Really? How much money did they waste on this fool to sport the Apple version of the Pebble? 
----------
I LOLed!
----------
I LOLed!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Recruiting Pro Athletes to Test iWatch's Fitness Capabilities
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually there are several multisport/triathlon watches like the Suunto Ambit2/2S and Garmin 910XT. The Suuntos are also usable as a normal watch.
For the iWatch to be attractive to this crowd it needs to be waterproof enough to go swimming and speak both Ant+ and BTLE. Many people have plowed lots of money into items like bike power meters that are Ant+ only. I'd even hope to see Apple implement it into the iPhone just like some Android phone manufacturers have started doing with their products.
Battery life with a GPS watch depends on accuracy, on my watch it can be set to various reduced accuracy modes to save power for longer events.
Interesting - and quite neat too - battery life vs GPS accuracy.
I use a dedicated GPS device, kind of bulky - but good battery life of course. What sort of watch are you using - how long do the batteries last for? Does it connect to other ANT+ devices such as temperature / heart rate monitor?
Which is precisely why Rolex and the other high end manufacturers are not going to feel threatened by Apple. Swatch may to an extent, but they still have some high end brands under their group. The stomping grounds for the big players in the watch industry isn't going to be touched. And it's not just the $60k market, its the $2k+ market which is pretty big.
You're delusional if you think Rolex will be effected by this. Their market is well beyond the range that the iWatch will fall under..
Last edited:
You make the assumption that a luxury item will always necessarily occupy the wrist-space. I believe people will embrace function over form, maybe wearing their Rolex to certain events, but the iWatch most of the time.
I hope Ming-Chi and this source are correct for now. My hope for the initial iWatch is a fashion accessory with the addition of health and connectivity... Not a health tracker and phone peripheral that also shows the time. I'm reluctant to "go back to" a swatch or Ironman and would much more opt for an Omega/Tag/Rolex/etc.
I must say that I also appreciate "filmantopia's" look forward to what wearables can become. Nice posts. It'd be great if it can remain fashionable without that eliminating any potential functionality.
I'm going to take it a step further. I'm going to say that in 10 years, Rolex will be all but dead thanks to the smart watch revolution lead by Apple. You will be shocked, but then you'll remember this thread. And I will remember your comment.
Cheers.
Apple Recruiting Pro Athletes to Test iWatch's Fitness Capabilities
Lol
You are very persistent I will give you that.
Rolex and other Swiss watch companies have been around for 100, sometimes more than 200 years.
They are not going to be wiped out by Apple, just like they survived the Quartz revolution.
However, the lower segments of $100-500 watches could suffer and possibly become extinct.
I hope the G shock survives though.
----------
Well it could be a legal issue I suppose but in reality, hublot targets luxury segment above $10000 so I don't think it's an issue.
Lol
You are very persistent I will give you that.
Rolex and other Swiss watch companies have been around for 100, sometimes more than 200 years.
They are not going to be wiped out by Apple, just like they survived the Quartz revolution.
However, the lower segments of $100-500 watches could suffer and possibly become extinct.
I hope the G shock survives though.
----------
Well it could be a legal issue I suppose but in reality, hublot targets luxury segment above $10000 so I don't think it's an issue.
There are thousands of watches that are more durable, waterproof, more accurate, easier to find for sale, have more features, cost literally tens of thousands of dollars less to buy and thousands less to own than a Rolex. And yet, Rolex is still doing just fine. Why? Because a Rolex is not about a spec sheet of features.
The iWatch will do absolutely nothing to their sales. It isn't even in competition with Rolex.
Im going to hold you to this
Yeah can we start a betting pool?
I would bet a million dollars that Rolex will still be around in ten years lol.
"I would bet a million dollars that Blackberry will still be around in 10 years lol" -Most people in 2006
You're going to look like these guys:
"BUSINESSWEEK: The iPhone will never be a threat to the BlackBerry."
http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-predictions-from-2007-2012-6?op=1
and now...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brandin...aches-customer-lows-amid-ceos-positive-hopes/
----------
Im going to hold you to this
Talk to you in 10 years. But maybe 5 years or less ;p
"I would bet a million dollars that Blackberry will still be around in 10 years lol" -Most people in 2006
You're going to look like these guys:
"BUSINESSWEEK: The iPhone will never be a threat to the BlackBerry."
http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-predictions-from-2007-2012-6?op=1
and now...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brandin...aches-customer-lows-amid-ceos-positive-hopes/
----------
Talk to you in 10 years. But maybe 5 years or less ;p
You don't seem to see the fundamental difference between luxury (I.e. Veblen) goods and consumer electronics devices.
