TAG Heuer to Combine Swiss Watch Expertise With Technology in 'Different Craftsmanship'

thewordiz · Jan 21, 2015

Yinmay said:
There are Swiss watchmakers and Swiss watchmakers. You can't lump them all in one category. TAG Heuer is about "avant garde", it's in their name. They branded themselves as the innovative modern brand pushing new technologies. And they totally were for the entire 20th century, compared for instance with very traditional brands such as Longines or Vacheron Constantin.

But in the past 10 years they've been unable to keep up with new technologies. They tried to catch on the smartphone train and failed, now they're trying to hop into the smart watch wagon before it's too late, and my guess is they'll fail too. That plus the recent surge in Swiss currency, and prospects are getting very gloom for "mid luxury brands".

And I say that with a lot of sympathy, I own two TAG Heuer watches.

Low cost brands such as Swatch Hamilton Timex Seiko and Citizen will continue to do well.
Very high end brands as well, such as Patek, Audemars, Jaeger, IWC or more affordable brands that focus on more conservative and historic designs such as Longines and Omega will also continue doing well.

You love Longines HUH? They haven't been a driving force in watches for almost 50 years.

What I don't get is why you pimple faced nerds even care about anything of quality, you just want it cheap and techie. the Apple watch will not even put a dent into Rolex, Patek or even Breitling for that matter, not that any self respecting watch person would covet a Breitling any more.

Even so, a Rolex buyer may buy an Apple watch for fun, but when time comes to go out somewhere nice, they will be wearing the Rollie.

Actually, Seiko,Citizen, Casio and Timex and all of the junk sub $200 watches will be besieged by the ever eroding price spiral of low end tech smart watches. It will be a race to the bottom to see how much tech they will be able to pack into the cheapest piece of crap you guys will buy.

But, if you are right, maybe the price on a stainless steel Daytona will drop back under $9000. I hate paying full retail.

Robert.Walter · Jan 22, 2015

kds1 said:
The people who are going to buy a smart watch are not the same people who would buy a fine, luxury swiss timepiece.

This is what the watch CEO's pray for every night. This is likely where within the next year, they will think their deity has deserted them.

Wrists are a zero sum game if a good looking useful device comes along that has positive connotations of progressive modern tech with a purpose, it will occupy wrists and crowd out luxury timepieces which will look more like pimp wear for grandpas.

ScholarsInk · Jan 22, 2015

thewordiz said:
You love Longines HUH? They haven't been a driving force in watches for almost 50 years.

What I don't get is why you pimple faced nerds even care about anything of quality, you just want it cheap and techie. the Apple watch will not even put a dent into Rolex, Patek or even Breitling for that matter, not that any self respecting watch person would covet a Breitling any more.

Even so, a Rolex buyer may buy an Apple watch for fun, but when time comes to go out somewhere nice, they will be wearing the Rollie.

Actually, Seiko,Citizen, Casio and Timex and all of the junk sub $200 watches will be besieged by the ever eroding price spiral of low end tech smart watches. It will be a race to the bottom to see how much tech they will be able to pack into the cheapest piece of crap you guys will buy.

But, if you are right, maybe the price on a stainless steel Daytona will drop back under $9000. I hate paying full retail.

I wouldn't put Seiko in that category. They make mall watches, yes, but they also make amazing pieces (at all price ranges, from easily the best sub-$500 stuff to things that are in Patek category; the thing is, they pretty much only sell those items in Japan) and have a history longer than most companies in Switzerland. Or for that matter Citizen or Casio, neither of which I'm especially a fan of, but they're not quite the same as the fashion watch brands by any means and pretty much everything is in-house.

I don't get the Daytona obsession! The 60s models looked great, but it is IMO the ugliest item in the lineup in its current iteration, despite the great movement. I'm not sure why it's so sought after to the point of being backordered (which I definitely did understand with the GMTIIc).

lowendlinux · Jan 22, 2015

ScholarsInk said:
I wouldn't put Seiko in that category. They make mall watches, yes, but they also make amazing pieces (at all price ranges, from easily the best sub-$500 stuff to things that are in Patek category; the thing is, they pretty much only sell those items in Japan) and have a history longer than most companies in Switzerland. Or for that matter Citizen or Casio, neither of which I'm especially a fan of, but they're not quite the same as the fashion watch brands by any means and pretty much everything is in-house.

I don't get the Daytona obsession! The 60s models looked great, but it is IMO the ugliest item in the lineup in its current iteration, despite the great movement. I'm not sure why it's so sought after to the point of being backordered (which I definitely did understand with the GMTIIc).

I don't get the Rolex obsession, I just chalk that up to being un-hip and let it go. In the price range or Rolex there are just to many others I'd rather have.

Chupa Chupa · Jan 22, 2015

kds1 said:
There's a big difference between fine, mechanical watches, and computers worn on the wrist. I see it as two different things. I also don't believe they are hurting. Even in times of economic recession, retailers like Tiffany & Co. for instance, show steady or even increasing sales.

