Apple Watch vs Rolex

[Mac 128]

Except it's harder to unobtrusively check a necklace to see if you can ignore that message and not interrupt your lunch/dinner conversation. And a watch and a bracelet are the same thing (e.g. a wristwatch is a bracelet that tells time) and they consume the same space. A cufflinks or a sleeve button will only work on long sleeve shirts. The google glass thing is so far a failure, but maybe eventually will morph into something more acceptable socially and at work, or people will implant them into their eyeballs. A ring is another possibility, buy most men only will wear a wedding ring and only if married.

You seem to be trying to justify the watch. The point of these examples is that there will a myriad of options for all the reasons people may want to use a smart wearable. I could give a flip about notifications for instance. Moreover, all of these obstacles will be overcome, in much the same way that technological advancements in just a few short years have made the Watch possible. The simplest solution is a display in a person's current glasses. Slightly more complicated would be a contact lense. But Siri is the key. Did you see HER? You won't need a display. A simple earpiece hidden discreetly like a high end hearing aide will be all anyone needs to receive unobtrusive notifications. This technology exists today. Siri unfortunately isn't up to the task of being the sole interface, so Apple was forced to include the ridiculously tiny 1" display forcing people to squint it at -- hardly unobtrusive -- people notice when you look at your watch, no matter what you may think. Engaging in a series of flicks and reading information is going to like waving a red flag to your company. A whisper in your ear wouldn't be perceived by anyone. That's the future of wearables, and I suspect it will be here long before smart watches put the Swiss watch industry out of business.

 

[Mac 128]

Not a Rolex (at least not until my wife lets me take a pic of hers), but the brand name starts with an "R":
View attachment 573220

This brings up a point I noticed the other day at the Apple Store looking at the watches -- they look like toys. The rounded edges look like candy with the way the light reflects off them. And the stainless are the worst, they are so shiny and smooth and simple, they have no character. In fact the crystals looked plastic. I found the brushed aluminum Sport actually looked nicer than the stainless, somehow it looked more real and interesting.

Place that next to a classic timepiece. Even a cheap one often looks far more interesting than the Watch. And that doesn't go unnoticed by people who wear watches. That consideration is going to slow the erosion of the watch market, where beauty and styling are paramount considerations over function. I've seen people who wear watches pull out their iPhone to check the time. And that about sums it up.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

You seem to be trying to justify the watch. The point of these examples is that there will a myriad of options for all the reasons people may want to use a smart wearable. I could give a flip about notifications for instance. Moreover, all of these obstacles will be overcome, in much the same way that technological advancements in just a few short years have made the Watch possible. The simplest solution is a display in a person's current glasses. Slightly more complicated would be a contact lense. But Siri is the key. Did you see HER? You won't need a display. A simple earpiece hidden discreetly like a high end hearing aide will be all anyone needs to receive unobtrusive notifications. This technology exists today. Siri unfortunately isn't up to the task of being the sole interface, so Apple was forced to include the ridiculously tiny 1" display forcing people to squint it at -- hardly unobtrusive -- people notice when you look at your watch, no matter what you may think. Engaging in a series of flicks and reading information is going to like waving a red flag to your company. A whisper in your ear wouldn't be perceived by anyone. That's the future of wearables, and I suspect it will be here long before smart watches put the Swiss watch industry out of business.

Google Glass proved to be a failure and Bluetooth headsets have pretty much fallen out of favor so it remains to be seen if Apple can tackle those.

However, there's no way dictating your company's information is less of a red flag than typing on a screen.

 

[samiznaetekto]

I wonder how much GLUE is in a Rolex. I bet Apple eats any watch manufacturer for lunch in terms of GLUE content.

GLUE GLUE GLUE

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

But it does seem a tad suspicious that as soon as the apple watch arrives and Joe public starts doing 30-year cost of ownership calculations for both, that Rolex is miraculously able to halve their lifetime servicing costs. What changed?



That works both ways. Do you own an Apple watch? I own both. You?

As was said it was to fall in line with the industry standard that has been dictated by rival manufacturers.