The only examples of luxury consumer electronic devices I can think of at the moment are Vertu phones.
Blackberry, which was founded in 1984, is NOTHING like Rolex, which was founded in 1905.
Also blackberry is still around.
Its stock price currently trades around $10 and its market cap is around 5 billion.
I don't know what kind of personal success you have enjoyed, but I would consider something with 5bn dollar value to be "existent."
"I would bet a million dollars that Blackberry will still be around in 10 years lol" -Most people in 2006
You're going to look like these guys:
"BUSINESSWEEK: The iPhone will never be a threat to the BlackBerry."
http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-predictions-from-2007-2012-6?op=1
and now...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brandin...aches-customer-lows-amid-ceos-positive-hopes/
----------
Talk to you in 10 years. But maybe 5 years or less ;p
You have absolutely no understanding of the watch market it seems. The people who buy Oris/Longines/Tag/etc and above, the £1k+ watches, are not interested in spec sheets. Hell, most of them are not even interested in quartz watches. A watch, to those people, is not purely about it's features. It's about the mechanics, the craftsmanship, and how they feel on the wrist. Did Rolex crumble when quartz started to take over? No. When we started getting GPS watches that never needed adjusting? No.
Blackberry, and phones in general, are not luxury items. Your comparison was completely off the mark. A better comparison would be to look at how manufacturers like Porsche, Ferrari, Masserati etc survive in the automotive world when there are manufacturers like Dacia and Hyundai producing cars with state of the art features like in car radios(!!!!). They are completely different markets.
I would buy that in a heart beat. For someone that loves the latest gadget, Apple or not, for some reason, when it comes to my watch, I've worn analogue since I could read time. As a child sure I had my Casio digital watches, then moved onto Fossil, now an Oakley, and ideally, I would like to move onto batteryless automatic movements (Omega is my top pick at the moment). So, even if Apple's isn't automatic movement, but analogue, I would probably buy it in a second. Please happen!!
I have over $40,000 in Luxury watches. I'm not the consumer for an iWatch if it is a traditional watch. If it is a fitness tracker band, I might be interested. I'm not looking for something to replace my Panerai/Rolex/IWC period. I already have a daily beater and it is called an Omega Speedmaster/Seamaster / Rolex Submariner.
Here are some of my observations reading this thread.
1) Luxury watch brands have no fear. IWC/Blancpain/Rolex/
2) It would be interesting to see how the Burberry connection plays.
That former CEO may know who to work the retail channels (e.g. Bloomingdales/Neiman Marcus)
Furthermore, Burberry/Calvin Klein/Movado/Armani are all fashion watch "rubbish" I don't think Apple should even try to compete in the luxury or even "fashion" watch.
They need to create their own genre. Tech watch like Pebble and so forth. The fashion watches appeal to women and metrosexuals who have brand fetishes.
I think this is where the Burberry hire comes into play. She knows her audiences and probably knows more than all of us what works in the fashion genre. They will definitely create a new market segment that does not compete with LVMH/Swatch groups.
I have faith Apple knows what they're doing. Jonny Ives is a watch collector with an impressive collection I've seen - AP Royal Oak, Jaguer Le Couture (JLC), and I think he's even charity design some JLC. So he is very acutely aware of the "Lux" mechanical timepieces. The guy does drive a Bently (and formerly an Aston). Given that, I'm pretty certain he knows the limits of Apple's brand cachet will not even compete w/ those brands.
Here are some of my observations reading this thread.
1) Luxury watch brands have no fear. IWC/Blancpain/Rolex/
2) It would be interesting to see how the Burberry connection plays.
That former CEO may know who to work the retail channels (e.g. Bloomingdales/Neiman Marcus)
Furthermore, Burberry/Calvin Klein/Movado/Armani are all fashion watch "rubbish" I don't think Apple should even try to compete in the luxury or even "fashion" watch.
They need to create their own genre. Tech watch like Pebble and so forth. The fashion watches appeal to women and metrosexuals who have brand fetishes.
I think this is where the Burberry hire comes into play. She knows her audiences and probably knows more than all of us what works in the fashion genre. They will definitely create a new market segment that does not compete with LVMH/Swatch groups.