See, there is where your thinking is off. Tiffany is a middle class jewelry story steeped in a marketing myth that they are strictly high end. They have expensive items, but they also cater to the middle end, which is why there sales are doing well. It's not because wealthy people shop there. On whole they do not -- they are smarter than that and not impressed by a lower quality product but with a legendary blue box.

Yes, there is a functional difference between a fine watch and a smart watch, but most people only wear one watch at a time. If smart watches offer more functionality and desirability then that's where the market is going to go. The Swiss makers are dabbling in smart watches now so they can fully transition if/when the time comes. To not plan for the future is irresponsible and killed many companies. Ask Kodak and Polaroid.

ScholarsInk · Jan 22, 2015

lowendlinux said:
I don't get the Rolex obsession, I just chalk that up to being un-hip and let it go. In the price range or Rolex there are just to many others I'd rather have.

Me either, but I was responding to the Daytona point in my quoted post. In Rolex's price range, my favorite might be the Grand Seiko snowflake, because not only is it one of the most beautiful, well-engineered watches at any price, it completely shocks and turns away the ignorant!

It's especially shocking to me when people proudly disdain haute horlogerie and spend PP/VC/Lange prices on precious metal sports watches...

tonyy · Jan 24, 2015

Sorry but the "one watch at a time" line is BS.

The people that buy real high end luxury watches own more than one time piece. They will most likely buy an Apple watch to add to their collection.

Anyone with a sense of style would not wear an Apple watch with a nice suit.

fabienio · Jan 31, 2015

the greatest threat to traditional watchmaking concerns watches of a range of less than 200$ or 400$. In this price range, a young doesn't want the prestige watchmaking and will not hesitate to turn to a smartwatch

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
reduction galaxy note 4 galaxy s5 prix

Arran · Jan 31, 2015

tonyy said:
You are correct that no one wears two watches at a time but everyone I know owns two or more. Who says someone can't wear a watch for dressy occasions? Wear one for casual occasions? And guess what.. For fitness? (Apple Watch).

Most owners of true high end watches own multiple watches for different purposes and the Apple Watch isn't going to all of a sudden change that.

True, but once the Apple watch knits itself into your life and becomes indispensable (wallet, car-unlocking/starting device, home security controller, biometrics monitor, emergency health-information storage, etc.) it's going to be much, much harder to leave it at home.

viorelgn · Jan 31, 2015

Awsome...

anthogag · Feb 27, 2015

Kabeyun said:
So a watch-sized notification-showing screen is good, but only if you glance at it. Apple Watch will suck because you'll fixate on the notifications instead of glance at them. A non-Apple connected watch will not suck because it will feature a glance-only screen.

Did I get that right?

Yes. Apple's Watch will make the user interact with the screen for extended periods. They're making "apps" for it right. You could type messages on that little screen. Browse through music lists on that little screen. Maybe even do Facetime with that little screen.

Currently, the "traditional" watch on my hand, I look at it for a few seconds to see the time. That's it.

tom2517 · Mar 4, 2015

peterdevries said:
Exactly. Quartz watches with superior accuracy and heaps more functionality were introduced more than 40 years ago. Many have tried slapping gold or premium materials on quartz watches to target the luxury market and failed to make a dent.

Except smartwatches and quartz watches are completely different things. Quartz is basically a more accurate way of time keeping in which a lot of people decided they wouldn't mind sacrificing a few seconds per day in exchange for mechanical wonder.

But smartwatches will do far more, depends on what Apple or other tech/startups can come up with, it can change how we live, with new levels of applications and conveniences.

Granted, these first gen. of smartwatches will not be able to do what many of us have envisioned, even Apple admitted they gave up some functionalities because the technologies are not there yet, but there's a lot of money and talented engineers on these wearable devices, I wouldn't dismiss them so easily.

If I am a CEO of Swiss watch companies (especially mid-low end), I would definitely be worried.

peterdevries · Mar 4, 2015

Kendo said:
Do people not realize TAG Heuer and these other Swiss watches cost upwards of $10,000to $20,000 and up? They can't compete with Apple in the $350 to $500 range, otherwise they cheapen their existing products. There is a reason why only a portion of the population can afford a TAG Heuer or a Rolex, and the other portion can only afford a Kenneth Cole. Apple is targeting the $500 to $2000 watch crowd.

You can buy a Tag Heuer at $1000 and the cheapest Rolex is close to $2000..

Search

Search

TAG Heuer to Combine Swiss Watch Expertise With Technology in 'Different Craftsmanship'

thewordiz

macrumors member

Robert.Walter

macrumors 68040

ScholarsInk

macrumors 6502

lowendlinux

macrumors 603

Chupa Chupa

macrumors G5

ScholarsInk

macrumors 6502

tonyy

macrumors 6502a

fabienio

macrumors newbie

Arran

macrumors 601

viorelgn

macrumors 6502

anthogag

macrumors 68020

tom2517

macrumors member

peterdevries

macrumors 68040

Our Staff