may want to use an Omega with Notifications for work, but an Apple Watch when they are out and about on weekends.
I only stated that Swatch have an interesting concept, apparently to be offered at many price points. Whether that can be implemented, I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
Sure. The AppleWatch is anything but ugly. It just does not match with what you think a watch should look like.
The iPhone is considered beautiful and well designed. Yet its a simple rectangle. No one calls it ugly. Yet the watch has a simuliar design language but you call it ugly. Because it does not match your biased view of what a watch should look like.
This idea of making a watch half analog and half digital is as ridiculous as making an iPod that has the ability to play CD's. I mean seriously. Its time to move on to the 21st century.
The Watch is a brick on a rubber wristband; if it was not full of tech, no one would even remotely consider talking about such a thing, least putting it inside or outside a fashion magazine. It looks good for a square smartwatch. If you like that sort of gadgety look. Which I don't, not really. Have you bought square watches, with a black screen, that are an inch thick, with a colourful rubber wristband before? Few people have: because it is ugly.
But if you want the functionality on a wrist, the Apple Watch is nice looking. Its the functionality that sets it apart, not the looks.
But looks are more important to me on a watch, so I probably prefer fewer functionality (after all, I am upgrading from one functionality: time), if in exchange I don't have to wear a box on my wrist. And I am a pretty average guy, with pretty mainstream tastes. I don't know if I will like Apple or Swatch better, but I am just saying Swatch COULD be intriguing. And a price point of USD 150, a no brainer impulse purchase to test it.
But yes, it may be possible that in a few years, the square brick look is the new paradigm in wrist-worn devices. Stranger transformations have happened, such as T-shirts being considered acceptable wear on city streets, extra-height box-shaped cars (SUVs) replacing standard cars, Jeff Koons, cruises as a family holiday, McMansions, US Budweiser sells in the UK, the mullet, etc.
if thats the response to a apple watch...throw the towel in now...
The Apple watch will exist in addition to these watchmakers. The threat to them was not a smart watch, it was the mobile phone when people stopped wearing watches, and they repositioned themselves as a fashion item.
The Apple Watch will live happily alongside traditional watches (people have more than one watch), and on some days, people may prefer to wear a plastic orange diver's watch that vibrates when a txt arrives (when lying on the beach and the phone is in the bag); on others, they may want a computer on their wrist (on weekends when out and about in the city). And when they go to a charity event or a wedding, it will have to be the Jaeger LeCoultre. Its not a zero sum game like phones.
The Apple watch will exist in addition to these watchmakers. The threat to them was not a smart watch, it was the mobile phone when people stopped wearing watches, and they repositioned themselves as a fashion item.
The Apple Watch will live happily alongside traditional watches (people have more than one watch), and on some days, people may prefer to wear a plastic orange diver's watch that vibrates when a txt arrives (when lying on the beach and the phone is in the bag); on others, they may want a computer on their wrist (on weekends when out and about in the city). And when they go to a charity event or a wedding, it will have to be the Jaeger LeCoultre. Its not a zero sum game like phones.
I have no idea if apple will effect the old watch business ,but my point was if that your reply to making a smart watch then forget about it..
the luxury watch market is def based on fashion and what is seen as a valued investment...and it's possible that apple will muscle in on that market...we will see.
I think we have to look at what apple offers in a watch and if other don't offer it - will consumers of watches feel like the old watches without features like health be offering enough.
people will only wear one watch at a time if any at all...so its a real estate game as well...can apple force people into there way of thinking esp when health is so important in people's lives...will you take off your watch that is helpful to your health to put on a watch that does not offer those benefits.
it's possible the apple watch is a faze but im thinking if the features keep increasing then it's a star trek moment.
I have no idea if apple will effect the old watch business ,but my point was if that your reply to making a smart watch then forget about it..
the luxury watch market is def based on fashion and what is seen as a valued investment...and it's possible that apple will muscle in on that market...<span style="line-height:1.4em;">we will see.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I think we have to look at what apple offers in a watch and if other don't offer it - will consumers of watches feel like the old watches without features like health be offering enough.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">people will only wear one watch at a time if any at all...so its a real estate game as well...can apple force people into there way of thinking esp when health is so important in people's lives...will you take off your watch that is helpful to your health to put on a watch that does not offer those benefits.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">it's possible the apple watch is a faze but im thinking if the features keep increasing then it's a star trek moment.</span>
Interesting points, yes, it remains to be seen whether smartwatches will offer a functionalities that will be considered a must have rather than a nice to have. The "health" functions of today are a bit ridiculous, but that may change.
