Precisely this for me too - the utility of the AW for work, and a variety of mechanical watches for weekends/evenings/holidays.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch vs Rolex
- Thread starter r0k
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I actually think this comparison is appropriate, because both mechanical timepieces and smartwatches compete for the same real estate (unless you wear them on each wrist, I guess.)
The interesting thing about mechanical watches is that they've become Veblen goods with no real logic in their price surge. That flew for a long time, but, now that there may be wrist competition in the next several years, mechanical timepiece value may not continue on its meteoric rise. Ten years from now, I'm not totally convinced that my Rolex Sub Date will be worth what it is today.
I can say this much. After buying an Apple Watch, my Rolex and Omega watches haven't seen any wrist time, and I'll probably go ahead and unload them, while the prices are still good on the 2nd hand market. Mechanical watches are a fun hobby that I've been interested in since I was a kid, but, now that there's a more useful tool to occupy my wrist space, I'm fine with letting it all go.
The interesting thing about mechanical watches is that they've become Veblen goods with no real logic in their price surge. That flew for a long time, but, now that there may be wrist competition in the next several years, mechanical timepiece value may not continue on its meteoric rise. Ten years from now, I'm not totally convinced that my Rolex Sub Date will be worth what it is today.
I can say this much. After buying an Apple Watch, my Rolex and Omega watches haven't seen any wrist time, and I'll probably go ahead and unload them, while the prices are still good on the 2nd hand market. Mechanical watches are a fun hobby that I've been interested in since I was a kid, but, now that there's a more useful tool to occupy my wrist space, I'm fine with letting it all go.
I respectfully disagree with almost everything the OP said here.
Apple Watch has some sort of upscale market, yes. It's an Apple product. So it has that market by definition. But it's a very bold claim to make that the Apple Watch has appeal in the "upscale market" when you use the brand "Rolex" in the same sentence. I'm only speculating that when you say upscale market, you mean competing with Rolex because your post is called Apple Watch vs Rolex. I think the Apple Watch might compete a little with mid-high end watches in the same price range... but that isn't what your post said. I think it's entirely misguided to think a mass produced technology product with an average price of $600 a pop that will be obsolete in a year is competing with a limited supply fashion/status symbol type product that has a price of $10,000+++ a pop. The two, while both great, have totally different purposes and very different target audiences. I would be willing to bet that if one of the two didn't exist, the sales of the other would be exactly the same. They don't pull from the same audience. Your dilemma may have been the minority in my opinion. I don't think the average Rolex owner is stumbling around Macrumors forums itching to talk about Apple products - the ratio of the fraction of people owning Apple Watches to those owning Rolexes is probably much much higher here than in the real world.
Last edited:
Why not? I own several Swiss watches, including Rolex, but I still love technology, and the two compete for the same real estate on my wrist, so it makes sense to compare them. Plenty of people who can afford and buy Rolex watches have been trying out the Apple Watch.
I may be trolling when I say this, but why is this even a topic? Apple Watch and Rolex are almost completly different. I own a Rolex which was given to me by my dad when I graduated high school and if I am dressing up for anything, that is the watch I wear, not the Apple Watch. I don't think you can reallly consider Apple Watch a Fashion peice...as much as Apple wants us to think that it is. However, I will admit that the Apple Watch looks the best on people when it comes to smart watches. So far, nothing looks good, even the ones with the round watch face.
Let me try to reiterate my last point, maybe I did a bad job, sorry.
We are debating how the Apple Watch compares to a Rolex on a forum called MACRUMORS. The bias is dripping from that sentence. I understand that for you, you like both. And that's great, all the power to you. I'm sure a lot of people here agree with you. But it seems like this thread was made in regard to sales/popularity with the general population. I'm willing to bet that the population as a whole differs in view with the people that post here.
As with the post above me, I have no idea why this is even a topic.
Indeed. I have seen this question asked on watch specific forums like WUS and the feeling is the opposite to here. You get Apple watch lovers there too of course, but because it's a watch enthusiast audience, the feeling is to support traditional watches. A tech forum will always carry its own bias too.
Again, I think it's a very interesting topic, because the two compete for wrist time. Luxury Swiss watches are Veblen goods with prices completely based on desire. If smartwatches end up being necessary to our lives, one has to wonder how it will affect the desire of mechanical watches. It's like comparing '70s Porsche 930 to a Tesla.
