This is really a poor analogy, because the jet engine is more about what it does than how it looks. The ?Watch is at least equal in how it looks to what it does, and that's assuming everyone wants everything an ?Watch can do. A jet engine does one thing, so what's the point in compromising it cost notwithstanding?
Nonsense. Technology increasingly allows one device to do multiple things ... the ?Watch is case in point. But to use your aircraft analogy, look at the Harrier Jet. They want an aircraft that hovers like a helicopter with the ability to fly like a jet. While not a particular success, do you doubt that technology won't eventually allow such an aircraft to successfully exist? And will that aircraft supplant all others? Probably not at first and maybe not ever. But just as I said the jet example doesn't strictly apply to a watch, neither does this. Your assumption appears to be that everyone will want everything the ?Watch can do, and accept that over style. And I reject that on the face of it. Watches have always been about mostly form over function, at least for the last 50 years or so, and especially if you have money. The ?Watch is an extension of the iPhone. While stylish, there's not a lot of style there. Without power to the display, its a very expressionless accouterment. And there's the question of how much of that technology people actually need for all occasions. So in my mind, Apple is going to have to do more to make it's accessory of convenience completely overtake the watch industry such they go the way of the piston engine. They're going to have to offer more than a black square of glass on a shiny block of metal. And you're discounting technology in that evolution. The same technology that will one day make a Harrier-type jet a commonplace reality, can also make an number of things the "best of both worlds" hybrids.
In the meantime, Apple may take the lead, and just like some people started putting their wristwatches in storage after the iPhone came out, may start buying ?Watches to wear them again. And for those who never stopped wearing watches who switch to ?Watches for the features, may grow tired of the Apple homogeny, and look for other solutions. And as it always does, given a certain amount of time, technology always provides where theres a demand.
There aren't big radial engine aircraft being built anymore; no Pratt & Whitney R-4360 3500 HP class radial engines being built anymore, and certainly not KC-97L aircraft with R-4360 engines and jet engines being built anymore either. When the transition was over, and it was less than a decade, jet engines and turboprop aircraft won out. This relates to mechanical watch mechanisms on top of electronics of smart watches being anachronisms; at some point the consumer will choose, and I believe they will choose smart watches, and my speculation is that hybrid watches will be very limited, and expensive niches.
Style will change, and not in mechanical watches favor; with or without smart functions embedded.
You can't isolate the word 'burner' because it is a phrase that needs to be taken in it's entirety. To paraphrase sog35, if the terms 'Kraut burner' or 'Taco burner' were used it wouldn't be taken as a compliment. Nor should it. How about the phrases 'Jew'ed him down' or 'N_gger rigged' - are these complimentary to Jews or Blacks? How about 'Guido mobile' or 'Hillbilly rider'?
The bikers you talk about - people often use sayings they don't realize have a racist origin even when they are trying to say something nice, but it doesn't make it right. That's why I said think before you speak (not to you).
Please make no mistake, terms like these are racist.
Not to get to technical but "Jew'ed him down" isn't racist as Jewish people aren't a race - they're members of a religious group. It's more of a religious slur imo but your point still stands.
jet engines and turboprop aircraft won out. This relates to mechanical watch mechanisms on top of electronics of smart watches being anachronisms; ...Style will change, and not in mechanical watches favor; with or without smart functions embedded.
Again, there was no fashion element to the jet vs. piston engines. There's also no practical reason not to have a watch with a mechanical movement vs. a digital one. It's a matter of choice. People who appreciate machines. The whole steampunk movement is indicative of that. Heck, look at a sundial if you want the time. People still have them in their gardens. Vinyl is making a comeback in music. People don't wear watches solely because they tell time, because there are so many other ways to get it. With commercial transportation, there's not a lot of choice. The most efficient platform won out once technology made that possible. There are still a lot of prop planes around though ... gotta wonder why if the jet won out so completely.
If your sole argument here is that the intricate mechanical watches will be less in demand now that the ?Watch is on the scene, that's fair, certainly there are far fewer mechanical watches around now that before the Japanese introduced the cheaper quartz movements into watches, but in the end, many of those electronic movements emulate the classic mechanical designs. So what? My argument is that the traditional watch DESIGNS will continue, whether or not in a purely mechanical-based mechanism or not. Unless Apple starts designing physical watch faces for their smart watches, there will always be a demand for the traditional look. Not everyone is going to want to wear a black glass square on their wrist, which only expresses style to them when activated. And even then the adoption rate is going to be proportionally related to how long it will last between charges.
Ha Ha! This would, presumably, measure the tackiness of other watches/objects?
I like it.
I think it just measures the tackyness of the gold ?Watch, actually.
Quote:
"We should be thanking Apple for launching the $10,000 'Apple Watch' as the new gold-standard in douche-bag detection," said US film actress Anna Kendrick.
Again, there was no fashion element to the jet vs. piston engines. There's also no practical reason not to have a watch with a mechanical movement vs. a digital one. It's a matter of choice. People who appreciate machines. The whole steampunk movement is indicative of that. Heck, look at a sundial if you want the time. People still have them in their gardens. Vinyl is making a comeback in music. People don't wear watches solely because they tell time, because there are so many other ways to get it. With commercial transportation, there's not a lot of choice. The most efficient platform won out once technology made that possible. There are still a lot of prop planes around though ... gotta wonder why if the jet won out so completely.
