Apple Watch Sales Estimated at 5.1 Million in Holiday Quarter, Swiss Watch Sales in Trouble

[jujufreeze]

Not everybody craves functionality from a watch

Well I would personally wear a watch that has the functionality of telling time. The more relevant functions it can perform, such as letting me know what the weather is like, a quick notification of upcoming calendar events, or what my heartbeat is/fitness tracking when I run the better. But that's just me

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Not to mention far more practical functionality. The iPhone has a larger screen so it's easier to see and type on, which can be placed anywhere the user needs it to be, not fixed to one limited spot.

Indeed, I found texting pretty difficult on the watch and squinting to see an even smaller screen than my phone. I do get how people love them, but I can't see smart watches replacing traditional watches simply because of the vast taste range.

 

[jujufreeze]

Indeed, I found texting pretty difficult on the watch and squinting to see an even smaller screen than my phone. I do get how people love them, but I can't see smart watches replacing traditional watches simply because of the vast taste range.

I wouldn't to text on a smart watch either! That would be silly! it's meant as a quick reference device, that transmits relevant information in an easily digestible manner

 

[wbaetz]

So, Apple has sold around 13 million watches worldwide over 3 quarters, including massively discounted watches during the holidays.

There are approximately 450 million installed iPhones worldwide. The watch requires the iPhone. So there are approximately 450 million potential customers. That means to date, Apple has sold less than 3% of its potential in 3 months. And of that percentage, at least a third were likely sold for as much as a 30% discount, with Apple partner Colette in Paris selling $10,000 Editions for 50% off.

So while far from a failure, it's certainly not capturing the attention of its target audience. Indeed they have a LONG way to go to even put a dent in their potential customer base. Assuming Apple continues at it's current rate of about 4 million units per quarter, it's going to take 28 years to reach all those potential customers.

...

Now granted, any other business would proclaim that a success if that were its only product. So again, I agree it's not a failure, but there's absolutely no cause to be smug about it at this point.

About the best thing one can say is that it is significantly beating the competition, but it's hardly redefining the watch market. Assuming even half the installed base of iPhone users wear watches, that means over 218 million iPhone users are wearing something other than an Watch on their wrist. Even if Apple chews away at every one of those watch wearers at 16 million watches a year, it's gonna take a long time before the watch makers are put completely out of business.

It was mentioned in another post, but just to add some clarity, Watch is only compatible with iPhone 5s and newer. Apple noted in the Q1 conference call that 60 percent of their installed base has not yet upgraded to a larger iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6 Plus, or iPhone 6s Plus. 5s of course is included in that group, but all the rest of that 60% are not watch compatible.

What's more, Watch availability was limited initially, particularly globally. It debuted, at constrained volumes, last April in the following countries: Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, the UK and the US. I don't have complete additional international availability, but do have the following:

Italy, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Singapore, Switzerland and Taiwan, on June 26; Thailand, Sweden and the Netherlands on July 17; New Zealand on July 31; the Philippines on October 23; India on November 6; Indonesia on December 4; Malaysia on January 5, 2016; Czech Republic and Portugal on January 29, 2016.

Therefore, the addressable market for Watch has not been as extensive as what you describe. I don't know what the real numbers are, but I think that your estimate of 3% market penetration is not only low, but substantially low. Additionally, that addressable market will be increasing going forward as more international availability is rolled out, and also as more existing customers update from older phones. The latter may happen in a big way soon, with the rumored update to the 4" iPhone.

The other point worth noting here is that Watch is currently version 1.0. I'm confident that Apple is long on this product family, and without question will be introducing product revisions that will undoubtedly address at least some of the "flaws" that many here love to point out, perhaps even an eventual model that is no longer tethered to iPhone.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Well I would personally wear a watch that has the functionality of telling time. The more relevant functions it can perform, such as letting me know what the weather is like, a quick notification of upcoming calendar events, or what my heartbeat is/fitness tracking when I run the better. But that's just me

Well exactly, if that is what you look for in a wrist wearable then it suits your needs. My wrist wear is reserved purely for telling the time and date, not to mention bringing a smile to my face when I admire it. My phone is viewed so often throughout the day with my job that I find it provides enough of a useful interface in its own right.