I don't own an Apple watch, but am no stranger to them. I understand their capabilities and have followed them from rumour through to the discussion of their development. My best friend owns one and I've played with it extensively and been shown its fancy applications. I can't say I was blown away by it but neither is he. He may sell it and buy the third or fourth generation as he feels it doesn't do as much as it should do for the hype. Here is one of my watches and my friends small AW. It's too small as a touchscreen and he wishes he'd got the larger version, but at 42mm I think that is too small, personally.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I own an obscure brand alongside my AW:

Being an enthusiastic owner of both (got my AW on 4/24!), I see a future for both. The mid-range traditional watches will likely be the market that AW and similar products cut into though.

Stunning Grand Seiko there mate! Now that is a head turner as it's not so common a brand to see.

 

[Bromeo]

I doubt I'm alone in wanting to ask this but can you post a side by side pic of your Apple watch and Rolex?

I doubt I'm alone in enjoying both new and old:

Apple 38mm Space Black Sport, Rolex Air-King ca. 2000 (still keeps time within a couple of seconds per 24 hours and has never been in for service). I have 160mm wrists and prefer the smaller watches.


And just for grins, my humble collection:

The Tissot was a daily driver for a couple of years and took a bit to get used to the bulkiness. The Swiss Army watch was for international travel - if it got lost, no big deal. Moto 360 for testing and development. Jacob Jensen, well it's just stunning in its own way.

Kind of interesting looking at those lined up. Three stainless steel, two titanium, and one anodized 8000-series aluminum...

So far, the Rolex has seen a lot of other watches come and go (including some not-so-dumb watches featuring Microsoft, Palm, and obscure proprietary tech). It'll be interesting to see if the Apple Watch lasts through the years, or not. Meanwhile, I suppose I should thin the collection out... just stuff.

 

[MH01]

I think the comparison in interesting but ultimately pointless. It's like comparing a smartphone to a dumbphone.

Or a work of engineering vrs a cheap circuit board in a shiny case

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Or a work of engineering vrs a cheap circuit board in a shiny case

And this work of engineering gets relegated to the drawer while people wear and derive more use out of the cheap circuit board in a shiny case.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

And this work of engineering gets relegated to the drawer while people wear and derive more use out of the cheap circuit board in a shiny case.

For some people yes, but at this moment in time it's the opposite for the vast majority. The smart watch hasn't won yet, in fact it's yet to deny the surface.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

For some people yes, but at this moment in time it's the opposite for the vast majority. The smart watch hasn't won yet, in fact it's yet to deny the surface.

True, I'm only talking about the predicted invincibility where Rolex et al. might go the way of pocket watches. Those too are relegated to the drawer.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

True, I'm only talking about the predicted invincibility where Rolex et al. might go the way of pocket watches. Those too are relegated to the drawer.

As long as Rolex maintain their quality and are perceived as a luxury product, they will be desirable IMO. They sponsor world sport like Formula 1, Wimbledon, golf, sailing, Le Mans etc so are arguably the most recognisable luxury watch brand. Apple market themselves very differently and the watch is very much reliant on the iPhone continuing to be successful. It's a fine line between success and failure in the electronics world whereas the watch industry survives on established brands that have found their footing and compete within their niche.

A Rolex has the luxury of decades of brand appeal, craftsmanship that doesn't date, and value that rarely diminishes. It's a totally different business model to a miniature wrist mounted mobile phone that is in the middle of a fiercely competitive market in its infancy.

Smart watches are going to come thick and fast over the next few years because no manufacturer has delivered the perfect watch yet and like the smartphone race, they will release edition after edition until the market decides what it needs. If the mobile phone is to be phased out and the future means small screened wrist wearables, then maybe the watch industry is in trouble because people will not want to be cut off from their mobile devices. If the watch is to remain an addition to the phone then it remains a cool gimmick. If Apple sell 100 million Apple watches, more than they sell iPhones, then the watch industry can sleep tight without worry. They need to sell an awful lot to give birth to a new way of timekeeping IMO. We'll find out for sure in approximately 20 years.

 

[MH01]

And this work of engineering gets relegated to the drawer while people wear and derive more use out of the cheap circuit board in a shiny case.

Disagree. Owing both, biggest failure of smart watches is the fundamental basic of a watch, being able to glance at your wrist and read the time. Maybe once the battery improves they can stay on and meet this basic need.

When your out today pay attention to people's wrists and see how many mechanical watches are relegated to th e draw, mechanical is winning by a huge huge margin

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

As long as Rolex maintain their quality and are perceived as a luxury product, they will be desirable IMO. They sponsor world sport like Formula 1, Wimbledon, golf, sailing, Le Mans etc so are arguably the most recognisable luxury watch brand.