If your sole argument here is that the intricate mechanical watches will be less in demand now that the ?Watch is on the scene, that's fair, certainly there are far fewer mechanical watches around now that before the Japanese introduced the cheaper quartz movements into watches, but in the end, many of those electronic movements emulate the classic mechanical designs. So what? My argument is that the traditional watch DESIGNS will continue, whether or not in a purely mechanical-based mechanism or not. Unless Apple starts designing physical watch faces for their smart watches, there will always be a demand for the traditional look. Not everyone is going to want to wear a black glass square on their wrist, which only expresses style to them when activated. And even then the adoption rate is going to be proportionally related to how long it will last between charges.
My central argument is that hybrid's are not "best of both worlds", as some have been speculating. I agree that there is a market for purely mechanical watches, but speculate that all traditional watches will be impacted by smart watches.
Ha Ha! This would, presumably, measure the tackiness of other watches/objects?
I like it.
I think it just measures the tackyness of the gold ?Watch, actually.
Quote:
"We should be thanking Apple for launching the $10,000 'Apple Watch' as the new gold-standard in douche-bag detection," said US film actress Anna Kendrick.
Great quote!
I echo Anna Kendrick's sentiments precisely. Glad to see she's not just a pretty face.
Anyone that thinks TAG can't make a better watch than Apple is completely brainwashed. This is just their first iteration and already people are throwing out TAG's history which goes back over 100 years. Ridiculous how far Apple nerds will go to support the brand!
I've dated women who wear watches bigger than their wrist. This argument that a watch is too big or too ugly to compete with the ?Watch is just plain baseless.
People either want the technology Apple is offering enough to sacrifice personal style, or they won't. Apple will either offer a much wider range of styles in their watch or they won't. The Swiss watchmakers who build quality products equal or superior to Apple's will either incorporate smart technologies into their designs or not.
The idea that the watchmakers have to immediately offer a product identical in features to the ?Watch to compete is ridiculous. Especially when Apple's only option currently has to be charged every day to use all those features.
Its not baseless, unless your big ass wearing girlfriends are a subtantial group. Since no women (I'm a women btw) I know actually wear a very large watch (say 42mm and up), and I know at least a few hundred professional women because of my job (a likely buyer for the Apple watch) because of my job. That'S a pretty small demo there for the big ass female watch... Already a 42mm watch is plenty big on the wrist of most women. A 46mm diameter x 17mm (like the Kairos watch) is ridiculously big for the average women. You can look up wrist size of average women to get an idea how ridiculously big that is.
Its not baseless, unless your big ass wearing girlfriends are a subtantial group. Since no women (I'm a women btw) I know actually wear a very large watch (say 42mm and up), and I know at least a few hundred professional women because of my job (a likely buyer for the Apple watch) because of my job. That'S a pretty small demo there for the big ass female watch... Already a 42mm watch is plenty big on the wrist of most women. A 46mm diameter x 17mm (like the Kairos watch) is ridiculously big for the average women. You can look up wrist size of average women to get an idea how ridiculously big that is.
I tend to believe that no matter how great the Apple Watch is you won't see an office full of women all anxious and willing to wear the same watch.
For that matter not even most men would wear the same watch as most other men there in the same setting. Heck look at a sports bar on college game day. (or the parking lot to see what they drove there in). While they may all be fans of the same team they sure don't go for the same apparel. The Swiss watch makers aren't in danger of going under as a direct result of Apple offering one watch design and grabbing all the luxury marketshare with it. No doubt what they are paying attention to is the huge amount of media attention being paid to the smartwatch category as a whole which IS the direct result of Apple's PR blasts.
It's not just the Apple Watch that has their attention but smartwatches as a category IMHO. Apple's entry validated it. where Pebble and Nike and Android Wear could not.
But just as a few commenters here noted with some of the upcoming hybrid watches, Apple settling on a single unisex watch design required trade-off's. For some significant number of women it won't be feminine enough and probably for a lot of men not masculine enough. For the moment this is all Apple offers. There's room for a lot of players tho I agree the pressure is on for more than just style, which Apple deserves credit for making obvious.
So while the Apple Watch will surely be a great success it won't drive the other watchmakers out of business....
but they will have to step up their game.
I know at least a few hundred professional women because of my job (a likely buyer for the Apple watch) because of my job. That'S a pretty small demo there for the big ass female watch...
Your anecdotal evidence is centered on "professional" women. Should I assume you mean "corporate culture"? And that may well be one of the target groups for the key demos targeted by the ?Watch. But watchmakers cater to every demo, from teenage girls to billionaire playboys. You're talking Apple's homgenous business model which has created a single compromised product that reaches the greatest number of people stylistically who desire the features they offer. But the mistake you made in discounting my anectodotal evidence is that the women I've dated who wore watches bigger than their wrists (notice I didn't say big ass female watches) had very small wrists. While I didn't measure their watches, my impression was that they were wearing normal-sized watches, but were unconcerned with the size on their wrist (as opposed to buying a more petite-sized watch). Now there were some definitely oversized watches on some normal-sized wrists in there, but as you say perhaps outside Apple's target demo. I would say these women I'm referring to were all professionals either in the fashion, or entertainment business. So perhaps Apple isn't interested in that demo.
But my initial point was in response to the question of whether a watch was too big to be considered by some, an opinion that referenced existing watch designs. The fact that such watches currently exist for both men and women, and sell well, should shut this discussion down immediately. Yet people still cite their personal opinions about such watches to support their position on Apple's offering. Because the watchmakers are in a fashion oriented business, they have to offer options for the wide variety of personal style and taste that exist in the world. It is yet to be seen how fully committed Apple is to that reality. The ?Watch is beautiful in its simplicity, and a technological marvel. But it's not going to appeal to everyone, no matter how many band designs they introduce every season. It's one thing for everyone sitting around a corporate boardroom texting on identical blackberrys, or iPhones, it's another to all wear identical wristwatches. I'm not sure even the hundreds of professional women you know are ready to march in lockstep with Apple's idea of personal expression of style when it comes to their wrist wear. I work on a corporate campus and see hundreds of professional women every week. Many often wear different watches daily coordinated with their outfits. Is this unique to my anecdotal experience? Will they all give this accessorizing up for the ?Watch? Will they wear a silver watch with gold jewelry, or brass buckles and buttons? At the end of the day, it all,comes down to need. Do people need the ?Watch, more than the need to coordinate their fashion?