I think until then, smartwatches like the Apple Watch, will be a good addition to, rather than a replacement of traditional watches. And they will be sought by people that currently are not wearing a watch and are intrigued by the functionality.
Similarly, traditional watches with additional functionality such as notifications, may be an interesting proposition within a small portfolio of watches.
Not quite. They were not considered such during the 1970/80s when the Japanese watchmakers grabbed a lot of market share with simple and functional timepieces. The plastic Swatch was the response. The Swiss watchmakers then launched a second PR and marketing campaign in the 1990s which led to today's demand for luxury watches. Heck, the entire branded aspirational luxury market across any product, including clothes, as we know it today did not exist until the 90s. It was invented by the likes of Swatch Group, Richemont and LVMH.
I wish them luck. If NFC was all it took to get mobile payments to take off Google would be way ahead of Apple by now since Android devices have supported NFC for years now, as Android fans are fond of pointing out.
Apple Pay took off and shattered expectations of many once released because it isn't just NFC, but the whole experience of Touch ID, the secure element, well crafted software and NFC working as a cohesive whole to provide a compelling user experience.
Who knows - perhaps a watch company will do a better software experience than a computer company, but I'm not holding my breath.
I wish them luck. If NFC was all it took to get mobile payments to take off Google would be way ahead of Apple by now since Android devices have supported NFC for years now, as Android fans are fond of pointing out.
Apple Pay took off and shattered expectations of many once released because it isn't just NFC, but the whole experience of Touch ID, the secure element, well crafted software and NFC working as a cohesive whole to provide a compelling user experience.
Who knows - perhaps a watch company will do a better software experience than a computer company, but I'm not holding my breath.
The only way it may work is like Touchless Credit Cards today: each Swatch NFC holds one card only, that can be used for payments of max £30. Not earth shattering but useful for my normal purchases of chewing gum, tube ticket, sandwich and coffee.
I think Apple may have done too much for the watch by adding so much tech into it like: Force Touch, multiple sensors (blood pressure, KGE...), digital crown sensor, pulse sensor for Apple Pay and last but not least, complicated metal processing. That's why the watch is priced so high. I look around the market and there is NO other watch that can even come close to Apple Watch in term of technologies.
I disagree , I prefer a device that adds better tech and is more expensive. $350 is not a lot of money nowadays, heck I spend $224 at costco yesterday for a couple of weeks groceries and other items. I spend $200 a month for gasoline, about $350 for utilities like water, gas and electric, trash removal/re-cyling and internet access. Paying $350 every couple of years is nothing in comparison. Heck my property taxes are $3600 per year. But I guess you ain't living in the real world but moved back in with your parents and are living in the basement scrounging off them until they croak!
I wish them luck. If NFC was all it took to get mobile payments to take off Google would be way ahead of Apple by now since Android devices have supported NFC for years now, as Android fans are fond of pointing out.
Apple Pay took off and shattered expectations of many once released because it isn't just NFC, but the whole experience of Touch ID, the secure element, well crafted software and NFC working as a cohesive whole to provide a compelling user experience.
Who knows - perhaps a watch company will do a better software experience than a computer company, but I'm not holding my breath.
I would like to point out that Google NFC is not as strictly secure as Apple Pay and its not available on most Android phones. You need the later versions of Android to be able to use NFC with tokenization. And also the reason it is not as secure is the tokenization is not end to end between the POS device and the Bank (the issuer). Intermediaries like the acquirer have access to the data i.e they can read what you bought and all your purchase info, so they can track you. The only entity who has that degree of access is your credit card company, this is why the retailers and google don't offer network tokenization. As usual posters make superficial statements that don't understand how the tech really works and really are posting nonsense.