Unfortunately, those are not going to change customers' buying patterns in the future. If people start wearing smartwatches exclusively (because they derive more use out of them), dropping several thousands of dollars on a luxury mechanical watch that they might wear only occasionally becomes a much tougher pill to shallow, and their market is likely to shrink as a result.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Disagree. Owing both, biggest failure of smart watches is the fundamental basic of a watch, being able to glance at your wrist and read the time. Maybe once the battery improves they can stay on and meet this basic need.

When your out today pay attention to people's wrists and see how many mechanical watches are relegated to th e draw, mechanical is winning by a huge huge margin

Am I reading this correctly? You're saying I can't read the time on my Apple Watch at a glance?

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Am I reading this correctly? You're saying I can't read the time on my Apple Watch at a glance?

I think he means when the screen is dimmed or on standby. When I was with my friend on Saturday the screen on his AW was almost off and he had to illuminate the watch to see the time. If the screen were to stay on full all the time, it would need a pretty spectacular battery I would imagine. The technology isn't there in that regard, yet.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I think he means when the screen is dimmed or on standby. When I was with my friend on Saturday the screen on his AW was almost off and he had to illuminate the watch to see the time. If the screen were to stay on full all the time, it would need a pretty spectacular battery I would imagine. The technology isn't there in that regard, yet.

I see, but this is a silly argument. We can see the time on our AW at a glance just fine when we raise our wrists.

 

[jasie02]

I see, but this is a silly argument. We can see the time on our AW at a glance just fine when we raise our wrists.

I just turn off wrist raise, instead touch my nose with AW when I want to see time and any other complications on the watch face, if my other hand is not available.
Work every time, save battery, and does not turn on and off like crazy when driving with AW hand on steering wheel.

I put my next meeting in calendar as one of complication of module watch face I use daily, it is perfectly for me to not shown other people where my next meeting is, until I want to see it myself.

 

[Mac 128]

Google Glass proved to be a failure and Bluetooth headsets have pretty much fallen out of favor so it remains to be seen if Apple can tackle those.

However, there's no way dictating your company's information is less of a red flag than typing on a screen.

Who is talking about Google Glass? We're talking about an optional user interface that some customers may prefer, that is seamlessly embedded into an optical product as a display. It could just as likely be a holographic projection in mid air, on one's hand. All of that is far better than trying to navigate a 1" display on one's wrist.

As for bluetooth headsets, I specifically said a hidden in the ear interface like a hearing aid. And many people still wear bluetooth headsets, either the monaural kind, or audio interfaces built into their headphones which are ubiquitous. So far these technologies have not been approached in this way, in much the same way as smartwatches until Apple entered the game. Google Glass was as ugly as it could be, as are most bluetooth headsets.

As for your final comment -- nobody is going to be typing confidential company information on an Watch display. Indeed, nobody is going to be typing any information on an Watch. So that's where the dictation comes in. In fact that's the ONLY way to interface with the Watch now, so I have no idea why you would even bring this up.

 

[MH01]

Am I reading this correctly? You're saying I can't read the time on my Apple Watch at a glance?

Of course not, you need to move your wrist or tab the screen.

You understand what a glance is right, as in looking at your wrist without having to move it or touch the watch. It's natural state is powersaving with screen off

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Who is talking about Google Glass? We're talking about an optional user interface that some customers may prefer, that is seamlessly embedded into an optical product as a display. It could just as likely be a holographic projection in mid air, on one's hand. All of that is far better than trying to navigate a 1" display on one's wrist.

You brought it up with "The simplest solution is a display in a person's current glasses," and I'm merely pointing out that Google Glass hasn't really taken off, which would be a precursor to this.

As for your final comment -- nobody is going to be typing confidential company information on an Watch display. Indeed, nobody is going to be typing any information on an Watch. So that's where the dictation comes in. In fact that's the ONLY way to interface with the Watch now, so I have no idea why you would even bring this up.

Dictation is even worse when it comes to keeping confidential information confidential so that's out too.

 

[Bromeo]

Disagree. Owing both, biggest failure of smart watches is the fundamental basic of a watch, being able to glance at your wrist and read the time. Maybe once the battery improves they can stay on and meet this basic need.