 

[peterdevries]

Is there anything that makes mechanical watches not obsolete? Answer: nothing. Its 16th century technology, albeit updated with modern equipment. Materials are fine? I am sure in 19 century there were finest materials-built steam ships. So what. Where are those steam ships if not at museums? There are hand made, well, handcraft things, they are rare, obsolete and outdated, exist for collectors' use. Thats where the Swiss industry is headed. The rest of the world is moving toward digital wearables (or computer watches). Its a not watch, per se, just like iPhone is just not a calculator. When you measure sum of efficiency, derived from wearables, it greatly exceeds efficiency of old mechanical clock on your wrist, even if it is made from finest steel and wood. Thats why new technology replaces old one, which is left to collectors, maybe including you. They are still here, they just not relevant anymore.

Just to be sure I'm talking about higher-end watches in the price range of $7000 and above. Below that figure I agree with you. Mechanical watches made by Swatch, Fossil, etc do not have any interesting mechanical technology and are indeed in danger of becoming obsolete. And they in fact have. Most watches in the lower price ranges are now digital. One of the few that keeps innovating mechanically in this price-range is Seiko, and they are doing well.

Now for the higher end watches. IMO you are still way off. You cannot compare the technology of high end watches in the way you are doing. The mechanical technology has surged in the past 10-15 years. Take a look at watch makers such as Hublot or Zenith watches. These watches are not striving to be better than digital watches in any way or to achieve feature parity. These watches are about individuality, quality, design, complexity, memories and value.

Sales of high end watches are increasing year over year. You need to look at the buyer motivations to be able to understand this. Very few people buy high-end watches because they need to know the time or date. They buy these watches primarily for ones I mentioned earlier: design, mechanical technology, high quality materials both inside and outside, status, sentimental value. No-one buys a high-end watch for efficiency or functionality. There are precious few people using a Breathing Navitimer to navigate or a Panerai watch to do Black Seal missions in a submarine. They are jewellery and should be looked at as such.

The move to digital technology started already in the sixties and seventies with the first digital watches by Casio entering the market. It did not impact the high-end watch in the slightest for the reasons above. You might argue that times have changed, but still people buy high-end watches for the same reason. Many people that have grown up with ever better digital watches now buy high-end watches. Because they have the disposable income and their preferences have changed as they get older. Those persons here now discounting watches because they look at their phone for the time, will have different preferences in 20 years.

Now, there IS something different this time around. The additional functionality of smart watches e.g. in terms of health monitoring might mean that people will get dependent on it and that that will impede them from buying a high-end watch. The impact of this is directly dependent on how significant smart watches will become. I think they will be very significant, but health monitoring and notifications will not only need to be on our wrist.

You say they are not relevant anymore. Yet I still see horologic flagship stores in the most expensive streets of every nation's capital. As I mentioned high-end watch sales keep increasing, there are month long waiting lists for new Rolex watches as there are for many exclusive Panerai, Audemars Piguet, Patek Philippe etc models. What you claim directly contradicts available data. Let's see how it is in 5 years, but I think I know where the stores will still be.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I don't agree mechanicals under £7k are almost obsolete because there are quite a few micro brands gaining a lot of momentum in the last 12 months and these are around the £400-£500 mark. As has been said Seiko are doing particularly well of late despite smart watches being in existence. But yes the likes of Rolex, Audemars Piguet, Patek Philippe etc do not need to worry about a £400 Apple Watch because there will always be people who will wish to buy a luxury watch IMO.

 

[jujufreeze]

These watches are about individuality, quality, design, complexity, memories and value.

These are subjective qualities you are imprinting on materiel objects. "The memories, complexity" of owning a $10,000 watch are no different to me than owning a $600 smart watch that I can pair with any wristband to individualize. These $10,000 watches may be overpriced exquisitely designed objects, but that does not change the fact that they are capable of performing less practical functions, and tell the time worse than a smart watch- not to mention they carry a greater risk of inspiring thieves and criminals to steal-I personally would not feel safe wearing a $10,000 watch when I travel. They are fashion accessories no different than wearing platinum earrings or genuine pearl-necklaces.

 

[peterdevries]

I don't agree mechanicals under £7k are almost obsolete because there are quite a few micro brands gaining a lot of momentum in the last 12 months and these are around the £400-£500 mark.

