Anyone in here buying the edition Apple watch?

[TallManNY]

I don't really foresee Rolex's sales dropping. They've actually increased sales each year since those 2012 numbers you quoted (if a Rolex rep for my Rolex dealer can be believed). In the watch world, approaching 1 million watches sold per year is a big deal. Especially when your cheapest model is still $5000. Many Rolex customers own more than one piece (I know a few guys with over 20 different Rolexes), and really aren't the type to wear a smart watch full time. MAYBE as a workout piece. But Apple is going to have to gain the prestige/clout/recognition in the watch world before MOST Rolex customers would ever even consider it.

And for those of you that know very little about Rolex, you have to understand that Rolex is the most advanced watch maker in the world. Their manufacturing abilities and R&D dept and technology (manufacturing) rival Apples, actually. They are more than capable of adapting to the smart watch trend...IF it ever poses a threat. I would venture a good bet that they are already throwing ideas around in their R&D dept for their "lower cost" Tudor brand. That's where they usually test out new ideas before they consider bringing them to the Rolex lineup. As I saw an article say the other day, "Rolex was Apple before Apple was Apple". Taken from here if you're interested in seeing just how advanced Rolex is.

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/inside-rolex

So I personally see very little threat to Rolex in particular from the Apple watch. And if it ever did come, I think they could be ready, if anyone could. Look what they did when the Quartz craze of the '70s almost killed the Swiss industry. What'd Rolex do? Oh...just foresaw it earlier than anyone and started developing (and patenting) their own Quartz tech in the '50s. Almost 20 years before the Quartz threat arrived.

You might be right. Rolex is on the right side of huge economic changes. Basically as more and more wealth gets created but concentrated in smaller groups of people, all luxury goods are benefiting from this effect. Cities are becoming "luxury" cities with high property prices. Car manufacturers are repeatedly selling out even weirder and more unique luxury cars. Art continues to hit record prices. I think Rolex is just another luxury seller that is benefiting from this and I don't see these larger economic forces changing. But maybe their growth slows down due to the AWatch. We shall see.

As for Rolex creating a smart watch that can compete with Apple, I think that is laughable. Sure they could do something with Android Wear, but that would be brand destroying. I do not believe they can create their own OS and I don't believe they can create their own eco-system of Apps. So functionality they can't compete. Also they don't have the scale for the R&D. Apple can drop $1 billion or more a YEAR on R&D for the watch. Rolex can't do that. I doubt the entire luxury industry can drop that amount of money as an ADDITIONAL expense that they don't currently do.

Even Samsung is struggling to make an OS with Tinzen. This stuff is really hard. The non-tech companies can't get into the program your own OS game.

 

[MICHAELSD]

It hardly requires 'super wealth' to spend $10k or more on the Edition. If someone with $5k a month in discretionary income wants to blow two months of that money on a watch, they will. It might not be a 'sensible' purchase, but if everyone stuck with sensible purchases then we'd all be wearing sub $100 watches and driving sub $20k cars.

You should still be making $200k+/year to even consider an Apple Watch Edition. Preferably $1,000,000/year.

 

[TallManNY]

My thoughts exactly. I don't view the Apple Watch as anything special, and saying so translates to "I'm opposed to the Apple Watch existing" to most anyone around here. Yes, I like my mechanical watches, and in all honesty, I was a little afraid that Apple might announce something so amazing that I'd be forced to spend less time with my Rolex, but that didn't happen. I do think that a lot of people will buy and use the sport and watch models. I don't think Edition has a future. Saying this will also elicit rage around here. These people NEED to believe that Apple now owns the luxury jewelry market, and that they've destroyed the Swiss Watch industry. I don't know why it comforts them to falsely believe this, but it does.

I'm curious as well.

By the way, I think Edition might take a bite out of the luxury watch market, but no it won't destroy or own it. The people who buy Edition will also already own high end watches. Even if the Edition pushes off such person's next Rolex purchase by a year, if this happens at scale for 10,000s of people per year, Rolex will notice this. It will hit the bottom line.

