Apple Watch vs Rolex

The-Real-Deal82 said:
Not super organised just natural to have my keys in my hand after stepping out of a car and locking it. I wasn't criticising your use for unlocking your home with a smart watch, it's just not a need for me but more like a cool gimmick.
Click to expand...

Well, I can certainly see why you would feel it's a gimmick. Different circumstances, personal habits, etc, make the same thing a gimmick to one person while being a useful feature to another.

For me, the Apple watch has been really useful as an activity tracker / motivation platform. Everything else is still in the realm of gimmick, but I have hopes things like smart locks and better apps could eventually make it more useful. Talking about apps, I have a few watch apps I like, and they would make things super convenient if they weren't so slow. Right now the apps are so slow it's faster to fish out my phone to do those tasks!

So basically, yes, the watch as it exists today is a gimmick and not in any position to threaten Rolex. But if it evolves to its full potential, then it could become as "must-have" as an iPhone is today. We'll just have to wait and see.
 
You can buy one expensive watch and keep it for a long time. You can spend the same amount of money to buy a new smart watch every two years. Now you can say that for the second you have the latest, the most functional. However there are those that likes to look at the one watch you bought and think back of how so much has changed but this one thing on your wrist has stayed the same through thick and thin. Not to say that either is the right way to live...just different ways.
 
Night Spring said:
A device doesn't have to be a "watch" to replace a watch. I stopped wearing watches when the iPhone came out. It's conceivable that some form of wearable tech that isn't a "watch" but shows time could cause some people to stop wearing Rolexes.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with this. However, since the smartphone didn't kill the watch, neither will a smart-wearable. And as such, wearables have nothing to do with the smart-watch potentially taking over the watch business.

In fact, considering how limited the 1" Watch screen is, Siri is really the key here. It's likely going to be much more like a voice activated wearable like was seen on Star Trek The Next Generation. Maybe a pendant, or a necklace, or a bracelet, or a cufflink, or a shirt button, or even a woven into the fabric of the clothing. Once that becomes practical technology, watches will become an expression of individuality again, especially after years of identical-looking black square screens on a wrist-band. The point being, people who don't want to wear anything on their wrists are going to ditch the Watch as fast as possible, to the extent they are wearing a watch again for what such a device can offer.
 
lixuelai said:
You can buy one expensive watch and keep it for a long time. You can spend the same amount of money to buy a new smart watch every two years. Now you can say that for the second you have the latest, the most functional. However there are those that likes to look at the one watch you bought and think back of how so much has changed but this one thing on your wrist has stayed the same through thick and thin. Not to say that either is the right way to live...just different ways.
Click to expand...

Sure, but today's young people who start with the disposable smartwatch would likely acquire no such sentimental value.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
Sure, but today's young people who start with the disposable smartwatch would likely acquire no such sentimental value.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that this is a one way street. It is like people who wore quartz watches or no watches all their life bought a nice watch at some point. Maybe all the kids growing up now will only buy smartwatches however it is too early to say regardless.
 
dekadent said:
Repeating this same sentence over and over again does not make it an absolute truth. This will still only be your own personal prediction.
Click to expand...

True, and I'm more likely to be correct than some Rolex diehards who insist that nothing will happen to them because they've survived for the last 100 years. The past isn't an indication of the future.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
True, and I'm more likely to be correct than some Rolex diehards who insist that nothing will happen to them because they've survived for the last 100 years. The past isn't an indication of the future.
Click to expand...
And noone can predict the future, not even you. Your guess is as good as mine. And my guess is that Rolex will outlive Apple. Rolex has been here for a long time and seen internet/technology companies start, prosper, wither and die. Apple will be no exception.
 
lixuelai said:
You are assuming that this is a one way street. It is like people who wore quartz watches or no watches all their life bought a nice watch at some point. Maybe all the kids growing up now will only buy smartwatches however it is too early to say regardless.
Click to expand...
I have to agree that the perception of the "nice watches" has changed dramatically over the years. There are a select few that have them and love to acquire them but i know a few wealthy people who prefer $150 watch over the price of a rolex etc. The younger generation will probably kill off whats left of the older watch market.
 
dekadent said:
And noone can predict the future, not even you. Your guess is as good as mine. And my guess is that Rolex will outlive Apple. Rolex has been here for a long time and seen internet/technology companies start, prosper, wither and die. Apple will be no exception.
Click to expand...

And that is your opinion. No more or less valid than Jay's opinion.
 
Night Spring said:
It's a discussion forum, so isn't that what people do?
Click to expand...
So you mean endlessly repeating variations of the same statement "Young people will always prefer smartwatches even when they grow up and can afford proper watches thus Switzerland is DOOMED!" over and over and over again constitutes a discussion now?

Well, there is no use in "discussing" with proper Apple-apologists. I'll continue to appreciate my Swiss watches and the two of you end up on the ignorelist.
 
Night Spring said:
And that is your opinion.
Click to expand...

And it's proven that people's opinions are biased by what they own. People who held Kodak stock long term thought it would always be valuable. Top photographers just love film way too much.