Your anecdotal evidence is centered on "professional" women. Should I assume you mean "corporate culture"? And that may well be one of the target groups for the key demos targeted by the ?Watch. But watchmakers cater to every demo, from teenage girls to billionaire playboys. You're talking Apple's homgenous business model which has created a single compromised product that reaches the greatest number of people stylistically who desire the features they offer. But the mistake you made in discounting my anectodotal evidence is that the women I've dated who wore watches bigger than their wrists (notice I didn't say big ass female watches) had very small wrists. While I didn't measure their watches, my impression was that they were wearing normal-sized watches, but were unconcerned with the size on their wrist. Now there were some definitely oversized watches on some normal-sized wrists in there, but as you say perhaps outside Apple's target demo. I would say these women I'm referring to were all professionals either in the fashion, or entertainment business. So perhaps Apple isn't interested in that demo.
But my initial point was in response to the question of whether a watch was too big to be considered by some, an opinion that referenced existing watch designs. The fact that such watches currently exist for both men and women, and sell well, should shut this discussion down immediately. Yet people still cite their personal opinions about such watches to support their position on Apple's offering. Because the watchmakers are in a fashion oriented business, they have to offer options for the wide variety of personal style and taste that exist in the world. It is yet to be seen how fully committed Apple is to that reality. The ?Watch is beautiful in its simplicity, and a technological marvel. But it's not going to appeal to everyone, no matter how many band designs they introduce every season. It's one thing for everyone sitting around a corporate boardroom texting on identical blackberrys, or iPhones, it's another to all wear identical wristwatches. I'm not sure even the hundreds of professional women you know are ready to march in lockstep with Apple's idea of personal expression of style when it comes to their wrist wear. I work on a corporate campus and see hundreds of professional women every week. Many often wear different watches daily coordinated with their outfits. Is this unique to my anecdotal experience? Will they all give this accessorizing up for the ?Watch? Will they wear a silver watch with gold jewelry, or brass buckles and buttons? At the end of the day, it all,comes down to need. Do people need the ?Watch, more than the need to coordinate their fashion?
Apple has easy to configure watchbands that will be able to change the overall look of the watch. Will that be enough? I certainly don't know. On the other hand, I don't see hybrids as being very good at adopting a UI. The problem for the Traditional watchmakers is that Apple will initially establish a bar that is all about the UI, and Android Wear will bring diversity of designs, but will the UI and display compromises that hybrids require be acceptable to their base?
If Apple and Android Wear steal customers from the Traditionals, it will be very difficult to bring them back. It makes sense for the Traditionals to use Android Wear for their hybrids, but if it is anything like the smartphone market, it will be a ride to the bottom. Hybrids may be a failure in the making.
Apple doesn't have to be all that successful with the watch to be a disrupter to the Traditionals. Even now, many young couples are forgoing gifts of jewelry for gifts of smartphones; will gifting smartwatches be on parents lists for graduates? That would be very bad for Traditionals.
Apple has easy to configure watchbands that will be able to change the overall look of the watch....
If Apple and Android Wear steal customers from the Traditionals, it will be very difficult to bring them back.
Even now, many young couples are forgoing gifts of jewelry for gifts of smartphones; will gifting smartwatches be on parents lists for graduates? That would be very bad for Traditionals.
Anectodotal though it may be, back in the 80's I got into the grosgrain watch band craze ... I had about a dozen different bands (mild to wild) that easily slipped on and off allowing me to change the look of my rather simple Seiko for different occasions. However, I would say that lasted maybe 5 years, and after about the first year, I stopped changing the bands very often, eventually wearing one until it wore out, and then to the next one. It's an exciting option that Apple is offering, but the question is whether it's little more than a fad which people get over in their daily routine, especially since it requires charging the watch at least once a day as well.
I also am not convinced that losing customers to smart watches means some won't eventually go back. As long as watches are fashion accessories more than a functional one, and this assumes Apple and others don't expand their offerings, I feel like people may get tired of wearing the exact same black-faced device on their wrist as everybody else, regardless of the band attached. Digital watches were a short lived fad in the 70s, and one has to wonder why if all anybody needed from a watch was a cheap time-telling device. Certainly digital watches could do a lot more than even an expensive chronograph. And for those who don't rely on daily notifications and that tiny screen, they can go back to a traditional watch which by that time has a wirless payment chip, health sensors, etc. that do many of the things they enjoy with the ?Watch but with a unique expression that stands out from the crowd. But for an information junkie, there likely won't be any going back ..l
I fully expect couples and parents to buy the ?Watch as gifts in droves. if for no other reason it solves the problem of what can I get the spouse I've already gotten everything for ... It doesn't mean that the watch will become an indispensable tool, however, and given the daily charging requirement, may sit on the charger more than it's used. I'm convinced that is going to be an issue for current watch wearers no matter how many other conveniences it offers.