I think Edition definitely has a future, but I have no idea at what scale. The margins for it are insane, so it makes economic sense to run it at basically any scale. If Apple sells 100,000 Edition watches per year, at $15,000 per watch, that is $1.5 billion in revenue. Profit will easily be a billion. That is worth it not to kill it as a line especially since those Editions will have a halo effect.

 

[chris975d]

You might be right. Rolex is on the right side of huge economic changes. Basically as more and more wealth gets created but concentrated in smaller groups of people, all luxury goods are benefiting from this effect. Cities are becoming "luxury" cities with high property prices. Car manufacturers are repeatedly selling out even weirder and more unique luxury cars. Art continues to hit record prices. I think Rolex is just another luxury seller that is benefiting from this and I don't see these larger economic forces changing. But maybe their growth slows down due to the AWatch. We shall see.

As for Rolex creating a smart watch that can compete with Apple, I think that is laughable. Sure they could do something with Android Wear, but that would be brand destroying. I do not believe they can create their own OS and I don't believe they can create their own eco-system of Apps. So functionality they can't compete. Also they don't have the scale for the R&D. Apple can drop $1 billion or more a YEAR on R&D for the watch. Rolex can't do that. I doubt the entire luxury industry can drop that amount of money as an ADDITIONAL expense that they don't currently do.

Even Samsung is struggling to make an OS with Tinzen. This stuff is really hard. The non-tech companies can't get into the program your own OS game.

Oh I never said that I think Rolex WOULD make a smartwatch, just said that I think, if ANY Swiss company could pull it off, it would be them. They've got more tech and more manufacturing resources than any other Swiss watch company. Think about it...all they sell is $5000 and above watches, and are in the top 100 most powerful companies in the world...ahead of petroleum companies like Exxon Mobil. That's pretty impressive.

And to a Rolex counter to the smart watch...it "might" erode the brand, but then again it might not. Rolex did make the Oysterquartz watch (yes, a battery powered Rolex) from the '70's all the way to the early 2000's, just to have a quartz watch for the ones that wanted it. That didn't erode the brand any. And again, I somewhat doubt they'd bring any smartwatch alternative out under the "Rolex" moniker, anyway. It'd be under their "Tudor" brand...the brand they have re-positioned over the past few years as their more contemporary, younger person's brand. And it's selling like hotcakes in the US now again due to this re-positioning. Perfect brand and demographic for Rolex to push any smartwatch alternative they MAY come up with.

I'm actually really curious to see how all this shakes out. The smartwatch movement, if it's not a fad, may eventually push even more innovation in my favorite Swiss watch companies. I personally can't think of a way I'd want Rolex to change what they do now.

Added: The current concept of a smartwatch doesn't interest me in the slightest, especially Apple's version. I still need my iPhone anyway. But..if Rolex/Tudor made a mechanical watch with sensors integrated into the bracelet that could send all the info the Apple watch can track to my iPhone (or Android)...then...they'd be onto something. I'd take that in a heartbeat. If I've got to have my iPhone on me anyway, I may as well wear a Rolex instead of an Apple throwaway product.

 

[ninethirty]

You're dreaming. You do not understand the mindset of a person buying a Rolex at that cost. because let's be honest, at 10-15k, you aren't buying precious metal Rolex watches. Those start a lot higher. You're talking about tool watches, and the people who are into those do a LOT of research. They obsess over watches and make their purchases very carefully. There isn't a comparison between the Apple Watch and a Submariner or GMT for the person who cares.

Also, as others have pointed out here, I spent a lot of time on watch forums, and the Apple watch isn't even being discussed amongst these people. They literally don't care about it. There was brief conversations when it was first announced and it was dismissed as ugly, and useless.

I'm curious as well.

By the way, I think Edition might take a bite out of the luxury watch market, but no it won't destroy or own it. The people who buy Edition will also already own high end watches. Even if the Edition pushes off such person's next Rolex purchase by a year, if this happens at scale for 10,000s of people per year, Rolex will notice this. It will hit the bottom line.

