It didn't take a lifetime for smartphones to garner a total domination. Didn't most of us have a dumbphone before 2007?
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
It didn't take a lifetime for smartphones to garner a total domination. Didn't most of us have a dumbphone before 2007?
Was their really a love for dumb phones like there is for watches though? They lack the rich history, following and appeal. Phones always will be disposable gadgets, whereas watches never date. That is the major difference I see.
A big difference between phones and watches is that watches are used both for utility and also as self-expression/personalization. Phones are used predominately for utility and so are easier to replace.
If smartwatches take over, will everyone, men and women, be happy with having fairly similar watches, aside from differences in bands? Is the gain in utility enough to offset the loss in personalization and self-expression?
Also, it's entirely conceivable that people can have multiple watches, smart or traditional.
If smartwatches take over, will everyone, men and women, be happy with having fairly similar watches, aside from differences in bands? Is the gain in utility enough to offset the loss in personalization and self-expression?
Also, it's entirely conceivable that people can have multiple watches, smart or traditional.
Film also had a lot of love, following and rich history, yet it got replaced.
Even in the early automotive days, you could buy a Mercedes and it'd be the only car you'd ever buy as it used to last a lifetime. Now luxury cars are disposable.
Why do you assume there won't be a market for high-end, luxury smartwatches? It's not like people are restricted to the Apple Watch.
Film did not have an aspect of personalization. It is a tool/utility for capturing photos/creating art.
Luxury cars aren't really disposable... but they do not last a lifetime either. Cars can be a mixture of utility and personalization as well, so perhaps a good item to compare against (though a person tend not to have more than 1 car unless it's a family and/or they're well off).
Unless, of course, it becomes acceptable to wear two watches at once. Who knows, it could happen!
The point was luxury cars did used to last a lifetime back in the old days, just like Rolex et al. today.
among other things,
There may be, but as I mentioned earlier, there are aspects that make it difficult for it to push to the realm of luxury.
People who buy luxury watches have an emotional attachment to watches. They value, among other things, the longevity, the history, and covet the thought that these can become heirlooms. Also, electronics have yet to evolve to the point of it become art.
So I question whether smartwatches will reach luxury status given the potential difficulties that smartwatches may have in achieving these qualities.
People always have an emotional connection with personal items, especially things that we wear.
There may be, but as I mentioned earlier, there are aspects that make it difficult for it to push to the realm of luxury.
People who buy luxury watches have an emotional attachment to watches. They value, among other things, the longevity, the history, and covet the thought that these can become heirlooms. Also, electronics have yet to evolve to the point of it become art.
So I question whether smartwatches will reach luxury status given the potential difficulties that smartwatches may have in achieving these qualities.
People always have an emotional connection with personal items, especially things that we wear.
Certainly, this could happen. Another possibility is that the functionality we get with AW could migrate to another device that we wear (or not), thereby opening up the wrist once again to traditional watches.
We are again covering old ground though as both of those examples are products that had the same desired outcome once they evolved and had an industry that changed to support it. Watches are different in that you are suggesting thousands of companies scrap what they have been doing for decades, even a couple of hundred years to then develop electronic gadgets. Can you really see the likes of Rolex, Omega, Zenith, Audemars Piguet, Tudor, Grand Seiko etc etc changing their entire business model to compete in a different market?
It won't be like dumb phones being pushed aside for smartphones because none of the luxury manufacturers are suddenly going to switch to disposable gadgets.
But we are talking about smartwatches vs luxury watches. And using luxury cars as an analogue. So of course people who own luxury cars are well off, and likely to own more than one car.
That may be true today, but may become far less common in the future (cue in "Today's young people....")
Last edited:
There are thousands of companies making luxury watches? I would have thought it would be in the hundreds, if that many.
But the fact that these companies have been doing traditional watchmaking for decades/centuries is not really relevant to the discussion. The focus of this discussion is whether user behavior will change going forward, given the disruptive smartwatch technology that Apple (and others) have introduced into the market.
If anything, if the traditional watch market does indeed shrink (and the smartwatch market expands), these companies will either have to consolidate, go into another business, or be forced to go bankrupt. I do not see them evolving to being able to make smartwatches--it's not in their DNA to change from traditional watchmaking to smartwatch-making--they have neither the culture, the people, nor management to make such a drastic change. This is why companies tend to disappear after X number of years--the market has evolved beyond what they provide, and people form new companies with new cultures to create new products in new markets.
That may be true today, but may become far less common in the future (cue in "Today's young people....")
Well, the next generation are still people. It's reasonable to assume that they'll have emotional attachments to people, things, and places.
A few posts past mentioned that the new generation values experiences more than owning things. This is an interesting trend, and perhaps something to think about going forward. Could traditional watchmakers evolve their marketing to position themselves for this trend?
I couldn't give you a figure and it may be hundreds, yet I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were in the thousands based on the sheer number of niche manufacturers making bespoke timepieces.
Yes, tangible objects that people develop emotional attachment to change over time, and mechanical watches aren't immune to this. If they become used to changing up their watches every couple of years, they may not ever develop it.
This makes me wonder, before watches, what did people have in terms of tangible objects that develop deep emotional meaning? Women had family jewels, but what about men?
Good question. Cavemen who dragged their women around by the hair probably developed deep emotional attachment to their clubs
Good question. Pocket watches were used by men in the 19th century (wrist watches were usually for women then). Perhaps rings, bracelets, photo pendants, and things of that nature?
A good horse was always a great asset, after that owning as many women as you could keep happy!
I think many of us are overlooking one aspect of smart watches that could change the market. An awful lot of people don't wear watches but may have their first introduction with a smart watch. There are a number of discussions on a watch site I am a member of and they are now interested in mechanical watches off the back of purchasing a smart watch.
This craze may create a boom in the watch industry, not relegate it to doom. Has anybody else considered this?
Owning watches can be a sickness, one where one is never enough. I own countless watches myself.
This craze may create a boom in the watch industry, not relegate it to doom. Has anybody else considered this?
Owning watches can be a sickness, one where one is never enough. I own countless watches myself.
I think the "transition of technology" in going from film to digital photography was pretty-much irrelevant.
To the consumer, it was a transition to speed, convenience and flexibility. The tech implementing it was incidental.