Apple Shipped an Estimated 30.7 Million Apple Watches in 2019, Beating Entire Swiss Watch Industry

[Abazigal]

No time to check your figures, but I'm sure something's wrong. Take just 1 Patek for $300K and try to do the math how many Apple wathes you can buy 300K. And I was talking just about ONE watch just from ONE brand....

Apple Watch Made Up 80% Of The Smartwatch Market & Is A Good Lesson For Creating Relevancy With Consumers

Let's analyze what Apple's record sales mean & what both the traditional and connected technology watch industries can learn from it.

www.ablogtowatch.com

I can’t recall exactly where I got that figure from. However, the article linked above does mention Swiss watch exports amounting to about CHF5.1 billion in the last 3 months of 2016. I am simply multiplying that by 4 (since I assume watch sales would be less seasonal compared to say, iPhones), but I also remember reading in another article that the US watch market was suffering from an inventory glut.

So it stands to reason that the dollar sales of Swiss watches would not have grown much these few years. I am also assuming that the proliferation of Apple watches will eat into the sales of cheaper Swiss watches somewhat, and that higher end models (like your 300k watch) are more the exception than the norm.

In short, I have reason to believe the Swiss watch market is nowhere near as big as people make it out to be. Plus, it’s more or less a mature market, while the Apple Watch is still in its infancy with so much more room to grow.

Not that I get some sort of grim satisfaction from seeing one industry after another being marginalised by Apple, but as I have said time and time again, one underestimates Apple to their own detriment. The only thing the Swiss watch market can do is to probably retreat into the premium end of the market where Apple doesn’t deal in, and that’s another problem in itself.

 

[Peza19]

I think I would happily take an Omega seamaster with clear crystal back any day of the week or year over an Apple Watch I have to say, many would agree also, sales numbers really mean little in regards to true luxury items.

 

[spinedoc77]

90% of the time I see someone wearing an Apple Watch, I wonder, sometimes aloud, WTF do they need notifications on their wrist for.

They look ridiculous - they're the Pager of the current generation. Most people who had a pager them kept them as a fashion accessory.

Conspicuous consumption of a device that depreciates to $0 in 5 years. TOTAL waste of money.

I like notifications for those times I can't see my phone. Maybe it's stuck in my pocket while I'm driving, or have a heavy winter coat and gloves. Maybe I'm using both my hands and can't let them go to check my phone. Maybe I'm out for a jog and have nowhere to put my phone, but my fitness tracking AW works just fine for notification and making/receiving calls. Maybe I'm carrying groceries, or any number of things which make it convenient just to glance at my phone to see a notification. Let's not forget the other things these have over traditional watches such as fitness tracking, sleep tracking, weather tracking, using Apple pay to use your credit cards, etc. Heck you are missing the point, the AW can replace your iphone if you want it to.

Of course I'm assuming you are being sarcastic, I just can't fathom someone being so unaware of the obvious advantages of having notifications somewhere more convenient than the phone stuck in a pocket. I get that it's not for everyone and many can survive with their phones alone just fine. But even pagers were very useful in their time and era, especially for doctors just as one example. Being able to be reached when away from a phone was important, maybe you are too young to remember a time prior to cell phones. With that said I'm assuming you don't wear a traditional watch? What would be the purpose, to tell time? WTF would you need to have the time on your wrist for when it's clearly available almost everywhere you look these days. Certainly, as you stated, as a fashion accessory they are not acceptable.

 

[rillrill]

Hard compare

 

[jwwy]

The difference is , your 10 grand watch will increase in price in the next ten years. Your Apple Watch 4 will be worth close to nothing.

and this is great for those who wants to upgrade to a new toy every couple years

 

[spinedoc77]

I think I would happily take an Omega seamaster with clear crystal back any day of the week or year over an Apple Watch I have to say, many would agree also, sales numbers really mean little in regards to true luxury items.

I have a few luxury watches that I own but don't wear anymore. Certainly in terms of value I'd take an Omega over an AW, at least in terms of monetary value. But an AW has much much more functional value (unless you are a diver in your example) than a traditional watch. At this point I view my luxury watches more as investments and keepsakes than having any particular functional value other than diving or piloting for some of them. Even then not all luxury watches appreciate or even hold their value so you have to be aware of the market and also hope you choose the right make, model, year, etc.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I'm not surprised, after the second attempt to mug me for my Rolex I bought an Apple Watch 2 for everyday wear. I've been wearing it ever since and still do. It is comfortable, great notifications, easy to pay in shops and tap in/out of public transport, record my activity, allow to discretely check notifications, give route directions, tell the time...