Yeah, I was more thinking about the large brands that for a while dabbled in mechanicals but have now realised that there is not a lot to gain and consumers in the price range don't really care about that sort of thing.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

These are subjective qualities you are imprinting on materiel objects. "The memories, complexity" of owning a $10,000 watch are no different to me than owning a $600 smart watch that I can pair with any wristband to individualize. These $10,000 watches may be overpriced exquisitely designed objects, but that does not change the fact that they are capable of performing less practical functions, and tell the time worse than a smart watch- not to mention they carry a greater risk of inspiring thieves and criminals to steal-I personally would not feel safe wearing a $10,000 watch when I travel. They are fashion accessories no different than wearing platinum earrings or genuine pearl-necklaces.

Having a smart watch with lots of extra functions is a subjective list of qualities too. A smart watch doesn't suddenly become superior to a mechanical for everybody just because it has more features does it?

If somebody wants a watch, they buy a watch. If they want a smart watch, there is a while separate category for those too.

 

[peterdevries]

These are subjective qualities you are imprinting on materiel objects. "The memories, complexity" of owning a $10,000 watch are no different to me than owning a $600 smart watch that I can pair with any wristband to individualize.

Just because a mechanical watch does not mean anything to you doesn't mean it can't to anyone else.

These $10,000 watches may be overpriced exquisitely designed objects, but that does not change the fact that they are capable of performing less practical functions, and tell the time worse than a smart watch

There is not a high-end watch on this planet that is trying to achieve digital levels of accuracy or utility to try to lure people away from digital watches. It is very clear to anyone that understands the watch market that people do not buy high-end watches because they seek functionality.

They are fashion accessories no different than wearing platinum earrings or genuine pearl-necklaces.

I mentioned they are close to jewellery and jewellery is valued to the "subjective" qualities that I mentioned earlier. It is also the reason why these watches will be around for a long time, even though they don't tell time as well as a digital watch or even though they are not able to tell you that you missed a call.

 

[jujufreeze]

It is very clear to anyone that understands the watch market that people do not buy high-end watches because they seek functionality.

I am sure water clock owners felt the same way- until sun dials became more more functional and replaced them. I am sure sun-dial owners felt the same way- until mechanical watches became more functional and replaced them. I am sure mechanical watch owners feel the same way, until digital and smart watches become sophisticated/aesthetically pleasing enough to replace them.

 

[peterdevries]

I am sure high-end water clock makers felt the same way- until sun dials became more more functional and replaced them. I am sure high-end sun-dial makers felt the same way- until mechanical watches became more functional and replaced them. I am sure mechanical watch owners feel the same way, until digital and smart watches become sophisticated/aesthetically pleasing enough to replace them.

You reason like a child and have shown no attempt to actually want to discuss this using logic, argumentation and facts. So, enjoy the company on my ignore list. I will save this thread and if you are still around on this forum in 5 years (I guess you won't) I will come back and show you that you were wrong.

I will give you one more chance. Explain how the high-end watch making market has boomed since the introduction of superior digital watches in the sixties.

 

[jujufreeze]

You reason like a child and have shown no attempt to actually want to discuss this using logic, argumentation and facts. So, enjoy the company on my ignore list. I will save this thread and if you are still around on this forum in 5 years (I guess you won't) I will come back and show you that you were wrong.

I never said they would be phased out in 5 years. In 20 years few will be wearing mechanical watches as expensive jewelry. They are in the first phase of extinction, as this article makes clear.

 

[BarracksSi]

I never said they would be phased out in 5 years. In 20 years few will be wearing mechanical watches as expensive jewelry. They are in the first phase of extinction, as this article makes clear.

If Internet forums existed forty years ago, someone would have written your exact same post, except the conversation would have been about those newfangled quartz watches.

(can't exactly say mechanical watchmakers have "survived", either, when dozens of brands and factories simply disappeared)

 

[AppleScruff1]

I wouldn't to text on a smart watch either! That would be silly! it's meant as a quick reference device, that transmits relevant information in an easily digestible manner

Wait until the Magic Apple Ring hits the market in 2017. The watch will be a thing of the past.

 

[firewood]

The other point worth noting here is that Watch is currently version 1.0.

The iPhone 1.0 was not a smartphone market leader. Even the original iPod didn't really take off... the jump to huge sales volumes happened around 4 years later.

So Apple Watch 1.0 has probably not yet hit its unit sales potential, and yet it's already roughly matching the Swiss watch industry in unit volume.

What will happen if/when the sales of Apple Watch 2.0 thru 4.0 really takes off like the iPod and iPhone did a few years after their introduction?