I would like to point out that Google NFC is not as strictly secure as Apple Pay and its not available on most Android phones. You need the later versions of Android to be able to use NFC with tokenization. And also the reason it is not as secure is the tokenization is not end to end between the POS device and the Bank (the issuer). Intermediaries like the acquirer have access to the data i.e they can read what you bought and all your purchase info, so they can track you. The only entity who has that degree of access is your credit card company, this is why the retailers and google don't offer network tokenization. As usual posters make superficial statements that don't understand how the tech really works and really are posting nonsense.
Also, Google Wallet could not be used until Kitkat 4.4 in Q4 2013. They implemented NFC payment which requires to unlock the phone and authorize the apps with PIN at POS. The action sequence is not better than physical use of CC. If users don't want to follow the sequence, they can do it once at the beginning of the day and leave NFC ON the whole time which is also a bad implementation.
When Apple release Apple Pay, it's polished, easy to use and ready to go. The entire Apple Pay process takes 2 seconds. Apple really kill it.
Well, let's look at these: Sapphire in the SS watch needed? F no. SS with special alloy processing needed? F no. Bundled sensors needed instead a few dedicated ones? F no. Haptic feedback needed? F no, nice to have btw. Force Touch needed? F no, nice to have. Apple Pay? nice to have. I meant seriously Apple don't need to include everything in version 1 while none of competitors did. Things that people need more, they don't put in: GPS, bettery battery.
A lot of people have already answered you but I have a simple answer for you. "Apple produces premium products and charges premium prices to premium customers ".
That means that you are not an Apple customer. You are not a premium customer. Move on! Nothing here for you!
Oh c'mon, really? "Pre-conceived notion of what a watch should look like"? No, it is against my pre-conceived notion of what anything should look like, which is: not ugly.
Sure. The AppleWatch is anything but ugly. It just does not match with what you think a watch should look like.
The iPhone is considered beautiful and well designed. Yet its a simple rectangle. No one calls it ugly. Yet the watch has a simuliar design language but you call it ugly. Because it does not match your biased view of what a watch should look like.
This idea of making a watch half analog and half digital is as ridiculous as making an iPod that has the ability to play CD's. I mean seriously. Its time to move on to the 21st century.
The iPhone 6 and 6 Plus are ugly; they are the only ugly iPhones Apple has made.
Are you sure it has blood pressure and KGE monitor? And are you saying Pay can identify your unique pulse or it will require authentication again if it is removed, i.e. the pulse disappears briefly, which doesn't involve any more cost than most smart watches. I don't think these technologies made it into the first gen watch did they?
No one does it better than Apple. Tim Cook is proving he can be just as disruptive as Steve Jobs. Cook is DISRUPTING luxury watches, payments, and soon TV and Cars. Anyone questioning Cook's abilities is high on weed.
I feel kinda sorry for the Swiss economy. Really do.
Why would you feel sorry for the Swiss economy? I live in Basel and the watch industry doesn't provide any income I've seen
Comments
.
The Apple Watch is not ugly at all.
It just does not match your pre-conceived biases of what a watch should look like.
But that will change for most people in a couple of years.
Oh c'mon, really? "Pre-conceived notion of what a watch should look like"? No, it is against my pre-conceived notion of what anything should look like, which is: not ugly.
On a more serious note: clearly Apple understands that a watch is primarily about fashion ( I agree with them on that and posted accordingly here about 18 months ago when the Apple Watch was just a rumour); so they are selling it as "Fashion, plus functionality", rather than "It does great things, and it looks good, too".
So we will see, if success is indeed all about fashion, and functionality is a nice to have, then Swatch may have a viable product. Besides, we are not talking about a winner take all industry; unlike phones, many people own and use a number of watches. Some people may want to use an Omega with Notifications for work, but an Apple Watch when they are out and about on weekends.
I only stated that Swatch have an interesting concept, apparently to be offered at many price points. Whether that can be implemented, I don't know.
The Apple Watch is not ugly at all.
It just does not match your pre-conceived biases of what a watch should look like.
But that will change for most people in a couple of years.
Oh c'mon, really? "Pre-conceived notion of what a watch should look like"? No, it is against my pre-conceived notion of what anything should look like, which is: not ugly.