I think Edition definitely has a future, but I have no idea at what scale. The margins for it are insane, so it makes economic sense to run it at basically any scale. If Apple sells 100,000 Edition watches per year, at $15,000 per watch, that is $1.5 billion in revenue. Profit will easily be a billion. That is worth it not to kill it as a line especially since those Editions will have a halo effect.

 

[AnthonyHarris]

I'm curious as well.

By the way, I think Edition might take a bite out of the luxury watch market, but no it won't destroy or own it. The people who buy Edition will also already own high end watches. Even if the Edition pushes off such person's next Rolex purchase by a year, if this happens at scale for 10,000s of people per year, Rolex will notice this. It will hit the bottom line.

I think Edition definitely has a future, but I have no idea at what scale. The margins for it are insane, so it makes economic sense to run it at basically any scale. If Apple sells 100,000 Edition watches per year, at $15,000 per watch, that is $1.5 billion in revenue. Profit will easily be a billion. That is worth it not to kill it as a line especially since those Editions will have a halo effect.

If. But. Maybe.

Why do you think that somebody that's in the market for a Rolex would decide to buy an Apple Watch Edition instead? Because it's made of gold and costs 17 thousand dollars?

There is so much emphasis on this being a luxury product but it doesn't hold anything over Rolex or any other fine watch company. It won't be replacing, owning or competing with classic watches for a long time, if ever because they're not in the same class of product.

 

[McDaddio]

Rolex ...Think about it...all they sell is $5000 and above watches, and are in the top 100 most powerful companies in the world...ahead of petroleum companies like Exxon Mobil. That's pretty impressive.

eh...no...

They have a top 100 BRAND but that does not put them as a Top 100 powerful company. Not even close.

Their total REVENUE is about 25% of Exxon's INCOME.

The number 500 entry on the Fortune Global 500 public companies has revenue of 13.5B. So 7.5B still has a ways to go.

Compared to the top private companies (just in the US) they would be in the top 50 - tied with "Gulf States Toyota".

----------

It won't be replacing, owning or competing with classic watches for a long time, if ever because they're not in the same class of product.

Finally!
Thank you.

Comparing an "investment purchase" of a functionally obsolete product with a functionally rich product that is not an investment is really silly.

It is like comparing...wait for it...

Apples and Oranges.

 

[chris975d]

eh...no...

They have a top 100 BRAND but that does not put them as a Top 100 powerful company. Not even close.

Their total REVENUE is about 25% of Exxon's INCOME.

The number 500 entry on the Fortune Global 500 public companies has revenue of 13.5B. So 7.5B still has a ways to go.

Compared to the top private companies (just in the US) they would be in the top 50 - tied with "Gulf States Toyota".

Ok...so I used the word "powerful" instead of "valuable". But...here's Forbes assessment of the "most valuable" brands. See Rolex there at at #72, right above Lexus? See ExxonMobil down below at #81?

http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/

My point still stands, if Forbes is worth their salt at all.

 

[TallManNY]

Ok...so I used the word "powerful" instead of "valuable". But...here's Forbes assessment of the "most valuable" brands. See Rolex there at at #72, right above Lexus? See ExxonMobil down below at #81?

http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/

My point still stands, if Forbes is worth their salt at all.

Rolex is valuable as a brand because it can take a relatively inexpensive product, slap its brand on it, and then sell the product for a huge margin. I suspect the $5,000 Rolex is no more mechanically sophisticated than the $1,000 Hamilton. The markup is for the prestige of the brand. I'm surprised Forbes doesn't have Rolex ranked higher.

----------

If. But. Maybe.

Why do you think that somebody that's in the market for a Rolex would decide to buy an Apple Watch Edition instead? Because it's made of gold and costs 17 thousand dollars?

There is so much emphasis on this being a luxury product but it doesn't hold anything over Rolex or any other fine watch company. It won't be replacing, owning or competing with classic watches for a long time, if ever because they're not in the same class of product.