My Rolex is gone, really can't see the point of having £15K of jewellery on display like that.

 

[spinedoc77]

The difference is , your 10 grand watch will increase in price in the next ten years. Your Apple Watch 4 will be worth close to nothing.

Yeah but I can buy 20 AW's for that 10 grand, at one per year I'll have a new watch for 20 years. I don't disagree with what you say, but that's if you choose a watch which will appreciate, not all luxury watches appreciate. Best bet is to have both a nice luxury watch or 2 in your safe and have the AW on your hand.

 

[OverSpun]

IIRC, Swatch, Tissot, and Tags have some of the low range swiss watches, not like Breitling, Rolex, and Panerai from Italy but I think they use swiss guts.

Apple's watch is definitely a lot less expensive and actually useful. I only wear my Apple watch and not my Breitling anymore.

 

[spinedoc77]

You still have to charge that Rolex if it's hand wound but I assume it's an automatic. Even as an automatic you have to keep it "charged" if you don't wear it everyday. If you do wear wear it everyday you have to adjust the timing at least a week or it'll be off a few seconds. The Apple Watch will be much more accurate with no user input.

Your Rolex is 95% jewelry. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a different type of watch.

Unless he's a diver (assuming it's a diving watch), then it's more like 99.9% jewelry, well maybe 99.3% if it has the date also or unless he's stuck in the desert with no clocks around him and no phone. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it is what it is.

 

[jpn]

90% of the time I see someone wearing an Apple Watch, I wonder, sometimes aloud, WTF do they need notifications on their wrist for.

They look ridiculous - they're the Pager of the current generation. Most people who had a pager them kept them as a fashion accessory.

Conspicuous consumption of a device that depreciates to $0 in 5 years. TOTAL waste of money.

i smiled at your analogy of the apple watch being the current day pager.

the tech of the pager limited its effective use cases.

the tech in this apple wearable is almost unlimited.

but the problem starts with the title of this macrumors article.
the premise of the article is really old and needs to change.
comparing the apple watch to swiss watches is absurd.
they are completely different products and serve completely different markets.

 

[spinedoc77]

I see them both as competition for your wrist.

Let’s say the Apple Watch continues to add more health monitoring features over time. Will we see a future where the opportunity cost of not wearing an Apple Watch is simply too great, because you are giving up on all that vital information about your own well-being?

And I don’t see people wearing a Rolex on one wrist and an Apple Watch on the other. In the end, they are going to have to make a choice.

You might be right in that there will still be people who like them enough to pay a handsome sum to collect them, but if your designer watch is just sitting in a case most of the time, is that something to be proud of?

I had a Frankewatch for a little while so I didn't have to choose. I incorporated a smaller SS AW into my Rolex watch band and it worked pretty decently. Of course it was a very silly thing to do, but it was also partially my tinkering side that wanted to see if it was possible. I still have the setup/band at home, but the Rolex now stays at home and I only use the AW.

 

[Jim Lahey]

i smiled at your analogy of the apple watch being the current day pager.

the tech of the pager limited its effective use cases.

the tech in this apple wearable is almost unlimited.

but the problem starts with the title of this macrumors article.
the premise of the article is really old and needs to change.
comparing the apple watch to swiss watches is absurd.
they are completely different products and serve completely different markets.

Agree with that. It’s an interesting statistic at most, not really a victory of any sort, as some might conclude.

 

[danny842003]

The difference is , your 10 grand watch will increase in price in the next ten years. Your Apple Watch 4 will be worth close to nothing.

Who’s buying a watch as an investment? You could say the same about most purchases your tv, car, etc etc it’s a totally false comparison.

 

[5232152]

Major difference. One is a sophisticated quartz wristwatch. The other is a tradition based industry with history to show for it.
[automerge]1580946780[/automerge]

Who’s buying a watch as an investment? You could say the same about most purchases your tv, car, etc etc it’s a totally false comparison.

If you look into any watch forum of a certain standard, you know how horrible wrong your statement is. There is big money to made if you have the right insight.

 

[randyhudson]

Not sure about that. I have few Tag Heuer watches but I haven't worn them since I got my Apple Watch Series 3 years ago. I have since upgraded to Apple Watch Series 5 and I really loving this.