I have faith Apple knows what they're doing. Jonny Ives is a watch collector with an impressive collection I've seen - AP Royal Oak, Jaguer Le Couture (JLC), and I think he's even charity design some JLC. So he is very acutely aware of the "Lux" mechanical timepieces. The guy does drive a Bently (and formerly an Aston). Given that, I'm pretty certain he knows the limits of Apple's brand cachet will not even compete w/ those brands.
"I would bet a million dollars that Blackberry will still be around in 10 years lol" -Most people in 2006
You're going to look like these guys:
"BUSINESSWEEK: The iPhone will never be a threat to the BlackBerry."
http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-predictions-from-2007-2012-6?op=1
and now...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brandin...aches-customer-lows-amid-ceos-positive-hopes/
----------
Talk to you in 10 years. But maybe 5 years or less ;p
Rolex has a lineage spanning 8 decades. Blackberry doesn't. Other brands have histories as far back as 200 years ago.
They have a pedigree and history. Their (Rolex) designs (I'm sticking w/ the Oyster line Only and not the gaudy datejusts) are archetype of their genres.
They defined the quintessential diver's watch design . The Submariner in 1954 and the design has endured like the porsche 911. The original iPhone is also the archetype of the new slat smartphone design. There is just a design so iconic it is replicated and copied a hundred times over. The Submariner is just that. An iconic design classic. 50 years plus and it still looks the same hence the appeal.
Their other "tool" sport watches are also archetypes of every genre they're in - The Daytona is the quintessential chronograph (some argue the Omega Speedmaster) but it is an icon neverless.
These watches have history that span several decades; building up the mystique and appeal. You read stories about your dad or Uncle that had a Rolex explorer climbing mountains and travelling for 30-40 years without breaking a sweat. 30-40 years of travel, marriage, war (in some cases), hard times, good times. Three, 4 decades on his wrist. The watch, in itself can tell stories. It has scratches and patina; thus becoming an heirloom. People then have emotional attachments. The ruggedness and reliability is legendary. After 30 years, that Uncle hands over his oyster to his son and the watch still looks brand new. Worst case scenario, they buff it up at a Jewelry store and it will look as new as one on display for $9000.
Does anyone have an emotional attachment to an electronic gadget , 20-30,40 years old they still use on a daily basis. No, I reckon. Watches do.
You can't say the same about the 1st gen iPhone. You give that to my 6 year old son and he throw it back in your lap. A luxury watch can be passed down generations. They increase in value over the years. A Submariner went for $200 in 1971. Then $2200 in 1999. Now, they go for $7-8K.
A beat used one sells for $4-5,000. Again, you can't say you can get $500 for a iPhone 3G. Hence the appeal.
Luxury watches operate on a different realm of logic and appeal. I know people who buy nothing but every variation of the Omega Speedmaster because it was used on the moon. These people have 30-40 of the same watch.
Last edited:
I understand the prestige, history, emotional attachment, precious materials, fine craftsmanship, and projection of wealth that luxury watch consumers enjoy. Things that have long signified the status of wealth have historically always changed with the tide of technological advancement. This is not at all an unprecedented form of change.
So maybe Blackberry isn't the best example of the particular situation (but a great example of how silly you're going to sound in a few years). Think the typewriter ceding to computers, horses to the automobile...
The key mistake you're making is that you're severely underestimating smartwatch functionality. You may be thinking of a fancy tech toy, whereas it will actually be a very serious device that is central to the operating and managing our other tech (an area of increasing importance) as well as conduct our business and entertainment. In a few years, people will begin to value this device almost as much or more than their phones. It will become totally indispensable to people of any social class. Apple may even form business partnerships to provide a solutions for wealthy people who still want their iWatch to possess a form of the craftsmanship luxury watches are known for (while of course primarily focusing on models for the general public).
Look, not EVERYONE will make the switch. I'm sure many will die wearing their $60k Rolex, but I doubt it'll be enough people to keep Rolex as a company in a comfortable place of success, unless they evolve with smart features, which seems like a rough and unlikely move for them. Many people might begrudgingly switch, just knowing that the functionality (much of which we are yet unaware) is too essential to pass up.
People will be saying "Remember when watches were worn like jewelry, and were only able to tell the time? My grandpa still wears his!" There is just too much value for function on the wrist space to keep a clunky flashy, USELESS piece of jewelry there.
