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

[The-Real-Deal82]

That's fine but you can't expect people to buy and wear it if they don't like how it looks.

It's probably why I've never been bothered by the latest fashions, I've always found the concept of being told what I should be wearing because it is "in" this season quite ridiculous.

I agree with you when you say you can't win everybody with one design. Apple only produces one style of watch whereas you can buy multiple variants from standard watch manufacturers. If you don't like rectangular watches like me, then Apple provides no other option.

This is why smart watch lovers don't understand the depth of appeal within the watch industry. There are thousands upon thousands of brands and designs out there and something can be found for everybody's taste. With the Apple Watch you are expected find it trendy because it's Apple and find your style just by changing the strap. That isn't enough for everybody.

 

[kdarling]

That one thread was hilarious when you viewed it six months later on and some of the biggest complainers had got the iPhone 4 listed in their signatures.

Yes, the leaked iPhone 4 shell is a really good example. Forum posts were full comments like, "Looks like a Zune!" and "Apple would NEVER make something so industrial looking and blocky!!"

Sometimes I wish I were a psychologist. I could do a whole study just on this captive consumer phenomenon

I wasn't sure about it when I first saw it but expected the design to grow on me in the lead up to it's release. It didn't.

The iPhone was a pleasant surprise to many who were expecting something less.

The Watch was also a surprise, but this time people were expecting more than just a repeat of the above:

I'm sure they would be able to cope if it meant their apps could attract more customers. I'm confident a round design would be very popular and I would expect a lot of Apple Watch fans to snap up both styles.

Yep, plus iOS developers have already had to cope with multiple display size and ratio changes that no one ever thought would happen.

 

[douglasf13]

But android hasn't had watch options of the build quality Apple is offering. Nor the same level of affluence in its user base to be able to justify a non-essential phone companion.



Anecdotally, I work in Hollywood. I've seen very few Watches within that setting on a day to day basis. I've only seen mechanical watches on studio executives, producers, and actors. I've only seen one Watch on a TV producer. I don't see any Watches on anyone at high end Equinox gyms. But I do see fit bits, and other fitness trackers. Maybe your location has something to do with it. BTW, I was in Hawaii over the holidays and didn't see a single Watch, but saw lots of Swiss watches.

Now, 4 million/quarter may be more than half of all Swiss-exports, but it's not half of all watch sales. And that figure represents about 3% of the installed iPhone market. For a device that requires an iPhone, and is heavily promoted by Apple directly to its customers, that's a pretty insignificant adoption rate.



You mean like getting rid of their "perfectly" designed 3.5/4" flagship iPhone, in favor of two giant "phablet" iPhones, the type of which they said they weren't interested in making? Or making an iPad mini, despite the need for "sandpaper" to file down ones fingers to use it?

Marc Newson is going to do what the committee tells him to do. Do you think Jony Ive wanted to release an iPhone design where the camera protrudes asymmetrically out the back of the case, such that it can't even lay flat on a table? Add to that Jony Ive has emphatically stated with respect to the watch that, once people wear a product they have the expectation of choice. Seems to me they will listen to what their customers want to some degree. The customer may not always get it, or get it when they want it, but to ignore a round shape as part of an aesthetic fashion choice when others demand it seems a little short sighted. And history shows us they usually capitulate to that demand at some point. If watch saturation is still at less than 10% of the installed iPhone customer base in a year, you can bet Apple is going to try something else other than popping out more metal squares with blank black displays, and new watch band colors.

I own a business in TV production in Hollywood. Although I recently moved to Portland, I split my time between the two cities. So, you can probably count me as one of the execs with an Apple Watch in Hollywood, and I know several execs and producers that wear an AW. Hilariously, the producer for a major show on ABC answered tried to answer my call the other day on her new AW, but, between her watch, computer and phone all going off at once, she couldn't tell couldn't tell which device to answer and talk into. It reminded me of Wuphf from The Office.

The biggest surprise to me is Jay Leno wearing the AW so much. He's a big time lover of mechanical things, both cars and watches, and he is quite the collector.

I agree with your point more choice in the AW, but I'd wager that they believe that straps, sizes and material options are what they're referring to. I'd be willing to wager that we won't see a round AW. It's just a bad idea.

In terms of quality Android, we do have the Tag watch, so maybe that will start selling millions per quarter, but I doubt it.

I guess there's always the popular Runcible, if one wants a smart-pocket-watch:

 

[BarracksSi]

Yep, plus iOS developers have already had to cope with multiple display size and ratio changes that no one ever thought would happen.

Sort of.