When your out today pay attention to people's wrists and see how many mechanical watches are relegated to th e draw, mechanical is winning by a huge huge margin

For me, it is more pros and cons. There are very infrequent times the AW doesn't "magically detect" that I need to read the time, such as my arm laying on the desk and I simply look down with no other motion. A slight wrist movement turns the face on, and that has become second-nature (actually, I think I used to do the same thing with my Rolex just to see it better, but not sure). On the other hand (har har), there are times when my Rolex cannot be read, such as at night after the phosphors have decayed to the point of illegibility, with nothing to correct that other than finding another source of time or turning on a light. The AW wins at night by a mile.

Yes, it would be even better to have the watch face on all the time. Android Wear has a low-power "ambient mode" that might be nice to have on Apple Watch. Unfortunately, not only does ambient mode consume additional battery power, but it risks screen burn-in on OLED displays.

When I'm out and about, I notice a paucity of watches. People are disbanding their watches as the near-addiction to the pocket communicator provides time well enough, and an entire generation is reaching adulthood without having ever worn a watch, let alone learn to tell analog time at a quick glance (I wonder if analog time representation will follow cursive and roman numerals to the dustbin of obscurity).

The remaining watches I see are either specialized (golf GPS, fitness), or sparkly mechanicals. I haven't seen a cheap quartz watch (LCD or otherwise) in a while. I have seen more and more Apple Watches popping up, which took me by surprise. People are buying them in stores now.

Who is talking about Google Glass? We're talking about an optional user interface that some customers may prefer, that is seamlessly embedded into an optical product as a display. It could just as likely be a holographic projection in mid air, on one's hand. All of that is far better than trying to navigate a 1" display on one's wrist.

Perhaps. I don't have any trouble with the UI on the 38mm AW. I even like both the digital crown and the force touch. To my mind, it is far easier and quicker to navigate to an app or glance than even the latest Android Wear update on my Moto 360. However, I'm in my 40's with excellent vision, and I know that other people have different perceptions, expectations, and experiences. There's a reason the iPhone 6+ is a big hit.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Of course not, you need to move your wrist or tab the screen.

You understand what a glance is right, as in looking at your wrist without having to move it or touch the watch. It's natural state is powersaving with screen off

Either way, it's a weak argument. Ditch notifications, email, activity tracker, turn-by-turn, etc. just for the ability of the time to stay on 100%? Nope, doesn't work that way for most of us.

 

[Bromeo]

Either way, it's a weak argument. Ditch notifications, email, activity tracker, turn-by-turn, etc. just for the ability of the time to stay on 100%? Nope, doesn't work that way for most of us.

Therein lies the heart of the matter: good design requires compromise, and the best design flourishes under hard constraints.

Everyone has their own deal-breakers, real or perceived. Remember the flap over "Internal sources reveal Apple Watch facing disappointing battery life of only 2 1/2 hours per charge" ... then it became "Charge lasts less than a full day!" (both being technically accurate headlines, but out of the original contexts of "active use" and "18 hours")

And in the real world it turns out it's silly easy to take the watch off and lay it on its magnetic charging disc as part of getting ready for bed (or whenever, since it charges so quickly). Not such the big deal everyone feared it would be. You can even go up to a work-week between charges if you put it in power-reserve mode, though I haven't had occasion to actually try that out.

I would advise someone needing time to be constantly displayed to look at the Pebble (and yes, give up some pretty sweet aspects of the Apple Watch), or stick to a traditional watch... or no watch at all. Plenty of choices out there.

Bringing this back on-topic to the thread, I should point out that my beloved Rolex has a limited power reserve. If I take it off, it'll keep time for a day or so, after which the movement stops. Watch collectors will point out that I could simply get a winder. Isn't that just an electric charger for an automatic mechanical watch? Best to wear an automatic every day, if at all, in my experience.

Pros and cons...

 

[MH01]

Either way, it's a weak argument. Ditch notifications, email, activity tracker, turn-by-turn, etc. just for the ability of the time to stay on 100%? Nope, doesn't work that way for most of us.

Most by a huge margin do not own one, that tell you anything? Most fail to see the advantage over the iPhone that does all those functions much better.

While I like my gadgets and like what that AW is, I also see its cons, go one make up excuses how it's almost perfect . I use mine when it's appropriate and it's part of my watch collection. My rolex is pure class compared to this 'accessory'