I'd love to have a garage with a Tesla and a 930 -- but I can tell you that the Tesla will get driven a lot more.
I might have said this before, but I'm out of the mechanical watch market for the foreseeable future, especially those priced four figures and up. I don't see a good reason to spend so much on something I wouldn't use.
I might have said this before, but I'm out of the mechanical watch market for the foreseeable future, especially those priced four figures and up. I don't see a good reason to spend so much on something I wouldn't use.
Yeah, that's all that I'm saying. My nice Swiss watches are a fun, albeit expensive, interest, but, now that something considerably more useful is taking up my wrist real estate, it's hard to imagine wearing them much anymore. I plan on offloading them while the prices are still high on the used market.
People assume the market isn't big enough for smart watches and mechanical watches further down the line. Watches are such subjective things which is why one particular watch is never going to be satisfactory to everybody. Not everybody is into watches or mechanicals and not everybody is into smart watches.
Personally I have several watches in my rotation and I couldn't dedicate all my wrist time to just one particular watch. I'd get bored of it, plus different watches are suitable for different types of function/activity. If I go to a black tie evening I wouldn't wear a Submariner or an Apple watch for instance. There are just too many variations to consider and the market is rich with choice. The Apple watch will do very well, yes. Will it dominate the luxury market, I doubt it but we won't find out for many years IMO.
Personally I have several watches in my rotation and I couldn't dedicate all my wrist time to just one particular watch. I'd get bored of it, plus different watches are suitable for different types of function/activity. If I go to a black tie evening I wouldn't wear a Submariner or an Apple watch for instance. There are just too many variations to consider and the market is rich with choice. The Apple watch will do very well, yes. Will it dominate the luxury market, I doubt it but we won't find out for many years IMO.
People assume the market isn't big enough for smart watches and mechanical watches further down the line. Watches are such subjective things which is why one particular watch is never going to be satisfactory to everybody. Not everybody is into watches or mechanicals and not everybody is into smart watches.
Personally I have several watches in my rotation and I couldn't dedicate all my wrist time to just one particular watch. I'd get bored of it, plus different watches are suitable for different types of function/activity. If I go to a black tie evening I wouldn't wear a Submariner or an Apple watch for instance. There are just too many variations to consider and the market is rich with choice. The Apple watch will do very well, yes. Will it dominate the luxury market, I doubt it but we won't find out for many years IMO.
I don't think the market is too small for both smart and mechanical watches. I just wonder how much damage the smart watch market will do to the mechanical market. Sales dropping by even 30% would be devastating. Mechanical watches barely survived the quartz revolution, and those quartz watches didn't really provide more features than mechanicals. The smartwatch game is different altogether, because smartwatches provide much more functionality.
When quartz starting taking over, Rolex was smart and pivoted their business from tool watches to jewelry, and, for me, I'd much rather wear my Sub than cheap quartz watch, since they both provide similar functionality. However, now that I've been experimenting with a smartwatch, I'm having a hard time imagining when I would choose my "dumb" Sub over it. Maybe when camping, since the battery life of smartwatches require frequent charge, but I could just bring my solar powered G-Shock for that kind of thing, which is much less expensive than holding a bunch of expensive Swiss watches that aren't being used.
If anything, I agree that variation is the key in the future. I just think that most of us will likely be choosing from which smartwatch we want to wear. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if we all have different variations of smartwatches for sport, casual, rugged, dress, etc.
Perhaps I am different but I don't 'use' my watches as such. I wear them for enjoyment and I enjoy their aesthetic value. My iPhone tells better time than any of my mechanical watches but if I was obsessed by needing the right time I wouldn't wear a mechanical in the first place.
If people prefer functionality over design than I say that is fair enough, but I think many watch enthusiasts see watches with a very different purpose to that. If functionality had been a major factor, the G-Shock would have been market leader long ago.
If people prefer functionality over design than I say that is fair enough, but I think many watch enthusiasts see watches with a very different purpose to that. If functionality had been a major factor, the G-Shock would have been market leader long ago.
I feel the same as you. I got round to having a look at and trying on the Apple Watch a few weeks ago and it's well made and wears nicely on the wrist. It's also quite bland looking with the screen turned off and looks like a digital watch with the screen on.
I may well get one in the future as the OS matures and functionality improves but I can't see it being my main watch if they stick to the current design as the aesthetics don't do a lot for me.