Just one ratio change in the iPhone so far (it has't changed since the 5, really) and one basic screen ratio for the iPads.

Or is it two, now with the iPad Pro? Eh, I mainly remember that it can show two iPad apps side-by-side at their correct aspect ratios.

I got bored when we got snowed in back in January, so I pasted my 42mm AW's faces onto my 43mm Citizen to see what didn't work. The display area of the AW is bigger corner-to-corner, so to fit the the same info in the same layout, all the text would have to be smaller. Or, you could revamp the presentation and go with the circular theme (which I didn't do here).

[edit 'cuz I reflexively hit "post"]

My point is, unless developers are willing to totally redo their apps -- which they've only just recently written -- they'll have a lot of wasted space on a round AW face.

Personally, I'm not sold on the idea of another fat slab of smartwatch. The Citizen in my pic is as wide as I will tolerate, and the G-Shock is clumsy at times (gets hung up on a backpack strap pretty easily, for example). I don't want a larger AW because I honestly enjoy the size of the current one.

 

[Mac 128]

I own a business in TV production in Hollywood. Although I recently moved to Portland, I split my time between the two cities. So, you can probably count me as one of the execs with an Apple Watch in Hollywood, and I know several execs and producers that wear an AW. Hilariously, the producer for a major show on ABC answered tried to answer my call the other day on her new AW, but, between her watch, computer and phone all going off at once, she couldn't tell couldn't tell which device to answer and talk into. It reminded me of Wuphf from The Office.

The biggest surprise to me is Jay Leno wearing the AW so much. He's a big time lover of mechanical things, both cars and watches, and he is quite the collector.

I agree with your point more choice in the AW, but I'd wager that they believe that straps, sizes and material options are what they're referring to. I'd be willing to wager that we won't see a round AW. It's just a bad idea.

In terms of quality Android, we do have the Tag watch, so maybe that will start selling millions per quarter, but I doubt it.

And that's why anecdotal evidence can never be used to prove anything.

Speaking of Jay Leno, I've been watching Colbert, who is an avid Apple user, yet he wears his Watch perhaps one week out of two months worth of shows. The rest of the time it's Swiss time pieces.

So we'll have to agree to disagree about the round watch. I don't see any reason why it's a bad idea. I do see why they chose to go with square first, since it would be an easier way for developers to get their feet wet in an unfamiliar operating system, and I have no argument that it is the best format for displaying text. However, Jony Ive is also on record saying the watch is best used for glances, and for anything more substantial the user should pull out an iPhone. So truly, text presentation shouldn't even be a major consideration with such a device, with glanceable information displayed in a circle just as effectively as a square.

As for choice, we'll just have to see. They bent over backwards to hire some very influential fashion people to work on the watch, and pulled some major publicity events giving away a custom $25,000 Edition to Karl Lagerfeld, among other influential luminaries in the fashion world. So I have a hard time imagining they will get away with updating the case materials and watch bands a couple of times a year without criticism from an industry Apple seems desperate to have in their corner. Fashion is very particular to people. There's one woman I met who would have liked to buy an Apple watch, but she only wears gold jewelry and accessories. Since she couldn't afford the Edition, she passed on buying one. I haven't seen her since the gold Sport became available but I am curious whether that solved her problem, though Apple lost out on some money as she would have happily paid up to $2,000 for one. Also, what happens when a woman wears an outfit with a round theme (yes it happens)? Hoop earrings, bracelets, round belt buckle, circular patterns in the clothing ... and a square watch? While that may or may not sound trivial to you, it's a palpable problem for those who see such needs in their personal fashion. So it all depends on how serious Apple is taking their new role within the fashion industry. Maybe it was all lip service to launch the watch, and now after getting the initial blessing of the high fashion world, they will just go their own way and rest on their laurels, cranking out the same square design year after year, dressed up with seasonal colors.
[doublepost=1456182799][/doublepost]

My point is, unless developers are willing to totally redo their apps -- which they've only just recently written -- they'll have a lot of wasted space on a round AW face.

Here's a slightly better example:

Developers will go wherever the money goes. Apple has just enabled pairing of multiple watches to the iPhone, which means the same customer who bought a square watch could also buy a round watch to increase their wearable options, therefore effectively doubling their investment into Watches. Developers who don't accommodate round watches will go unused on them, to their own detriment.

Also, you're making the assumption that this is such a difficult problem for developers. For starters, Apple will do the heavy lifting, incorporating many aspects of the round UI into the OS, and the rest will be dictated by Apple's guidelines. And who cares if some apps don't fully utilize the round UI? As long as the basic Apple apps do.