I own a Rolex and a few other Swiss watches. I think their resale value will start to decline in a few years as the older cohort of owners and collectors start to die off and smaller numbers replace them. But maybe I'm biased.
 
firewood said:
And it's proven that people's opinions are biased by what they own. People who held Kodak stock long term thought it would always be valuable. Top photographers just love film way too much.

I own a Rolex and a few other Swiss watches. I think their resale value will start to decline in a few years as the older cohort of owners and collectors start to die off and smaller numbers replace them. But maybe I'm biased.
Click to expand...
I don't know how old y'all are but i know for a fact that none of my peers (35-under) have a rolex nor speak of them ever.
 
dekadent said:
So you mean endlessly repeating variations of the same statement "Young people will always prefer smartwatches even when they grow up and can afford proper watches thus Switzerland is DOOMED!" over and over and over again constitutes a discussion now?

Well, there is no use in "discussing" with proper Apple-apologists. I'll continue to appreciate my Swiss watches and the two of you end up on the ignorelist.
Click to expand...

Discussions sometimes do get circular. Other times there is a good exchange of opinions, and more importantly, the reasons behind those opinions, and people end up agreeing to disagree, but with a better understanding of where the other side is coming from.

If you chose to ignore people with opinions different from your own, that's your choice, too. Personally, I think that makes for a pretty boring discussion, but to each their own.
 
Fthree said:
I don't know how old y'all are but i know for a fact that none of my peers (35-under) have a rolex nor speak of them ever.
Click to expand...

You are then traveling with the wrong crowd as I know a few professionals who are in the age group who wear a Sub everyday.
 
firewood said:
...People who held Kodak stock long term thought it would always be valuable. Top photographers just love film way too much.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting comparison: Analog film cameras vs digital cameras.

Boy, that was a brutal and short-lived battle. I loved film photography, but once a popular technology (film) loses steam, the slide to irrelevance is swift.

I'm not sure where I'd even buy film now. Or get it processed for that matter. Used to be everywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: r0k
Arran said:
That's an interesting comparison: Analog film cameras vs digital cameras.

Boy, that was a brutal and short-lived battle. I loved film photography, but once a popular technology (film) loses steam, the slide to irrelevance is swift.

I'm not sure where I'd even buy film now. Or get it processed for that matter. Used to be everywhere.
Click to expand...

But you can't possibly be right. Films have survived for 100 years!
 
Arran said:
That's an interesting comparison: Analog film cameras vs digital cameras.

Boy, that was a brutal and short-lived battle. I loved film photography, but once a popular technology (film) loses steam, the slide to irrelevance is swift.
Click to expand...

And even though older vintage cameras seem to be doing well in the collectors market, a lot of the expensive SLRs purchased just before digital "won" are now sitting, collecting dust, possibly never to see film again, with few "collectors" for those models in sight. That says that, for collectors value, 40 year old or older Rolex's might be a far better investment than any (below $1million) Swiss watches made recently.
 
(I haven't caught up with the whole thread)

Night Spring said:
But perhaps instead of smartphones, we will eventually carry mini tablets, and the smartwatch will be our "phones." I would love it if that happened, because there are times when I don't want a phone in my pocket, and it will be very freeing to just walk around with a watch on my wrist and still be connected.
Click to expand...
We're so close to this point. What a smartwatch lacks is a good interface for adding and editing contact information (never mind supporting power-hungry cellular radios). If owners would be satisfied with no cameras, web browsing, or posting in forums, a smartwatch is enough.

We've already got "phablet" phones, which I think make a good argument for using a smartwatch to handle quick interactions.

I just got my AW, so I'll be trying out the whole "leave the phone on the desk at home and use the Watch" idea myself. This is as close as we've got to what you're hoping for.
 
Arran said:
That's an interesting comparison: Analog film cameras vs digital cameras.

Boy, that was a brutal and short-lived battle. I loved film photography, but once a popular technology (film) loses steam, the slide to irrelevance is swift.

I'm not sure where I'd even buy film now. Or get it processed for that matter. Used to be everywhere.
Click to expand...
And that transition to digital was short lived because every camera manufacturer developed their own digital camera and supported the move to the majority. The end result is the same in principle, but the sensor technology was chosen as a collective by the industry. It was also cheaper in the long term.

If this is to be used as an example, then it needs every watch company to decide Quartz and mechanical watches are redundant because everybody now wants to use their watch as a phone. In effect it isn't a transition of technology but a transition of the products use because it would be turning a standard watch into a miniature media device. This is why I think this comparison is odd as one product evolved with the same desired result and the other is two products that only have the wearing on the wrist in common.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
And competing for the same wrist space. One or the other will have to go eventually.
Click to expand...
Or find their place in the market alongside each other. There is no reason why smart watches can't have decent sales along with standard watches. A lot of people don't wear watches too so there is scope to attract from all walks.

I know you are convinced it will be total domination in favour of the smart watch, but sadly I doubt either of us will live long enough to see if a transition takes place. What sort of time scale are you expecting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top