Yeah, I see my mechanicals as a beautiful and interesting way to check the time that's still more convenient than taking my phone out of my pocket all of the time. However, if my smartwatch proves to be indispensable in use, I can get over man-jewelry. The wristwatch has only been around, whether in tool or jewelry form, for about a hundred years. It's not as if Apple is trying to replace my wedding ring...yet. LOL
Many certainly do buy high-end watches for the prestige (show-off) factor, but that doesn't apply to all owners.
I currently have a Rolex DateJust Perpetual (purchased new in the mid 60's for £105), and particularly wanted one because I had read about the fine engineered movement, fine timekeeping and alleged 'investment value'.
When I first heard rumors about the planned AW, I dearly wanted one. However when the news of the battery autonomy became clear, I thought (and still think) it's somewhat of a joke. No way could I live with one. Besides I have no smartphone, and only occasionally carry a 'dumb' old Nokia in the car. My mechanical Omega MoonWatch, now 47 years old still has a 48hr autonomy. If I had to choose to own just one watch today between the Datejust, Omega Moonwatch, and say a rose-gold AW Edition, I'd pick the Omega in a heartbeat for what I know is inside, not as any flash status symbol. But that's just me, a non bling-bling, keen watch & Apple fan.
Last edited:
Movado has certainly made out well with that "bland" look, but I know what you mean especially if you're used to a certain look in a watch.
Yeah that's another aspect the Apple watch can't compete with, the 'wow factor'. It's a well made useful little gadget, but in the aesthetics department it can't really compete with most high end luxury watches. A large chunk of the market may buy a luxury watch for the look after all. I buy watches for my own personal enjoyment before anything else but I suppose it's nice on the rare occasion when somebody compliments you on your watch. It happens more in a work environment with me.
The Apple watch is likely to be more common place like a Casio due to its price bracket and will ultimately just be a mass consumer product.
I'm not sure I agree. I think my SS Apple Watch on the link bracelet is every bit as cool looking as my Aqua Terra and Submariner Date. The Apple Watch has a late 60s, retro-future vibe that's pretty awesome, and I'd put its design up against anything.
I was surprised that even my wife, who cares little about tech, also thinks my Apple Watch looks as good as my mechanicals. It's really no different than a classic car vs. a Tesla. Both can look different, but great.
I guess we don't agree. The more the Apple watch becomes common place, the less noticeable it will become. It's a new product at present. I know which of your pieces would turn my head and it wouldn't be the Apple watch, sorry.
I don't doubt it's a well made piece though and if you get enjoyment from it, then that's all that matters.
I could care less about it becoming common place. In watch circles, people say the Submariner is common place, too, and I do see them all the time, but it doesn't matter to me. I like what I like. Levis 501s, Rayban Wayfarers, Chuck Taylors, Leica M cameras, Hasselblad cameras, Porsche 911s, Submariners, etc., are all classic designs that one sees all the time, but that doesn't bother me, and I've owned all of them. Good design is good design.
The problem now is that my Submariner is competing for wrist space with something that I think is as beautiful, but more useful in my daily life.
All I can say is your opinion of wrist space and it's competition doesn't necessarily relate to everybody. If the Apple watch is competing against a Submariner and winning, then fair enough that is your choice.
I understand design and was giving my opinion based on such. I am also a Product Designer so perhaps I have different tastes when it comes to aesthetics? The Apple watch is nice looking and has employed a retro, almost 1970's seiko digital or Omega theme, but for me personally the Rolex Submariner/ Sea Dweller still wins on aesthetics for me. It's also a throw away item when it reaches the end of its short life which is why I don't class it in the same league. Sure it might compete for wrist time, but the Rolex will still be the treasured watch in any collection.
I still have to spend $500-1000 servicing my watches every 5-10 years, so the "lifetime" claim of a Rolex has always been a bit dubious, when looking at cost. The purchase of such an item is all emotion.
Ultimately, wristwatches have only been around for a hundred years, and Rolex's pivot to being a luxury brand allowed them to survive, but they're an anachronism that will likely face pressure once again, if smartwatches become ubiquitous.
Not to beat an analogy to death, but it's reminiscent of storing a beautiful classic car that needs attention and money put in to it, just to take it out occasionally on the weekends. That can be fun for a long time, but, eventually one may get the feeling that they should just sell the thing and go buy a Tesla.