I just think all these extreme predictions based on the fact that Apple is bringing the design to market, misses the point that every other sucessful device Apple has brought to market has been in a vital market sector -- portable music players turned Sony into a powerhouse, there was a major market demand for them -- Apple saw the future for a product that would always be in high demand and offered it's solution. Likewise with the iPhone -- in a market where almost everyone owns a mobile phone they offered a better solution. The iPad was actually intended to be brought to market first until Apple decided to fix the mobile phone. Yet the iPad also addressed the netbook, and offered a low-cost computing device for people who needed a computer but didn't have one, or had an old one they never even used that often. Yet another market in which there was already high and continuing demand. Smart watches just aren't one of those categories. There's no huge demand for them, and nobody NEEDS one. Now I'm the first to acknowledge that could change and very quickly, but which features are going to be the important ones that become necessities in daily life? Indeed, it's not the smartwatch that Apple is taking on, but rather defining the wearable tech category. Not necessarily the smartwatch, but the wearable. ?Watch may never be a sucess on the level of even the Mac, much less the iPad or iPhone. But that doesn't mean it won't be one product among many Apple offers in a much more sucessful product category of wearables. And if that's the case then traditional watchmakers aren't really in that much trouble. I just think it's way too early to start writing off entire industries - especially one like the Swiss and German watch makers. If there's anybody who can compete with Apple head to head its them -- the inspiration of most of Steve Jobs designs. Braun, Krups, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche. His designer of choice -- Hartmut Esslinger. There's a reason for that, and why Apple has achieved the same calibre of design excellenece as those companies. This ain't Microsoft and Smasung Apple is competing with this time. All things considered, way too early to call this as some are so eager to do ...
Anectodotal though it may be, back in the 80's I got into the grosgrain watch band craze ... I had about a dozen different bands (mild to wild) that easily slipped on and off allowing me to change the look of my rather simple Seiko for different occasions. However, I would say that lasted maybe 5 years, and after about the first year, I stopped changing the bands very often, eventually wearing one until it wore out, and then to the next one. It's an exciting option that Apple is offering, but the question is whether it's little more than a fad which people get over in their daily routine, especially since it requires charging the watch at least once a day as well.
I also am not convinced that losing customers to smart watches means some won't eventually go back. As long as watches are fashion accessories more than a functional one, and this assumes Apple and others don't expand their offerings, I feel like people may get tired of wearing the exact same black-faced device on their wrist as everybody else, regardless of the band attached. Digital watches were a short lived fad in the 70s, and one has to wonder why if all anybody needed from a watch was a cheap time-telling device. Certainly digital watches could do a lot more than even an expensive chronograph. And for those who don't rely on daily notifications and that tiny screen, they can go back to a traditional watch which by that time has a wirless payment chip, health sensors, etc. that do many of the things they enjoy with the ?Watch but with a unique expression that stands out from the crowd. But for an information junkie, there likely won't be any going back ..l
I fully expect couples and parents to buy the ?Watch as gifts in droves. if for no other reason it solves the problem of what can I get the spouse I've already gotten everything for ... It doesn't mean that the watch will become an indispensable tool, however, and given the daily charging requirement, may sit on the charger more than it's used. I'm convinced that is going to be an issue for current watch wearers no matter how many other conveniences it offers.
I just think all these extreme predictions based on the fact that Apple is bringing the design to market, misses the point that every other sucessful device Apple has brought to market has been in a vital market sector -- portable music players turned Sony into a powerhouse, there was a major market demand for them -- Apple saw the future for a product that would always be in high demand and offered it's solution. Likewise with the iPhone -- in a market where almost everyone owns a mobile phone they offered a better solution. The iPad was actually intended to be brought to market first until Apple decided to fix the mobile phone. Yet the iPad also addressed the netbook, and offered a low-cost computing device for people who needed a computer but didn't have one, or had an old one they never even used that often. Yet another market in which there was already high and continuing demand. Smart watches just aren't one of those categories. There's no huge demand for them, and nobody NEEDS one. Now I'm the first to acknowledge that could change and very quickly, but which features are going to be the important ones that become necessities in daily life? Indeed, it's not the smartwatch that Apple is taking on, but rather defining the wearable tech category. Not necessarily the smartwatch, but the wearable. ?Watch may never be a sucess on the level of even the Mac, much less the iPad or iPhone. But that doesn't mean it won't be one product among many Apple offers in a much more sucessful product category of wearables. And if that's the case then traditional watchmakers aren't really in that much trouble. I just think it's way too early to start writing off entire industries - especially one like the Swiss and German watch makers. If there's anybody who can compete with Apple head to head its them -- the inspiration of most of Steve Jobs designs. Braun, Krups, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche. His designer of choice -- Hartmut Esslinger. There's a reason for that, and why Apple has achieved the same calibre of design excellenece as those companies. This ain't Microsoft and Smasung Apple is competing with this time. All things considered, way too early to call this as some are so eager to do ...
I'm speaking of hybrids; mechanical/quartz watches with embedded smart watch functionality. I would find it completely acceptable for the traditional watch makers to build smart watches using their design sensibilities, but I find it an anachronism that they would literally devote previous volume of the watch to mechanisms that would have absolutely no utility when paired with a smart watch UI and SOC. This to me would be a failed path for watch makers.
Do you really believe the Hartmut Esslingen would be at the forefront of Hybrid watches?
I'm speaking of hybrids; mechanical/quartz watches with embedded smart watch functionality....This to me would be a failed path for watch makers.
You may well be right. However, fashion is the aspect of this equation that never existed before for Apple, or other tech companies.
Quartz technology is hybrid technology. The watch industry already weathered this, and yet mechanical winding watches are still manufactured and are in demand.