 

[Mac 128]

It was mentioned in another post, but just to add some clarity, Watch is only compatible with iPhone 5s and newer. Apple noted in the Q1 conference call that 60 percent of their installed base has not yet upgraded to a larger iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6 Plus, or iPhone 6s Plus. 5s of course is included in that group, but all the rest of that 60% are not watch compatible.

The Watch is compatible with the 5 & 5c as well, which accounts for most of the iPhone models currently being that aren't the 6 & 6S. The 4S counts for very few phones still in use, per recent reports, and the others are insignificant. So my original point still stands, virtually the entire iPhone market currently in use is capable of using the Watch. And that community has spoken -- it's just not that interesting to them at this point.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/201...e-Watch-Apples-Most-Personal-Device-Ever.html

 

[The Game 161]

sales fiqures are just fine then.

I love my watch for what it does. App speed is the only area it needs improvement. I use it mainly for notifications as I get alot.

 

[douglasf13]

That's absurd. A rolex is not a car, because the main function of a rolex is to decorate, which is subjective, the main function of a car, at least a car like the tesla or a car which can be substituted by it, is to transport, which is objective. That's like saying technical photography will devaluate paint art, or like saying electric cars like a Tesla will devaluate a Ferrari F40 or an Alfa Romeo TZ2, because you know, they have infotainment systems and low consumption. You're very garish if you don't understand that.

A lot of people changed their mechanical watches for quartz watches some decades ago because they were much better by objective terms. But they are less romantic since the intuitiveness and imperfection of a mechanical system evokes a romantic perception, and that's why the firsts are valueless nowadays and the seconds are traded like mechanical art. This can cause the number of new watches production to be reduced, but the price of both new and vintages high end watches will increase and increase. If you think there is a bubble with watches you should take a look at classic cars first. A 964 3.3 turbo was worth 36000 € less than 5 years ago, nowadays? Over 100 000 easily

Well, as someone who spends most of his fun money on both Swiss watches and Porsches, I agree that classic Porsches are also in a bubble, but I'm not simply talking about vintage watches (btw, have you seen the price of vintage Milsubs and Daytonas lately?) The retail price of a new Submariner Date has gone up almost 90% in ten years, which is around double the increase of a Porsche 911 over that time, and a Rolex is still a mass produced, machine made watch. I'm not talking about Patek Philippe here.

Watches do straddle the line between being a tool and a piece of jewelry/art. A Squale is more of a tool, a Patek is more of a piece of art/jewelry, and Rolex is somewhere in between, although they all do still provide the function of telling time. The difference between watches and the other things you mentioned, like paintings and cars, is that I only have one space on my wrist to wear a watch (unless I become part of the double wrist'ing club ,) and my Apple Watch has become far too useful to ever leave at home. So, do I keep a drawer full of Swiss watches that I never wear, simply to ogle at their beauty and appreciate their movements from time to time, or do I sell them and put that money towards other interests, like another Porsche? Granted, I do still have a hundred year old gold pocket watch that I don't actually use, but it is an family heirloom that I can't sell, so it sits in a safety deposit box.

I'm not saying that the sale of Swiss watches will go to zero, but we've already seen the Swiss industry take a hit in the first year of Apple Watch sales, and I can see that taking a longterm toll on the value of both new and secondhand Swiss watches, particularly the low to mid-level, mass produced brands like Hamilton all the way up to Omega, Rolex, IWC, etc. Patek, AP, and other smaller high end makers will likely also feel the pinch, but that's where the true enthusiasts will probably double down and focus their energy, so I can imagine their prices holding.

The bottom line is, many of us dream about nice watches for so long that we allow ourselves to be duped by the pricing, which is pure Veblen strategy, so, when something threatens that illogical thinking, feelings start getting hurt. I've spent an embarrassing amount of money on mechanical watches in my life, and I've loved them since I was a child, but I'm just being honest with myself. My Submariner Date probably cost less than $600 to make.


p.s. I don't understand your use of the word garish.

 

[peterdevries]

I never said they would be phased out in 5 years. In 20 years few will be wearing mechanical watches as expensive jewelry. They are in the first phase of extinction, as this article makes clear.

I don't know which article you read, but the article on top of this thread refers to a report that only talks about Swiss smartwatches and cheap segment Swiss watches such as Swatch.

What the report also does not mention (it is not a very good report) is that the smartwatch segment is very new and shows growth simply because of that. Cheap Swiss watch sales have been declining for a while due to a slowing global economy and people buying less cheap watches overall. Nowhere does this report or the article above mention high end watchmakers (besides Tag, which produces a smartwatch that they don't even believe in themselves).