I know this all sounds preposterous to you right now. It's going to be one of the wonders of the next decade, chap.
Last edited:
No you don't.
Watches are usually emotional purchases and you can't apply logic or reasoning to emotions. Thus, using your pun, the key mistake you are making is underestimating the emotional ties to a mechanical watch.
Technology, gadgets are disposable devices. Hence, the type-writer analogy doesn't apply. Furthermore, techy gadgets tend to be superseded by newer, faster, better replacements. A laptop today has the lifespan of 2-3 years.
It isn't heirloom material. Watches are. Furthermore, techy gadgets like smartphones require power. They decay over time. Battery, electronics get corrosive.
A true mechanical watch requires no form of fuel or energy. They work by manually winding or mechanical automatic rotors which "re-fuels" the engine.
A battery powered smartwatch requires it to be eventually opened up to replace the battery. Furthermore, electronics (the LCD screens) do not have extreme tolerance to weather. E.G. the deep coldness of space or the deep pressure from the deepest fathoms of the sea.
In a few years, a newer smartwatch will come out and the one you currently own getd thrown away. Many people view watches as investment. Lifelong investments.
Watches. I specifically mean, mechanical watches have reached the zenith of mechanical precision. It is no longer about tech. It is all about emotions and in many case, appreciating assets.
My wife bought me a watch as a wedding gift. That watch will never get updated by a newer model where I need to throw it away or sell on craigslist.
It's value keeps on going up and up over the years. My first Rolex was $2200 brand new. a GMT Master. That same watch, new in the store, sells for $8900.
I've basically worn it for 20 years and I can sell it at zero lost. That can't be said for a Powerbook I paid $3K in 1995. In fact, I traded that Wall Street Powerbook for another Rolex Submariner.
The same powerbook probably sells for $200 on ebay. The Rolex on the other hand, is worth $6K USED. USED for 15 or so years. Every single timepiece I own has increased in value due to how the manufactures fix the price and inflation throughout the years. The same watch, regardless of brand, have annual price increases.
It would be like an iPhone that raised it's price 8-15% a year. The old models retain their value because the newer ones simply cost more.
Again, this isn't going to happen because once you put one piece of electronic into a mechanical timepiece, it invalidates the whole purpose of the mechanical watch.
Let me summarize the emotional appeal why some techy person like Larry Ellison wears a $20K Lange and Sohne or why Johny Ives wears a $15K JLC.
Watch movements are like engineering marvels by sheer fact they run mechanically with hundres of little moving gears. Rotors, saw-like wheels, coilsprings.
They require zero form of fuel. They have high tolerance for precision (only loosing 1-2 seconds a day). Imagine a sports car that can run 120 MPH 24 hours a day (All day long), 7 days a week, and it never skips a beat. It never stops to re-fuel.The tranny never goes out. That car requires no gas yet it runs, runs, runs for years, eventually decades. The rotor movement then feels like a heartbeat. It feels alive. Hence the emotinal attachment to it.
Once you throw a piece of electronics into it, the whole magic is completely lost.
I also want to add. It isn't always about the money. I'd sport a $200 Seiko scuba mechanical watch over a $1500 Burberry fashion quartz watch. If you get that statement, then you'll understand why there are people who buy mechanical timepieces.
Last edited:
Apple Recruiting Pro Athletes to Test iWatch's Fitness Capabilities
Apple had better hire all the watchmakers from Geneve, Brassus, glaschute if they are going to compete with these watches at the typical apple scale selling millions every month.
Some of these watches take one calendar year of one master watchmaker to make. Lol.
The price is listed to demonstrate the absurdity of the notion that Apple will be entering the luxury watch market.
Rolex Daytona $75000
AP ROO $281,800.00
RM 52-1 $795,000.
Patek 2499 $3,637,844
What a hand finished Patek chronograph caliber looks like
Apple had better hire all the watchmakers from Geneve, Brassus, glaschute if they are going to compete with these watches at the typical apple scale selling millions every month.
Some of these watches take one calendar year of one master watchmaker to make. Lol.
The price is listed to demonstrate the absurdity of the notion that Apple will be entering the luxury watch market.
Rolex Daytona $75000
AP ROO $281,800.00
RM 52-1 $795,000.
Patek 2499 $3,637,844
What a hand finished Patek chronograph caliber looks like