 

[douglasf13]

And that's why anecdotal evidence can never be used to prove anything.

Speaking of Jay Leno, I've been watching Colbert, who is an avid Apple user, yet he wears his Watch perhaps one week out of two months worth of shows. The rest of the time it's Swiss time pieces.

So we'll have to agree to disagree about the round watch. I don't see any reason why it's a bad idea. I do see why they chose to go with square first, since it would be an easier way for developers to get their feet wet in an unfamiliar operating system, and I have no argument that it is the best format for displaying text. However, Jony Ive is also on record saying the watch is best used for glances, and for anything more substantial the user should pull out an iPhone. So truly, text presentation shouldn't even be a major consideration with such a device, with glanceable information displayed in a circle just as effectively as a square.

As for choice, we'll just have to see. They bent over backwards to hire some very influential fashion people to work on the watch, and pulled some major publicity events giving away a custom $25,000 Edition to Karl Lagerfeld, among other influential luminaries in the fashion world. So I have a hard time imagining they will get away with updating the case materials and watch bands a couple of times a year without criticism from an industry Apple seems desperate to have in their corner. Fashion is very particular to people. There's one woman I met who would have liked to buy an Apple watch, but she only wears gold jewelry and accessories. Since she couldn't afford the Edition, she passed on buying one. I haven't seen her since the gold Sport became available but I am curious whether that solved her problem, though Apple lost out on some money as she would have happily paid up to $2,000 for one. Also, what happens when a woman wears an outfit with a round theme (yes it happens)? Hoop earrings, bracelets, round belt buckle, circular patterns in the clothing ... and a square watch? While that may or may not sound trivial to you, it's a palpable problem for those who see such needs in their personal fashion. So it all depends on how serious Apple is taking their new role within the fashion industry. Maybe it was all lip service to launch the watch, and now after getting the initial blessing of the high fashion world, they will just go their own way and rest on their laurels, cranking out the same square design year after year, dressed up with seasonal colors.
[doublepost=1456182799][/doublepost]

Here's a slightly better example:

Developers will go wherever the money goes. Apple has just enabled pairing of multiple watches to the iPhone, which means the same customer who bought a square watch could also buy a round watch to increase their wearable options, therefore effectively doubling their investment into Watches. Developers who don't accommodate round watches will go unused on them, to their own detriment.

Also, you're making the assumption that this is such a difficult problem for developers. For starters, Apple will do the heavy lifting, incorporating many aspects of the round UI into the OS, and the rest will be dictated by Apple's guidelines. And who cares if some apps don't fully utilize the round UI? As long as the basic Apple apps do.

I think you're stretching with the round outfit thing. The AW is rounded off, despite being rectangular, and it's not going to clash with round jewelry. What about triangle belt buckles and earrings? Surely you don't think that makes sense for a future AW model.

Your illustration above shows why many Android watches are monstrosities. Lots of watch people consider anything over 39mm to be too big, unless it's a bulky dive watch (or maybe a flieger.) My wife's non-Apple Watches are 31mm and under, and even the 38mm AW is pushing it for her. The approximate 40-42mm circle case that it takes to house the 38mm AW's screen in your pic above is even too big for me, a 6'2" male, let alone many woman.

The new TAG looks ridiculous on just about every wrist I've seen:

 

[BarracksSi]

I'm gonna have to try the TAG on my wrist next to some of my watches.

 

[Mac 128]

Your illustration above shows why many Android watches are monstrosities. Lots of watch people consider anything over 39mm to be too big, unless it's a bulky dive watch (or maybe a flieger.) My wife's non-Apple Watches are 31mm and under, and even the 38mm AW is pushing it for her. The approximate 40-42mm circle case that it takes to house the 38mm AW's screen in your pic above is even too big for me, a 6'2" male, let alone many woman.

The 42mm Huawei round watch is the exact same height as the 42mm Watch. And while you can't see it, it's actually thinner than the  Watch too. The illustration clearly shows the 42mm Watch display easily fits within the 42mm round Huawei, and likewise the 38mm Watch display would fit within a 38mm round display, should Huawei make one. That's the point of that particular graphic. But here's a complete visualization so there's absolutely no confusion:

I'm really not going to argue subjective personal style or fashion with you, and I find it a bit silly that you're projecting your own personal limitations of size onto everyone else. In my case a 38mm Watch looks ridiculously small on my wrist, but I'm not going to deny you the ability to have one. Even the 42mm Watch looks a little small on my wrist, a 6'2" male. Here's a pretty good article that sums it up: http://www.ablogtowatch.com/whats-deal-big-watch-sizes-large-timepiece-explained/2/

Look, I get it. You don't like round smartwatches. So let's just go back to agreeing to disagree. I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong. And all the personal biases and anecdotes in the world aren't going to make either of us right. But surprise, the choice of personal style doesn't make either of us wrong.