Setting aside the watch collectors (which is a huge part of the market, I know) many watches are purchased to actually be worn. If someone buys an Apple Watch and likes it, they might be less likely to buy a nice automatic. If someone takes off their automatic and puts on an Apple Watch, that is competition.

If Apple is suddenly selling 10 million watches a year, how in the world do you think that doesn't have a huge impact on the watch industry? Maybe you feel the impact will only be felt by the manufacturers who sell the $50 to $500 watches. I think the impact will be felt all the way up the chain. That is assuming that folks like wearing smart watches. I'm not 100% sure that this will be the case. It might be a product closer to Google Glass. Somewhat neat but not something that most folks want to wear.

But I am sure that if Apple is selling 10 million watches this year and next year 20 million and the year after that maybe it is 30 million, then this will radically impact the watch industry.

 

[bunnicula]

Soo... was anyone in here actually buying the Edition or is this just a "The Edition isn't as good as a luxury Swiss mechanical watch" thread?



Seriously, I don't think anyone with much sense thinks that Apple believes its watch will run Rolex out of business next month or some such.

 

[chris975d]

If Apple is suddenly selling 10 million watches a year, how in the world do you think that doesn't have a huge impact on the watch industry? Maybe you feel the impact will only be felt by the manufacturers who sell the $50 to $500 watches. I think the impact will be felt all the way up the chain. That is assuming that folks like wearing smart watches. I'm not 100% sure that this will be the case. It might be a product closer to Google Glass. Somewhat neat but not something that most folks want to wear.

But I am sure that if Apple is selling 10 million watches this year and next year 20 million and the year after that maybe it is 30 million, then this will radically impact the watch industry.

Its impact on the Swiss industry doesn't have to happen, or can be greatly delayed, if Apple is selling smartwatches to people who don't already wear a traditional watch. Watches aren't actually all that common anymore, at least not what I see in my everyday encounters. Being a "watch person", I'm naturally always looking to see what watch someone is wearing, if they are wearing one. Not a lot of people do. So there's A LOT of room for Apple smartwatch sales to people who aren't currently even a traditional watch customer. It's a bit different that the cell phone industry, where almost everyone has a cell phone, and they only can own/use one. When you sell an iPhone to someone, there's a very high chance that person is dumping another phone (previous iPhone, competitor's phone, etc) to use that new iPhone. Selling an Apple watch, you're FAR more likely to be selling a watch to someone who hasn't worn one in years, if ever. Especially younger people.

At any rate, it's a fun debate, as long as people stay civil.

Soo... was anyone in here actually buying the Edition or is this just a "The Edition isn't as good as a luxury Swiss mechanical watch" thread?

It's both. But since no one in this thread is buying the Edition, we have to fill it with something interesting!

 

[McDaddio]

Ok...so I used the word "powerful" instead of "valuable". But...here's Forbes assessment of the "most valuable" brands. See Rolex there at at #72, right above Lexus? See ExxonMobil down below at #81?

http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/

My point still stands, if Forbes is worth their salt at all.

No, your point is wrong and does not stand.
You claimed it is in the top 100 most powerful companies. It isn't. Not even close.
And it isn't just confusing the words powerful and valuable since it isn't even in the Top 100 most valuable, not even close.

You are confusing the words "company" with "brand". Having a valuable brand is not the same with being a powerful company.

Here, try this. Rolex has a much more valuable brand than Koch Industries. Do you believe for a second that Rolex is more powerful or valuable than Koch?

 

[chris975d]

No, your point is wrong and does not stand.

You claimed it is in the top 100 most powerful companies. It isn't. Not even close.

And it isn't just confusing the words powerful and valuable since it isn't even in the Top 100 most valuable, not even close.



You are confusing the words "company" with "brand". Having a valuable brand is not the same with being a powerful company.



Here, try this. Rolex has a much more valuable brand than Koch Industries. Do you believe for a second that Rolex is more powerful or valuable than Koch?