On a more serious note: clearly Apple understands that a watch is primarily about fashion ( I agree with them on that and posted accordingly here about 18 months ago when the Apple Watch was just a rumour); so they are selling it as "Fashion, plus functionality", rather than "It does great things, and it looks good, too".
So we will see, if success is indeed all about fashion, and functionality is a nice to have, then Swatch may have a viable product. Besides, we are not talking about a winner take all industry; unlike phones, many people own and use a number of watches. Some people may want to use an Omega with Notifications for work, but an Apple Watch when they are out and about on weekends.
I only stated that Swatch have an interesting concept, apparently to be offered at many price points. Whether that can be implemented, I don't know.
Sure. The AppleWatch is anything but ugly. It just does not match with what you think a watch should look like.
The iPhone is considered beautiful and well designed. Yet its a simple rectangle. No one calls it ugly. Yet the watch has a simuliar design language but you call it ugly. Because it does not match your biased view of what a watch should look like.
This idea of making a watch half analog and half digital is as ridiculous as making an iPod that has the ability to play CD's. I mean seriously. Its time to move on to the 21st century.
The Watch is a brick on a rubber wristband; if it was not full of tech, no one would even remotely consider talking about such a thing, least putting it inside or outside a fashion magazine. It looks good for a square smartwatch. If you like that sort of gadgety look. Which I don't, not really. Have you bought square watches, with a black screen, that are an inch thick, with a colourful rubber wristband before? Few people have: because it is ugly.
But if you want the functionality on a wrist, the Apple Watch is nice looking. Its the functionality that sets it apart, not the looks.
But looks are more important to me on a watch, so I probably prefer fewer functionality (after all, I am upgrading from one functionality: time), if in exchange I don't have to wear a box on my wrist. And I am a pretty average guy, with pretty mainstream tastes. I don't know if I will like Apple or Swatch better, but I am just saying Swatch COULD be intriguing. And a price point of USD 150, a no brainer impulse purchase to test it.
But yes, it may be possible that in a few years, the square brick look is the new paradigm in wrist-worn devices. Stranger transformations have happened, such as T-shirts being considered acceptable wear on city streets, extra-height box-shaped cars (SUVs) replacing standard cars, Jeff Koons, cruises as a family holiday, McMansions, US Budweiser sells in the UK, the mullet, etc.
if thats the response to a apple watch...throw the towel in now...
if thats the response to a apple watch...throw the towel in now...
The Apple watch will exist in addition to these watchmakers. The threat to them was not a smart watch, it was the mobile phone when people stopped wearing watches, and they repositioned themselves as a fashion item.
The Apple Watch will live happily alongside traditional watches (people have more than one watch), and on some days, people may prefer to wear a plastic orange diver's watch that vibrates when a txt arrives (when lying on the beach and the phone is in the bag); on others, they may want a computer on their wrist (on weekends when out and about in the city). And when they go to a charity event or a wedding, it will have to be the Jaeger LeCoultre. Its not a zero sum game like phones.
Timepieces have always been a fashion item.
I have no idea if apple will effect the old watch business ,but my point was if that your reply to making a smart watch then forget about it..
the luxury watch market is def based on fashion and what is seen as a valued investment...and it's possible that apple will muscle in on that market...we will see.
I think we have to look at what apple offers in a watch and if other don't offer it - will consumers of watches feel like the old watches without features like health be offering enough.
people will only wear one watch at a time if any at all...so its a real estate game as well...can apple force people into there way of thinking esp when health is so important in people's lives...will you take off your watch that is helpful to your health to put on a watch that does not offer those benefits.
it's possible the apple watch is a faze but im thinking if the features keep increasing then it's a star trek moment.
Interesting points, yes, it remains to be seen whether smartwatches will offer a functionalities that will be considered a must have rather than a nice to have. The "health" functions of today are a bit ridiculous, but that may change.
I think until then, smartwatches like the Apple Watch, will be a good addition to, rather than a replacement of traditional watches. And they will be sought by people that currently are not wearing a watch and are intrigued by the functionality.
Similarly, traditional watches with additional functionality such as notifications, may be an interesting proposition within a small portfolio of watches.