 

[StoneJack]

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.

I think that we agree on most points. For high end watches AppleWatch is not a threat; they compete in different segments and are different devices per se. In smartphones, Vertu is one of examples of jewelry-based smartphones, they are not in danger because of appearance of cheaper iPhone 5SE.

So we will have those high end, expensive watches, which are, of course, to some extent represent the peak of mechanical watch industry - with all its labor, design, beauty and symbol of status. They will also continue to sell - albeit with downturn in China, there aren't more any new markets to expand, maybe except India (where rich people wear enough jewelry on its own). On the contrary, gradually this market has to contract, again because of world crisis, and because of the newer technology.

What we have to think its that AW is not a watch. It is a personal wearable communicator, which just happens to have some watch technology. Therefore, we can't compare the two directly. When we do, inevitably we fall to the zone of subjective assessments, because for some the meeting notifications are more important than the beauty of hand made mechanisms, and vice versa.

The general trend is, IMHO, because the personal wearable communication develops so fast and will have the same function and Mhz race we witnessed in PC and smartphones, that in few years it will have incredible technological breakthroughs, and will have so much functions that not wearing it, including AW, will become very ubiquitous, and they will no longer tether to iPhones. Probably, they will replace smartphones in future. IMHO, smartwatches will also replace older digital watches. Already Casio produces its own rugged smartwatch which has far more functions then its G and ProTrek lines ever had.

All this leaves only very high end mechanical watches untroubled, the rest going the way of dodo, as to say. Like appearance of Google algorithms destroyed businesses of Yahoo, Altavista, Lycos, etc..

 

[andreyirra]

Yeah, but if he's holding something that should not be disturbed (say, a sleeping baby or something being glued that requires a certain amount of minutes), his mechanical watchface is always visible without a flick ...

Errr.... it's EXACTLY the same flick you would do with a normal watch, an always on watch. You make just the same movement people have done to read the time in every single wrist watch made in the human history.

 

[BarracksSi]

Errr.... it's EXACTLY the same flick you would do with a normal watch, an always on watch. You make just the same movement people have done to read the time in every single wrist watch made in the human history.

Not exactly. It's good, but not exactly.

The first time my AW made me say, "Aw dang it," was when I tried to see the time while I was carrying my coffee to work. I couldn't turn the watch toward me enough to activate the display without spilling my mug.

On the other hand, while I'm in bed, laying on my back, and want to see the time on my wrist, the AW nearly always turns on when I want, even though I turn it nearly vertical to face me.

Of course my regular watches don't have this issue, but they've got their drawbacks, too. My Rado, with gold-colored hands on a gold-colored dial with minimal lume, is hard to read in just moderately dim light. My G-Shock's LCD is buried deep in its case, never great to read at a steep angle, and impossible to read in the dark without its auto-on backlight (which is less sensitive to activate than the AW, funny enough).

 

[kdarling]

Errr.... it's EXACTLY the same flick you would do with a normal watch, an always on watch. You make just the same movement people have done to read the time in every single wrist watch made in the human history.

Well, no. With an always on watch, there's no need for a flick if it's already facing the wearer.

For example, in some meetings I rotate my Android Wear (or real) watch to the inside of my wrist so I can glance at the time with my hands folded together on the table in front of me. Flicking or touching to wake would be noticed.

I've also had many times at night when somebody was asleep on top of my watch arm, and to avoid waking them, I either couldn't move it at all, or only in the tiniest of motions. (I'm very nearsighted, so a clock across the room doesn't do me any good.)

Or I was holding a cup. Or sometimes while driving. Back in my free-climbing cliff days, I don't think losing a handhold just to flick and see the time would've been a great idea, either

In my military days a flick to restart the time display wouldn't have been a great idea at all, in many situations.

There's a bunch of other little but constant situations where a flick would be difficult or noticeable or annoying. Basically always-on is good for the same reasons why you get a smartwatch in the first place: so you don't have to constantly flick out a phone to look at it.

 

[zhenya]

Always-on is actually a liability on a smart-watch which may display private information. I'm all for always on if it's just the time/date and preferably, not backlit.

 

[andreyirra]

For example, in some meetings I rotate my Android Wear (or real) watch to the inside of my wrist so I can glance at the time with my hands folded together on the table in front of me. Flicking or touching to wake would be noticed.