Good lord. Ok. The point I was making relative to this thread, regarding Apple and it's entry into Rolex's market, the Apple Edition (solid gold) watch, is still relevant. But that's fine. You don't have to see it or agree with it. We are all allowed to have differing viewpoints.

 

[Poochi]

Apple watch competes for the wrist space. Over time people may not care about traditional watch anymore. We are still years away but it could happen.

 

[chris975d]

Apple watch competes for the wrist space. Over time people may not care about traditional watch anymore. We are still years away but it could happen.

And that actually is a valid point, and maybe a long term concern for Swiss watch makers. But, that's at least a generation away I would say. The vast majority of current watch wearers/owners (in the price range this thread is talking about...the $10k and up segment) aren't going to suddenly shelve or toss out their existing watches for it.

 

[Poochi]

And that actually is a valid point, and maybe a long term concern for Swiss watch makers. But, that's at least a generation away I would say. The vast majority of current watch wearers/owners (in the price range this thread is talking about...the $10k and up segment) aren't going to suddenly shelve or toss out their existing watches for it.

Rather than dumping the cash for another Rolex, a $1100 SS Apple Watch would be a good entry point. And if AW is all I use going forward, forget about anymore Rolex down the road. That's a risk for those luxury watch maker as well - less people coming onboard and overtime leading to sales contraction.

 

[McDaddio]

We are all allowed to have differing viewpoints.

Sure.
My viewpoint is based on facts.
Your viewpoint is based on a complete misunderstanding of Rolex's power as a company. It is not one of the 100 most powerful companies - more powerful than Exxon.

 

[chris975d]

Sure.

My viewpoint is based on facts.

Your viewpoint is based on a complete misunderstanding of Rolex's power as a company. It is not one of the 100 most powerful companies - more powerful than Exxon.

I know where Rolex stands as a company/brand. There is no misunderstanding there. Because I hastily typed the wrong words does not mean I don't understand. But if you wish, we can continue to debate this completely irrelevant point to the topic. Probably better to do it in PMs though.

 

[jwball]

Sure.
My viewpoint is based on facts.
Your viewpoint is based on a complete misunderstanding of Rolex's power as a company. It is not one of the 100 most powerful companies - more powerful than Exxon.

Rolex is probably one of the most powerful family owned companies though.
Exxon is owned by shareholders.

 

[glxyjones]

I am......

 

[TallManNY]

Sure.
My viewpoint is based on facts.
Your viewpoint is based on a complete misunderstanding of Rolex's power as a company. It is not one of the 100 most powerful companies - more powerful than Exxon.

He didn't mean powerful as in ability to effect change, he just meant a powerful brand in that it can effect perception. Of course Exxon is more powerful. But it sells a commodity and no one cares about (or will pay a premium for) Exxon oil over other oil. Rolex's brand is much more powerful in that regard. In fact the brand is so powerful we on this thread are using it as a proxy for the entire luxury watch market.

 

[chris975d]

He didn't mean powerful as in ability to effect change, he just meant a powerful brand in that it can effect perception. Of course Exxon is more powerful. But it sells a commodity and no one cares about (or will pay a premium for) Exxon oil over other oil. Rolex's brand is much more powerful in that regard. In fact the brand is so powerful we on this thread are using it as a proxy for the entire luxury watch market.

Yes, thank you. And I only use Rolex because they are easily the most commonly known "luxury"/expensive Swiss watch known to most demographics, even though they aren't the most expensive.

And in another interesting ranking on Forbes of the global top 10 most POWERFUL brands (yes, brands) for 2015, Rolex is tied for 6th. This ranking identifies a "brand" as:

“a marketing related intangible asset including, but not limited to, names, terms, signs, symbols, logos and designs, or a combination of these, intended to identify goods, services or entities, or a combination of these, creating distinctive images and associations in the minds of stakeholders, thereby generating economic benefits/value.”