In the end, if inconspicuous chips can be embedded into a traditional watch that duplicate many functions of a smart watch, why wouldn't they? A friend of mine just bought a fitbit, the one without any kind of status display. The only way to get info out of it is on her iPhone. She has no interest in the ?Watch. Mechanical watches already exist with hybrid digital displays for certain information for those who need it, yet despite the added benefit from the information those watches can additionally provide, they were not universally adopted by the watch wearing community.
So even on this very specific angle, I don't see the evidence that guarantees people are going to move en masse toward homogenous black square displays on their wrists, eschewing traditional watch designs, from a purely fashion perspective. I also don't see people completely ignoring many of the benefits smart watches bring to the table, thus demanding some kind of hybrid from the watchmakers, which they both have incentive and engineering skills to meet without being the total travesty of most hybrid products. Maybe this will be the end of the mass produced purely mechanical watches as we know it. But the traditional quartz mechanical watch will likely be around forever.
Again, you could be completely right about this. But I just don't see the evidence for it yet.
Comments
Because your arm would get tired.
Nonsense. Technology increasingly allows one device to do multiple things ... the ?Watch is case in point. But to use your aircraft analogy, look at the Harrier Jet. They want an aircraft that hovers like a helicopter with the ability to fly like a jet. While not a particular success, do you doubt that technology won't eventually allow such an aircraft to successfully exist? And will that aircraft supplant all others? Probably not at first and maybe not ever. But just as I said the jet example doesn't strictly apply to a watch, neither does this. Your assumption appears to be that everyone will want everything the ?Watch can do, and accept that over style. And I reject that on the face of it. Watches have always been about mostly form over function, at least for the last 50 years or so, and especially if you have money. The ?Watch is an extension of the iPhone. While stylish, there's not a lot of style there. Without power to the display, its a very expressionless accouterment. And there's the question of how much of that technology people actually need for all occasions. So in my mind, Apple is going to have to do more to make it's accessory of convenience completely overtake the watch industry such they go the way of the piston engine. They're going to have to offer more than a black square of glass on a shiny block of metal. And you're discounting technology in that evolution. The same technology that will one day make a Harrier-type jet a commonplace reality, can also make an number of things the "best of both worlds" hybrids.
In the meantime, Apple may take the lead, and just like some people started putting their wristwatches in storage after the iPhone came out, may start buying ?Watches to wear them again. And for those who never stopped wearing watches who switch to ?Watches for the features, may grow tired of the Apple homogeny, and look for other solutions. And as it always does, given a certain amount of time, technology always provides where theres a demand.
There aren't big radial engine aircraft being built anymore; no Pratt & Whitney R-4360 3500 HP class radial engines being built anymore, and certainly not KC-97L aircraft with R-4360 engines and jet engines being built anymore either. When the transition was over, and it was less than a decade, jet engines and turboprop aircraft won out. This relates to mechanical watch mechanisms on top of electronics of smart watches being anachronisms; at some point the consumer will choose, and I believe they will choose smart watches, and my speculation is that hybrid watches will be very limited, and expensive niches.
Style will change, and not in mechanical watches favor; with or without smart functions embedded.
Why can't the automatic winding mechanism in mechanical watches be evolved to also top off the battery?
Edit: "Automatic quartz" watches like Seiko's have actually been doing this at a basic level for a while.
Because the difference in power requirement between a quartz movement and a smart watch is several orders of magnitude.
Edited because I need to learn how to quote.
Oh, my first ?Watch app idea: Tackymetre
Ha Ha! This would, presumably, measure the tackiness of other watches/objects?
I like it.
I'm glad we can at least have a conversation.
You can't isolate the word 'burner' because it is a phrase that needs to be taken in it's entirety. To paraphrase sog35, if the terms 'Kraut burner' or 'Taco burner' were used it wouldn't be taken as a compliment. Nor should it. How about the phrases 'Jew'ed him down' or 'N_gger rigged' - are these complimentary to Jews or Blacks? How about 'Guido mobile' or 'Hillbilly rider'?
The bikers you talk about - people often use sayings they don't realize have a racist origin even when they are trying to say something nice, but it doesn't make it right. That's why I said think before you speak (not to you).
Please make no mistake, terms like these are racist.
Not to get to technical but "Jew'ed him down" isn't racist as Jewish people aren't a race - they're members of a religious group. It's more of a religious slur imo but your point still stands.
jet engines and turboprop aircraft won out. This relates to mechanical watch mechanisms on top of electronics of smart watches being anachronisms; ...Style will change, and not in mechanical watches favor; with or without smart functions embedded.
Again, there was no fashion element to the jet vs. piston engines. There's also no practical reason not to have a watch with a mechanical movement vs. a digital one. It's a matter of choice. People who appreciate machines. The whole steampunk movement is indicative of that. Heck, look at a sundial if you want the time. People still have them in their gardens. Vinyl is making a comeback in music. People don't wear watches solely because they tell time, because there are so many other ways to get it. With commercial transportation, there's not a lot of choice. The most efficient platform won out once technology made that possible. There are still a lot of prop planes around though ... gotta wonder why if the jet won out so completely.
If your sole argument here is that the intricate mechanical watches will be less in demand now that the ?Watch is on the scene, that's fair, certainly there are far fewer mechanical watches around now that before the Japanese introduced the cheaper quartz movements into watches, but in the end, many of those electronic movements emulate the classic mechanical designs. So what? My argument is that the traditional watch DESIGNS will continue, whether or not in a purely mechanical-based mechanism or not. Unless Apple starts designing physical watch faces for their smart watches, there will always be a demand for the traditional look. Not everyone is going to want to wear a black glass square on their wrist, which only expresses style to them when activated. And even then the adoption rate is going to be proportionally related to how long it will last between charges.