I think the point was a durable Swiss watch doesn’t need to be purchased as often as a disposable Apple Watch. I bet your Tag Heuer is older than your Apple Watch (which you’ve already replaced), but it still hasn’t been replaced and will be working 20 years from now.

 

[xmiku]

I wonder how many people complaining here also pine for the good old days of a real camera with real film in it (that digital technology clobbered), or a real typewriter with real paper in it (that digital technology clobbered). What we are witnessing here is the eventual assimilation of the traditional watch. You can still buy cameras now, and you'll still be able to buy mechanical watches in the future, but things will never be the same for the watch industry. That's progress...

There is beauty in simplicity. You mentioned technology that was superseded by another technology that was clearly better, easier to use or cheaper. Apple Watch (or any smart watch in general) is not clearly better than a traditional watch, argument can be made that it is more demanding and less easier to use (you have to set it up to your liking, charge it...).

I just don't agree it is superior to a traditional watch if you just want a watch function.

 

[Daum]

there are a lot of dorks in the world 😅😅😅😅😅

 

[Chloros]

I don't really think anyone sees it as anything new that was not already known, smartwatches, whatever the brand are being used by more and more, that is a fact.

Apple has a limiter, you must have an iPhone but even then the numbers are still impressive in terms of the up take.

Don't need to be fanbois to see that.

So again whats the point of the article?

 

[Breaking Good]

90% of the time I see someone wearing an Apple Watch, I wonder, sometimes aloud, WTF do they need notifications on their wrist for.

You obviously haven't been shopping for pants lately.

Conspicuous consumption of a device that depreciates to $0 in 5 years. TOTAL waste of money.

I think you are being generous in giving a smartwatch a depreciable life of five years. But I disagree saying they are a total waste of money. There is a significant health aspect to the watch now. And some people do have time sensitive notifications.
[automerge]1580947885[/automerge]

Apple turned watches in to a disposable product? You don’t think that’s was already the case?

That would depend on whether you were buying it as a tool or a piece of jewelry.

 

[carrrrrlos]

Bitter sweet news. Those “Swiss” watches are collectables that will hold their value, and more importantly, consistently tell time for ages. Apple Watches are for sure great, but ultimately they are consumable devices with a relative (to these “Swiss” watches) short life span and very little heirloom quality.

 

[Chloros]

Bitter sweet news. Those “Swiss” watches are collectables that will hold their value, and more importantly, consistently tell time for ages. Apple Watches are for sure great, but ultimately they are consumable devices with a relative (to these “Swiss” watches) short life span and very little heirloom quality.

So do Apple watches last longer than swiss cheese?

 

[firewood]

BTW: what's the lifetime expectance of a mechanical Swiss watch and Apple watch?

I have one of each. I consider my gold Swiss watch to be jewelry, so I only wear it on upper-class dress-to-impress occasions, maybe a couple times a year. Rest of the year, it's in a bank vault. An Apple Watch is on my wrist the rest of the year, helping remind me to keep a healthy lifestyle in a timely manner.

If I invested an amount equal to the price of my Swiss watch, the investment income, on average, would buy me a new Apple Watch every year or two... forever. Plus I could sell or trade in the old ones to keep the older Apple Watches out of landfill.

So, for the same dollars invested, the lifetime expectancy of Apple Watch(s) could be greater than your lifetime.

 

[jerryk]

I have Rolex, Breitling and others, none of them have been on my wrist in so long, most of my friends who have bigger watch collections than me are the same. They much prefer to have a strap collection for the watch and switch them depending on the event and the face.

That sounds like Samsung watches target market. The make a plain-jane round watch but have dozens of watch faces for different occasions, holidays, religions, etc. And since they use a 22 mm strap there are a lot of bands that fit the lugs. And it is kind of cool to be able to where the same watch to a wedding or running by changing the face and the band.

 

[bobob]

I'm not surprised, after the second attempt to mug me for my Rolex I bought an Apple Watch 2 for everyday wear. I've been wearing it ever since and still do. It is comfortable, great notifications, easy to pay in shops and tap in/out of public transport, record my activity, allow to discretely check notifications, give route directions, tell the time...

My Rolex is gone, really can't see the point of having £15K of jewellery on display like that.

Never wear a watch that's more expensive than your wrist.