If you would have bothered to actually inform yourself, you would know that the Swiss watch Industry actually publishes sales data per price point every month. This clearly shows what I have explained above, that sales of cheaper segments are slowing down due to increased competition from China, a slowing global economy and smartwatch sales. High end watches show only very marginal sales declines that are mostly attributable to the impact that decreased sales in China and the Middle East have. A recent report by Deloitte shows that actually after the introduction of the Apple Watch and others, Swiss makers are overall less worried, mostly because the functionality is not that impressive (yet).

Do you have any real data to back up your claims, or do you want to keep referring to a third rate article that didn't even support your views in the first place?
[doublepost=1456123151][/doublepost]

I never said they would be phased out in 5 years. In 20 years few will be wearing mechanical watches as expensive jewelry. They are in the first phase of extinction, as this article makes clear.

Digital watches have been around since the sixties. That is 50 years ago.

 

[nando87]

Well, as someone who spends most of his fun money on both Swiss watches and Porsches, I agree that classic Porsches are also in a bubble, but I'm not simply talking about vintage watches (btw, have you seen the price of vintage Milsubs and Daytonas lately?) The retail price of a new Submariner Date has gone up almost 90% in ten years, which is around double the increase of a Porsche 911 over that time, and a Rolex is still a mass produced watch, machine made watch. I'm not talking about Patek Philippe here.

Watches do straddle the line between being a tool and a piece of jewelry/art. A Squale is more of a tool, a Patek is more of a piece of art/jewelry, and Rolex is somewhere in between, although they all do still provide the function of telling time. The difference between watches and the other things you mentioned, like paintings and cars, is that I only have one space on my wrist to wear a watch (unless I become part of the double wrist'ing club ,) and my Apple Watch has become far too useful to ever leave at home. So, do I keep a drawer full of Swiss watches that I never wear, simply to ogle at their beauty and appreciate their movements from time to time, or do I sell them and put that money towards other interests, like another Porsche? Granted, I do still have a hundred year old gold pocket watch that I don't actually use, but it is an family heirloom that I can't sell, so it sits in a safety deposit box.

I'm not saying that the sale of Swiss watches will go to zero, but we've already seen the Swiss industry take a hit in the first year of Apple Watch sales, and I can see that taking a longterm toll on the value of both new and secondhand Swiss watches, particularly the low to mid-level, mass produced brands like Hamilton all the way up to Omega, Rolex, IWC, etc. Patek, AP, and other smaller high end makers will likely also feel the pinch, but that's where the true enthusiasts will probably double down and focus their energy, so I can imagine their prices holding.

The bottom line is, many of us dream about nice watches for so long that we allow ourselves to be duped by the pricing, which is pure Veblen strategy, so, when something threatens that illogical thinking, feelings start getting hurt. I've spent an embarrassing amount of money on mechanical watches in my life, and I've loved them since I was a child, but I'm just being honest with myself. My Submariner Date probably cost less than $600 to make.


p.s. I don't understand your use of the word garish.

You made some interesting points there about the limited "real estate" of our wrists, but anyway most collectors and multi watch owners do not even use most of their watches most of the time. But talking about prices, increasing prices of the new models have become a selling point per se, that's why several brands which have mantained that path without big discounts available have done better than others over the time (Rolex, Panerai, Patek...). So reducing production in the long term? Maybe, but reducing prices? I don't think so. When talking about classics, some classic models are in a bubble right now (paul newman and other daytonas, vintage subs, patek chronos), some bubbles have already bursted (wwii panerais), and some other models are underrated (vintage el primero...), but in general terms I think the trend will keep the same.

p.S: excuse my english, it's not my first language, I'm aware of my shortcomings.

 

[douglasf13]

Anyone who's been without electricity (whether from a storm, or when camping, or by accident if lost in the woods, or by job if in the military) soon realizes that conventional digital or mechanical watches can be invaluable.

As for mechanical watches in particular, a lot of us admire the craftsmanship and genius that can go into one. The fashion aspect is simply an incidental feature that goes with wearing a piece of art.

Speaking of fashion, nobody should knock that aspect. After all, Apple themselves have bent over backwards to claim their smartwatch as some kind of fashion statement.

Keeping a solar powered G-shock in one's emergency kit isn't that big of deal.