Ha Ha! This would, presumably, measure the tackiness of other watches/objects?
I like it.
I think it just measures the tackyness of the gold ?Watch, actually.
Again, there was no fashion element to the jet vs. piston engines. There's also no practical reason not to have a watch with a mechanical movement vs. a digital one. It's a matter of choice. People who appreciate machines. The whole steampunk movement is indicative of that. Heck, look at a sundial if you want the time. People still have them in their gardens. Vinyl is making a comeback in music. People don't wear watches solely because they tell time, because there are so many other ways to get it. With commercial transportation, there's not a lot of choice. The most efficient platform won out once technology made that possible. There are still a lot of prop planes around though ... gotta wonder why if the jet won out so completely.
If your sole argument here is that the intricate mechanical watches will be less in demand now that the ?Watch is on the scene, that's fair, certainly there are far fewer mechanical watches around now that before the Japanese introduced the cheaper quartz movements into watches, but in the end, many of those electronic movements emulate the classic mechanical designs. So what? My argument is that the traditional watch DESIGNS will continue, whether or not in a purely mechanical-based mechanism or not. Unless Apple starts designing physical watch faces for their smart watches, there will always be a demand for the traditional look. Not everyone is going to want to wear a black glass square on their wrist, which only expresses style to them when activated. And even then the adoption rate is going to be proportionally related to how long it will last between charges.
My central argument is that hybrid's are not "best of both worlds", as some have been speculating. I agree that there is a market for purely mechanical watches, but speculate that all traditional watches will be impacted by smart watches.
That datsun tears the shit out of most things on the road - including the tarmac!!
Ha Ha! This would, presumably, measure the tackiness of other watches/objects?
I like it.
I think it just measures the tackyness of the gold ?Watch, actually.
Great quote!
I echo Anna Kendrick's sentiments precisely. Glad to see she's not just a pretty face.
Anyone that thinks TAG can't make a better watch than Apple is completely brainwashed. This is just their first iteration and already people are throwing out TAG's history which goes back over 100 years. Ridiculous how far Apple nerds will go to support the brand!
I've dated women who wear watches bigger than their wrist. This argument that a watch is too big or too ugly to compete with the ?Watch is just plain baseless.
People either want the technology Apple is offering enough to sacrifice personal style, or they won't. Apple will either offer a much wider range of styles in their watch or they won't. The Swiss watchmakers who build quality products equal or superior to Apple's will either incorporate smart technologies into their designs or not.
The idea that the watchmakers have to immediately offer a product identical in features to the ?Watch to compete is ridiculous. Especially when Apple's only option currently has to be charged every day to use all those features.
Its not baseless, unless your big ass wearing girlfriends are a subtantial group. Since no women (I'm a women btw) I know actually wear a very large watch (say 42mm and up), and I know at least a few hundred professional women because of my job (a likely buyer for the Apple watch) because of my job. That'S a pretty small demo there for the big ass female watch... Already a 42mm watch is plenty big on the wrist of most women. A 46mm diameter x 17mm (like the Kairos watch) is ridiculously big for the average women. You can look up wrist size of average women to get an idea how ridiculously big that is.
I like bigger watches; but I am a bigger guy.
For a big guy, I don'T see an issue. Though I'm not sure if Apple will provide you a 46mm anytime soon :-). Maybe when it gets a bit thinner.
For that matter not even most men would wear the same watch as most other men there in the same setting. Heck look at a sports bar on college game day. (or the parking lot to see what they drove there in). While they may all be fans of the same team they sure don't go for the same apparel. The Swiss watch makers aren't in danger of going under as a direct result of Apple offering one watch design and grabbing all the luxury marketshare with it. No doubt what they are paying attention to is the huge amount of media attention being paid to the smartwatch category as a whole which IS the direct result of Apple's PR blasts.
It's not just the Apple Watch that has their attention but smartwatches as a category IMHO. Apple's entry validated it. where Pebble and Nike and Android Wear could not.
But just as a few commenters here noted with some of the upcoming hybrid watches, Apple settling on a single unisex watch design required trade-off's. For some significant number of women it won't be feminine enough and probably for a lot of men not masculine enough. For the moment this is all Apple offers. There's room for a lot of players tho I agree the pressure is on for more than just style, which Apple deserves credit for making obvious.
So while the Apple Watch will surely be a great success it won't drive the other watchmakers out of business....
but they will have to step up their game.
But my initial point was in response to the question of whether a watch was too big to be considered by some, an opinion that referenced existing watch designs. The fact that such watches currently exist for both men and women, and sell well, should shut this discussion down immediately. Yet people still cite their personal opinions about such watches to support their position on Apple's offering. Because the watchmakers are in a fashion oriented business, they have to offer options for the wide variety of personal style and taste that exist in the world. It is yet to be seen how fully committed Apple is to that reality. The ?Watch is beautiful in its simplicity, and a technological marvel. But it's not going to appeal to everyone, no matter how many band designs they introduce every season. It's one thing for everyone sitting around a corporate boardroom texting on identical blackberrys, or iPhones, it's another to all wear identical wristwatches. I'm not sure even the hundreds of professional women you know are ready to march in lockstep with Apple's idea of personal expression of style when it comes to their wrist wear. I work on a corporate campus and see hundreds of professional women every week. Many often wear different watches daily coordinated with their outfits. Is this unique to my anecdotal experience? Will they all give this accessorizing up for the ?Watch? Will they wear a silver watch with gold jewelry, or brass buckles and buttons? At the end of the day, it all,comes down to need. Do people need the ?Watch, more than the need to coordinate their fashion?