I just did the movement you describe. It turned on with that subtle movement.

 

[kdarling]

I just did the movement you describe. It turned on with that subtle movement.

It doesn't always work. And it certainly doesn't work with no movement. Such as if it's laying on a sink counter when you get out of the shower

For many people, watches are most useful if the face is always visible. It's just nice to have the choice to have such a feature enabled or not.

 

[Teon]

I'm gonna have to try the TAG on my wrist next to some of my watches.

You want to wear two pairs together? Or just replace the strap?

 

[BarracksSi]

You want to wear two pairs together? Or just replace the strap?

No, just to see how oversized it is.

 

[Teon]

Oh, I understand. I like big watch.

 

[BarracksSi]

Oh, I understand. I like big watch.

I don't. My widest watch is a Citizen, listed at 43mm. The 42mm AW wears no bigger than my 38mm Rado, too, because the Rado's lug-to-lug length is about the same as the AW's total length.

 

[alextu]

What this analysis company did is naive and laughable.

First, Economics 101, two numbers cannot define a trend. No analyst worth their salt will make a prediction based on two data points.

Second, comparing a whole GLOBAL market to a smaller regional segment of another market to analyse trends is just plain stupid. The Swiss do not monopolize on quality timepieces; Germany and Japan also make high quality timepieces and China cranks out all those designer branded fashion analog watches. What is the total number of smartwatches sold compared to the total number of analog watches sold globally; probably nothing the Swiss or any other watch marker need to worry about.

Third, compare Apples to Apples, most of those 8.1 million smartwatches are likely between $300 - $500, and even while Apple might have a $10,000 gold plated version, I am sure far more of those 7.9 million Swiss watches sold cost more than your car. I would even go so far to suggest that for every Gold Apple Watch edition sold, a Swiss "worth more than your house" edition watch was sold. The REAL comparison is to find out what the total market value of all those smartwatches sold vs the total market value of the Swiss watches sold? Again nothing that the Swiss watchmakers should be worried about.

Let's all put this in another way. What this Strategy Analytics company did is the same as taking the total GLOBAL sales of all Civics, Corollas, Mazda 3s, Fortes, Elantras and the rest of the entry level compact sedan market and compared it to ONLY the German luxury car market and claimed that because the sale of $50,000+ German cars are lower compared the sales of ALL $15,000 cars then naturally the conclusion is that German luxury car sales are in trouble and the German manufactures should be very worried. This is a completely ignorant rationality.

At the end of the day, nobody in the market for a Porsche 911 passes it over for a Corolla, and nobody in the market for a Rolex is going to pass it over for an Apple Watch. The comparison of smartwatches to Swiss watches is naive and contrived. 20 years from now you will still be able to buy a Swiss analog watch, but 20 years from now Apple Watch will be a footnote on wikipedia.

very well said. and this is the same argument that apple fans use against
fitbit whenever fitbit devices outsell apple watches ( for example, fitbit sell more devices because
their devices cost much less). But yet when this argument makes the apple watch looks good (for example, swiss watch sales declining because of apple watches), apple fans all of a sudden fail to see that.

 

[Teon]

By the way , who it belongs to two hours on one hand ? Smart and conventional ?

 

[I7guy]

Yes, the leaked iPhone 4 shell is a really good example. Forum posts were full comments like, "Looks like a Zune!" and "Apple would NEVER make something so industrial looking and blocky!!"

Sometimes I wish I were a psychologist. I could do a whole study just on this captive consumer phenomenon



The iPhone was a pleasant surprise to many who were expecting something less.

View attachment 617853

The Watch was also a surprise, but this time people were expecting more than just a repeat of the above:

View attachment 617854



Yep, plus iOS developers have already had to cope with multiple display size and ratio changes that no one ever thought would happen.

Actually, I was expecting a round face that looked like any other watch and was pleasantly surprised with the reveal. I bought my son an AW as a gift and he really likes it. He does admit it's not indispensable and I suspect that is true for a lot of folks.

I have some nice timepieces including a Vacheron, but I don't wear them anymore, my Fitbit Surge is now my watch.

 

[nviz22]

Hopefully Apple introduces a circular smart watch.

 

[Teon]

Hopefully Apple introduces a circular smart watch.

and again Samsung has accused Apple of plagiarism

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

and again Samsung has accused Apple of plagiarism

Ha, can you imagine trying to apply for a patent for a circular watch? lol

I bet you would genuinely have people on here claiming Apple had copied Samsung though if the next watch was circular!