I don't know which article you read, but the article on top of this thread refers to a report that only talks about Swiss smartwatches and cheap segment Swiss watches such as Swatch.

What the report also does not mention (it is not a very good report) is that the smartwatch segment is very new and shows growth simply because of that. Cheap Swiss watch sales have been declining for a while due to a slowing global economy and people buying less cheap watches overall. Nowhere does this report or the article above mention high end watchmakers (besides Tag, which produces a smartwatch that they don't even believe in themselves).

If you would have bothered to actually inform yourself, you would know that the Swiss watch Industry actually publishes sales data per price point every month. This clearly shows what I have explained above, that sales of cheaper segments are slowing down due to increased competition from China, a slowing global economy and smartwatch sales. High end watches show only very marginal sales declines that are mostly attributable to the impact that decreased sales in China and the Middle East have. A recent report by Deloitte shows that actually after the introduction of the Apple Watch and others, Swiss makers are overall less worried, mostly because the functionality is not that impressive (yet).

Do you have any real data to back up your claims, or do you want to keep referring to a third rate article that didn't even support your views in the first place?
[doublepost=1456123151][/doublepost]

Digital watches have been around since the sixties. That is 50 years ago.

Digital watches released 50 years more or less had the same functionality as mechanical watches, so Swiss makers smartly pivoted towards luxury, and they still barely survived. You can't compare that to the smartwatches of today, which are an order of magnitude more functional. These are uncharted waters, and I can't tell you how many fellow Swiss watch wearers I talk to in person and online who are dealing with the same predicament as I am: a collection of Swiss watches not being worn. Sure, it's anecdotal, but it's just the beginning.

 

[OllyW]

I'm not saying that the sale of Swiss watches will go to zero, but we've already seen the Swiss industry take a hit in the first year of Apple Watch sales

There is no actual proof yet that the recent drop in Swiss watch sales is directly caused by the introduction of the Apple Watch. Some of those lost sales will have been taken by Apple but the rise in value of the Swiss franc after it was unpegged from the Euro and the economic difficulties in the big export markets in Asia should also be taken into account.

I think we need to wait more than nine months to declare that the Swiss watch industry is in crisis because of the Apple Watch, even if a few of your friends are beginning to reconsider their watch collections.

 

[douglasf13]

You made some interesting points there about the limited "real estate" of our wrists, but anyway most collectors and multi watch owners do not even use most of their watches most of the time. But talking about prices, increasing prices of the new models have become a selling point per se, that's why several brands which have mantained that path without big discounts available have done better than others over the time (Rolex, Panerai, Patek...). So reducing production in the long term? Maybe, but reducing prices? I don't think so. When talking about classics, some classic models are in a bubble right now (paul newman and other daytonas, vintage subs, patek chronos), some bubbles have already exploited (wwii panerais), and some other models are underrated (vintage el primero...), but in general terms I think the trend will keep the same.

p.S: excuse my english, it's not my first language, I'm aware of my shortcomings.

Wristwatches have only been a thing for a hundred years, so I don't have the same confidence in their longterm desirability, now that I've had a chance to spend so much time with the Apple Watch. I have a hard time imagining that wristwatches will remain so collectible, if they're not being worn. Pocket watches had a much longer history, and you rarely see them being worn today.

Maybe pocket watches will come back and we can wear them on a chain around the neck, if horological jewelry is so important. Or maybe desk clocks will become all the rage. A desk clock would currently be more useful to me than my wristwatches, at the moment.
[doublepost=1456127565][/doublepost]

There is no actual proof yet that the recent drop in Swiss watch sales is directly caused by the introduction of the Apple Watch. Some of those lost sales will have been taken by Apple but the rise in value of the Swiss franc after it was unpegged from the Euro and the economic difficulties in the big export markets in Asia should also be taken into account.

I think we need to wait more than nine months to declare that the Swiss watch industry is in crisis because of the Apple Watch, even if a few of your friends are beginning to reconsider their watch collections.

Possibly, but the franc was unpegged from the Euro last January, and the first negative in the 12 month moving average for Swiss watch sales happened beginning of July, coincidentally after Apple sells 4 million Watches in Q2. Even your poll in another thread showed that 15% of people bought the Apple Watch over a traditional watch.

Unfortunately, last month was worse than any month of 2015 for Swiss watches, and the declines are happening in all price categories.

Apple Watch or not, it's not looking good:

http://www.fhs.ch/file/59/comm_160101_a.pdf