Your anecdotal evidence is centered on "professional" women. Should I assume you mean "corporate culture"? And that may well be one of the target groups for the key demos targeted by the ?Watch. But watchmakers cater to every demo, from teenage girls to billionaire playboys. You're talking Apple's homgenous business model which has created a single compromised product that reaches the greatest number of people stylistically who desire the features they offer. But the mistake you made in discounting my anectodotal evidence is that the women I've dated who wore watches bigger than their wrists (notice I didn't say big ass female watches) had very small wrists. While I didn't measure their watches, my impression was that they were wearing normal-sized watches, but were unconcerned with the size on their wrist. Now there were some definitely oversized watches on some normal-sized wrists in there, but as you say perhaps outside Apple's target demo. I would say these women I'm referring to were all professionals either in the fashion, or entertainment business. So perhaps Apple isn't interested in that demo.
But my initial point was in response to the question of whether a watch was too big to be considered by some, an opinion that referenced existing watch designs. The fact that such watches currently exist for both men and women, and sell well, should shut this discussion down immediately. Yet people still cite their personal opinions about such watches to support their position on Apple's offering. Because the watchmakers are in a fashion oriented business, they have to offer options for the wide variety of personal style and taste that exist in the world. It is yet to be seen how fully committed Apple is to that reality. The ?Watch is beautiful in its simplicity, and a technological marvel. But it's not going to appeal to everyone, no matter how many band designs they introduce every season. It's one thing for everyone sitting around a corporate boardroom texting on identical blackberrys, or iPhones, it's another to all wear identical wristwatches. I'm not sure even the hundreds of professional women you know are ready to march in lockstep with Apple's idea of personal expression of style when it comes to their wrist wear. I work on a corporate campus and see hundreds of professional women every week. Many often wear different watches daily coordinated with their outfits. Is this unique to my anecdotal experience? Will they all give this accessorizing up for the ?Watch? Will they wear a silver watch with gold jewelry, or brass buckles and buttons? At the end of the day, it all,comes down to need. Do people need the ?Watch, more than the need to coordinate their fashion?
Apple has easy to configure watchbands that will be able to change the overall look of the watch. Will that be enough? I certainly don't know. On the other hand, I don't see hybrids as being very good at adopting a UI. The problem for the Traditional watchmakers is that Apple will initially establish a bar that is all about the UI, and Android Wear will bring diversity of designs, but will the UI and display compromises that hybrids require be acceptable to their base?
If Apple and Android Wear steal customers from the Traditionals, it will be very difficult to bring them back. It makes sense for the Traditionals to use Android Wear for their hybrids, but if it is anything like the smartphone market, it will be a ride to the bottom. Hybrids may be a failure in the making.
Apple doesn't have to be all that successful with the watch to be a disrupter to the Traditionals. Even now, many young couples are forgoing gifts of jewelry for gifts of smartphones; will gifting smartwatches be on parents lists for graduates? That would be very bad for Traditionals.
Anectodotal though it may be, back in the 80's I got into the grosgrain watch band craze ... I had about a dozen different bands (mild to wild) that easily slipped on and off allowing me to change the look of my rather simple Seiko for different occasions. However, I would say that lasted maybe 5 years, and after about the first year, I stopped changing the bands very often, eventually wearing one until it wore out, and then to the next one. It's an exciting option that Apple is offering, but the question is whether it's little more than a fad which people get over in their daily routine, especially since it requires charging the watch at least once a day as well.
I also am not convinced that losing customers to smart watches means some won't eventually go back. As long as watches are fashion accessories more than a functional one, and this assumes Apple and others don't expand their offerings, I feel like people may get tired of wearing the exact same black-faced device on their wrist as everybody else, regardless of the band attached. Digital watches were a short lived fad in the 70s, and one has to wonder why if all anybody needed from a watch was a cheap time-telling device. Certainly digital watches could do a lot more than even an expensive chronograph. And for those who don't rely on daily notifications and that tiny screen, they can go back to a traditional watch which by that time has a wirless payment chip, health sensors, etc. that do many of the things they enjoy with the ?Watch but with a unique expression that stands out from the crowd. But for an information junkie, there likely won't be any going back ..l
I fully expect couples and parents to buy the ?Watch as gifts in droves. if for no other reason it solves the problem of what can I get the spouse I've already gotten everything for ... It doesn't mean that the watch will become an indispensable tool, however, and given the daily charging requirement, may sit on the charger more than it's used. I'm convinced that is going to be an issue for current watch wearers no matter how many other conveniences it offers.
I just think all these extreme predictions based on the fact that Apple is bringing the design to market, misses the point that every other sucessful device Apple has brought to market has been in a vital market sector -- portable music players turned Sony into a powerhouse, there was a major market demand for them -- Apple saw the future for a product that would always be in high demand and offered it's solution. Likewise with the iPhone -- in a market where almost everyone owns a mobile phone they offered a better solution. The iPad was actually intended to be brought to market first until Apple decided to fix the mobile phone. Yet the iPad also addressed the netbook, and offered a low-cost computing device for people who needed a computer but didn't have one, or had an old one they never even used that often. Yet another market in which there was already high and continuing demand. Smart watches just aren't one of those categories. There's no huge demand for them, and nobody NEEDS one. Now I'm the first to acknowledge that could change and very quickly, but which features are going to be the important ones that become necessities in daily life? Indeed, it's not the smartwatch that Apple is taking on, but rather defining the wearable tech category. Not necessarily the smartwatch, but the wearable. ?Watch may never be a sucess on the level of even the Mac, much less the iPad or iPhone. But that doesn't mean it won't be one product among many Apple offers in a much more sucessful product category of wearables. And if that's the case then traditional watchmakers aren't really in that much trouble. I just think it's way too early to start writing off entire industries - especially one like the Swiss and German watch makers. If there's anybody who can compete with Apple head to head its them -- the inspiration of most of Steve Jobs designs. Braun, Krups, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche. His designer of choice -- Hartmut Esslinger. There's a reason for that, and why Apple has achieved the same calibre of design excellenece as those companies. This ain't Microsoft and Smasung Apple is competing with this time. All things considered, way too early to call this as some are so eager to do ...