That ranking is here (you have to use the annoying slideshow to see):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2015/02/19/lego-tops-global-ranking-of-the-most-powerful-brands-in-2015/

What's interesting to note here is that Apple isn't even in the top 10.

 

[cardfan]

You are right about that. Poor people tend to be around poor people. Middle class people tend to be around middle class people. Rich people tend to be around rich people.

A rich person won't take advice from a poor person. Generally, a productive person who is rich got their wealth by being productive, and help other people become wealthier (or at least better off than before) in the process.

The internet is a mix of all kinds. You just have to sort it out. Once a while, sometimes you get great ideas from reading other people's opinions and preferences.

I'm not here to bash poor people and put rich people on the pedestal. If you're a jerk without money, you will still be a jerk, even if you have a billion dollars.

In my family and relatives, my wife and I are doing quite well. But we don't advertise it. We hide it as much as possible. I'm also quiet when it comes to seeing any of them make bad decisions because not only is it a bad decision, they can't be told otherwise. If someone is struggling, we stay mum. That may seem cruel but worse can happen if you bail them out.

My sister died almost a year ago. I was put on the spot at the funeral home. It was either I pay for it, or no funeral. Parents said they didn't have a dime. This shouldn't be the case (sister drew SSI) and I could really go into it more but I won't. It just made me sad. But I paid for the whole thing but made something up that I could just put it on a credit card. To this day, I haven't seen a dime from anyone in my family to pitch in on it. But that's an example of why we hide it.

So, no, I don't wear expensive watches. Wearing even the sport model would be hard enough in front of them.

 

[Wallabe]

In my family and relatives, my wife and I are doing quite well. But we don't advertise it. We hide it as much as possible. I'm also quiet when it comes to seeing any of them make bad decisions because not only is it a bad decision, they can't be told otherwise. If someone is struggling, we stay mum. That may seem cruel but worse can happen if you bail them out.

My sister died almost a year ago. I was put on the spot at the funeral home. It was either I pay for it, or no funeral. Parents said they didn't have a dime. This shouldn't be the case (sister drew SSI) and I could really go into it more but I won't. It just made me sad. But I paid for the whole thing but made something up that I could just put it on a credit card. To this day, I haven't seen a dime from anyone in my family to pitch in on it. But that's an example of why we hide it.

So, no, I don't wear expensive watches. Wearing even the sport model would be hard enough in front of them.

It is possible that they make good income but it is keeping and increasing their wealth that is the issue.

For example, they could make $150,000 but if they are spending $200,000 to maintain their lifestyle, they may look well off but the devil is in the details.

Unfortunately, the subject of money is not taught in school and is usually not even discussed within the family until they are struggling with it. I got one of my employee to change her life a bit. She would get jealous that I was able to go to Disney World yearly, and she keeps saying there's no way she could save up the thousands of dollars to do that. Finally in December 2014, she quit smoking after I keep feeding her reminders to keep up the effort. By early March of this year, she was surprised she paid of her all of her credit card debt and had extra money in the bank.

I think it wasn't just the cigarette, smoking is usually done while she's feeling stressful, but she may be spending money out of habit on other things while smoking.

I do understand people who hide their wealth for social or safety reasons and I do understand some people who just want to enjoy the things they have. I am not talking about people who are trying to show off, that's a whole different set of people, but those who buy the apple watch or other gadgets for their own enjoyment.

 

[noiceT]

The edition version has turned into somewhat of a borderline joke that people here laugh about and don't take seriously. It will be interesting to see actual people wearing it the wild.

The person buying it is buying it with the main objective to indulge in what they feel will be a positive reaction from outlookers, but I feel it may be the opposite reaction that people will give them.

Possibly more of a "WTF, even though you are rich, you're an idiot" type of reaction.

Really feel Apple should have made the edition more of an accessible price. Something more realistic–a stretch, but at least plausible. Maybe something like a 3~5K entry point.

At 3K I feel a bunch of people might opt for the gold rather than SS. There is a clear market for the gold branded tech. but 10K is ****ing ludicrous. Even for a millionaire its idiotic.