Not quite. They were not considered such during the 1970/80s when the Japanese watchmakers grabbed a lot of market share with simple and functional timepieces. The plastic Swatch was the response. The Swiss watchmakers then launched a second PR and marketing campaign in the 1990s which led to today's demand for luxury watches. Heck, the entire branded aspirational luxury market across any product, including clothes, as we know it today did not exist until the 90s. It was invented by the likes of Swatch Group, Richemont and LVMH.
watch this :
HAHA
Apple Pay took off and shattered expectations of many once released because it isn't just NFC, but the whole experience of Touch ID, the secure element, well crafted software and NFC working as a cohesive whole to provide a compelling user experience.
Who knows - perhaps a watch company will do a better software experience than a computer company, but I'm not holding my breath.
The only way it may work is like Touchless Credit Cards today: each Swatch NFC holds one card only, that can be used for payments of max £30. Not earth shattering but useful for my normal purchases of chewing gum, tube ticket, sandwich and coffee.
I think Apple may have done too much for the watch by adding so much tech into it like: Force Touch, multiple sensors (blood pressure, KGE...), digital crown sensor, pulse sensor for Apple Pay and last but not least, complicated metal processing. That's why the watch is priced so high. I look around the market and there is NO other watch that can even come close to Apple Watch in term of technologies.
I disagree , I prefer a device that adds better tech and is more expensive. $350 is not a lot of money nowadays, heck I spend $224 at costco yesterday for a couple of weeks groceries and other items. I spend $200 a month for gasoline, about $350 for utilities like water, gas and electric, trash removal/re-cyling and internet access. Paying $350 every couple of years is nothing in comparison. Heck my property taxes are $3600 per year. But I guess you ain't living in the real world but moved back in with your parents and are living in the basement scrounging off them until they croak!
I wish them luck. If NFC was all it took to get mobile payments to take off Google would be way ahead of Apple by now since Android devices have supported NFC for years now, as Android fans are fond of pointing out.
Apple Pay took off and shattered expectations of many once released because it isn't just NFC, but the whole experience of Touch ID, the secure element, well crafted software and NFC working as a cohesive whole to provide a compelling user experience.
Who knows - perhaps a watch company will do a better software experience than a computer company, but I'm not holding my breath.
I would like to point out that Google NFC is not as strictly secure as Apple Pay and its not available on most Android phones. You need the later versions of Android to be able to use NFC with tokenization. And also the reason it is not as secure is the tokenization is not end to end between the POS device and the Bank (the issuer). Intermediaries like the acquirer have access to the data i.e they can read what you bought and all your purchase info, so they can track you. The only entity who has that degree of access is your credit card company, this is why the retailers and google don't offer network tokenization. As usual posters make superficial statements that don't understand how the tech really works and really are posting nonsense.
I would like to point out that Google NFC is not as strictly secure as Apple Pay and its not available on most Android phones. You need the later versions of Android to be able to use NFC with tokenization. And also the reason it is not as secure is the tokenization is not end to end between the POS device and the Bank (the issuer). Intermediaries like the acquirer have access to the data i.e they can read what you bought and all your purchase info, so they can track you. The only entity who has that degree of access is your credit card company, this is why the retailers and google don't offer network tokenization. As usual posters make superficial statements that don't understand how the tech really works and really are posting nonsense.
Also, Google Wallet could not be used until Kitkat 4.4 in Q4 2013. They implemented NFC payment which requires to unlock the phone and authorize the apps with PIN at POS. The action sequence is not better than physical use of CC. If users don't want to follow the sequence, they can do it once at the beginning of the day and leave NFC ON the whole time which is also a bad implementation.
When Apple release Apple Pay, it's polished, easy to use and ready to go. The entire Apple Pay process takes 2 seconds. Apple really kill it.
A lot of people have already answered you but I have a simple answer for you. "Apple produces premium products and charges premium prices to premium customers ".
That means that you are not an Apple customer. You are not a premium customer. Move on! Nothing here for you!
The iPhone 6 and 6 Plus are ugly; they are the only ugly iPhones Apple has made.
Are you sure it has blood pressure and KGE monitor? And are you saying Pay can identify your unique pulse or it will require authentication again if it is removed, i.e. the pulse disappears briefly, which doesn't involve any more cost than most smart watches. I don't think these technologies made it into the first gen watch did they?
I sense fear.
in you Young Skywalker!