Anectodotal though it may be, back in the 80's I got into the grosgrain watch band craze ... I had about a dozen different bands (mild to wild) that easily slipped on and off allowing me to change the look of my rather simple Seiko for different occasions. However, I would say that lasted maybe 5 years, and after about the first year, I stopped changing the bands very often, eventually wearing one until it wore out, and then to the next one. It's an exciting option that Apple is offering, but the question is whether it's little more than a fad which people get over in their daily routine, especially since it requires charging the watch at least once a day as well.
I also am not convinced that losing customers to smart watches means some won't eventually go back. As long as watches are fashion accessories more than a functional one, and this assumes Apple and others don't expand their offerings, I feel like people may get tired of wearing the exact same black-faced device on their wrist as everybody else, regardless of the band attached. Digital watches were a short lived fad in the 70s, and one has to wonder why if all anybody needed from a watch was a cheap time-telling device. Certainly digital watches could do a lot more than even an expensive chronograph. And for those who don't rely on daily notifications and that tiny screen, they can go back to a traditional watch which by that time has a wirless payment chip, health sensors, etc. that do many of the things they enjoy with the ?Watch but with a unique expression that stands out from the crowd. But for an information junkie, there likely won't be any going back ..l
I fully expect couples and parents to buy the ?Watch as gifts in droves. if for no other reason it solves the problem of what can I get the spouse I've already gotten everything for ... It doesn't mean that the watch will become an indispensable tool, however, and given the daily charging requirement, may sit on the charger more than it's used. I'm convinced that is going to be an issue for current watch wearers no matter how many other conveniences it offers.
I just think all these extreme predictions based on the fact that Apple is bringing the design to market, misses the point that every other sucessful device Apple has brought to market has been in a vital market sector -- portable music players turned Sony into a powerhouse, there was a major market demand for them -- Apple saw the future for a product that would always be in high demand and offered it's solution. Likewise with the iPhone -- in a market where almost everyone owns a mobile phone they offered a better solution. The iPad was actually intended to be brought to market first until Apple decided to fix the mobile phone. Yet the iPad also addressed the netbook, and offered a low-cost computing device for people who needed a computer but didn't have one, or had an old one they never even used that often. Yet another market in which there was already high and continuing demand. Smart watches just aren't one of those categories. There's no huge demand for them, and nobody NEEDS one. Now I'm the first to acknowledge that could change and very quickly, but which features are going to be the important ones that become necessities in daily life? Indeed, it's not the smartwatch that Apple is taking on, but rather defining the wearable tech category. Not necessarily the smartwatch, but the wearable. ?Watch may never be a sucess on the level of even the Mac, much less the iPad or iPhone. But that doesn't mean it won't be one product among many Apple offers in a much more sucessful product category of wearables. And if that's the case then traditional watchmakers aren't really in that much trouble. I just think it's way too early to start writing off entire industries - especially one like the Swiss and German watch makers. If there's anybody who can compete with Apple head to head its them -- the inspiration of most of Steve Jobs designs. Braun, Krups, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche. His designer of choice -- Hartmut Esslinger. There's a reason for that, and why Apple has achieved the same calibre of design excellenece as those companies. This ain't Microsoft and Smasung Apple is competing with this time. All things considered, way too early to call this as some are so eager to do ...
I'm speaking of hybrids; mechanical/quartz watches with embedded smart watch functionality. I would find it completely acceptable for the traditional watch makers to build smart watches using their design sensibilities, but I find it an anachronism that they would literally devote previous volume of the watch to mechanisms that would have absolutely no utility when paired with a smart watch UI and SOC. This to me would be a failed path for watch makers.
Do you really believe the Hartmut Esslingen would be at the forefront of Hybrid watches?
I'm speaking of hybrids; mechanical/quartz watches with embedded smart watch functionality....This to me would be a failed path for watch makers.
You may well be right. However, fashion is the aspect of this equation that never existed before for Apple, or other tech companies.
Quartz technology is hybrid technology. The watch industry already weathered this, and yet mechanical winding watches are still manufactured and are in demand.
In the end, if inconspicuous chips can be embedded into a traditional watch that duplicate many functions of a smart watch, why wouldn't they? A friend of mine just bought a fitbit, the one without any kind of status display. The only way to get info out of it is on her iPhone. She has no interest in the ?Watch. Mechanical watches already exist with hybrid digital displays for certain information for those who need it, yet despite the added benefit from the information those watches can additionally provide, they were not universally adopted by the watch wearing community.
So even on this very specific angle, I don't see the evidence that guarantees people are going to move en masse toward homogenous black square displays on their wrists, eschewing traditional watch designs, from a purely fashion perspective. I also don't see people completely ignoring many of the benefits smart watches bring to the table, thus demanding some kind of hybrid from the watchmakers, which they both have incentive and engineering skills to meet without being the total travesty of most hybrid products. Maybe this will be the end of the mass produced purely mechanical watches as we know it. But the traditional quartz mechanical watch will likely be around forever.
Again, you could be completely right about this. But I just don't see the evidence for it yet.